[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S660-S677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 NOMINATION OF GALE ANN NORTON TO BE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR--RESUMED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Under the 
previous order, the nomination of Governor Whitman is laid aside, and 
the Senate will now resume consideration of the nomination of Gale Ann 
Norton, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Gale Ann Norton, of 
Colorado, to be Secretary of the Interior.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
allotted to Senator Feingold with respect to the Norton nomination be 
provided to Senator Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe I have 15 minutes to speak on 
the Norton nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New 
Hampshire, I think there is a distinction between what I hope will be 
substantive remarks on my part in opposition to Ms. Norton to be 
Secretary of the Interior and personal attack.
  I am a Senator from Minnesota. I am from a State where we love our 
lakes and rivers and streams, the environment.
  My opposition to Ms. Norton to be Secretary of the Interior does not 
mean ipso facto that what I say represents any kind of personal attack. 
It is simply a very different assessment of whether or not she should 
in fact be the Secretary of the Interior for the United States of 
America.
  I have a lot of policy disagreements with Ms. Norton. I have a lot of 
policy is agreements with any number of the President's nominees to 
serve in our Cabinet, but almost all of them I will support because 
there is a presumption that the President should be able to nominate 
his or her people.
  On the environmental front, as long as I have the floor of the 
Senate--and I hope I am wrong--I say today that I believe the record of 
this administration will amount to a rather direct assault on 
environmental protection. I think that would be wrong for the country. 
This is not a debate about ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
not today. My disagreement with Ms. Norton or the President is not the 
reason why I oppose her to be Secretary of the Interior.
  Part of the debate we will have in this country has to do with this 
nexus between the way we consume, the way we produce energy, and the 
environment. I see an administration that is an oil interest 
administration, and the focus will be more and more on oil, barreling 
down a hard path energy policy, with fossil fuels, environmental 
degradation getting lipservice but not investments in clean 
technologies, renewables, safe energy.
  The reason I oppose not Gale Norton as a person but Gale Norton to be 
Secretary of the Interior is because I have doubts about her ability to 
fairly enforce existing environmental and land use laws. That is why I 
oppose this nomination.
  The Secretary of the Interior is the principal steward of nearly one-
third of our Nation's land. The Secretary is the chief trustee of much 
of our Nation's energy and mineral wealth.
  The Secretary of the Interior is the principal guardian of our 
national parks, our revered historic sites, and our fish and wildlife. 
It is the job of the Secretary of the Interior to protect this precious 
legacy and to pass it on to future generations. As Catholic bishops 
said 15 or 20 years ago in their wonderful pastoral statement, we are 
strangers in this land. We ought to make that better for our children 
and our grandchildren.
  Ms. Norton has had significant positions--government positions and in 
the private sector. It is her record in these positions--both in 
government and private sector roles--that are the most troubling to me. 
In fact, her record indicates that she may not be able to enforce 
environmental protections and ensure the preservation of our public 
lands.
  There is no doubt that Ms. Norton did a good job in the confirmation 
hearings. She pledged her past views, and she is certainly committed to 
enforcing the laws of the Interior Department. I commend her for her 
testimony. It is my sincere hope that she will live up to these 
commitments. However, I think the Senate and Senators are compelled to 
view her record not in terms of 2 days of testimony but the totality of 
her record.
  The totality of her record is one that I believe points to her 
inability to strike the very difficult and the very delicate balance 
between conservation and development. As a private attorney, Ms. Norton 
has taken positions that indicate a strong opposition to the very 
environmental protections which, if confirmed, she would be asked to 
defend.
  For instance, she has argued that all or parts of the Clean Air Act 
are unconstitutional--taking a State rights view. She has argued that 
the Surface Mining Act, which is all about protecting workers' coal 
dust level, which is all about occupational health and safety 
protection, which is all about the problems of strip-mining and the 
environmental degradation that it causes many communities in 
Appalachia, again, unconstitutional.
  She has argued that provisions of the Superfund law that require 
polluting industries to pay for cleanup of waste sites should be 
eliminated.
  Ms. Norton has testified that implementation of the National 
Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--is something that should be essentially 
devolved to the State level, that she would prefer not to conduct 
Federal land environmental reviews.
  I am sorry; when it comes to this most precious heritage, when it 
comes to the land, when it comes to our environment, when it comes to 
something that is so precious for not just us but our children and 
grandchildren, it is not just a matter of State options.
  We are a national community, and we have made a commitment to 
environmental protection. I believe the actions Ms. Norton has taken 
and the positions she has taken in the past would make it impossible 
for her not only to enforce these laws but to be a strong steward for 
the environment.
  In 1997, Ms. Norton argued that the global warming problem didn't 
exist. That is, of course, in contradiction to the international 
science community. I know in her testimony she essentially said she now 
takes a different position--I appreciate that--as Colorado attorney 
general.
  But I also have questions in my own mind given the position she has 
taken about what kind of steward for the environment she would be.
  As Colorado attorney general, Ms. Norton argued against the 
Endangered Species Act, saying it was unconstitutional. As attorney 
general, Ms. Norton supported measures that would relax otherwise 
applicable environmental safeguards if businesses volunteered to 
regulate themselves. And regardless of the damage, regardless of the 
effect on the public, regardless of the effect on people, these 
companies would be shielded from any liability.
  Her position is troubling to me because Ms. Norton might be willing 
to permit private companies that operate

[[Page S661]]

on or near public lands to regulate themselves. As Colorado attorney 
general, in the case of one mining company acting under self-
regulation, there were violations and massive contamination of the 
Alamos River. My colleague from New Hampshire said she took action, but 
it was only after the Federal Government was forced to step in and say 
you must take action. Indeed, the Federal Government was forced to step 
in and spend $150 million in emergency cleanup of the river.
  In addition, there is a case of citizens living downwind from a mill 
that had been emitting pollution for months. Again, the Secretary of 
the Interior refused to take action, and again the Federal Government 
was forced to intervene--again resulting in a record $37 million in 
fines against the company.
  Since leaving her job as AG in 1999, Ms. Norton has been lobbying 
Congress and the Colorado State Legislature on lead paint issues in 
behalf of the NL Industries, a Houston company formerly known as the 
National Lead Company. This company has been named as a defendant 
involving 75 Superfund or other toxic waste sites in addition to dozens 
of lawsuits involving children allegedly poisoned by lead paint. The 
only thing that I can say is I understand Ms. Norton's right to work 
for whatever company she wants to, but it does not give me very much 
confidence that she is the right person to be Secretary of the 
Interior--a major position of environmental leadership in the U.S. 
Government.
  After reviewing her record of 20 years, I believe Ms. Norton has not 
demonstrated the required balance needed to be a guardian of our 
national heritage and a trustee of our national lands. Furthermore, she 
has shown a career pattern of opposing environmental protection, which 
I think speaks to her ability--or, I say to my colleague from 
Massachusetts, her inability to carry out the requirements of Secretary 
of the Interior.
  I appreciate her testimony to the Energy Committee, and I take that 
in good faith. However, I cannot ignore her resistance to prosecute the 
industry in order to protect Colorado's land and people while serving 
as attorney general. As Secretary of the Interior, Ms. Norton would be 
charged with balancing the interests of industry against conservation. 
In my view, her record strongly indicates she will heavily tilt that 
balance away from conservation, away from preservation of the 
environment, away from environmental protection, away from being the 
trustee for the land, and away from understanding what a sacred duty we 
have.
  It is a value question to make this Earth a better Earth and hand it 
on to our children and grandchildren. I find all of that unacceptable, 
and that is why I oppose this nomination. I hope other Senators will 
oppose this nomination as well.
  Might I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 43 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor, and I also say to my colleague from 
Massachusetts that I would be pleased to yield the additional time to 
the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota not just 
for his graciously yielding me additional time but, most importantly, 
for the thoughtfulness and sensitivity expressed in his remarks. I 
associate my remarks very much with his thinking and his approach on 
this issue.
  I think each and every one of us in the Senate feels an automatic 
pressure to want to support the nominee of the President of the United 
States. I think it is a national feeling that generally pretty good 
people, with honest records of taking a position for something they 
believe in in the course of a lifetime, have found their way to the top 
of their profession in a sense, and the President of the United States, 
for one reason or another, makes a decision to entrust them with 
significant responsibilities.
  There is a lot of goodwill here in the initial days of the 
administration to want to give the President the person that the 
President chooses. I think through the 16 years I have been here, and 
the several Presidents I have had the privilege of giving advice and 
consent to with respect to their nominations, that there are precious 
few, a small percentage--very small--that I have chosen to cast my vote 
against the President's choice.
  As the Senator from Minnesota said, I think what we are looking for 
in the person who comes to a job with that kind of responsibility, 
being a Cabinet Secretary in charge of major responsibilities, is 
somebody who brings not a series of denials, renunciations, 
conversions, if you will, from a lifetime of effort, but somebody who 
brings with them to the job their gut and their heart and their head 
all linked together in concert with the fundamentals of the job they 
are being asked to do.
  In the case of the nominee Gale Norton, I don't find there is that 
kind of connection, that there is a continuity of a lifetime of effort 
that shows me with assurance where the stewardship of this department 
will go. I regret to say to the Chair and to my colleagues that in the 
course of the years I have been here and had the opportunity to provide 
advice and consent on other nominees, we have seen people who came 
without that connection, with that disconnect, and who subsequently 
fell short in the job because the gut instinct was not to strike the 
balance; it was to keep faith with who they were and what brought them 
to the job.
  I don't cast this vote lightly because I know Ms. Norton has a long 
and even distinguished record of public and private service. I know her 
friends and others say she is a decent and a capable professional. Some 
have, in the course of this debate, labeled her an extremist or even 
caricatured her as James Watt in a skirt. I think that is unfortunate. 
I find those labels troubling and improper. They distract from honest 
differences over principle and policy that have made this nomination 
troubling for the Senator from Minnesota, for myself, and for others.
  I oppose Gale Norton's nomination. For a Cabinet post that demands 
that its occupant strike a very difficult and a very delicate balance--
the same word my colleague from Minnesota used--a balance between 
conservation and development, President Bush has selected this 
individual. I suppose one might ask the question, of all the people in 
the country who have records with respect to the environment and 
development and striking that balance, of all the attorneys general, of 
all the people involved in conservation itself, of all the people in 
the environmental movements of this country, of all the people who have 
built up records of activism in an effort to try to strike that 
balance, why is it that we are presented with an individual whose 
philosophy over the past two decades has been singularly unbalanced?
  The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for protecting the 
almost 500 million acres of public land, including 383 parks, 530 
wildlife refuges, and 138 wilderness areas. Among these are some of our 
Nation's most valued lands: Yosemite, with its waterfalls, meadows, the 
forests, and the giant Sequoias, the world's oldest living things; the 
Everglades National Park, with its sea of sawgrass, mangroves, hardwood 
hemlocks, stork, great blue heron, and egrets; Mount Rainier National 
Park at Mount Rainier--a 14,410-foot-tall active volcano encased in 35 
square miles of snow and ice and flanked with old-growth forests and 
alpine meadows.
  Some are sanguine to suggest, well, those areas will never be 
threatened. But I know from talking to people in various parts of the 
country I visit that there are huge movements where people are angry 
that so much of their State is protected by the Federal Government; 
where people believe more of these areas ought to be open to 
development, not less; where people have witnessed, indeed, efforts to 
try to stop finding that proper balance between mining and grazing, or 
a host of other interests, and who would rather open the forests and 
have the U.S. Government build more logging roads, without even 
commenting on whether our logging practices are good or bad, after 
fires that we had last year. Sure, we can improve, but these are 
different movements, these are movements which disagree with these 
setasides.
  I remember what happened on the floor of the Senate just a very few 
years ago, in 1995, with the House of Representatives and the Senate 
first term in Republican control, and I remember standing here and by 1 
vote

[[Page S662]]

only we managed to stop major destruction to 25 years' of efforts to 
protect the environment of this country--by 1 vote only.

  We happen to be a little stronger in the Senate today, but knowing 
how close it was and watching how critical the discretion of a 
Secretary is in what happens in terms of the regulations, what happens 
in terms of efforts they take to court or don't take to court, or seek 
to have protected or not protected, there is enormous discretion 
exercised on a daily basis.
  I believe we need to remember the history we have traveled here. 
There was a period of time where some of the lands I just mentioned, 
the very ones that are protected today that we think of as national 
treasures, were not thought of in that way. In 1853, when the U.S. 
Army's topographical engineers returned from a trip to what we would 
later call the Grand Canyon, the party reported that it was ``the 
first, and will doubtless be the last, party to visit this profit-less 
locality.''
  As each decade has passed since those early forays into the American 
continent, the country's appreciation for its land has grown--I believe 
it continues to grow among Americans today--the places to hike, canoe, 
camp, to play, to learn, and to leave nature, except for a harmless 
visit now and then. There were 273 million visits to our National Parks 
alone in 1993, a clear sign of their value to the Nation.
  At the same time, the Interior Secretary manages the development of 
our public lands. Private companies, from multinational conglomerates 
to small family businesses, use our Nation's water, minerals, timber, 
oil, gas, and other public resources. Their industry, obviously, 
contributes to the national economic growth, and it provides thousands 
of jobs in regional communities. Our public lands have produced all of 
the needs of this Nation, and the Department of the Interior has 
managed hundreds of thousands of claims to mine gold, copper, and other 
valuable metals; 34 million acres of commercial timberland and 164 
million acres of rangelands that are open to grazing.
  It is the Secretary of the Interior's job to strike the proper 
balance between conservation and development. It is a tough job. The 
Secretary is under enormous pressure from those who hope to profit from 
these natural resources. Once a decision is made to develop land, the 
impacts are often permanent. You can't turn back the clock and recreate 
an old-growth forest. You can't return an extinct species of life. You 
can't return polluted land to absolutely pristine condition.
  There are many steps we can take to avoid unnecessary damage and 
restore land, and nature has shown itself to be resilient, but the rate 
of destruction today and the levels and the kinds of destruction too 
often force us to lose natural resources forever. The numbers of 
brownfields in cities around this country, the numbers of Superfund 
sites that have been on the list for years and remain not cleaned up 
are testimony to that tragedy.
  In considering this vote, I have reviewed Ms. Norton's record as a 
constitutional attorney, an activist, and as Colorado attorney general, 
and her testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It 
is a record that in my view simply does not reflect the balance I 
talked about that is necessary to serve as Secretary of the Interior.
  I know she will be confirmed. Perhaps in the end we will see a 
different exercise of that discretion. As a constitutional attorney, 
Ms. Norton argued that bedrock Federal environmental, public health, 
and other laws are unconstitutional.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator has a minute and a half 
remaining.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Senator Boxer said that she would yield me 
5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent I be afforded that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, based on her legal views, which are, 
thankfully, outside the opinion of most legal scholars and reflected in 
decades of court decisions--the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, 
and Clean Water Act--and many other laws not directly related to the 
job of Secretary of the Interior but certainly important to this 
country, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act, Fair Labor 
Standards Act, and the Violence Against Women Act--violate our 
Constitution in one way or another. Indeed, if her convictions were the 
basis for this new administration's actions, it would unravel most of 
our Nation's environmental safeguards.
  In addition to these writings and comments, Ms. Norton has been an 
active participant in several lawsuits and other efforts to overturn 
environmental protections. For example, she serves as an attorney to an 
organization called the Defenders of Property Rights that has advocated 
against endangered species protections in more than two dozen lawsuits.
  Ms. Norton's writing and activism on these issues reaches far beyond 
the few examples that I have outlined here. To her credit, she has been 
a capable and dedicated advocate for more than two decades. The 
problem, simply, is that she has advocated legal and policy positions 
entirely at odds with the job of Secretary of the Interior.
  In her testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
Ms. Norton distanced herself from her legal and activist record. While 
I certainly appreciate Ms. Norton's willingness to rethink and revise 
here views, I remain greatly concerned. Too often absolutist views were 
cast aside with little or no explanation. Too often the answers were 
vague and incomplete. Do I expect Ms. Norton to have answers to every 
issue she may encounter as Secretary? No. But my standard is higher for 
a nominee who comes before us with a career's record of fighting the 
laws the administration has now asked her to enforce.
  History warns us to be concerned and cautious.
  In 1981, Mr. James Watt was nominated to be the Secretary of the 
Interior by President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Watt, like Ms. Norton, came to 
the Senate with a record of anti-environmental legal activism. And like 
Ms. Norton, Mr. Watt showed a willingness to rethink and revise his 
views. A passage from the Congressional Record from 1981 is 
enlightening. For example, Mr. Watt was asked how, in light of his 
record, would he

     carry out the Secretary's dual responsibility to permit 
     resource development on the public lands while preserving 
     natural values?

  Mr. Watt offered the following answer:

       As Secretary of the Interior, I will fully and faithfully 
     execute the public land policy adopted by Congress requiring 
     such a balanced approach.

  The record after this is clear. It was opposite to that very answer.
  This year, Ms. Norton was asked a similar question in regard to her 
views on the takings clause of the Constitution and environmental 
enforcement. Ms. Norton answered that she:

     will protect the federal government's interests in its lands 
     and enforce all environmental and land use laws that apply to 
     the lands and interest managed by the Department of the 
     Interior.

  Sound familiar? My point is that we have been witness to 
``confirmation conversions'' before, and the result--as in the case of 
Mr. Watt--is sometimes regrettable. When a nominee's record is 
overwhelmingly slanted in one direction and falls far outside of the 
mainstream on a set of issues central to the job they will perform, 
reversals and revision leave me concerned.
  I looked to Ms. Norton's record as Colorado Attorney General to learn 
how she performed at a job that required her to enforce environmental 
laws--again she has argued are constitutionally flawed. I found that 
record to be decidedly mixed and worrisome.
  While Ms. Norton pursued two high profile cases against the federal 
government, environmental organizations, environmental attorneys, and 
the Denver Post report that in several major cases she failed to 
enforce environmental law against private companies.
  For example, in one case, neighbors of a Louisiana-Pacific mill were 
forced to abandon their homes because the stench of pollution from the 
facility was so great. Without assistance from the state of Colorado, 
they hired attorneys and won a $2.3 million court against the company. 
Although that civil trial uncovered criminal wrongdoing by the company, 
the state still failed to prosecute. Finally, the federal government 
interceded and assessed $37 million in fines for fraud and violating

[[Page S663]]

the Clean Air Act against Louisiana-Pacific.
  The attorney who represented the citizens in that case, Kevin Hannon, 
told the Denver Post.

       I would have grave concerns about Gale Norton's 
     aggressiveness in enforcing environmental compliance and 
     protecting citizens from environmental damage.

  And there are additional similar cases.
  In her defense, Ms. Norton claims to have not acted because state 
agencies did not ask her to prosecute. That answer is inadequate in my 
view, Mr. President. In several instances Ms. Norton aggressively 
pursued her legal agenda as attorney general. For example, Ms. Norton 
proactively wrote state agencies declaring that a program to increase 
minority enrollment at state schools was unconstitutional. Ms. Norton 
refused to defend a state program to increase minority contracting from 
legal challenge because it was unconstitutional. As Colorado Attorney 
General, Ms. Norton filed a brief in an Endangered Species Act case in 
Oregon arguing a provision of the law was unconstitutional. Clearly, 
Ms. Norton was an aggressive and capable advocate when the legal agenda 
matched her policy agenda. But when it came to enforcing environmental 
law against polluting companies, she too often failed to act and seems 
to have been uncharacteristically passive.

  Arguably Ms. Norton's performance enforcing environmental law as 
Colorado's attorney general is the most relevant portion of her resume 
as she becomes the next Secretary of the Interior. One of her primary 
responsibilities will be to protect the environment and public land by 
enforcing the law against private companies. Unfortunately that record 
is weak on environmental crime.
  As I have said, Ms. Norton will not receive my vote today. I do not 
cast this vote lightly. I believe that President Bush should be given 
wide discretion in selecting a cabinet to advance his agenda. However, 
there is a reason that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise 
and consent on nominations. I believe that policy, ideas and a 
nominee's professional record matter. In many ways they matter more 
than the personal issues that derailed other candidates. Each Senator 
has the right--indeed an obligation--to vote their concerns and hope 
and their consciences.
  Ms. Norton will be entrusted with protecting our federal lands and 
finding that difficult balance between conservation and development. 
Not an easy job. I feel strongly that Ms. Norton can only do that job 
properly if she sticks with the legal and policy philosophy she set 
forth in the Energy Committee hearings and not the philosophy she has 
advocated for 20 years. I feel strongly that Ms. Norton can only do 
that job properly if she does a better job enforcing environment law 
than she did in Colorado.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 3 minutes of 
the time allotted to Senator Stabenow with respect to the Norton 
nomination be provided to the senior Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first let me say I agree with many of my 
colleagues that Gale Norton is clearly an experienced, capable public 
servant with a distinguished record. I know the Senate confirmation 
process can be an arduous one. I think she has handled herself very 
well. She has made herself available to questions by those of us on the 
committee and conducted and presented herself in a very able way.
  That said, I am afraid Ms. Norton has not been able to erase all my 
doubts and the doubts of many New Yorkers about her environmental 
record and whether or not she will be a strong enough guardian of our 
Nation's treasured public lands.
  Although she is clearly an honorable person, I believe she does not 
have a balanced enough view on the question of conservation versus 
development to serve as Secretary of the Interior. To me, the key word 
is ``balance.'' I reject those on either side.
  There are some who say the conservation movement, the conservation of 
our lands, is really not necessary, or, once you have one place 
preserved, you have had enough and conservation should hold little 
weight when we talk about the needs of development. I have always 
philosophically rejected that view.
  I must also tell you that I reject the view of some of my friends in 
the environmental movement who believe in no development at all, 
particularly at a time of scarce resources. There has to be a balance, 
and that is what I think most Americans seek. Obviously, we all differ 
on where that balance should be. I am worried that Ms. Norton does not 
have enough of that balance.
  She spoke very well at our committee. But if you look at her history 
in both the public and private sectors, it is not one of balance. It is 
one, rather, of almost instinctively saying that development should 
take precedence over conservation. I do not think that is the right 
person for the Secretary of the Interior, and therefore I must 
reluctantly--although I generally believe in supporting the President 
with his nominations and intend to support the President in all but two 
of his Cabinet level nominees--I must reluctantly vote no on the 
nomination of Gale Norton.
  Mr. President, I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding under the allotted 
time I have 15 minutes to speak on the nomination of Gale Norton as 
Secretary of the Interior.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today we are charged with the important 
decision of considering Gale Norton for our next Secretary of the 
Interior. This position is extremely important. As the Secretary of the 
Interior, Ms. Norton would be the principal steward of nearly a third 
of our Nation's land; the guardian for our national parks; and the 
protector of our wildlife refuges.
  The process of appointing and approving cabinet members is a curious 
mix of politics and policy. I believe President Bush has every right to 
exercise the same prerogative as Presidents before him, of choosing 
members of his cabinet that share his point of view.
  In proposing Ms. Norton, President Bush asks the Senate to entrust 
her with our environmental heritage.
  In sending me to the Senate, the people of Illinois have entrusted me 
with the duty of deciding whether Ms. Norton will faithfully fulfill 
the job that she has been asked to do.
  Although Ms. Norton conducted herself well throughout the 
confirmation hearings, I am left with many questions about her vision 
for the future of our Nation's environment. I have no doubt that Ms. 
Norton has the professional experience to be a capable Secretary of the 
Interior. The question is not about her ability to lead, but whether 
she will be a leader for the preservation of our public lands and 
natural resources.
  This is why I rise in opposition to her nomination today. I am 
disturbed that not one respected conservation group in our Nation has 
announced its support for Ms. Norton. Her strongest supporters hail 
from the mining, drilling, logging, and grazing industries--industries 
better known for exploiting public land than for protecting it.
  My concerns were not allayed during her confirmation hearings. 
Despite more than 20-years experience in dealing with environmental 
issues, she often gave vague, uncertain answers to questions on how she 
would enforce many of our significant environmental laws. Her answers 
gave me little to reassure Americans who support conserving our natural 
resources.
  Let me be clear. I am not opposing her nomination based on her 
ideology alone. Her documented public record speaks louder than her 
words. Her career is filled with stands on environmental law and policy 
that are incompatible with the Secretary of the Interior's role as 
steward of our public lands. Her actions reflect her philosophy that 
property rights are pre-eminent and Federal intervention should be 
minimized. She has not addressed the concern that this approach will 
interfere with her duty as Secretary of the Interior to aggressively 
enforce compliance with Federal environmental laws.
  By now, most of us know that Ms. Norton started her career at the 
Mountain States Legal Foundation under

[[Page S664]]

the guidance of James Watt, the controversial former Secretary of the 
Interior. During her time with Mr. Watt, she pursued cases opposing the 
enforcement of the clean Air Act in Colorado and supported drilling and 
mining in wilderness areas. She followed Mr. Watt to the Department of 
the Interior in 1985 as an Assistant Solicitor where she worked to open 
up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. But it was in 
her capacity as attorney general for Colorado from 1991 to 1999 that we 
find egregious examples of her tendency to side with private, pro-
development interests over those of preservation.
  As attorney general of Colorado, Ms. Norton was an advocate of the 
policy of self-auditing: a policy that allows polluting companies to 
escape fines if they report the problem and correct it. Unfortunately, 
this policy allowed Summitville mine, a large gold mine, to continue 
operating even though it had serious environmental problems. It was 
only after the mine spilled a mixture of cyanide and acidic water into 
the Alamosa River, killing virtually every living thing for a 17-mile 
stretch, that her office became involved.
  The Summitville mine was considered Colorado's worst environmental 
disaster and is now the poster child of bad mining practices. To her 
credit, Ms. Norton vigorously pursued the mining company for repayment 
to cover the cleanup. However, she sought no criminal charges, and her 
office was criticized for being slow to act. The Federal Government had 
to step in to prevent the disaster from worsening and later won felony 
convictions against many of the corporate owners of the mine. In fact, 
the Denver Post said: ``It's a shame that Colorado must rely on the 
feds to pursue the case.'' This happened under the watch of attorney 
general Gale Norton of Colorado.
  As Secretary of the Interior, Ms. Norton will have enormous 
discretion to unilaterally alter environmental policy. She could block 
funding or enforcement of rules and regulations proposed by the 
previous administration. For example, she could prevent a recent 
proposal to limit snowmobile use in our national parks from taking 
effect, a proposal that was supported by literally thousands of 
citizens.
  As a strong promoter of wilderness areas, I am concerned that Ms. 
Norton's pro-development leaning will make it more difficult to 
inventory areas for wilderness designation. I am concerned that she 
will open more land to mineral and mining development leaving less for 
wilderness areas. I am concerned that she won't stand strong and 
protect existing and proposed wild areas from off-road vehicle damage.
  I am especially concerned that the Interior Department headed by Ms. 
Norton will parallel the Interior Department headed by her early 
mentor, James Watt. Mr. Watt tried to overturn environmental 
initiatives implemented by President Carter's administration. Ms. 
Norton says she wants to review many of President Clinton's 
environmental initiatives. Mr. Watt wanted to shift public land policy 
towards development and resource exploration. Ms. Norton has indicated 
she would like to do the same. Mr. Watt tried to make many of these 
changes out of the congressional limelight by using budgetary 
recommendations and administrative and regulatory actions. I am 
concerned that with strong public support for protecting the 
environment but an almost evenly divided Congress, Ms. Norton may be 
tempted to try the same tactics.
  The Secretary of the Interior has a significant distinction from that 
of other Cabinet posts. That distinction is that no other Secretary's 
decisions have such a long-range impact. Once the earth is disturbed to 
start a mining operation, that land will never be the same. Once an 
animal goes extinct, there is no replacing it. Once land has been 
developed, it loses its character as a wilderness.
  Mr. President, I believe that Ms. Norton's nomination sends the wrong 
signal to the country: a signal that we are moving away from conserving 
our natural resources and moving toward turning our public lands over 
to private interests.
  As a great Republican President and the father of our Nation's 
conservation ethic, Theodore Roosevelt, said, ``It is not what we have 
that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it.'' 
Mr. James Watt echoed this statement during his nomination process in 
1981 when he testified that he would seek balance in managing our 
Nation's lands. Ms. Norton recently testified that she would also seek 
to find this balance between using and preserving our natural 
resources.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Watt did not keep his word. If Ms. Norton should 
be confirmed today, I urge her to learn a lesson from Mr. Watt's 
experience and uphold her promise ``to enforce the laws as they are 
written.''
  The Interior Department is responsible for many of our Nation's most 
valuable treasures--natural resources that belong not only to this 
generation but also to generations to come. Americans will be counting 
on Gale Norton, should she be confirmed, to protect these national 
treasures so they can be handed on as an enduring legacy--to keep them 
safe from those who would exploit and destroy them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time under 
the control of Senator Stabenow be allocated to Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, can you tell me how much time I consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 9\1/2\ of minutes of 
his 15 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.
  At this time, I see Senator Boxer has come to the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum until she is 
prepared to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have for my 
presentation this morning?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-one minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I rise to explain to my colleagues, and to my 
constituents, why I will vote no on the nomination of Gale Norton to be 
Secretary of the Interior.
  It is very rare for me to oppose any Cabinet nominee because I 
approach the whole subject of advise and consent on Cabinet nominations 
with the presumption that the President has the right to pick his or 
her own Cabinet. Having said that, you cannot walk away from a 
constitutional responsibility to advise and consent if you feel that 
nomination is way outside the mainstream of American thought, and if 
you feel that nomination could harm our country in one way or another. 
And I have many questions about this nominee which lead me to the 
conclusion that it would be far better to have someone more mainstream 
in this position. I will be explaining it through a series of charts 
and through my comments.
  I have supported all of President Bush's nominees but for two--this 
one, and John Ashcroft, which we will be speaking about later this week 
and perhaps into next week.
  I will start by discussing why this position is so important. The 
Secretary of the Interior is the primary steward of our Nation's 
natural resources. One of the most incredible gifts that we have from 
God is our natural resources, the beauty of our Nation. It seems to me 
we have a God-given responsibility to protect those resources for 
future generations.
  Into the hands of the Secretary of the Interior we place a vast 
amount of control over our parks, over our wildlife refuges, over 
grasslands, over ranges, and over endangered fish and wildlife.
  I will just show you a beautiful photograph. I have a few. This 
particular one is Death Valley National Park. What you can see from 
this photograph is the magnificent environment the Secretary of the 
Interior will be protecting. If a decision is made, for example, to 
extract minerals from a park such as this, you could certainly endanger 
this beauty.
  She will make decisions regarding grazing, mining, offshore oil and 
gas

[[Page S665]]

development, habitat protection or habitat destruction, and American 
Indian tribal concerns that will have far-reaching and long-lasting 
consequences.
  I asked her some questions about some of these areas in my State, and 
I have to tell you, as I will in greater detail, that I was very 
saddened; they were really no answers. There was no commitment that I 
wanted to hear to protect these magnificent areas. I will go into some 
of her comments that were put in writing.
  We give the Secretary of the Interior the discretion, and we trust 
her to balance the economic development of our rich natural resources 
with the need to protect and conserve them. We are looking for a 
balance, and in my view, we have not seen that balance, either in Gale 
Norton's past or, frankly, in her answers, which I did not find to be 
terribly believable. And again, I will get into that.

  After more than a century of untempered resource extraction, we have 
learned we must restore some equilibrium to the management of our 
public lands and wildlife resources. The American people understand 
this. Poll after poll shows they overwhelmingly support environmental 
protection and restoration. They understand we are living in the most 
beautiful place and we have a responsibility to protect it.
  They are willing, for example, to conserve a little energy in order 
to spare pristine areas such as wildlife refuges. How people could say 
you can drill in a wildlife refuge, to me, just on its face, there is 
something that does not make sense about that. If it is a wildlife 
refuge, it is a refuge; it is not oil-drilling land. Why would it be 
called a refuge if it is not a refuge, a magnificent area where 
wildlife can live?
  So I think in this appointment President Bush, who for the most part 
I think made good, moderate appointments, has gone off the reservation. 
I also understand Ms. Norton will be confirmed. I hope she proves me 
wrong. I hope she listens to this and proves me wrong. But I can say, I 
am worried. And there is precedent for me to worry.
  If her nomination is approved, Ms. Norton will have authority to make 
decisions that determine the fate of some of California's treasures and 
America's treasures, places such as Yosemite National Park, the 
Presidio, Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, the San Diego National 
Wildlife Refuge, Death Valley National Park--you can see from the 
picture how beautiful this is--and the California Desert--and believe 
me, it is a precious environment; I have been there; I have seen--Point 
Reyes National Seashore--which is in my backyard; a magnificent area 
that needs to be protected--and the Santa Barbara coastline. I will get 
into that because there are 39 leases off the Santa Barbara coastline 
that are under threat of development.
  Ms. Norton's answer to that question leaves me very worried about 
what will happen.
  These unique ecological and cultural gems are fragile and vulnerable 
places. If they are mismanaged, the damage is likely to be irreparable. 
She will have responsibility for protection and recovery of 
California's most imperiled wildlife and fish species. Those endangered 
species, such as the California condor, will depend upon her for their 
continued survival.
  Taken in total, it is an awesome responsibility and one of great 
importance to my constituents who treasure California's unique 
environment.
  Let me say something about that. Oftentimes, people come to the floor 
and say: Well, you can't be an environmentalist because it means you 
don't want economic growth. You can't be an environmentalist because it 
means you will not have enough energy. We are going to hear this 
argument over and over and over, particularly about energy. I will talk 
a little bit about that. That is a false premise.
  Our economy depends on our environment in California. People come to 
our State and spend money to stay there because of our unique 
environment. They come to our ocean not to look at offshore oil 
drilling but to enjoy the beauty and the serenity of standing on that 
shoreline and looking at the vastness God gave us. To say that being an 
environmentalist is somehow not for a strong economy is a fact that is 
wrong on its face.
  The green industries that grow up around clean air and clean water, a 
clean environment, are industries we are not exporting across the 
world.
  To the people of this country, take heart. There are many in this 
body who understand this.
  After Ms. Norton's confirmation hearings, her responses to over 200 
written questions and an in-depth look at her long and detailed history 
of work on these environmental issues--unfortunately, on the other side 
of most of them--it is clear to me that her record is remarkably 
consistent. One can say that about Ms. Norton; her record is remarkably 
consistent.
  She has spent her lifetime over the past 20 years focused on fighting 
against our essential Federal environmental laws and fighting for 
increased resource extraction from our public lands. That is her 
history. That is her life. Indeed, it is striking how few examples 
there are where Ms. Norton worked for the protection of the 
environment, despite the fact that her positions as Associate Solicitor 
at Interior and attorney general in Colorado required it.
  Let us look at some of her statements. On mining she said:

       The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is not 
     constitutional.

  This is the act that tries to at least repair the damage that is done 
after there is mining.
  On endangered species she said:

       The federal government has interpreted its habitat 
     protection duties far too broadly.

  In other words, she doesn't think the Federal Government should have 
much say in habitat protection.
  On takings compensation:

       Compensation is desirable because it will have a chilling 
     effect on federal environmental regulations.

  A chilling effect on Federal environmental regulations?
  We have a lot of important Federal environmental regulations: the 
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act--all 
Federal regulations--the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, 
the Endangered Species Act; these are important advances that our 
country has made. They have strong support. She likes things that give 
a chilling effect to Federal Government regulation. It gives me the 
chills to think that someone who feels this way is in charge of a lot 
of our laws.
  We see recurring themes, deeply held philosophies. These include 
vehement opposition to Federal environmental regulation, an unflagging 
commitment to the supremacy of property rights even if those rights 
lead to environmental destruction and harm everyone else.

  Ms. Norton has argued that ``control of land use and of mining is a 
traditional State function outside the scope of the commerce power.'' 
Thus, they are not activities that should be regulated by Federal land 
managers. She went so far as to argue that the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act is unconstitutional, as I have stated. Given these 
beliefs, it is doubtful that she will apply this law and implement it 
and make sure these conservation standards are applied in a meaningful 
way.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  She has raised strong complaints about the Endangered Species Act, 
another one of our bedrock laws that the Interior Secretary must 
implement. During her earlier tenure at the Department of the Interior, 
she complained the courts were providing an overly broad interpretation 
of the ESA's habitat provisions. She argued that the habitat protection 
standard should be extremely narrow so that only habitat that was 
immediately occupied by an endangered species would be protected. This 
interpretation would have ignored everything we know about the 
biological needs of species. It would have protected, for example, a 
bald eagle's nesting tree but allowed the rest of its surrounding 
habitat to be destroyed. With that kind of thinking, the bald eagle 
would never have been saved because you save the tree and then right 
around the tree you don't take any measures to protect the bald eagle.
  Let us show a picture of some of our habitat. We are talking about 
God's creations that we have a responsibility

[[Page S666]]

to protect. This is Mohave National Preserve Joshua trees. We have to 
move to protect them.
  Let us show some other habitat. Let us show the beautiful habitat of 
Alaska.
  Here we can see some of the magnificent caribou up in Alaska. We will 
be arguing a lot about that issue. We can see, if we are going to 
protect their habitat, we cannot just protect a small amount. It is as 
if saying that we are going to protect the air in one State and not in 
another one. We know the air moves; the animals move. We have to think 
about their whole habitat if we are going to protect them and not have 
this narrow view that Ms. Norton has articulated, which is that you 
should apply it very narrowly.
  She submitted an amicus brief in the Babbit v. Sweet Home case and 
argued that the Department of the Interior's protection of habitat on 
private lands was unconstitutional and constituted a taking. She argued 
for such a restricted interpretation of the law that it would have 
severely hindered our ability to protect habitat necessary for the 
recovery of the Endangered Species Act. On that case, her side lost. 
She is out of the mainstream of thought.
  Is it possible she could forget her lifetime of work against these 
things and suddenly become a fighter for the environment? I conclude 
no. Over and over again, Ms. Norton has advocated for ``the devolution 
of authority in the environmental area back to the States.'' In other 
words, she doesn't really see the need for Federal laws such as the 
National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA.
  While working in Colorado, she wrote of having ``to do battle'' with 
the Federal Government to wrestle control away from Washington and 
spoke with pride of her challenges to the Environmental Protection 
Agency regarding its interference in Colorado's air pollution programs. 
Oddly, she lamented that the end of the Civil War meant that ``we lost 
the idea that states were to stand against the Federal Government 
gaining too much power over our lives.''
  There are a lot of things you could bring up to drive home a point, 
but to raise the Civil War is odd. She said that the end of the Civil 
War meant that ``we lost the idea that states were to stand against the 
Federal Government gaining too much power over our lives.''
  She is way out there, in my opinion, because the people whom I 
represent--I think the vast majority of people--want to have a Clean 
Water Act, want to have a Safe Drinking Water Act, want to protect the 
magnificent species from destruction, and believe we have a God-given 
responsibility to do that. But she is way outside the mainstream. 
President Bush, for the vast majority, in my opinion--all but a 
couple--has chosen from the middle ground this time and reached over so 
far that there isn't much room on the other side and put this 
individual in the position where she can do harm.
  As a matter of fact, given her statements about the inappropriate 
role of the Federal Government in all of this protection, it is hard to 
understand how she would want to be a part of the Interior Department, 
much less be the head of it. It raises questions to me about her 
ability to adequately serve as an advocate from the Federal perspective 
in various environmental decision-making processes. Ms. Norton has a 
long history of association with organizations that promote ideas such 
as eliminating the Bureau of Land Management and selling off our 
national parks. Not surprisingly, these views have sparked strong 
opposition from the people of our country.
  I want to show you some of the groups that have opposed her 
nomination: the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Wilderness 
Society, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Republicans for 
Environmental Protection, Physicians for Social Responsibility, NAACP, 
AFL-CIO, Childhood Lead Action Project--I understand why they oppose 
her--Community Energy Project, the Network for Environmental and 
Economic Responsibility for the United States Church of Christ.
  This is a lightning rod nomination for people who care about 
protecting the environment. Why do we have to see their kind of 
nomination? We could have had a nomination for the President to ``unify 
us'' and not divide us.
  That is the reason I am against this nomination. Her lobbying to 
dissuade States from holding the lead industry accountable for the 
continued use of lead-based paint has brought criticism. I showed you 
that. The Childhood Lead Action Project, why would they get involved in 
this? Guess what we know. Lead-based paint causes mental retardation in 
children. This isn't a theory; it is a fact, and she led the charge to 
get the Federal Government out of regulating lead.
  You have to stand up at some point in your life and be held 
responsible and accountable. I think this is a moment when someone has 
to be held accountable.
  Everyone knows what a strong environmentalist I am and everyone knows 
how strong I am for a woman's right to choose. They know I have 
dedicated my life to do these two things. Suppose the laws were changed 
and suddenly a woman's right to choose was outlawed and I was put up 
for a position where I had to say enforce that law--put a woman in 
jail, put a doctor in jail. If this were to happen, people should come 
down to the floor and say Barbara Boxer is not the right person for 
that job; her whole life has been dedicated to making sure that a woman 
has a right to choose. Why would they give her this position? They 
would be right. I don't care if I said I will do it; I will enforce it. 
They know how strongly I feel.
  We know how strongly she feels about the interference of the Federal 
Government, what she considers to be interference in States rights in 
terms of protecting the environment. Why is this a good appointment? 
Again, you have to wonder why someone who has dedicated their adult 
life to opposing the Federal Government's involvement would even take 
this job. But we saw that happen before. His name was James Watt. We 
will get down to when someone says they will fully enforce the Nation's 
laws. Fine. But then when you ask her how she interprets those laws, 
you have to wonder because it is not the same interpretation as most 
people have.
  When I asked her how she felt about priority issues for California, 
if she would uphold the Bureau of Land Management's important decision 
to deny a permit to a gold mine, which everyone agreed would destroy 
Native American land and destroy the environment in California near the 
San Diego area, she basically passed on an answer. I asked her about 
how she felt about the much heralded new management plan for Yosemite 
National Park. She basically passed on an answer. The Klamath Wildlife 
Refuge, she passed on an answer. The Trinity River Restoration effort, 
she passed on an answer. She said she wasn't familiar with the issue; 
she had not taken a position. This troubles me since she worked at the 
Department of the Interior before. Yosemite should not be unfamiliar to 
someone who is to be head of the Department of the Interior and, yet, 
she passed on an answer on Yosemite.
  I would like to submit these answers for the Record at this time. I 
ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Questions From Senator Dianne Feinstein Submitted on Behalf of Senator 
                             Barbara Boxer

       Question. There are currently 36 undeveloped oil leases 
     situated on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of 
     California. Development of these leases has been strongly 
     opposed by the state of California and the associated local 
     coastal communities. This Administration has signaled its 
     intent to prioritize the development of domestic oil and gas 
     sources. Will you encourage development of offshore leases in 
     states like California where there is strong and persistent 
     opposition to the development of such leases? Past 
     administrations have used their executive authority to place 
     a moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling in currently 
     undeveloped areas. Would you recommend that such a moratorium 
     be continued under this administration? Would you view such a 
     moratorium, or any other environmental regulation that 
     prevents development of a lease, to be a taking under the 
     Fifth Amendment of the Constitution?
       Answer. President Bush pledged to support the existing 
     moratoria on OCS leases. He also committed to working with 
     California and Florida leaders and local affected communities 
     to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not drilling 
     should occur on existing, but undeveloped leases. If 
     confirmed as Secretary of the Interior, I will

[[Page S667]]

     honor these commitments and promise to work with all parties 
     to reach a consensus on how undeveloped leases should be 
     handled and the extension of existing moratoria.
       Question. The Interior Department recently announced its 
     denial of a permit for the Glamis Imperial gold mine that was 
     proposed for development in Imperial County, California. This 
     mine was rejected on the grounds that it would have caused 
     undue degradation to the site's environmental and cultural 
     resources. Do you think it is appropriate under current 
     mining law for the Secretary to reject mines like the 
     proposed Glamis Imperial Mine on these grounds?
       Answer. I am not familiar with the specifics of the Glamis 
     mine proposal or the basis on which the mine was rejected. I 
     look forward to learning more about the proposed Glamis 
     project and working with Congress to ensure that all new 
     mining projects maintain an appropriate balance between 
     legitimate mineral development activities and preservation of 
     important environmental and cultural resources.
       Question. Recently, the National Park Service developed a 
     detailed plan for the future management of Yosemite National 
     Park. This plan was developed after considerable input from 
     all of the affected stakeholders and over 10,000 members of 
     the public submitted comments to the agency. Central to this 
     plan is the notion that visitors to the park should be 
     encouraged to leave their personal vehicles outside the park 
     and travel through the park on a park transit system. As 
     Secretary of Interior, will you actively support 
     implementation of the new Yosemite Valley Management Plan? 
     Will you be aggressive about developing similar management 
     plans for the many other national parks that are suffering 
     environmental degradation because their management 
     practices have not kept pace with the growing numbers of 
     visitors?
       Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Yosemite 
     Valley Management Plan. As a general matter, I support the 
     concept of management plans for our public lands and believe 
     that they represent an important decision-making tool for 
     land managers. For these plans to be successful, I believe it 
     is important that they be developed in consultation with the 
     affected States, local communities, affected stakeholders, 
     and environmental groups.
       Question. In 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
     adopted a policy for Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National 
     Wildlife Refuges in California and Oregon that prevents 
     irrigation on commercial farmland on the refuges unless 
     sufficient water is available to sustain the refuges' 
     marshes. Do you support this policy which gives priority to 
     the refuges' ecological resources over commercial farming? 
     The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 
     set new requirements for the management of refuges. In 
     response, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued 
     regulations establishing procedures for determining what uses 
     are compatible with the mission of the refuge system and the 
     mission of each individual refuge. Do you believe farming is 
     compatible with the mission of the Tule Lake and Lower 
     Klamath National Wildlife Refuges? What uses would you deem 
     to be incompatible with the mission of the national wildlife 
     refuge system?
       Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the 
     Department's 1998 policy.
       I have not yet had an opportunity to review the 
     Compatibility Policy, and am not in a position at this time 
     to assess how it might affect the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath 
     National Wildlife Refuges. I am also aware that the Fish and 
     Wildlife Service recently issued a draft Appropriate Uses 
     Policy that may impact activities on refuges such as Tule 
     Lake or the Lower Klamath. I look forward to learning more 
     about the Fish and Wildlife Service's policies implementing 
     the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act and about the 
     530 Refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
       Question. The Department of the Interior, with the 
     concurrence of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, announced on December 
     19, 2000, a plan to restore the Trinity River in California. 
     The decision is based on 20 years of scientific research and 
     public involvement. It completes a process supported by the 
     Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton Administrations and has 
     enjoyed bipartisan support in the Congress. Will you commit 
     your Department to follow through on the decision and 
     implement the Trinity River restoration program?
       Answer. I am not familiar enough with this restoration plan 
     to respond to this question at this time. I look forward to 
     working with you to learn more about this plan and the 
     Department of Interior's role in implementing it.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, she had a good answer on the Outer 
Continental Self moratorium where she said she supported the States 
rights not to drill. When I pressed her on 36 existing leases off Santa 
Barbara, I didn't get the same answer. She said she would look at them 
on a case-by-case basis. That is not good enough because the State 
doesn't want any drilling there. Why wouldn't she just take it off the 
table? She couldn't do that.
  I am very troubled, and we will have a lot of debate over those 36 
existing leases. It is one of the most pressing environmental issues in 
California. We have unwavering opposition to the development of those 
leases. Since she says she is for States rights, now she can't suddenly 
say I'm for States rights on this one.
  Finally, I want to address the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I am 
not going to spend a lot of time on that. That will come at a later 
date. I agree with President Bush. It is unfair to criticize her for 
not wanting to drill in the Arctic. He says, I do; of course, my 
Secretary would. I have no problem with that. However, Ms. Norton seems 
to have enthusiasm about drilling there.
  If you look at her historical role in pushing to open up the refuge, 
and her links to the oil and gas industry through the Mountain States 
Legal Foundation, and the oil companies that hire her current lobbying 
firm, and the oil and gas interests that gave her significant 
contributions during her Senate race, I think there are valid questions 
we could raise about whether she can effectively serve the role that 
the Secretary must fill in this type of decision-making.
  What do I mean by that? Let me show you a picture of the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge. You already saw a picture of the caribou there. This 
is just an open view of the Coastal Plain. By the way, this came from, 
if Senator Murkowski is listening, the State biologists in Alaska. They 
wanted us to show this Coastal Plain. Basically, we are going to have a 
huge debate over whether to open up this refuge to drilling. This is 
going to be a tough debate. I know that at best there is 6 months' 
worth of oil there. If you just change the mileage on SUVs a few miles 
you wouldn't have to do any of this. But we will have that debate. I 
look forward to it.
  But Ms. Norton, in her position, is going to have to be objective 
about facts such as how much oil lies there, and what is the impact on 
the caribou and the rest of the environment. I question whether she 
would be objective given her strong stand in favor of oil drilling.
  My State is suffering from energy problems. I want to put something 
right out here right now. Outside of California, the people are saying 
it is California's fault because it didn't build enough powerplants. I 
want to explain something. It was explained very well in the New York 
Times editorial. Our utilities did not want to build any powerplants 
because they want to control the supply. The fact is, no new plants 
were built in the 1990s because prices were low, supplies were 
plentiful, and producers wanted to wait until they better understood 
the new era of deregulation.
  The State of California recognized back in the 1980s that generation 
needs might increase, and they tried to move forward with building for 
new generating plants. It was the utilities, not conservationists, who 
blocked the efforts. They said we didn't need any new capacity until 
2005, and they took their appeal to the State administrative law judge 
in their efforts to stop the State's push for new generating plants.
  The utilities lost that battle. The State said you have to build new 
generating plants. Do you know what the utilities did? They ran to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And guess what the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission did. they sided with the utilities over the 
objections of the State, and therefore we did not have these plants go 
on line. Finally, now they are coming on line, and that, along with 
long-term contracts and energy conservation, will solve our needs.
  I can assure you that rolling back environmental laws and making our 
air dirty is the last thing my constituents want or need.
  In Ms. Norton's testimony before the Energy Committee, she backed 
away from her life's work. Call me simplistic--and you can, and I don't 
mind it because I know I am a tough debater in this way. Call me 
simplistic, but I do not believe that a lifetime commitment to 
repealing environmental laws can be dissipated by nice, warm, fuzzy 
statements made in front of a committee.
  I was not born yesterday. I watched James Watt. He made nice, warm, 
fuzzy statements in front of the committee. He said: I will fully and 
faithfully execute the public land laws adopted by Congress. I believe 
in balance. He said in his answers: Gee, I am unfamiliar with the 
details.

[[Page S668]]

  That is what Ms. Norton said. As a matter of fact, I find the 
parallels chilling, looking at her answers and looking at his answers.
  We remember Secretary Watt's tenure at the Department of the 
Interior: Catastrophic impacts on the environment, opening up millions 
of acres of protected Federal lands, blocking Federal land 
acquisitions, making substantial changes in strip mining regulations 
that weakened or directly repealed environmental law, new plans for oil 
and gas drilling in the Arctic, et cetera.
  In closing, let me say I cannot vote for someone for this important 
position whose life record has been against every single law that she 
says she will now protect. There is too much at stake for my State. 
There is too much at stake for the Nation. I have laid out my reasons. 
I take the Senate's responsibility of advice and consent seriously.
  I would like to submit for the Record some of Ms. Norton's writing 
which include the extreme statements I referred to in my comments. I 
ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor,
                                 Washington, DC, January 14, 1987.
     Hon. F. Henry Habicht, II,
     Assistant Attorney General, Division of Land and Natural 
         Resources.

     Attention: Donald A. Carr, Esquire,
     Chief, Wildlife and Marine Resources Section, Department of 
         Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Habicht: In Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land 
     and Natural Resources, Civ. No. 78-0030 (D. Hawaii, Nov. 21, 
     1986), the United States District Court for the District of 
     Hawaii recently issued an opinion that interprets the scope 
     of the ``taking'' prohibition of Section 9 of the Endangered 
     Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1538 (1982). The Interior 
     Department is concerned that the Palila court's discussion of 
     the concept of taking, or ``harming,'' endangered species by 
     habitat degradation is overbroad; therefore, should the 
     Palila decision be appealed, the Department requests the 
     opportunity to prepare or review an amicus curiae brief for 
     submission to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
       In determining that the State of Hawaii's maintenance of 
     mouflon sheep on the Mauna Kea Game Management Area (which 
     includes most of the Palila's critical habitat) ``harms'' the 
     Palila, the district court held that: ``A finding of ``harm'' 
     does not require death to individual members of the species, 
     nor does it require a finding that habitat degredation is 
     presently driving the species further toward extinction. 
     Habitat destruction that prevents the recovery of the species 
     by affecting essential behavioral patterns causes actual 
     injury to the species and effects a taking under section 9 of 
     the Act.'' Palila, supra, slip op. at 9. The district court's 
     analysis appears to improperly blend Section 7 concepts 
     (i.e., the prohibitions against jeopardy and the destruction 
     or adverse modification of critical habitat) into the 
     definition of ``harm,'' and, therefore, needlessly expands 
     that definition to include habitat destruction that does not 
     actually result in death or physical injury to an endangered 
     species, either directly or indirectly in the foreseeable 
     future. In order to show ``harm,'' there must be proof of a 
     causal connection between the habitat modifying activity and 
     foreseeable death or injury to an endangered species.
       The scope of the holding in Palila runs counter to the 
     Interior Department's redefinition of the term ``harm'': Harm 
     in the definition of ``take'' in the Act means an act which 
     actually kills or injures wildlife * * * such act may include 
     significant habitat modification or degradation where it 
     actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing 
     essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or 
     sheltering.'' 50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.3 (1985) (emphasis added). In 
     short, the department's definition of ``harm'' quite clearly 
     requires a showing of actual death or injury to wildlife, 
     even in the case of taking by habitat modification.
       For those who would develop real estate near or within 
     endangered species habitat, the Palila decision could expand 
     their Section 9 liability if essential behavioral patterns of 
     the species are affected to the extent that recovery is 
     prevented. No proof of mortalities or actual physical injury 
     to endangered species would be required to sustain a 
     prosecution or civil injunctive action under the Palila 
     ruling. The Palila decision poses an equally serious concern 
     to federal land managing agencies.
       Please contact Michael Young of my staff at 343-2172 if we 
     can be of assistance on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gale A. Norton,
     Associate Solicitor, Conservation and Wildlife.
                                  ____


                    Takings Analysis of Regulations

                          (By Gale A. Norton)

       Because the panel already has discussed why property is 
     both an enemy and an ally of regulation, I will move 
     immediately to a discussion of how to protect property from 
     excessive regulation. How do we restore a regime of property 
     rights? I would like to discuss a few things happening on 
     that front.
       This Symposium occurs at an appropriate time: March 15, 
     1989, is the first anniversary of the issuance of President 
     Reagan's Executive Order 12,630 dealing with takings. It is 
     surprising that the Executive Order has received so little 
     publicity because it is a unique approach to the issue. It 
     asks the federal agencies to move beyond their environmental 
     and regulatory impact analyses, and to perform a takings 
     impact analysis. The agencies are asked to examine their 
     regulations and determine whether the regulations are likely 
     to cause takings of property and, if so, to estimate what 
     effect the regulations will have on the federal budget. As 
     might be expected, the agencies are not wildly enthusiastic 
     about performing takings impact analyses. The agencies tend 
     to believe that they are not taking anything and that they 
     should never have to pay compensation. Nevertheless, it 
     appears that the agencies are beginning to develop plans for 
     performing analyses in accordance with the Order.
       Compensation is the key issue in any analysis under the 
     Takings Clause. First, of course, compensation provides 
     fairness to the person who is harmed by the regulation or 
     other government action. The classic rationale for 
     compensation is that, in fairness and justice, one individual 
     should not be forced to bear the burden that ought properly 
     to be borne by society as a whole. Second, compensation tends 
     to limit government action. Even though bureaucrats enjoy the 
     benefit of spending other people's money, their actions are 
     constrained by their agency's budget. If the government must 
     pay compensation when its actions interfere with private 
     property rights, then its regulatory actions must be limited. 
     This constraint also results in a limitation on transfer 
     activity. If compensation is paid, the political system must 
     take into account some financial costs. Therefore, some 
     brakes are applied on political redistribution as compared 
     with a system that puts everyone's property rights up for 
     grabs.
       Finally, the payment of compensation helps encourage the 
     resolution of social problems by private, voluntary 
     contractual arrangements rather than by regulation. It may 
     appear cost-free to work out conflicts by regulation because 
     the costs are off-budget. But when regulations impose burdens 
     on private individuals, the costs are borne by the private 
     sector and are not considered in the democratic 
     decisionmaking process. As those costs are returned to the 
     budget by payment of compensation, we will start looking at 
     alternatives to regulations that may in the long run be more 
     beneficial.
       President Reagan's Executive Order on takings has generated 
     significant disapproval from the environmental community, 
     including criticism from Jerry Jackson, a former attorney for 
     the National Wildlife Federation. He said the Executive Order 
     mandates an impossibility because it requires the agencies to 
     determine under the current takings law what actions might be 
     unconstitutional takings. I agree with him on this point. The 
     takings case law is currently such a mess that it is 
     difficult to ascertain what is and is not a taking. The 
     Supreme Court has provided clear guidance in this area.
       I, however, disagree strongly with Mr. Jackson about the 
     role of the Constitution in executive agency decisionmaking. 
     He seems to believe that the only way the Constitution 
     figures into an executive agency's decision is that, long 
     after the fact, a court finally addresses the issue and 
     decides that there was indeed a taking. Before a court's 
     decision, the agency should be oblivious to the takings 
     implications. Mr. Jackson says, ``Whether a permit denial 
     might be construed by a court to effect a taking is not a 
     relevant factor in an agency's decision to grant or deny the 
     permit absent express legislative authority making it a 
     factor.'' I would be very interested to see that legislative 
     authority. It would have to say something like, ``In this 
     case, the Constitution applies.'' Mr. Jackson also notes that 
     the Executive Order on takings may have a chilling effect on 
     regulation. I view that as something positive.
       I consider next the formulations that might be used in 
     deciding when an environmental regulation is a taking and 
     ought to result in compensation. An exception to the 
     compensation requirement has been recognized when the 
     government acts pursuant to the police power or restrains 
     public nuisances. The exact scope of this exception is not 
     clear. Because we are looking at alternatives. I will act 
     like a good bureaucrat and look at the extreme alternatives.
       Let us first assume that there is absolutely no police 
     power or nuisance exception to the takings rule. The 
     government pays whenever it regulates in a way that 
     interferes with private property rights. In a way, this 
     regime would be easy to administer. One would simply look at 
     the property values before and after the regulation is 
     imposed to determine the amount of compensation. But under 
     this regime, the government would have to pay for all types 
     or regulations--even those that halt the worst criminal 
     offenses. (One wonders what the compensation to criminals 
     would be for closing down a crack house--probably mind-
     boggling.) In such a case, we have little justification for 
     taking money from the taxpayers to pay someone not to engage 
     in socially inappropriate or criminal behavior. Such cases 
     also pose the danger of

[[Page S669]]

     someone coming back time and time again with, ``Well, last 
     time you paid me to close down a crack house. Now it's time 
     to pay me to close down the bordello, and next week you can 
     pay me to close down whatever I dream up next time.'' The 
     model is open to exploitation by repeat offenders.
       At the other extreme, let us assume that the government 
     does not have to pay at all unless it chooses to label its 
     action condemnation. Again, such a regime would be easy to 
     administer. In fact, it would be facile. The government never 
     would have to worry about what it takes, but individual 
     rights clearly would not be protected.
       One formulation that actually has been adopted by the 
     courts is a nuisance exception: No compensation is due if a 
     taking is performed pursuant to the police power in 
     regulating a nuisance. Unfortunately, this is often expressed 
     as a broad police power exception: Compensation need not be 
     paid for government actions undertaken pursuant to the police 
     power. The problem with this approach is defining the police 
     power. The police power may be interpreted very broadly, as 
     it was, for example, in the License Cases of 1847: ``nothing 
     more or less than the powers of government inherent in every 
     sovereignty to the extent of its dominions.'' This definition 
     covers far too much. No regulatory taking would ever be 
     compensated. Furthermore, there is no textual support in the 
     Constitution for an exception to the takings rule for police 
     powers. A further problem with a broad police-power exception 
     to the compensation requirement is that the public-use 
     requirement in the Takings Clause has been interpreted as 
     being ``coterminous'' with the police power. Combining a 
     police-power exception to the compensation requirement with a 
     police-power definition of what is a public use leaves an 
     empty box as to when compensation would be awarded. A taking 
     would be appropriate if performed pursuant to the police 
     power and pursuant to public use, but no compensation would 
     be necessary because it falls within the police-power 
     exception.
       A much better formulation focuses on the extent of the 
     property rights involved, presumably, there is no actual 
     property right in maintaining a nuisance. Thus, government is 
     not involved in a taking when it halts a nuisance because 
     there is no property right to take. The Keystone decision 
     states this rule, but the analysis in the opinion proceeds to 
     ignore it. There was clearly a property right under state law 
     in that case, but the Supreme Court proceeded as if there 
     were no such right.
       Another crucial step in the analysis is defining a 
     nuisance, including determining whether a nuisance is to be 
     interpreted by the common law, and deciding whether nuisance 
     is synonymous with a negative externality. If they are 
     synonymous, then aesthetic harms are problematic. Let me give 
     you an example. I am from Denver, I am a Broncos fan--at 
     least I watch about half of every Super Bowl game in which 
     they are involved. A few years ago, when we were in our fist 
     Super Bowl, there was a craze to paint one's house Bronco 
     orange. If I lived across the street from one of those 
     houses, I would view the aesthetic harm to myself as an 
     interference with my right to use my property, but I doubt 
     that we want to regulate such aesthetic harm.
       A different way of identifying a nuisance is to require a 
     physical invasion of neighboring property. A physical 
     invasion test eliminates the problem of aesthetic harm. But 
     physical invasion standing alone is not necessarily a 
     nuisance. There must be some additional element of 
     harmfulness, undesirability, or inappropriateness.
       Another alternative is to consider some kind of reasonable 
     right to use our property. In the Nollan case, Justice 
     Scalia, writing for the Court, noted that the right to build 
     on one's property was an actual right and not a government-
     granted privilege. Regulation of this right may have very 
     significant repercussions in future land-use litigation. 
     Interestingly, we might even go so far as to recognize a 
     homesteading right to pollute or to make noise in an area. 
     This approach would eliminate some of the theoretical 
     problems with defining a nuisance.
       Moving beyond the question of defining the nuisance 
     exception to the just compensation requirement. I would like 
     to summarize a few other key components of current takings 
     analysis. In evaluating regulatory takings, particularly in 
     the land-use context, the Court often employs a diminution in 
     value test. Under this test,if a regulation goes too far, it 
     is a taking. The question, as phrased by the courts, is 
     whether the regulation denies the owner all economically 
     viable use of the property. Under this test, the courts have 
     found that diminutions in value of seventy-five percent of 
     almost ninety percent are not sufficiently severe to 
     constitute takings.
       Another question is whether a regulation substantially 
     advances a legitimate state interest. This is similar to the 
     requirement of having a public use for the taking under the 
     Fifth Amendment, and therefore it does not provide us with a 
     satisfactory test of what should and should not be 
     compensated. It focuses on what the government is properly 
     empowered to do, not at what it can do on the condition that 
     it pay compensation. Although this test has been frequently 
     reiterated by the Court, it has seldom been used to strike 
     down an uncompensated taking.
       One other approach is the bundle of rights test. An 
     interference with a particularly important strand in the 
     bundle of rights may constitute a taking. This test has not 
     yielded particularly enlightening results. A right to exclude 
     others and a right to pass to one's heirs are significant and 
     denial of these rights will be deemed a taking. On the 
     other hand, ownership of a support estate as part of a 
     mineral interest or the right to sell property, are not 
     considered significant and compensable.
       An emerging way of looking at the question is the nexus 
     requirement that is set forth in the Nollan decision and that 
     is discussed extensively in Executive Order 12,630. This 
     analysis requires that conditions put on permits have the 
     same health and safety objectives, and substantially advance 
     the same objectives, as the denial of a permit would serve. A 
     good example of such an approach is the case of wetlands 
     dredge and fill permits. The purpose of the wetlands 
     regulatory program is to protect water quality. Its 
     application has been judicially and administratively expanded 
     to protect wetlands values. Frequently, conditions are placed 
     on dredge and fill permits that have no relationship to the 
     overall purpose of the regulatory program, such as providing 
     recreational boat ramps and docks. It will be interesting to 
     watch how these issues are treated as the Executive Order 
     analysis develops.
       In this discussion, I have not examined a number of other 
     formulations in the takings context--compensating benefits 
     and so forth--that further complicate the whole analysis. As 
     the preceding discussion indicates, the analysis at this 
     point is very confused and inconsistent. This confusion, 
     however, creates an opportunity for a major shift in takings 
     jurisprudence, toward a greater protection of property 
     rights.

                               [Panel II]

             Economic Rights Provisions of the Constitution

                            (By Gale Norton)

       I would like to explore some of the means by which I 
     believe the Constitution provides judges with standards for 
     the protection of economic liberties. Throughout the history 
     of the United States, the protection of economic rights has 
     been attempted through a variety of provisions: the ex post 
     facto clause, the contracts clause, the takings clause, the 
     privileges and immunities clause, and through theories of 
     natural rights and due process. While each of these 
     approaches has been largely rejected by the courts, litigants 
     are continually exploring new approaches for the protection 
     of economic rights.
       Economic rights are clearly not protected today. Land is 
     owned subject to the whims of one's neighbors on the zoning 
     commission. Prices of goods and services are controlled by a 
     plethora of governmental and regulatory bodies. Selective 
     taxation hampers the growth and innovation of industry, and 
     subsidies enrich some sectors of society at the expense of 
     others.
       There are substantial similarities between the takings and 
     contracts clauses. Both clauses limit the powers of 
     government, chiefly the police and eminent domain powers. The 
     eminent domain power is not explicitly provided in the 
     Constitution, but it has been upheld for many years as a 
     necessary and inherent power of government. The police power 
     is exercised by state governments; the federal government 
     exercises similar authority through the commerce power and 
     other delegated powers. The contracts clause applies by its 
     terms only to the states, the takings clause only to the 
     federal government. The requirement of just compensation has, 
     however, been applied to states through the fourteenth 
     amendment. Ellen Frankel Paul has noted the inconsistencies 
     between recognition of the eminent domain power and the 
     Lockean natural rights approach to property rights. An 
     extended discussion of these inconsistencies is beyond the 
     scope of today's discussion; however, I believe it is 
     instructive to explore briefly the character of these 
     governmental powers as they highlight the role and 
     importance of the takings and contracts clauses.
       The police power is basically government regulation for the 
     promotion and protection of health, safety, morals, and the 
     general welfare. In a narrow sense, it is the government 
     attempting to enforce the maxim that one should use one's 
     property so as not to injure that of another. This narrow 
     view of the police power firmly prevailed in the early days 
     of the United States, but it has now been broadened to 
     include not only the protection of public safety, health, and 
     morals, but anything rationally related to these broad areas. 
     Indeed, Justice Brennan stated in his dissent in Nollan v. 
     California Coastal Commission that a review of the use of the 
     police power ``demands only that the state could rationally 
     have decided that the measure might achieve the state's 
     objective.'' Thus, the only practical limitation on this 
     power comes from specific constitutional provisions such as 
     the contracts and takings clauses.
       The contracts clause is one of those provisions that has 
     been virtually written out of the Constitution in current 
     times. Even though James Madison eloquently discussed the 
     contracts clause in Federalist No. 44 in fairly modern terms, 
     modern jurisprudence has seemingly discarded the clause. 
     Essentially, Madison viewed the contracts clause as 
     discouraging transfer activities, keeping decisions out of 
     the hands of lobbyists, and providing the predictability 
     necessary for business planning.
       Despite the soundness of the reasons behind the contracts 
     clause, its erosion began discouragingly early in our 
     history. In Ogden v. Saunders, the Supreme Court held that 
     only existing contracts were protected by

[[Page S670]]

     the clause. The Court had previously held that the ex post 
     facto clause applied only to criminal activities, thereby 
     preventing its use for the protection of contracts. Thus, by 
     1827 the Court had already moved away from viewing the 
     contracts clause as a broad freedom of contract provision 
     that would protect contracts generally.
       Today, the clause is so weakened that in the recent 
     Keystone Coal decision the Court stated, ``Unlike other 
     provisions in article 1, section 10, it is well settled that 
     the prohibition against impairing the obligation of contracts 
     is not to be read literally.'' The chief reason for this view 
     of the contracts clause is that the courts have clearly 
     stated that the clause does not supersede the police power. 
     This puts us in a ``catch 22'' position because the police 
     power (in the modern broad sense) is exactly what the 
     contracts clause should be limiting. Therefore, we have a 
     limitation that is superseded by the power it is intended 
     to restrain.
       The takings clause is somewhat more alive than the 
     contracts clause, but it also suffers from some debilitating 
     restrictions. An encouraging note is the widespread interest 
     in Richard Epstein's analysis, which expands the takings 
     clause beyond simply eminent domain activities to encompass 
     limitations on the commerce power, taxing power, and so 
     forth. The analysis takes a simple political science 
     approach, i.e., that the takings clause was meant to operate 
     as a check preventing the majority from raiding the assets of 
     the other forty-nine percent of society. Compensation must be 
     paid when the burdens of society fall too heavily on an 
     individual or group, which presumably limits regulatory 
     excesses. The compensation may be monetary or implicit in-
     kind compensation. Thus, those who are burdened or taxed for 
     the benefit of society are compensated for their special 
     sacrifices.
       The current judicial interpretation of the takings clause, 
     however, falls far short of the role discussed by Richard 
     Epstein and intended by the Constitution. For instance, in 
     the public use cases of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 
     and Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto the Supreme Court held that the 
     public use justification is coterminous with the police 
     powers. This interpretation can work to deprive individuals 
     of their economic rights. The transfer of property from 
     private party to private party, through the compulsion of the 
     state, will now be upheld when any rational basis can be put 
     forth. Moreover, the courts will only step in if the state's 
     public use determination involves an impossibility and 
     therefore has no rational justification.
       In the case of a regulatory taking, the standard approach 
     has been that when regulation goes too far, it is a taking. 
     ``Too far'' generally means that a regulation, under the 
     guise of the police power, does not advance a legitimate 
     state interest or that an owner has been deprived of all 
     economically viable use of his property. As stated earlier, 
     the courts will uphold any state action that is supported in 
     any fashion by some state interest. Moreover, the courts have 
     held that the loss of only one or several attributes of the 
     ``bundle of sticks'' of property ownership is not equal to a 
     taking. The courts have often gone to ridiculous extremes to 
     find some remaining viable use. The only relief the courts 
     have granted property owners in this area in recent times has 
     been to hold that a deprivation of property need not be 
     permanent to bring into force the takings clause. This is a 
     minimal breakthrough since the property owner still has the 
     ominous burden of showing that a taking has occurred.
       I believe that some changes are desperately needed in the 
     jurisprudence of economic liberties. The preceding analysis 
     suggests some specific overall changes. I think one important 
     change should be in the level of scrutiny applied to statutes 
     affecting economic liberties. An extreme proposal would be to 
     place the burden of proof on the government to justify its 
     regulations. Levels of scrutiny below this extreme, but 
     higher than the current minimal scrutiny, are realistic.
       I would like to note that there are some grounds for 
     optimism in the recent Supreme Court decisions. Bernard 
     Siegan, in his Economic Liberties and the Constitution, 
     states: ``A change of one vote on the Supreme Court in Ogden 
     v. Saunders would have, in 1827, brought economic due process 
     into being through the contracts clause. One vote likewise 
     separated the majority and minority position on the 
     constitutional status of economic rights in the 1872 
     Slaughterhouse cases. * * * [E]conomic due process was 
     unanimously accepted in 1897 and it fell by one vote in 
     1937.''
       Hopefully in the future these close calls will be resolved 
     in favor of freedom.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume of Senator Murkowski's time, I believe. I ask for 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, that is one of those remarkable things 
about this body. We can come to the floor and debate vigorously many 
different issues. In this case, we are making remarks about what I hope 
will soon be our secretary of the environment, our Secretary of the 
Department of the Interior, Gale Norton.
  I come to the floor to give some words of support for her appointment 
and with just the greatest amount of respect to my colleague who just 
spoke, Senator Barbara Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you very much.
  With all due respect to my colleague from California--and I have the 
greatest respect for her as an environmental leader--I have carefully 
considered the nomination of Gale Norton, former attorney general of 
Colorado, to be our Secretary of the Interior and arrived at a 
different conclusion.
  Let me begin by saying that since the announcement for this position, 
there has been much debate about positions she has taken throughout the 
course of her career. Whether the topic has been protection of private 
property rights, environmental self-audits, or certain provisions of 
the Endangered Species Act, she has advocated for limits on Federal 
power while arguing for more State and local authority.
  In its core essence, that is not necessarily a bad thing. We need to 
be very sensitive to local and State governments as we craft and 
fashion and design environmental laws for this Nation. Frankly, I think 
in some instances the Federal Government has gone, you might say, 
overboard or has not had as much sensitivity to State and local 
governments as perhaps we should. We are still a work in progress here.
  I find her position, actually, for State and local authority, 
refreshing and necessary, recognizing that one size does not fit all. 
But I do not question her commitment to clean air, to clean water, and 
to finding the right ways to pursue those goals.
  As Secretary of the Interior, it would be her duty to manage public 
lands on behalf of the Federal Government and also to represent its 
interests in any dispute. So some legitimate concerns have been raised 
as to whether she would fall on the side of State and local government 
or Federal Government. I think she put those issues to rest clearly and 
squarely in her testimony before the committee as she said she would 
represent the interests of the Federal Government, using her 
sensitivity to State and local governments as an asset, but not as a 
barrier to fighting vigorously for and enforcing environmental laws 
that are on the books.
  One such example I would like to point out that should be in her 
favor is her successful advocacy for the Rocky Mountain Arsenal 
cleanup. When the Federal Government itself was standing in the way of 
efficient and effective cleanup, Gale Norton challenged the Federal 
Government to clean up its own hazardous waste sites and led the fight 
successfully in that area, and that is a project that is still going 
forward.
  In her 2 days of testimony before our committee as well as her 
answers to a few hundred written questions, I believe she has 
sufficiently indicated her honest intention to enforce the Federal laws 
as they are written and as the courts have interpreted them. Policy 
differences from time to time between Ms. Norton and the Members of 
this body are unavoidable. However, she has listened attentively to the 
concerns expressed by members of the committee, and her pledges to work 
with us seem genuine.

  In addition, I am encouraged by her comments that she was willing to 
give appropriate consideration to the impact of Federal laws on State 
and local interests, which is something I mentioned before as very 
important to me and many Members, Democrats and Republicans, in our 
body. While there are certain instances where national policy on 
environmental issues is necessary, as I said earlier, sometimes one 
size does not fit all. We would be wise to recognize that and implement 
different strategies for different regions and different States.
  In fact, Ms. Norton and I had the opportunity to discuss such a 
matter during her recent visit to my office--my favorite subject, 
actually--the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which is a 
conservation program that will benefit all 50 States. She expressed an 
interest to learn more about this. She expressed a very keen 
understanding of the contribution made by coastal States, in terms of 
the amount of

[[Page S671]]

money that is sent to the Federal Government from offshore oil and gas 
production, that could be used more wisely to replenish and restore 
some of our renewable resources while we are, in fact, depleting a 
nonrenewable resource.
  Based on the crisis that we are facing in our Nation today, our 
energy crisis--as the chairman, Senator Murkowski, from the State of 
Alaska, has so ably spoken about on this floor so many times--we can 
really now recognize the value of producing States. Let's make sure the 
billions of dollars we are sending to the Federal Treasury is used not 
just for general government purposes but used to invest in our 
environment to provide parks and recreation, wildlife and conservation, 
and, yes, to extend help to coastal impact assistance and coastal 
communities everywhere.
  She says she understands it. Although she has not officially endorsed 
the bill, she will work very closely with us to carry out our work on 
CARA. Let me be quick to mention, though, that while she has not taken 
an official position and did not do so in the hearings, President Bush 
did in fact endorse, during the campaign, the CARA legislation. He did 
remind us all as Americans that you just can't keep taking; that 
sometimes you have to give back if you want your children and your 
grandchildren to enjoy the same benefits of open spaces, wildlife, and 
fisheries.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes to close.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may, I dearly want to accommodate my good friend 
from Louisiana, but Senator Landrieu asked for 7 minutes, Senator 
Hutchison for 5, and Senator Baucus for a minute and a half. The two 
Senators from Colorado need time, and we have to finish at 12:30. I 
encourage colleagues to try to keep within their time limits.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. I will take 1 minute to close.
  President Bush endorsed this bill during the campaign, and I believe 
with Ms. Norton's leadership, with President Bush's leadership, and 
with bipartisan leadership in the Senate and House, it is an early 
bipartisan victory we can achieve for the environment and for our 
Nation. I look forward to working with her on that and many other 
issues. I am proud to support her nomination as our new Secretary of 
the Interior, and I look forward to working with her in the years 
ahead.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield back whatever time I have remaining.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Louisiana.
  I believe the Senator from Texas seeks recognition as the next in 
order on the list, followed by Senator Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Energy Committee.
  Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of my friend Gale 
Norton to be Secretary of the Interior.
  I have watched Gale as the attorney general of Colorado. I worked 
with her very closely on the lawsuit that the attorneys general of our 
States filed against the tobacco companies. Gale was one of the key 
leaders of the States' attorneys general in that effort and 
successfully negotiated the lawsuit against the tobacco companies. We 
worked very hard to make sure that that money stayed in the States, 
that the Federal Government was not able to take part of the tobacco 
settlement money away from the States. That has certainly helped all of 
our States use that money mostly for the purpose of better health care 
for the indigent people in their States and for all citizens who need 
help with health care.
  In my State of Texas, we added it to the CHIP program for children's 
health insurance. I know this has added to the quality of health care 
coverage in our country, and Gale Norton was one of those most 
responsible for it.
  As a former State official, she has also shown that she wants to 
protect the environment, and she also wants balance in our 
environmental laws. She believes the Federal Government should have the 
same requirements to keep environmental standards high that our private 
industries do.
  As Colorado attorney general, she was able to get involved in 
negotiations to make sure the Federal Government cleaned up hazardous 
waste in the Rocky Mountain arsenal.
  She is going to be the person who will improve public health and the 
environment in an evenhanded and thoughtful way. I can think of no 
person who would be better for this job as Secretary of the Interior 
than Gale Norton.
  Mr. President, we will also be voting on the nomination of Gov. 
Christine Todd Whitman to be EPA Administrator, a Cabinet post. I 
cannot think of a better person for EPA Administrator than this 
wonderful Governor of New Jersey who has a very strong environmental 
record and who also believes in balance to make sure that our economy 
stays strong and we keep the environment clean for future generations.
  I am proud to speak for Governor Whitman and for my friend Gale 
Norton to join the Cabinet of President Bush, hopefully this afternoon, 
because I think they will add immense experience, quality, 
intelligence, and integrity to that Cabinet. I am pleased to support 
them.
  I thank Senator Murkowski for giving me this time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.
  Senator Baucus is seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at the outset, I want to be clear that I 
have reservations about Ms. Norton's ability to reconcile her history 
of passionately battling Federal environmental and public health laws 
with her duties as Interior Secretary, the public's voice in protecting 
and managing the Nation's national parks, its endangered wildlife and 
one-third of the nation's public lands.
  Ms. Norton has stated she endorses the goals of our nation's land and 
wildlife protection laws. She must do more. She must enforce and uphold 
the spirit of those laws, the very laws she has tried in the past to 
undermine. She must ensure balance in her and her Department's 
decisions, listening to the concerns of all interested parties.
  Because so many lands in Montana belong to the Federal Government and 
will fall under Ms. Norton's jurisdiction, Ms. Norton's actions will 
have an enormous impact on our way of life. Her actions will also 
impact the many native American tribes in Montana. I hope we can work 
together to ensure that those impacts are positive, both for Montana 
and for the Nation. I know I will do my part, and I expect she will do 
her part.
  Despite these reservations, I believe that Ms. Norton is qualified 
for this position, I believe that she is honest and that she has the 
utmost integrity and that she will do her best to carry out her many 
obligations. I believe that Ms. Norton should be confirmed as Secretary 
of the Interior.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to offer my 
wholehearted support for Gale Norton's nomination.
  After all the rhetoric about Ms. Norton for the last month, it only 
took two appearances before the Energy Committee to get an 18-2 vote. 
That may not be unanimous, but it is mighty close to it. It is 
certainly overwhelming. I believe it is evidence that an overwhelming 
majority of the committee knows she is an outstanding candidate for the 
job.
  She has proven she is knowledgeable, articulate, and capable of 
enduring round after round of detailed questions while being the object 
of pretty outrageous charges and mean-spirited ads paid for by her 
extremist detractors. She handled it, as she does everything, by simply 
focusing on the job at hand. The more she sat in those hearings, the 
more she convinced our colleagues that she is the right person for the 
job.
  My Democrat colleagues on the committee saw, as with several other 
Bush nominees, that getting through this nomination process is not 
easy. The environmental groups that focused on her simply were wrong. 
Her management direction and experience have been proven over and over, 
and I was pleased to hear some very enthusiastic and

[[Page S672]]

commendable words from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and 
other side of the dais in our Energy Committee before we voted to send 
her nomination to the floor.
  My friend and colleague from California, Senator Dianne Feinstein, 
stated:

       Some of the things said about her are simply not correct.

  That is absolutely true. Some of the articles in paid-for ads in the 
Washington Post were simply distorted.
  She certainly allayed, through her testimony and her answers to 227 
written questions to the committee, the fears my colleagues had. 
Senator Baucus, Senator Landrieu, and Senator Bingaman, all valued 
Members of this body, questioned her at length and came away with the 
same opinion I have: That she is going to be a very good Secretary of 
the Interior. Directly after the vote, the same people who had attacked 
her before did so again, and also sent kind of a warning shot to the 
Senate Democrats on the committee. The President of the Friends of the 
Earth, a prominent environmental group, said after the vote that Norton 
is ``a wolf in sheep's clothing'' and that ``she pulled the wool over 
the eyes of the Senators.'' That paragraph was in the Washington Post 
on January 24. These are the types of fictional jabs that I believe led 
to the vote for her overwhelmingly.

  Contrary to the Friends of the Earth, she did not pull the wool over 
anybody's eyes. In fact, if anything, she opened the eyes of many of 
the committee members who had some questions about her qualifications 
before she had a chance to be interviewed.
  I have known Gale for many years both in a professional capacity and 
as a friend, too. Let me state for the Record, she has a long and 
distinguished career of doing the right thing--always. Her consensus-
building ability might be best illustrated by her 8 years as Colorado's 
attorney general. There she served under a Democrat Governor and still 
accomplished much for the betterment of Colorado, not the least of 
which was the cleanup of Superfund sites.
  For more than 20 years, she has provided leadership on environmental 
and public lands and has demonstrated a responsible commonsense 
approach to preserving our natural heritage.
  I listened to some of the comments of her detractors on the floor 
this morning, and I will tell you that is not the Gale Norton I know. 
In fact, the Gale Norton I know represents a balanced approach to 
public lands.
  Another significant fact to know about Ms. Norton is she is committed 
to enforcing the law as it is written. Throughout her questioning in 
front of the Energy Committee, she repeatedly stated she will enforce 
the letter of the law with which she is entrusted. I believed her. The 
majority of the committee also believed her.
  I think that is a novel approach. I say to the Presiding Officer, 
coming from the West, you, as I, have seen a Secretary of the Interior 
the last number of years who believes laws are passed by Congress, and 
they are simply an extension of what the Secretary of the Interior 
wants to do by rulemaking authority. Ms. Norton will follow the rule of 
law.
  She listens to common sense while she searches for common ground. 
Unlike many in Washington, she understands that real environmental 
solutions do not just come from beltway professionals or are driven by 
ideological purists but come by including people whose lives are going 
to be affected. They come from real people with honest concerns about 
the land and the water.
  She relayed this to all of the Senators she testified before and 
visited around the time of her confirmation hearing. She proved to 18 
of the 20 Senators of the committee that she is the right person for 
the job. She is up to the task. She will be a very fine Secretary of 
the Interior.
  And probably above all, we have witnessed in the West in the last few 
years a process which certainly locks out any local input whatsoever. 
Ms. Norton is concerned about that. She knows that the people whose 
lives are affected at the local level must also be included when we 
talk about public lands policy.
  Her record as a public servant demonstrates she will work with all 
parties to craft reasonable solutions. That kind of evenhanded approach 
to public land management has been missing, and the West is worse off 
for it. I know she will bring to this office of Interior Secretary 
decisive action in the land and resource issues where we have recently 
seen too much photo-op and not enough solid demonstrable decisions.
  I believe she should be confirmed by the full Senate quickly, and by 
a large margin, and certainly would ask my colleagues to do so.
  With that, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, might I ask, how much time is remaining 
for debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Seventeen minutes. I thank the Chair, and I thank my 
colleague from Colorado.
  Mr. President, virtually every newspaper in Colorado has endorsed Ms. 
Norton. I cannot think of one that has not. The attorneys general 
throughout the United States have rallied behind her, those who have 
worked with her and know her. I cannot think of a greater tribute to 
her than hearing from those who have worked with her and have respected 
her over an extended period of time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, dated January 29, 2001, signed 
by the general president, James P. Hoffa, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                      International Brotherhood of


                                                    Teamsters,

                                                 January 29, 2001.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 1.5 million members of the 
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I urge you to support 
     the nomination of Gale Norton for Secretary of Interior.
       As you know, the United States finds itself facing an ever-
     growing crisis in meeting its energy needs. As skyrocketing 
     gas prices hit the pocketbooks of working Americans and 
     rolling blackouts bring to a grinding halt the economic 
     engine of California, the citizens of this country look to 
     the federal government to address this program now.
       Our first step must be to increase the United States' 
     energy independence. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
     (ANWR) offers a realistic and immediate opportunity for 
     working toward this goal. Tapping the resources of ANWR in an 
     environmentally sensitive manner will provide 10.3 billion 
     gallons of oil, while at the same time creating an estimated 
     25,000 Teamster jobs and potentially 750,000 jobs nationwide.
       Ms. Norton recognizes these facts. Her commitment to 
     finding real solutions, particularly with regard to ANWR, 
     demonstrates that she has the ability to balance the needs of 
     the environment with the needs of working Americans.
       Admittedly, during her tenure as Colorado Attorney General, 
     Ms. Norton did oppose the labor community on some issues very 
     important to our members. However, I believe that her 
     commitment to energy independence and job creation portends a 
     welcome shift in priorities at the Department of the Interior 
     that will benefit Teamsters and other working families.
       For these reasons, I ask you to vote to confirm Gale Norton 
     as Secretary of Interior.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James P. Hoffa,
                                                General President.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  I will take the liberty of referring to the letter:

       On behalf of the 1.5 million members of the International 
     Brotherhood of Teamsters, I urge you to support the 
     nomination of Gale Norton for Secretary of Interior.

  The next paragraph reads as follows:

       As you know, the United States finds itself facing an ever-
     growing crisis in meeting its energy needs. . . .
       Our first step must be to increase the United States' 
     energy independence. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
     (ANWR) offers a realistic and immediate opportunity for 
     working toward this goal. Tapping the resources of ANWR in an 
     environmentally sensitive manner will provide 10.3 billion 
     gallons of oil, while at the same time creating an estimated 
     25,000 Teamster jobs and potentially 750,000 jobs nationwide. 
     It would be the largest construction project in the history 
     of North America.
       Admittedly, during her tenure as Colorado Attorney General, 
     Ms. Norton did oppose the labor community on some issues very 
     important to our members. However, I believe that her 
     commitment to energy independence and job creation portends a 
     welcome shift in priorities at the Department of the Interior 
     that will benefit . . . working families.

  Mr. President, we disagree in this body on a daily basis, and that is

[[Page S673]]

healthy, and it is a part of the process before us. But I think some in 
the environmental community could learn from that model associated with 
Ms. Norton's confirmation effort. She represents some of the western 
values and approaches toward public lands and the environment.
  People are free to disagree with her values and approaches; however, 
in some cases, some have tried to portray her as an extremist. 
Representatives of some special interests said that she has spent her 
lifetime trying to undermine the mission of the agency she is nominated 
to lead; that is, the Department of the Interior.
  The disagreeable rhetoric used was never born out in fact. In her 
entire testimony before the committee, of which I chair, the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, where we have held 2 days of hearings, we 
had her respond to about 224 questions. We voted her out with a mandate 
vote of 18-2.
  In any event, that rhetoric is without reality and has led to 
questioning the goals of some in the environmental community. I do 
question the goals, and I do question the effort to basically character 
assassinate this nominee.
  Let me quote from a January 19, 2001, guest editorial in the Chicago 
Sun Times:

       The Norton nomination exposes a growing schism within the 
     national environmental movement. An increasingly radical left 
     wing, funded by a small number of liberal foundations and 
     tens of millions of dollars each year from government grants, 
     will stop at nothing to shut down American manufacturing and 
     to ban all public access to public lands. These are the same 
     groups that rioted in Seattle in November 1999 and are 
     burning down resorts and new homes to protest sprawl.

  Mr. President, it goes without saying that the Colorado newspapers 
have supported Ms. Norton, but they go further than that. How about the 
Tacoma News Tribune:

       Norton has been described, even by some Democrats, as 
     bright, hard-working, highly ethical and willing to at least 
     listen to those with opposing views.

  Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire said:

       The Sierra Club asked me not to say positive things about 
     [Ms. Norton]. I told them to show me why she shouldn't be 
     confirmed. I am still waiting for them to show me the 
     evidence.

  Like the Washington State attorney general, I am still waiting to see 
the evidence that Ms. Norton does not support the Endangered Species 
Act.
  She led the fight to save the California condor. In her appearance 
before the committee, she repeatedly stated that she would enforce the 
Endangered Species Act. I have heard television ads run about Ms. 
Norton's, something they call, ``right to pollute.'' They did not 
clarify that Ms. Norton used this phrase only in discussing emissions 
trading, a concept later embodied in the Clean Air Act passed by the 
Congress. It was a Democratic Congress.
  These are two of the egregious misrepresentations of her record made 
by special interest groups. I am almost ashamed of some of these 
groups. I don't think any person in this body should repeat any of the 
vicious personal attacks made in desperate attempts to derail this 
nomination. I view some of the attacks as despicable, unworthy of the 
space it took to print them. Such distortions and name calling really 
reflect badly on the authors, not on Ms. Norton. I am also ashamed that 
some of these D.C.-based groups use the word ``Alaska'' as part of 
their name. The reputation of several of these environmental interest 
groups is in tatters after this process. Ms. Norton's stature remains 
upright and in one piece.
  I know we have heard from a number of Senators expressing their views 
today. The Senators who will close the debate--we have already heard 
from Senator Campbell; Senator Wayne Allard from Colorado is next--have 
worked under the tenure of the attorney general, and I commend their 
statements to the Senate as a true picture of the nominee before us, 
the nominee who will make an excellent Secretary of the Interior.
  Finally, they try to rub out the messenger, but they can't rub out 
her message; that is, that she will uphold and enforce the law.
  I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Alaska. I compliment him on a 
fine job on the floor and in committee on the nomination of Gale Norton 
to be Secretary of the Interior. I also recognize the diligent efforts 
of my colleague, Senator Ben Campbell of Colorado, in carrying forward, 
making sure we get a confirmation.
  I rise today in strong support of President Bush's nomination of Gale 
Norton to be the next Secretary of the Interior. I have known Gale 
Norton for years and know her to be an individual with strong personal 
convictions and the upmost professional integrity.
  This past month, my colleagues in the Senate and our constituents 
have had a chance to get to know Gale Norton. During that time they 
learned that Gale was a member of the law school honor society at the 
University of Denver; after law school she joined her alma mater as the 
Interim Director of the Transportation Law program at the University of 
Denver law school. Gale also worked at the U.S. Departments of 
Agriculture and Interior serving as Associate Solicitor for 
Conservation and Wildlife. This diverse background gave her a solid 
foundation to run successfully for Colorado's Attorney General, a 
position she was overwhelmingly reelected to in 1994. During her 20 
years working on environmental and natural resource issues, Gale Norton 
has gained a solid reputation defending the role of the State, 
advocating sensible environmental cleanup and solving problems.
  Now, I know that most western Senators support Gale Norton for 
Secretary of the Interior. But for those of my Senate colleagues who 
still have doubts, let me tell them some more about Gale and her career 
and why she deserves their support.
  I am a fifth generation Coloradan, and believe me, I know what it 
means to represent such a beautiful and diverse State. Gale also grew 
up in Colorado and she knows that Coloradans take environmental issues 
seriously. Whether it's a farmer or rancher, small businessman, high 
tech employee or new immigrant to the state, everyone recognizes and 
appreciates the connection between our economy and our environment. 
Colorado is not gaining a 7th congressional seat because our 
environment has been neglected. If anything, Colorado has demonstrated 
that there can be a balance between environmental protection and 
economic prosperity. This balanced approach was utilized during Gale's 
tenure as Attorney General.
  Coloradans recognized Gale's ability and qualifications and entrusted 
her to represent them on complex and diverse issues. As Colorado 
Attorney General, Gale was committed to enforcing the law. She led 
efforts to ensure that the federal government cleaned up its hazardous 
and toxic wastes in Colorado and actively participated in the 
settlement of complex water rights cases. Gale also testified before 
Congress on implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, 
Superfund and Colorado wilderness legislation. Gale's input on these 
issues was always based on the premise that we can improve the laws so 
they protect the environment without imposing unnecessary burdens on 
society. Contrary to some reports, commenting on the effectiveness of a 
law does not equate to advocating repeal of the law.
  We need to set the record straight on some of the outlandish 
statements radical environmental groups have been generating. Radical 
environmental groups are trying to tie Gale Norton to the Summitville 
mine disaster, an event that didn't even happen on her watch. It 
happened under former Colorado Governor Roy Romer, a Democrat, his head 
of Department of Natural Resources Ken Salazar, and the attorney 
general, also a democrat. No one denies the environmental abuses at 
Summitville, but unfairly trying to link Gale to this is appalling. 
Even Ken Salazar, who now serves as Colorado's Attorney General 
believes she should have the opportunity to serve as Secretary of the 
Interior.
  During Gale's 8 years as attorney general, she never allowed free 
reign for polluters to come in and destroy our environment.
  At this point, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an 
editorial entitled ``Summitville Gold Mine Is Cast As A Political 
Boogeyman'' by Denver Post columnist and editorial writer Al Knight.

[[Page S674]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Denver Post, Jan. 30, 2001]

         Summitville Gold Mine Is Cast as a Political Boogeyman

                             (By Al Knight)

       January 10, 2001.--The New York Times, for reasons that 
     must be assumed to be political, has attempted to smear Gale 
     Norton, President-elect George W. Bush's choice for Secretary 
     of Interior.
       In an article last Sunday, The Times essentially attempted 
     to make Norton, a former Colorado attorney general, 
     responsible for what is headlined as ``the death of a 
     river.''
       The article, which relied on a series of factual 
     misrepresentations regarding the Summitville gold mine, also 
     made a hash of explaining applicable environmental law.
       The writer, Timothy Egan, clearly doesn't understand the 
     history of Summitville, nor does he demonstrate any 
     understanding of the ongoing dispute between the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and various states, including 
     Colorado, that have passed environmental self-audit laws.
       Egan's thesis was simple. Summitville was an environmental 
     disaster. Norton was attorney general when it happened, thus 
     she was partially responsible for it. Because Norton has 
     supported self-audit laws that allow companies to inventory 
     and report on environmental problems, she therefore must 
     somehow countenance the environmental damage at Summitville.
       The problem with this thesis is that it is wrong on almost 
     every count.
       Egan misrepresents the so-called death of the Alamosa 
     River. That river has for decades been anything but a prime 
     fishery. The watershed has long been affected by acid mine 
     drainage and by naturally occurring minerals and heavy metals 
     in the soil. It is simply irresponsible of The Times to 
     continue to repeat allegations that discharges from 
     Summitville killed the river.
       A high-level EPA memo written in 1995 summarizing 
     ``ecological data and risks at Summitville'' said there were 
     ``uniquely high and variable levels of natural background 
     metals (in the Alamosa River) which can often exceed aquatic 
     lethality benchmarks independently of site contamination.''
       Translation: Summitville contamination alone cannot account 
     for the absence of fish in the river.
       That same memo, by the way, says that drainage from the 
     Summitville site at certain times of the year ``could 
     actually improve upstream Alamosa River water quality.''
       Egan goes on to repeat the falsehood that cyanide releases 
     from the Summitville mine killed fish. It makes for a nice 
     scare story but it did not happen. No fish died of cyanide 
     poisoning.
       Norton was attorney general when the state and federal 
     government filed suit in 1996 against financier Robert 
     Friedland--a former owner of the company who ran the mine in 
     the mid- and late 1980s--attempting to recover cleanup costs.
       That suit was finally settled last month, with Friedland 
     agreeing to pay $27.5 million. There is no allegation in The 
     Times or elsewhere that Norton did less than quality work in 
     connection with that case, which was mostly dictated by 
     federal law. It's worth noting that Friedland paid much less 
     than the government originally sought and won some important 
     concessions as part of his settlement, which ends all U.S. 
     claims against him.
       For one thing, most of his money will stay in Colorado to 
     help improve conditions in or near the Alamosa River. 
     Normally, under the Superfund law, recovery of cleanup costs 
     goes directly into the federal treasury. Friedland has long 
     claimed that the federal government wasted millions at 
     Summitville and said that he did not want his money to be 
     used to effectively finance what he believes is EPA waste.
       This concession was almost certainly won because the EPA 
     had badly botched its legal case against Friedland. Friedland 
     had a important case pending against the United States before 
     the Canadian Supreme Court, and it is safe to assume the 
     United States was anxious to avoid having that case go 
     forward. Any mishandling of the Summitville litigation can be 
     directly traced to the EPA and to the Justice Department. 
     Norton was certainly not responsible.
       Finally, there is the matter of the state's self-audit law. 
     Colorado's law was passed after Summitville went out of 
     business. The self-audit procedure has nothing whatsoever to 
     do with Summitville. What happened under Norton's watch 
     regarding self-audits was quite simple:
       The EPA, in effect, declared war on the states that had 
     such a statute, and North--as attorney general--defended the 
     state law against what was clearly a federal over-reach. 
     Self-audits were never intended to trump or otherwise replace 
     all other federal or state regulation. The truth is that the 
     EPA didn't want to see its power diminished and decided to 
     fight the use of self-audit laws even though there was clear 
     and convincing proof they produced environmental benefits 
     that otherwise would not have been achieved.
       The New York Times seems incapable of keeping its clearly 
     liberal political positions out of its news columns. It has 
     achieved something of a temporary new journalistic low in 
     trying to tie Norton to a mythical ``death'' of a river. The 
     state of Colorado may have made a number of mistakes relative 
     to Summitville, but they pale to insignificance compared with 
     the mistakes made since by the EPA, its waste of millions in 
     tax dollars and the federal government's mishandling of years 
     of litigation. That's the truth, whether The New York Times 
     knows it or not.

  Mr. ALLARD. The Denver Post, which describes itself as a newspaper 
with an active environmentalist agenda says that ``Norton should not be 
slammed for other politicians' mistakes,'' also defends Norton as one 
who tried to fix Summitville under nearly impossible circumstances. I 
hope my colleagues read these editorials and help set the record 
straight to end these vicious rumors.
  With Gale as the Secretary of the Interior, we can begin the healing 
process in our rural communities, of regaining their trust. You see, 
when I was elected to the Senate, I made a commitment to all the 
residents of Colorado, that I would visit their county every year for a 
town meeting. I've held more than 250 town meetings, and whether I was 
in the rural communities of Craig and Lamar or the larger communities 
of Grand Junction and Pueblo, the message was the same--they were tired 
of constant threats and assaults on their way of life, they don't trust 
government. And how can they? When in the waning days of the Clinton 
administration, some 2000 pages a day of new rules and regulations were 
added to the Federal Register. How can this be good for the environment 
and the economy?
  Gale believes there is a role for local input in the public policy 
process. It's one thing to say that you believe in local involvement, 
but to actually use their input and listen is different. I know that 
Gale adheres to this philosophy. I also know that Gale recognizes the 
role of Congress in protecting our environment. I am confident that she 
will work with all of us, as elected officials and our constituents to 
address our complex environmental issues.
  With Gale Norton and President Bush, we will restore the premise that 
the public and Congress have a role in the decision making process, 
especially as it relates to federal land management. Local input and 
congressional support ensures that sound public policy prevails. I know 
the new administration will work to protect the environment and restore 
integrity to the public process.
  Now that you know who Gale Norton is and what she represents, I hope 
you too will give her your strong support and vote yes for her 
confirmation.
  Again, I thank Senator Murkowski and Senator Ben Campbell for their 
efforts on Gale Norton's behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my two colleagues from Colorado for their 
statements in support of the nominee. I ask unanimous consent that I 
may be allowed to simply recognize a group of supporters who I believe 
should be entered into the Record at this time.
  We have letters of support for Gale Norton from Indian tribes: the 
Navajo Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, Oneida Indian Nation, United South 
and Eastern Tribes of Tennessee, Ute Mountain Tribe, the Southern Ute 
Indian Tribe, and United South and Eastern Tribes.
  I ask unanimous consent to print letters of support from those tribes 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            The Navajo Nation,

                                Window Rock, AZ, January 16, 2001.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: On behalf of the Navajo Nation, I 
     convey our support for Ms. Gale Norton, nominee for Secretary 
     of the Department of the Interior. The Navajo Nation, in its 
     government-to-government relationships, works with the 
     Department of the Interior on myriad issues affecting the 
     Nation. Although there are times when we disagree with one 
     another we continue to work together for the benefit of the 
     Navajo People. We wish to continue the working relationship 
     with the new administration and we look forward to working 
     with Ms. Norton.
       The Navajo Nation's past experience with Gale Norton 
     involved issues with the Southern Ute Tribe during her term 
     as Attorney General for the State of Colorado. During that 
     time Ms. Norton approached the tribes and asked how she could 
     help. She provided testimony to the House (Natural Resources) 
     Committee on the Animas-LaPlata project which benefitted the 
     tribes. Her willingness to support the tribes demonstrates 
     her knowledge of Indian nations and their position within the 
     federal system.

[[Page S675]]

       The Navajo Nation does have its concerns with regard to 
     Indian country policies and initiatives. We advise the new 
     administration to follow the basic goals and principles of 
     affirmation of the commitment to tribal sovereignty and self-
     determination, protecting and sustaining treaty rights and 
     the federal trust responsibilities, and supporting 
     initiatives which promote sustainable economic development in 
     Indian country.
       The Navajo Nation supports the nomination of Gale Norton 
     for Secretary of the Interior and we trust she will continue 
     to work with Indian country as she has done in the past. We 
     look forward to working with her in advancing Indian country 
     policies and Indian initiative for the Bush/Cheney 
     Administration.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Kelsey A. Begaye,
     President.
                                  ____


 Resolution of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the Navajo 
                             Nation Council


Supporting President-Elect George W. Bush's Cabinet Nominee for United 
             States Department of the Interior, Gale Norton

       Whereas:
       1. Pursuant to 2 N.N.C. Sec. 821, the Intergovernmental 
     Relations Committee of the Navajo Nation Council is 
     established and continued as a Standing Committee of the 
     Navajo Nation Council; and
       2. Pursuant to 2 N.N.C. Sec. 822(B), the Intergovernmental 
     Relations Committee of the Navajo Nation Council ensures the 
     presence and voice of the Navajo Nation; and
       3. Pursuant to 2 N.N.C. Sec. 824(A), the Intergovernmental 
     Relations Committee of the Navajo Nation Council shall have 
     all the powers necessary and proper to carry out said 
     purposes; and
       4. Pursuant to the Treaty of 1868, the Navajo Nation and 
     the United States Government have a government-to-government 
     relationship; and
       5. The United States Department of the Interior is charged 
     with maintaining the government-to-government relationship 
     between the United States and the Navajo Nation; and
       6. President-Elect George W. Bush has nominated Ms. Gale 
     Norton as the Secretary of the Interior, United States 
     Department of the Interior; and
       7. The Navajo Nation previously interacted with Ms. Gale 
     Norton, former Colorado State Attorney General, on issues, 
     which benefited the Southern Ute Nation and the Navajo 
     Nation. Now therefore be it resolved, that:
       1. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the Navajo 
     Nation Council supports President-Elect Bush's Cabinet 
     nominee, Ms. Gale Norton, for Secretary of the Interior, 
     United States Department of the Interior.
       2. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the Navajo 
     Nation Council authorizes and directs Navajo Nation President 
     Kelsey A. Begaye to deliver a letter of support for Ms. Gale 
     Norton to President-Elect George W. Bush, Senator Jeff 
     Bingaman, Senator Pete Domenici, Senator John McCain, Senator 
     John Kyl, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Senator Ben Nighthorse 
     Campbell, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, and Senator Robert F. 
     Bennett, on behalf of the Navajo Nation.
                                  ____

                                                        Nez Perce,


                                   Tribal Executive Committee,

                                     Lapwai, ID, January 18, 2001.
     Re: Secretary of the Interior Appointment
     U.S. Senate:
       With the recent George W. Bush election victory, a primary 
     interest of the Nez Perce Tribe in the transition process is 
     the appointment of Gale Norton as the Secretary of the 
     Interior. As you know, this Secretary's agency, the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs, has the primary charge of maintaining the 
     federal government's trust relationship with Indian Tribes.
       President-Elect Bush, in a letter to the Nez Perce Tribe 
     dated August 18, 2000, stated ``I will strengthen Indian 
     self-determination by respecting tribal sovereignty, which 
     has improved the quality of life for many Native Americans. I 
     recognize and reaffirm the unique government-to-government 
     relationship between Native American tribes and the federal 
     government. I will strengthen Indian self-determination by 
     respecting tribal sovereignty, which has improved the quality 
     of life for many Native Americans. I believe the federal 
     government should allow tribes greater control over their 
     lives, land, and destiny.'' He also stated that he would like 
     to work with Indian tribes to chart a course which 
     ``recognizes the unique status of the tribes in our 
     constitutional framework...'' We urge you to ensure that when 
     making your decision to support the President-Elects' 
     appointee, Gale Norton, these principles underlie the 
     process.
       In addition, the Republican Platform states that ``high 
     taxes and unreasonable regulations stifle new and expanded 
     businesses and thwart the creation of job opportunities and 
     prosperity [for Native Americans]. The federal government has 
     a special responsibility, ethical and legal, to make the 
     American dream accessible to Native Americans. We will 
     strengthen Native American self-determination by respecting 
     tribal sovereignty, encouraging economic development on 
     reservations. We uphold the unique government-to-government 
     relationship between the tribes and the United States and 
     honor our nation's trust obligations to them.''
       We sincerely hope that all the President-Elect's 
     appointees, including Gale Norton, is not only aware of these 
     basic tenets of tribal sovereignty, but that such tenets are 
     upheld and enforced, rather than ignored or legislated out of 
     existence. In upholding these significant maxims, it is 
     essential that the Secretary of the Interior appointee 
     support the rights of Indian people. To Indian Tribes, this 
     position is extremely important so, again, we urge you to 
     take great care in the confirmation process of the appointed 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       Thank you. Please give me a call if you have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Samuel N. Penney,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                             Oneida Indian Nation,


                                      Oneida Nation Homelands,

                                     Vernon, NY, January 19, 2001.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Murkowski: On behalf of the Oneida Indian 
     Nation of New York, I am writing to express support for Gale 
     Norton to be the next Secretary of Interior.
       While our tribe does not have first hand experience with 
     Secretary-designate Norton, I am encouraged that she has 
     worked with Indian nations on a government-to-government 
     basis during her tenure as the Attorney General of the State 
     of Colorado. As Attorney General, Ms. Norton repeatedly 
     demonstrated respect for tribal sovereignty. For example, in 
     the wake of Colorado's settlement with the tobacco industry, 
     Ms. Norton worked to ensure that the tribal share of the 
     proceeds went directly to tribal governments rather than be 
     administered through state agencies.
       As Secretary of Interior, Ms. Norton would preside over the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs and help set the agenda for issues 
     that are of vital importance to Native Americans. These 
     issues, which include health care, education, sovereignty, 
     economic development, gaming, and taxation, have been 
     increasingly the subject of debate in Congress. Consequently, 
     we believe that it is imperative that the next Secretary of 
     Interior respect the role of tribal sovereignty, affirm a 
     government-to-government relationship between the federal 
     government and Indian nations, and provide the tools the 
     tribes need to further the goal of tribal self-advancement 
     and economic self-sufficiency.
       Because of Ms. Norton's background and record on issues 
     relating to Native Americans, we offer our endorsement of her 
     nomination to become the next Secretary of Interior.
           Na ki' wa,
                                                   Ray Halbritter,
     Nation Representative.
                                  ____

                                                  United South and


                                         Eastern Tribes, Inc.,

                                  Nashville, TN, January 19, 2001.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Murkowski: As President of the United South 
     and Eastern Tribes, I am writing to express support for Gale 
     Norton to be the next Secretary of the Interior. USET is an 
     organization made up of 24 Federally recognized tribes that 
     extend from the State of Maine to the tip of Florida and over 
     to Texas.
       In my role as President of USET, I have not had first hand 
     experience with Secretary-designate Norton, however, I am 
     encouraged that she has worked with Indian nations on a 
     government-to-government basis during her tenure as the 
     Attorney General of the State of Colorado. As attorney 
     general, Ms. Norton repeatedly demonstrated respect for 
     tribal sovereignty. For example, in the wake of Colorado's 
     settlement with the tobacco industry, Ms. Norton worked to 
     ensure that the tribal share of the proceeds went directly to 
     tribal governments rather than be administered through state 
     agencies.
       As Secretary of the Interior, Ms. Norton would preside over 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs and help set the agenda for 
     issues that are of vital importance to Native Americans. 
     These issues, which include health care, education, 
     sovereignty, economic development, gaming, and taxation, have 
     been increasingly the subjects of debate in Congress. 
     Consequently, we believe that it is imperative that the next 
     Secretary of the Interior respect the role of tribal 
     sovereignty, affirm a government-to-government relationship 
     between the federal government and Indian nations, and 
     provide the tools tribes need to further the goal of tribal 
     self-advancement and economic self-sufficiency.
       Because of Ms. Norton's background and record on issues 
     relating to Native Americans, I offer my endorsement of her 
     nomination to become the next Secretary of the Interior.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Keller George,
     President of USET.
                                  ____

                                           Ute Mountain Ute Tribe,


                                    Southern Ute Indian Tribe,

                                                  January 8, 2001.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Murkowski, We are writing in support of the 
     nomination of Gale

[[Page S676]]

     Norton to serve as Secretary of the Interior, and hope you 
     will share our remarks with members of the Committee who will 
     visit with her during her upcoming confirmation hearing.
       Our Tribes have enjoyed a strong working relationship with 
     the State of Colorado for many years. As Attorney General, 
     Gale Norton furthered that relationship through her 
     commitment to resolving issues in a fair and thoughtful way. 
     She is an open-minded leader who listens and then works 
     toward a resolution. We were able to agree to a gaming 
     compact with the State of Colorado during her tenure as 
     Attorney General. In addition, her strong and adamant support 
     of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act was a 
     major factor in what ultimately became successful legislation 
     to modify the Animas-La Plata Project and still meet the 
     obligation to the Ute people of Colorado.
       Ms. Norton is a very capable individual whose public 
     service is not based on a desire for accolade or credit, but 
     on a commitment to resolve issues, no matter how 
     controversial.
       We proudly support her nomination and enthusiastically 
     encourage the Senate to approve her nomination.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Ernest House,

                                 Chairman, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.

                                                 Vida Peabody,

                                         Acting Chairman, Southern
                                                 Ute Indian Tribe.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I also have letters from the Fraternal Order of 
Police, United States Park Police Labor Committee endorsing Ms. Norton; 
the Governor of Guam endorsing Ms. Norton; the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands endorsing Ms. Norton, signed by Pedro Tenorio, 
Governor; and a letter of January 17th from 21 State attorneys general 
supporting the nomination of Ms. Norton.
  I ask unanimous consent that these documents be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Fraternal Order of Police,


                             U.S. Park Police Labor Committee,

                                 Washington, DC, January 15, 2001.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
         Senate Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Murkowski: On behalf of the Fraternal Order 
     of Police, United States Park Police Labor Committee, we are 
     writing to strongly endorse President-elect Bush's nomination 
     of Gale A. Norton for the office of Secretary of the 
     Interior. We feel Ms. Norton is extremely well qualified for 
     this position and possesses the knowledge, experience, and 
     leadership necessary to be a highly successful Secretary. We 
     urge the Committee to favorably report her nomination to the 
     full Senate as quickly as possible.
       The United States Park Police Labor Committee is deeply 
     concerned with the current state of law enforcement within 
     the Department of the Interior. For this reason, we are 
     adding our voices to the many others who are supporting the 
     nomination of Mr. Norton. Our Committee does not customarily 
     write endorsements, but we feel that the importance of 
     confirming Ms. Norton justifies our participation.
       During the past two years, three separate studies have been 
     conducted to examine law enforcement operations in the 
     Department. Two of these studies were conducted by outside 
     experts, namely Booz-Allen Hamilton and the International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police, while a third was an 
     Internal Departmental review mandated by the Senate. All 
     three studies concluded that the effectiveness of law 
     enforcement activities by the U.S. Park Police and the Law 
     Enforcement Rangers has been consistently declining. While 
     both organizations continue to successfully fulfill their 
     mission of protecting our parks and their visitors, a lack of 
     resources and emphasis on law enforcement in the Department 
     threatens our future ability to keep public lands safe. 
     Strong leadership and critical reforms are needed now.
       From a law enforcement perspective, Ms. Norton is an 
     outstanding candidate for Secretary. Her background in law 
     enforcement as Attorney General of Colorado, coupled with her 
     previous service within the Department, gives her a unique 
     ability to understand and address the problems faced by its 
     law enforcement agencies. Throughout her career in public 
     service, she has consistently shown strong support for law 
     enforcement officers. Furthermore, she has repeatedly proven 
     her ability to work with diverse individuals and groups to 
     forge consensus and accomplish important tasks. We are 
     confident that Ms. Norton will exert this same vigorous 
     leadership as Secretary of the Interior to enact the reforms 
     necessary to strengthen agency law enforcement efforts and 
     ensure the safety of the visitors to our parks and monuments.
       Once again, we strongly urge the Committee to favorably 
     report her nomination to the full Senate at the earliest 
     possible opportunity.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Peter J. Ward,
     Chair.
                                  ____



                                       Office of the Governor,

                                           Guam, January 18, 2001.
     Chairman Jeff Bingaman,
     Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in support of the 
     nomination of the Honorable Gale Norton as Secretary of the 
     Interior. The people of Guam look forward to Ms. Norton's 
     leadership of the executive department that has direct 
     responsibility for insular affairs. I am confident that as 
     Secretary of the Interior, Ms. Norton will continue progress 
     on the issues of great importance to Guam and that she will 
     be instrumental in resolving the land issues that have been 
     at the forefront of the Guam-United States relationship in 
     the past few years.
       Ms. Norton has substantial experience in the Department of 
     the Interior, having previously served in the Solicitor's 
     Office. We believe that she has the necessary familiarity 
     with territorial issues to be an effective Secretary and that 
     she brings a broad understanding of the unique federal land 
     issues on Guam to her office.
       Guam has had a contentious relationship with the Department 
     of the Interior in large measure due to the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service's acquisition of 370 acres of excess military lands 
     in 1993 for a wildlife refuge. The 370 acres at Ritidian have 
     become the focal point for Guam's dissatisfaction with 
     federal land policy on our island. Due to the historical 
     context of the military's acquisition of over one-third of 
     Guam's lands after World War II for national security 
     purposes, the Interior action has been harmful to the good 
     relationship between the people of Guam and the United 
     States. We hold the federal government to its commitment that 
     military lands no longer needed for defense purposes should 
     be returned to the people of Guam.
       In an effort to resolve these issues, I have been engaged 
     in discussions for the past year with the previous Secretary 
     and his staff on possible solutions that would enhance the 
     level of environmental protection on Guam while addressing 
     the issue of Interior's acquisition of Ritidian. I was 
     willing to make the necessary compromises that would restore 
     the good relationship between the U.S. and Guam and that 
     would meet the needs of the Interior Department and the 
     Government of Guam. Regretfully, the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service was not.
       We believe that Ms. Norton will restore a balance to 
     federal land policy on Guam that has been missing since 1993. 
     There is now an imbalance where the bureaucrats at the Fish 
     and Wildlife Service make policy without adequate regard for 
     local concerns. Environmental policy should not be a zero sum 
     game where the Fish and Wildlife Service wins and the people 
     of Guam lose. Environmental policy should be collaborative 
     process with respect for, and accommodation of, local needs. 
     On Guam, the respect we seek would recognize the patriotism 
     of the people of Guam and our support for the national 
     security interest, even when the national interest requires 
     the use of one-third of our island for military bases. And 
     the accommodation we seek would balance environmental policy 
     with the federal commitment to return excess military lands 
     to our people. We believe that Ms. Norton appreciates our 
     history and our culture, and that she will be fair in dealing 
     with us on these land issues.
       We are also encouraged by Ms. Norton's commitment to the 
     devolution of federal power where local governments are more 
     appropriate to formulating public policy in response to local 
     needs. This is a bedrock principle of self-government that 
     Guam supports and encourages. We are confident that Ms. 
     Norton will appoint policy makers and senior staff at the 
     Department of the Interior that will reflect this view. Any 
     increase in local self-governance in the territories is 
     welcome and long overdue. We find Ms. Norton's views on 
     limiting the role of the federal government in our lives both 
     refreshing and promising for the resolution of the Guam's 
     political status issues.
       Thank you for considering my support of Ms. Gale Norton as 
     Secretary of the Interior. I hope that the Senate Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources votes to recommend Ms. Norton 
     to the full Senate and that she is confirmed quickly. We look 
     forward to her new leadership and her initiatives for the 
     territories.
           Sincerely,
                                              Carl T.C. Gutierrez,
     Governor of Guam.
                                  ____

                                               Commonwealth of the


                                     Northern Mariana Islands,

                                                 January 17, 2001.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: This coming week Secretary 
     Designate Gale Norton will proceed through the hearings in 
     connection with consideration or her confirmation. I am 
     writing, on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, to express our support for her 
     confirmation as Secretary of the Interior.
       The Department of the Interior, in particular its Office of 
     Insular Affairs, plays a central role in the relationship of 
     the Commonwealth with the United States Federal Government. 
     We were pleased by the announcement of her nomination to this 
     position. We believe that we could establish a positive and 
     fruitful working relationship with Secretary Designate Norton 
     should she be confirmed and wish her the best of luck.
           Respectfully,
                                                 Pedro P. Tenorio.

[[Page S677]]

     
                                  ____
                                                 January 17, 2001.
     Re nomination of Gale Norton for Secretary of the United 
         States Department of Interior.

     Senator Jeff Bingaman,
     Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
     Washington DC.

     Senator Frank Murkowski,
     Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: We, the undersigned state Attorneys General, 
     write to provide important information that will help you 
     evaluate Gale Norton's nomination for Secretary of the 
     Interior. These insights are based on our work with Gale 
     during her eight years as Attorney General for the State of 
     Colorado. While Gale provided numerous examples of her 
     leadership and ability as Colorado's Attorney General, there 
     are a few specific instances that truly demonstrate her skill 
     and experience.
       First, in the early 1990's, Gale worked with Attorneys 
     General and Governors in an effort to force the United States 
     Department of Energy to comply with federal environmental 
     laws as its facilities around the nation. Gale helped lead 
     the fight to ensure that Energy would be responsive to the 
     states, comply with the law, and refocus on cleaning up Rocky 
     Flats in Colorado and other sites around the nation.
       Gale served as the Chair of the Energy and Environment 
     Committee for the National Association of Attorneys General 
     from 1992 to 1994. As Chair of the Committee, Gale worked 
     with Attorneys General from both political parties to achieve 
     results for all states. Gale had the instinctive ability to 
     work for bipartisan solutions and she helped create consensus 
     on a number of sensitive issues.
       Finally, Gale's work on the tobacco settlement was 
     significant. Gale was selected by her colleagues to be a 
     member of the settlement negotiating team. Gale's selection 
     was based on the fact that she is very bright, hard working, 
     and has extremely high ethical standards and integrity. She 
     was a valuable member of the team throughout the prolonged 
     and complicated negotiations.
       We know that you are receiving extensive comments about 
     Gale's qualifications. We want to provide you with our views, 
     based on our years of experience working with Gale on 
     complex, sensitive issues. We know that Gale will do her best 
     to build coalitions and develop solutions to hard problems in 
     a way that creates broad-based support. It is our hope that 
     this information will be helpful as you consider Gale 
     Norton's nomination for Secretary of the Interior.
         Alan G. Lance, Idaho Attorney General; Christine O. 
           Gregoire, Washington Attorney General; Bill Pryor, 
           Alabama Attorney General; Toetagata Albert Mailo, 
           American Samoa Attorney General; Ken Salazar, Colorado 
           Attorney General; Jane Brady, Delaware Attorney 
           General; Jim Ryan, Illinois Attorney General; Steve 
           Carter, Indiana Attorney General; Carla J. Stovall, 
           Kansas Attorney General; Mike Moore, Mississippi 
           Attorney General.
         Don Stenberg, Nebraska Attorney General; Frankie Sue Del 
           Papa, Nevada Attorney General; Philip T. McLaughlin, 
           New Hampshire Attorney General; Betty D. Montgomery, 
           Ohio Attorney General; Hardy Myers, Oregon Attorney 
           General; Mike Fisher, Pennsylvania Attorney General; 
           Charlie Condon, South Carolina Attorney General; Mark 
           Barnett, South Dakota Attorney General; John Cornyn, 
           Texas Attorney General; Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney 
           General; Mark L. Earley, Virginia Attorney General; Gay 
           Woodhouse, Wyoming Attorney General.
                                  ____

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank all of my colleagues who have spoken on behalf 
of the nominee. The action out of the committee on a vote of 18-2 is 
certainly, in my opinion, a mandate for approval by this entire body. I 
think she will represent our new President in a manner that attempts to 
balance the delicate issue of concern over the environment and the 
ecology.
  Since there has been a lot of comment about ANWR during this entire 
process and many pictures, for my colleagues, I show a picture of ANWR 
as it exists for about 9 months of the year. This is what it looks 
like. Do not be misinformed; it is a long, dark 9-month winter.
  I thank the Chair for its indulgence.
  It is my understanding that the vote will be scheduled for 2:45 on 
two nominations and there will be separate votes. I wonder if the Chair 
could identify those.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be two separate votes occurring at 
2:45. The first will be on the Norton nomination, and the second one 
will be on the Whitman nomination.

                          ____________________