[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 97 (Thursday, July 12, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7577-S7580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF J. STEVEN GRILES OF VIRGINIA TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF 
                              THE INTERIOR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of J. Steven 
Griles to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of J. Steven Griles of 
Virginia to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise tonight to discuss my opposition to 
the nomination of J. Steven Griles as Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of the Interior. In my view, Mr. Griles' past record and 
recent statements, both public and private, indicate he is lacking the 
single most important quality needed for this key position; that is, 
the ability to bring people together despite very disparate and 
differing views on natural resources issues.
  We have learned in the West--and I see my good friend Senator Craig 
from Idaho. He and I, again and again, sat in hearings in the forestry 
subcommittee, and we have seen how difficult these natural resources 
issues are. I am proud we have come together on issues such as the 
county payments bill which the Forest Service said was the most 
important law in the last 30 years, and Senator Craig and I teamed up 
to get that law passed because we recognized how important it was to 
bring people together.
  What has troubled me about Mr. Griles' past record--and I will 
discuss that--and his recent statements, both public and private, is 
that record indicates he really isn't much interested in the kind of 
work that Senator Craig and I have spent many years pursuing.

  One of the things that struck me earlier this year was that Mr. 
Griles told the Washington Post, in effect, that he had changed. He 
said he had matured, he had learned from his past experience. When I 
read about these statements, I was very encouraged. I don't oppose 
people on philosophical grounds; I don't think that is right. I read 
these statements and I got the distinct impression that Mr. Griles was 
going to work to be more inclusive, collaborative, and more creative in 
looking at the difficult natural resources issues.
  He said he was going to be a problem solver who would try to listen 
to all the parties involved and try to take a balanced approach to any 
and all issues.
  Again, I was encouraged by these comments. Mr. Griles came to my 
office. I told him about my concerns about his past record, and given 
his statements I was hoping he had, in fact, changed, and if he would 
give me some examples. He really didn't have any that day. I said: I 
will ask you about this when you come for your confirmation hearing.
  When he came for his confirmation hearing, he was not any more 
forthcoming. I said after the hearing my door would still be open to 
him and that I hoped he would give me some examples in areas such as 
the Endangered Species Act that require so much cooperation, that he 
would come forward with some specific ideas. He has not. He has not 
been willing on three separate occasions to show some evidence that he 
would take a more collaborative, inclusive approach, and that he would 
be more balanced in his approach to natural resources issues.
  My concern is that as of now the record indicates the J. Steven 
Griles of the past is going to be back in action after the Senate 
confirms him.
  I will talk for a few minutes about that Jay Steven Griles' track 
record over 20 years. Over 20 years, again and again, he has placed the 
interests of powerful special interests above the public. This includes 
the support for environmentally unsound drilling for oil off the coast 
of California and looking the other way when powerful corporations were 
fined for breaking the environmental laws.
  It is one thing to try to figure out ways to ensure compliance with 
the environmental laws; however, it is another thing to not follow 
through when these powerful interests have actually been fined for 
violating the law.
  I was troubled about those past positions. I told Mr. Griles about 
that. It is certainly his right to hold those views. I have not made it 
a habit of opposing candidates with whom I differ on substantive 
issues. Given those past positions, given his public statements and his 
private statements to me that, in fact, he was going to change, it is 
troubling we have not seen any evidence of it.
  His record is important. I will give a few examples of that record.
  During his service with the Reagan administration, Mr. Griles is 
reported to have single-mindedly pushed for an oil lease sale off the 
coast of California, despite objections from his own Fish and Wildlife 
Service biologists. In 1988, he wrote a memo to the Assistant Secretary 
advising him to change the tone and conclusions of a Fish and Wildlife 
Service report citing the specific environmental damage that could be 
caused by a proposed northern California offshore oil lease. Mr. Griles 
concluded that memo by stating:


[[Page S7578]]


       The memorandum is part of the public record and could prove 
     very damaging to this lease sale.

  The subsequent final report on the sale, from Fish and Wildlife, did 
not refer to any potential environmental harm that could result from 
the lease sale. Within the year, as Americans know, the Exxon Valdez 
disaster occurred and, by 1990, the first President Bush declared a 
moratorium on offshore oil leases, so this lease sale was never 
completed. But it is certainly troubling to me that Mr. Griles wanted 
Federal researchers not to report accurate conclusions but to prop up a 
decision, regardless of the environmental facts.
  This, in my view, would have been an ideal issue that Mr. Griles 
could have raised with me and with colleagues and said: Look, there are 
a variety of ways that I treat these oil sales differently now, having 
learned from some of the controversy in the past. Yet he was unwilling 
to say that or anything resembling that.
  He has also, as far as the public report, indicated that he has no 
interest in cracking down on the illegal behavior of polluters and 
special interests. Of course, that would be a task that he would be 
expected to perform in this position.
  Between 1984 and 1987, the House of Representatives reviewed, for 
example, the internal workings in the Office of Surface Mining. They 
found that, under his leadership, this office collected only $6.8 
million of an estimated $200 million due in civil penalties for those 
who broke the environmental laws.
  Again, I have tried to single out just the areas of the record that 
concern me the most. There is not a Member of the Senate who is in 
favor of breaking the environmental laws. Yet this was an instance 
where there were violations and they were not followed up. I think that 
is troubling and, in fact, in successive years the percentage of 
collection of the civil penalties that were owed continued to go down.
  I am concerned about the past public record, but I would not be here 
making the statement that I am tonight if Mr. Griles had said: Look, 
all of us change and here are some approaches that I would take in the 
days ahead to ensure that we could do the kind of work that Senator 
Craig--I see my friend Senator Burns here as well--that the three of us 
have sought to do.
  These natural resources issues are extraordinarily difficult. The 
American people want what I call the win-win. They want to protect our 
treasures and at the same time they want to be sensitive to local 
economic needs. It is a lot easier said than done. But Senator Craig 
and Senator Burns and I have teamed up to do just that.
  I had been hoping that Mr. Griles would offer some specifics, given 
that he said he had changed, and would indicate he would want to do the 
kind of bipartisan work that we Westerners have done on some of these 
particularly contentious issues. Unfortunately, on three separate 
occasions, in both public and private, Mr. Griles was unwilling to back 
up his public statements about how he had changed, how he would take a 
more collaborative approach. So tonight I want to make clear I am 
opposed to the nomination of J. Steven Griles to be Deputy Secretary of 
the Department of the Interior. My questions have not been answered. My 
reservations about the nominee's commitment to finding common ground 
have not been resolved.
  I tell my colleagues, I do not think we can get on top of these 
natural resources issues without a collaborative approach. Mr. Griles 
has said he is in favor of it but has not offered any evidence that he 
will actually do it. With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for a couple of minutes. Let me also 
ask unanimous consent that Senator Frank Murkowski, who is coming to 
the floor, be allowed to speak for a period of time prior to the 
action. I believe Senator Nelson is here to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Chairman Ron 
Wyden, tonight to visit about Steven Griles and the reality that Steven 
is about to become a major operative in the Department of the Interior. 
I stand tonight in full support of the decision of George W. Bush to 
nominate him to become Deputy Secretary. I do that because I know 
Steven Griles and I know he will do it when he looks me in the eye and 
he looks Senator Wyden in the eye and says he will work in the 
character of the new Secretary, Gale Norton, as it relates to the four 
C's that she has so clearly laid out over the time of her confirmation 
hearings and as, I think, she has clearly demonstrated in the period of 
time in which she has served our country as our new Secretary of the 
Interior. That is one of consultation, cooperation, and communication 
that results in conservation of our natural resources to benefit all of 
the interests of our country. I believe Steven Griles will do that 
following the direction of the Secretary of the Interior.
  While Ron Wyden and I will disagree a bit, we also understand the 
critical nature of cooperation, as he has so clearly spelled out, in 
the collaborative process. The models under which we must make 
decisions on our public land resources have changed from the days in 
which Steven Griles served the Reagan administration and in which 
Steven Griles will now have the privilege of serving the Bush 
administration. We have tried to pioneer with the concept of a 
collaborative process. Clearly, the effort Senator Wyden and I launched 
last year that is now law incorporates within it the idea of bringing 
all of the principals together to sit down to resolve conflict over 
resource issues at the local level and ultimately we believe we can 
aspire to that at the national level.
  Therefore, I stand in favor of Steven Griles becoming our new Deputy 
Secretary at the Department of the Interior and I think he will at the 
end serve us well and I think the record will demonstrate that.
  Let me say in closing, and I say it in all fairness to our majority 
leader, Tom Daschle, I thank him and I thank Harry Reid for the 
cooperation they have offered to all of us tonight in moving 
expeditiously some of the nominees that were at the desk or other 
nominees who were just moved out of committee today, both the Armed 
Services Committee and the Interior Committee.
  It is absolutely critical that the President of the United States be 
allowed to nominate and have people of his choice to serve him in the 
administration of our Government at the executive level. Tonight we 
move a great number of people, probably the largest number we have 
moved to date at one time. That has been because of a cooperative 
effort on the part of the majority leader, Tom Daschle, and all of us 
working together to make that happen.
  I hope to achieve our goal that the some 173 who are now before the 
authorizing committees across the Senate can be brought to hearings, 
heard, voted out of committee, brought to the floor and I hope many of 
them could be moved before the August recess.
  A lot of these fine people who have been asked to serve our 
Government are men and women who have families and who need to make 
decisions over whether to leave their families and their children in 
the schools where they now are or whether they are going to be allowed 
to get them in Washington in time to enroll them in school as it would 
start in late August or early September. Surely this Senate can operate 
in a reasonable and responsible fashion to do the appropriate hearings, 
to find out if these men and women are clearly qualified, as the 
President believes they are, to serve our country at the executive 
level, bring them from the committee, bring them to the floor, and 
allow to happen what is happening this evening.
  When disagreements arise, as they do--as with Senator Wyden and Mr. 
Griles--they are either voted on or are spread upon the Record as a 
template from which to judge the people who will serve in the executive 
branch, and to hold before them as a constant reminder of what they 
pledged to us in their confirmation hearings before the committee. That 
is fair and responsible, and it is the job of the Senate to respond in 
that fashion.
  I am extremely pleased that we are able to move expeditiously on a 
good number tonight to give our President the tools by which to operate 
the executive branch of Government and to

[[Page S7579]]

allow him, as the citizens of this country have chosen, to govern our 
Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me congratulate the floor manager 
for offering the conclusion associated with the Interior appropriations 
bill. It has been a difficult battle, and it has been really tough with 
the many issues that are subject to rule XVI which often come up in 
this process.
  I thank the Senator from Montana and his colleagues on the other 
side. They have done an extraordinary job.
  My purpose in rising is to recognize an injustice that has been done 
to Steven Griles. The injustice was not on the merits of whether Mr. 
Griles is qualified or not. It is the manner in which his nomination 
was delayed.
  I think it is appropriate that the Record note that the intent to 
nominate Mr. Griles occurred on March 9. The nomination was received on 
May 1. Hearings were held May 16. He was reported favorably by the 
Energy Committee, which I happened to chair at that time, 18 to 4. I 
repeat--18 to 4 on May 23, 2001.
  All of this, of course, occurred before the switch of Senator 
Jeffords and, as a consequence, the control of the Senate.
  Mr. Griles was cleared on the Republican side on May 23. In executive 
session on May 23, we moved one nomination. On May 24 we moved 19 
nominations. On May 25 we moved 33 nominations. On May 26 we moved 8 
nominations. In each case, Mr. Griles was cleared on our side and was 
objected to by the Democrats, which they have every right to do.
  But during this period, a unanimous consent agreement was offered to 
allow for 2 hours of debate, and a vote on which the Democrats 
indicated, according to the Record, that they needed 2 hours, with 
consideration the week we returned from that recess. That was rejected 
by the Democrats, as was the modification that then deleted the time 
certain and only included the time limitation.

  At that point, it was clear that we would no longer as Republicans 
control the floor, and hence the timing on our return.
  In executive session on June 14, under Democratic control, we cleared 
three additional nominations, but the Democrats would not agree to 
Griles. It wasn't agreed to as an issue of the debate on the merits, it 
was simply an effort to deprive--that is the only conclusion one can 
come to--the Department of Interior of his services, and hence to the 
public of this country.
  As of today, Mr. Griles has been pending 51 days. Again, I refer to 
the fact that he was reported out of the committee 18 to 4. He is going 
to be voted out tonight on a voice vote. But I think it is appropriate 
to note the manner in which it was handled.
  I am very disappointed. I, as chairman under the former 
administration, felt the obligation to respond to the development of 
the precedents and the officials within the various Cabinet 
departments. Under no circumstances had we had a situation similar to 
this where a nominee was delayed for such an unreasonable amount of 
time.
  Who suffers? Perhaps this body suffers in self-examination.
  Again, I am not arguing the merits concerning issues that my friend 
from Oregon or my friend from Florida may have, but clearly, the way 
this was handled was delay, delay, delay. The public suffered. The 
Department of the Interior suffered. Up until a short time ago, the 
Department of the Interior had one confirmed position. That was the 
Secretary of the Interior.
  I think all of us have a responsibility to work together, in spite of 
our political differences, to serve the country.
  I think it is appropriate that the Record note the reality associated 
with this nominee. It is my hope that situation is not repeated again 
because I think this body bears the responsibility.
  I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida.
  I wish the Presiding Officer a good evening, and the rest of my 
colleagues, and in particular the staff. I hope we get out at a 
reasonable hour.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the administration's policy is 
to try to drill its way out of an energy problem--and that is clearly 
reflected in their nominee for the number two position at the Interior 
Department, J. Steven Griles.
  I have expressed my opposition to Mr. Griles prior to today, in the 
form of an objection to a Senate vote on his nomination.
  However, based on assurances I received today from Interior Secretary 
Norton--specifically that the agency's upcoming 5-year plan contains no 
new drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, beyond the disputed area in 
lease sale 181--I have withdrawn my objection to proceeding to a vote.
  I also met with Mr. Griles this morning. While I respect his 
commitment to public service, I cannot vote for his nomination.
  He has a history of advocating for oil and gas exploration off the 
coasts of both Florida and California.
  In fact, his record as a former Reagan administration official and an 
oil- and gas-industry lobbyist reveals his aggressive support for 
expanded oil drilling in sensitive waters.
  Mr. Griles' support for drilling is so forthcoming that in 
biographical information he supplied the Senate for his confirmation he 
emphasizes his record for helping lease ``more Federal offshore oil and 
gas acreage during 1984-1989 than in any prior period of federal 
leasing activities.''
  His position is clear. Unfortunately, this position presents a 
serious risk to Florida's economy and environment.
  I thought I would take this opportunity to clear up for the Senator 
from Alaska some of the things he said.
  The Senator from Alaska should know that this Senator from Florida 
did not place a hold on the Griles nomination until June 19. That is 
just a matter of some 2\1/2\ weeks ago. It became apparent to me--and 
it didn't have anything to do with personalities or politics--on the 
substance of the matter that this was something of such importance to 
Florida on whether or not we were going to have drilling off the coast 
of Florida which would threaten the economy of Florida because of its 
beaches. I think Florida has the longest coastline of any State in the 
country. So much of our economic lifeblood comes from those pristine 
beaches.
  When I looked at the substance of the nominee's background I saw that 
he had been an advocate for offshore oil drilling not only over a 
decade ago in California but where he stated in his testimony that he 
was in favor of drilling for the entire 6 million acres of the lease 
sale 181 and what that represented as a threat to Florida in that 
original lease sale coming to within 30 miles of Perdido Key, which is 
the westernmost beach of the State of Florida.
  It became very clear as a matter of substance to me that it was going 
to be something that was perceived to be--and he was perceived to be--a 
threat to the economic lifeblood of the State of Florida.
  Only on June 19 did I write a letter to the majority leader asking 
him to honor my request, which was a hold on the consideration of the 
nomination.
  Today, Mr. Griles came to see me. I find him entirely a delightful 
fellow, an engaging fellow, and one with whom I shared exactly this 
story. I asked him the question: Since the likelihood was that the 
reduced lease sale 181 was in fact going to be approved--the 
administration apparently had been working it very hard and had the 
votes, as the vote earlier today showed--what was his intention with 
regard to the drilling in the rest of the eastern Gulf of Mexico 
planning area?
  He said since he had not been confirmed that he could not speak with 
the administration. But he offered that he thought he could get an 
answer from the administration and get back to me before this vote 
occurred.
  Indeed, it was within a few minutes that a phone call came in that 
Secretary Norton was requesting to come and see me, of which I gladly 
received her. It is the first time I had met her --a very gracious 
lady. And I asked her the same question. And she said: Senator, I want 
to assure you that in the 5-year plan, which is going to be issued next 
week, there will be no additional lease sales in the 5-year plan. And 
the 5-year plan that will be issued next week is operative, 
effectively, as law, since a lease cannot be offered for sale or lease 
unless it is in the 5-year plan.
  That was a little bit of good news. It was on the basis of that that 
I additionally encouraged the majority leader that I thought he was 
right. It is his

[[Page S7580]]

prerogative as majority leader to lift the hold.
  I shared with Mr. Griles that I was going to vote against his 
nomination because of his history. I am glad that I was in this Chamber 
to hear my friend from Alaska so that he could hear from his colleague 
from Florida as to exactly what my intention on the substance of the 
matter has been.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this nomination?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am glad we are finally considering the 
nomination of Steve Griles. It has been a long time. I can remember 
going through the hearings on the Energy Committee and him being 
reported out of that committee on the 23rd. It has been a long 40-some-
odd days. It has been too long.
  It seems that we are asking our Cabinet Secretaries to do their jobs 
by themselves. We are having a hard time getting them any help 
downtown. I just think that is a wrong thing to do to any 
administration.
  I remember when President Clinton first came to town back in 1992, 
1993; whenever we went through the process, I always took the position 
that each President got his Cabinet members and the people he wanted in 
his administration because he had been duly elected by the people of 
this country. So he could move his agenda as he saw fit. We have been 
holding up folks going downtown far too long.
  Twenty-eight percent of Montana is public land. With the BLM and the 
Forest Service and, of course, with the BIA and the Indian lands and 
Indian country, this position is very important. Of course, with Mr. 
Griles coming from a standpoint of multiple use, single use does not 
work. I think that we can balance the use of our lands. We have had a 
tendency in the last 10 or 15 years to redefine conservation. 
Conservation is the wise use of any resource. That has been the driving 
force on any of our resources found on our public lands and on our 
private lands.
  I have an agricultural background. This position in the Department of 
the Interior requires a man of not only high integrity and high purpose 
but also to have guts enough to make a decision. We have gone through 
these situations where nobody wants to make a decision.

  We had a situation on the Flathead Lake in just finding its level. We 
had too many cooks in the kitchen and nobody knew who was in charge 
when trying to make a decision on what level we wanted to maintain at 
Flathead Lake in northwestern Montana.
  I know there are some of my colleagues in this body who have some 
real heartburn with Mr. Griles. In fact, I know there are many 
colleagues in this body who have heartburn with the words ``multiple 
use.''
  But, nonetheless, we who come from the land and the resources--and 
especially from a resource-based economy--think we understand just how 
important renewable resources are. We realize that in oil and gas, it 
is sort of finite--there may not be any more of it made. But on 
renewables, we should be using conservation practices that consider 
wise use.
  Tough decisions will have to be made by the Department. We need 
someone who is confident in making them and also basing the decisions 
on science and common sense.
  So the reason I support Steve Griles is because he brings outstanding 
credentials to the job. He served at many levels, both inside and 
outside of Government. I think everybody will find he will be an able 
listener, and he will also show the cooperation in being a good Deputy 
Secretary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the nomination?
  Mr. BURNS. Are we ready to vote?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I urge that this nomination be confirmed as 
Deputy Secretary, and on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the nomination?
  If not, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the 
nomination of J. Steven Griles, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of 
the Interior?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is laid upon the table, and the President will be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________