Secretary of the Interior Nominee Gale Norton's Senate Confirmation Hearing

[Speakers include: Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska), Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.), Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.), Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Interior Secretary-designate Gale Norton.]

SEN. BINGAMAN: I had advised that we would go ahead and have a vote on the nominee for secretary of energy at this point. I'm told that we need a couple more senators to have a voting quorum, so we will have to put that off here for just another couple of minutes.

Let me make another couple of announcements. The plan would be to proceed with this hearing on the secretary of interior nominee until about 5 o'clock this afternoon, adjourn at that time. Begin again at 9:00 tomorrow morning, and we would then hope to complete the hearing sometime tomorrow. That would be the hope.

We have two new members who are not official, as I understand it. They are unanimously expected to be official. And that's Senator Shelby and Senator Kyl. We welcome them to the committee. And they join with Senators Feinstein and Schumer and Cantwell as the new members of this committee.

The new members on this side, I'm advised, are in the Judiciary Committee at their hearing this afternoon. And that's where you may be headed--Senator Kyl may be headed. But we appreciate you being here, and we are glad to have you and hope you can participate.

While we're waiting for a quorum to have a vote on the Abraham nomination, let me go ahead with an opening statement, and then, I'm told, Senator Dorgan is about to arrive and that will give us enough.

In keeping with the past practices of this committee in reporting Cabinet nominations made by incoming presidents prior to their official receipt by the Senate, we would recognize Senator Murkowski to make a motion with regard to secretary of energy nominee Spencer Abraham.

SEN. MURKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move that the committee report favorably on the proposed nomination and recommend that when the nomination is received, the Senate give its advice and consent.

BINGAMAN: Everyone has heard the motion. All in favor say, aye.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Aye.

BINGAMAN: Opposed, no.

Ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.

Now moving on to our hearing this afternoon, I would propose to follow the same format that we used this morning; that is, that I would make a brief opening statement, Senator Murkowski would then make whatever statement he would like, we would then call upon the two senators from Colorado and Governor Owens to introduce the nominee and call on Ms. Norton to make her statement.

And once that is completed, we would then go to questions and have an eight-minute round of questions from each member. If there are additional questions after that first round, we will have additional rounds of questions, and they will be five minutes each.

With that set of ground rules, let me go ahead and make a short statement.

The purpose of this hearing this afternoon is to consider the nomination of Gale Norton to be the secretary of interior. The office of the secretary of interior is one of the highest positions of public trust in our federal government. The secretary is the principle steward of nearly a third of our nation's land. The secretary is the chief trustee of much of the nation's energy and mineral wealth as well. The secretary is the principle guardian of our national parks and our most revered historic sites and much of our fish and wildlife. It is the job of the secretary of interior to protect this precious legacy and to pass it on to future generations.

While the president is clearly entitled to appoint Cabinet members who share his political views, the Senate has a constitutional duty to ensure that the secretary of interior will be a faithful steward of the public lands and our national treasures.

I have no doubt that Ms. Norton is an extremely decent and capable person, and we have many recommendations to that effect. I do have doubts about some of the policies that she has promoted and whether they are consistent with the responsibilities of the job of secretary of interior.

For over 20 years, she has consistently championed the interests of individuals, as opposed to the public interest, in many of the issues that come before this committee and before the office of the secretary of interior. She's championed the rights of states as opposed to the federal government and the interests of economic development rather than environmental protection in many cases.

These positions may have been understandable for a lawyer representing her clients. It certainly may have been understandable for an attorney general of a Western state, and I have some experience in that regard, and may have been understandable for a Republican Senate candidate. But some of those positions are disturbing, at least to my mind, in a nominee for secretary of interior.

This hearing will afford Ms. Norton the opportunity to state her views on the role of the secretary of interior, explain how she can reconcile her past positions with the responsibilities that she would have entrusted upon her in this new position. And her answers to these questions will determine how I am able to vote on this nomination.

Senator Murkowski?

MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman. And I want to commend you and your staff, working with our staff, for the structure of this hearing. And I think that with the testimony that we're going to hear, we're going to be able to answer many of the questions that we have relative to this nominee.

I want to commend our President-elect Bush for nominating the first woman--the first woman--for the secretary of the interior. I think it's an outstanding nomination of a candidate who has certainly the knowledge, the experience, to take on one of most challenging positions in the executive branch.

Her responsibility is one, in my opinion, of balance. She is going to have to balance the protection of our nation's resources with the realism that we need to develop those resources using the best technology available. I think one of the themes that has been suggested is using fuels of today to get to the technology of tomorrow.

Now, this is a balance, in my opinion, that has swung dramatically out of proportion in the last eight years, as evidenced by the energy crisis that is existing in this country today, and more particularly, in the state of California where, as a matter of fact, to some extent, the lights are out.

Now, I've heard criticism that Ms. Norton has been identified with groups that advocate such things as more complete appreciation of the economic consequences of governmental action or a better understanding of the balance provided by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The issue of power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states has always been a contentious issue and it isn't going to go away. But there's always been room for diversity and debate in the marketplace of ideas, and that includes the Department of Interior.

Did his work as president of the League of Conservation Voters disqualify the previous secretary, Bruce Babbitt? Did George Frampton's lobbying for and his position as head of the Wilderness Society disqualify him? No, they both had strong advocacies for their point of view. I guess it depends on whether you happen to agree with their point of view. So it is a question of balance.

Now, those on the ideological side of the current protesters are going to be heard through, I think, various members of this committee.

Ms. Norton has been accused only of guilt by association, has been tarred with innuendoes, and brushed with, I think, misinterpretation.

Well, today, let us look at the record and proceed with this nomination hearing. You know, this committee has had a long history of asking tough questions on policy issues and avoiding character assassination. And I know this tradition can continue. Senator Bingaman and I have worked closely together during the time I was chairman, and, in a day-and-a-half or two, will continue to work closely together when I resume that responsibility, assuming my colleagues on the right are of that particular disposition.

And if they're not, we can talk...

(LAUGHTER)

No, I didn't mean that.

I don't think the implication of the Natural Resource Defense Council, that Gale Norton is an anarchist, should have any place in this society. On the other hand, caution is in order. We need the balances I stated.

And you know, I often recall with some amusement when the so-called cell phone naturalist drives his or her sports utility vehicle into the national forest. He calls home on his cell phone, looks for direction from his Global Positioning System, checks the time on his watch as he communes, I guess, with nature. He makes the decision there and then that no mining, no energy development, should ever take place in this spot. He ignores the fact that each person in this nation uses about 22,000 pounds of non-energy minerals each day, and those minerals must come--they must come from somewhere.

Now we look at the timber resources, which is renewable. Do we want them to come from the rain forests of South America, where there's very little environmental control or do we want to bring it along in a renewable basis from our own force in this country, where we can do it right, through the regeneration process.

At the same time, the beauty that this so-called, I guess, cell-phone naturalist recognizes, we have to have a realistic claim on protection for future generations. So again, it's a question of balance.

Balance is the key, in my opinion, at the Department of Interior, and I think Ms. Norton will provide that balance.

The secretary is responsible for our public domain, the public lands that support wilderness, recreation, grazing, forestry, mining, oil, gas development, and many, many other uses as well. If we are going to deal honestly with our energy situation, we will need carefully to examine the process for granting right of ways. How can you generate more energy sources if you don't have right of ways?

The same can be said for transmission corridors and the needs for rural communities for access. Unlike the various interest groups, who have the luxury of advocating only one position, the secretary has been given the mandate to balance those needs and be a steward of the land on behalf of all Americans, not just special interest groups.

As a consequence, I think we'd all agree that the secretary has trust responsibilities as well that go into the Indian tribes. Very frankly, the record there has not been a very good one. The management of the trust funds, in my opinion, has been a disaster.

Activities under the mining laws, the Mineral Leasing Act, the outer continental shelf, will all come under her direction. We have the capability to develop the vast supplies of oil and gas in this nation in an environmentally sensitive manner, and we should do so. What's not being given credibility is the advanced technology that we've been able to develop.

As we, if you will, evaluate the risk associated with that development, I'm reminded, in my own state of Alaska, about 15 years ago, we brought in the 10th largest field, and we used 56 acres. It was called Endicott. It was the technology of 15 to 20 years ago. Given the opportunity, because of our increased dependence on imported oil, which is about 57 percent, and the Department of Energy indicated this morning it would be up to 62 percent within the next four years.

We have an opportunity to open up a portion of the coastal plain. That's 19 million acres up there, an area the size of the state of South Carolina. Yet industry tells us that if the oil is there, the footprint is 2,000 acres.

That's what's lacking in the consideration, in my opinion, by the environmental community that we, as we look at our ability, by using technology, to open up our resources in an appropriate manner.

Now, as secretary, you're going to have the responsibility for the U.S. territories. Many people overlook that, but we can't on this committee, because we're the committee of oversight. Our record isn't very good there. The Virgin Islands are on the edge of bankruptcy. American Samoa is surviving only by borrowing against its portion of the tobacco settlement. The northern Mariana Islands has an economy that has been allowed to become totally dependent on an immigration and labor situation that simply should not exist under the American flag. And to a large degree, it's ignored.

Senator Akaka and I have worked very hard on that. We've been over there and observed that situation. And I can tell you, it's despicable.

All of these areas require an openness and a willingness to undertake the balance necessary to provide for the needs of this and future generations. I am confident that she will carefully enforce the laws and work with the Congress and, particularly, this committee.

On a personal note, Ms. Norton has been to Alaska on several occasions, and that's several more times than some of the self-appointed experts who want to manage my state. She knows what the effect of decisions made in Washington can be on local economies, and how dependent those economies are on the federal estate. And she has, I think, a distinguished record of public service and the respect of those she has dealt with as well. She has also had a record of openness and being directly involved in decisions.

I am certainly pleased to support her nomination. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add for the record the names of 12 governors supporting her nomination--the governors of Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, Nevada and Montana, as well as Colorado. I would ask that be included in the record.

BINGAMAN: That will certainly be included in the record.

MURKOWSKI: I thank the chair.

BINGAMAN: We now have our two distinguished colleagues from Colorado here to introduce the nominee, as well as the governor of Colorado. So first I'll call on Senator Campbell.

CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a member of this committee, I am honored and pleased to be introducing my friend and my colleague of many years, my fellow Coloradan...

BINGAMAN: Could you pull that mike up, a little bit, Senator Campbell?

CAMPBELL: Yes. Sorry.

I am pleased to introduce my friend and colleague, Gale Norton, from Colorado. She's overwhelmingly qualified, and the absolute right person for the secretary of interior post. I've known Gale, as all of us have here at this table, for many years. And let me state, right up front and for the record, she has a long and distinguished record of doing the right thing, always.

She is a consensus builder, which might best be illustrated by her eight years as Colorado's attorney general, where she served under a Democratic governor, and still accomplished many initiatives for the betterment of Colorado, including Superfund cleanups. For more than 20 years, she has provided leadership on environmental and public lands issues and has demonstrated a responsible, common sense approach in preserving our natural heritage.

In my view, in fact, she's being accused now, as you probably have read in the newspapers, of being not centrist enough. But I liken that to the current administration, which has in the last few years advocated tearing down dams. And I think, if you went to California now and talked to the people who are closing their factories, and the lights are shut off in their restaurants, and they can't see the stop lights, because they're out on the corners, and so on, and you talk to them and said, "Is tearing down the energy producing dams a centrist view?" they would probably say, not so, and they would agree much more with Gale Norton, who believes in the careful production of energy.

Another significant fact to know about Gale Norton is that she is committed to enforcing the law as it is written and not by rule and regulation. As attorney general of Colorado, she created an environmental crimes task force to prosecute the most flagrant polluters. She has played a leading role in the cleanup of pollution at mining sites to protect the environment and restore Colorado's natural resources. And she led the way in ensuring a safe cleanup of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, personally arguing and winning a landmark case in court to force the federal government and an oil company to meet Colorado standards for environmental protection and public health, which in many cases are more stringent than federal standards.

Gale Norton believes that everyone has a role to play in defending and preserving our environment. Businesses and communities, government and people, all need to have a seat at the table. As you know, in the last couple of days, nine more large tracts of land have been locked up in the West without any local input whatsoever. Gale believes that local people should be involved in decision-making and that their lifestyle, that is often dependent is often dependent on those public lands, should be considered.

As a researcher at Stanford University, Ms. Norton researched emissions trading approaches, like those later adopted in the Clean Air Act. These approaches created market-based incentives for businesses to reduce emissions. Gale Norton supported Colorado's audit law, a law which was co-sponsored by several Democrats and signed by a Democratic governor, to achieve better environmental protection by encouraging early and full identification of environmental problems, and most important, long-term decisions.

Another issue, which is important to many of the members on this committee, since they come from public land states in the West, is that of water rights. Gale Norton has championed western water rights over the years. Growing populations and changing values are placing increasing demands on our existing and limited water supplies in the West, resulting in water-use conflicts throughout the country.

Recent conflicts are particularly apparent out where we live, where agriculture needs for water are often in direct conflict with urban needs, like the demand for water for the Endangered Species Act, for recreation and picturesque scenery. In the arid West, naturally scarce water supplies and growing urban populations have increased federal-state tensions, because states have historically had primacy in interstate water allocation.

Debate over western water centers over the issue of best to plan for, and manage the use of this limited resource. I believe that Gale Norton will be able to use her background in water issues to build consensus, and start settling some of the disputes on water.

She was one of the first and early advocates of the Colorado Youth Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, commonly called the ALP, which you, Chairman Bingaman, and I both supported over the years. As the past chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, and I suppose the next chairman in a few more days again, I believe that Gale will effectively manage Indian affairs with the Department of Interior, which it has responsibility for.

During her eight-year tenure as Colorado's attorney general, Gale Norton developed a strong working relationship with Colorado's two tribes, the Ute Mountain tribe and the Southern Ute tribe. Together they worked on a number of important matters including water rights settlements, environmental regulation, taxation, and a whole bunch of other complex issues. In fact, she testified a number of times before our committee. She is very knowledgeable in Indian law and she will bring that knowledge and experience of the working with the tribes to the department. I am confident that she will continue that work.

I have two letters, I'd ask unanimous consent, from the Ute Mountain Indian tribe and the Southern Ute tribe supporting her nomination, Mr. Chairman.

BINGAMAN: We'll include those in the record.

CAMPBELL: And Mr. Murkowski mentioned the trust fund debacle over there at the Interior Department. All of us on this committee are aware that there's $2.5 billion of missing money in the Bureau of Indian Affairs account that they say is there, but nobody can find it. She has made that a priority, to try to straighten that up and make sure the people who actually own that money, the individual Indians living on trust land, will receive their just dues.

Mr. Chairman, the Ute tribes strongly support her, but in talking with other tribes around the country, they also, all the ones I have talked to, also support her. She listens to common sense while she searches for common ground. And unlike many in Washington, she understands that real environmental solutions seldom come just from the Beltway professionals. They come from real people with honest concerns for the land and the water, people on the ground dealing with those concerns on a daily basis.

She will insist that the federal government work with local communities to find the best way to preserve and protect our nation's natural resources.

I am pleased to say that Gale Norton has my full support and will make an outstanding secretary of the interior.

And frankly, I'm a little disturbed about the opposition. I saw this morning's Washington Post, as you probably did, with a full-page ad taken out by some of the extreme environmental community, where they have half her face on the page and half of her face off the page, and I know that it seems to be in vogue now to disagree with the nominees by embarking on some form of character assassination.

But I would compare that senseless business in The Post this morning with the very thoughtful and carefully written editorial by our colleague John Breaux, who is a man that I think everybody in this body supports, who basically says in his editorial that she is a good person for the job and should be supported.

Those shrill voices of the extreme elements of our society we're hearing now in the current process of confronting our nominees, I think they have very limited perspectives and make up in shrillness what they lack in common sense, in my view.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee, I offer my support once again to Gale Norton, and I thank you.

BINGAMAN: Thank you very much.

Senator Allard?

ALLARD: Mr. Chairman, it's an honor for me to be here to be able to introduce to you Gale Norton, secretary-designate for the Department of Interior. I've know Gale Norton for some time. I consider her to be a very close friend. She's a great Coloradan. She was born and educated in the state of Colorado. Today, she enjoys many of the natural resources we have in our great state.

I want to take a few moments to talk about her resume. As you might imagine, she has a long one. So what I've done is I've selected those parts of her resume which I think are very important to the committee's deliberations today as they consider her nomination by the president for secretary of the interior.

She graduated magna cum laude from the University of Denver in 1975. Then she went on to graduate from the college of law with a juris doctorate degree in 1978.

She's a member of the law school honor society.

She moved forward from that point with her academic credentials to become a part of the faculty the University of Denver. She is truly an academician. She knows how to evaluate issues. She knows how to talk about the pros and cons of various issues that may come before her.

And because of this strong academic background, she was frequently called upon to give speeches and to talk to groups in Colorado and across the country on issues that were important to them in which she was considered an expert.

She went on from the University of Colorado to serve as a law clerk for the Colorado Court of Appeals. In the 1980s, she decided to come to Washington and she worked for the United States Department of Agriculture. and then moved over to the Department of Interior as associate solicitor for conservation and wildlife.

Then she returned back to Colorado. She ran for public office and was elected by the people of Colorado to serve as their attorney general. She served from 1991 to 1999 as Colorado's attorney general.

The point that I'd like to make to the committee is that Gale Norton has had a broad experience in her life. It includes her having to walk in many of the shoes of somebody who's worked for a federal agency here in Washington, in the Department of Agriculture, as well as in the Department of Interior. She's had to walk into the shoes of the state from which she was born and educated, representing many of her constituents as the attorney general of the state of Colorado.

I think that when we look at her academic background, when we look at her experience both at the federal level and at the state level, I think she is uniquely qualified to be the next secretary of the interior. And I strongly endorse her, because I think her total of 20 years of experience on environmental and natural resource issues will make her a great secretary of the Department of Interior.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BINGAMAN: Thank you very much.

We're honored to have Governor Bill Owens from Colorado here also to introduce the nominee.

Please go right ahead.

OWENS: Senator Bingaman, thank you very much. And members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to say a few words on behalf of Gale Norton.

It's good to be back in the Senate. Twenty-five ago, I served on the staff of Senator John Tower. And I regret to this day what happened to him, to that fine American, during his Senate confirmation. Years before that, I served with Jim Wright. I was Jim Wright's page in the House of Representatives. And I have a lot of respect for what it is you're charged with doing this afternoon.

And I guess what I really hope is is that we don't take this fine person and tear her apart through this process. Because I know Gale Norton, I've worked with her, I've known her for 15 years, and this is a dedicated public servant who has always done what she thought was best for the people of Colorado.

I'm going to not be redundant to what my friends Senator Campbell and Senator Allard have already said. You've heard about her distinguished eight-year career as attorney general.

You know, when you're looking to see where Gale Norton comes from, it's important to note that she was elected in 1990 in a landslide as a Republican in the same year that Governor Roy Romer was reelected by a landslide as a Democrat in Colorado. The same thing occurred in 1994. Gale Norton won in a landslide on the Republican side. Roy Romer again won in a landslide on the Democratic side.

It's because Colorado is a centrist state. It votes for the person, not the party. And in voting for Gale Norton, it was voting for a person who really represented the mainstream that I think is the reality of Colorado.

You're going to hear a lot today about a number of issues. Just from a Colorado perspective, we have a self-audit law in the state of Colorado, as do 29 other states in this union. And in Colorado this law passed, for reference purposes, by a vote of 60-4 in our House of Representatives, obviously bipartisan. It passed our Senate by a vote of 24-8, again clearly bipartisan. It was then signed into law by Governor Roy Romer. And it was Gale Norton's job as attorney general to defend that Colorado law in court, a defense which she performed admirably.

But that law was a bipartisan law, a well-intentioned and I believe successful effort to bring more companies into a partnership in terms of cleaning up the environment. And again, today it's been copied throughout these United States.

You're going to hear about a mine called Summitville. Summitville is a disaster which we're all familiar with in Colorado. Just let the record reflect that that mine was cited in 1983 under the administration of my very good friend Governor Dick Lamm. The environmental failure occurred in 1986.

Gale Norton was elected in 1990. She took office in 1991. She sued the owner of Summitville in 1992; sued the owner again to keep the mine filtering system open when that owner declared bankruptcy; sued the personal owner of that mine in 1996; and three weeks ago, current Attorney General Ken Salazar of Colorado, a Democrat, was able to settle with that owner for almost $30 million based on the work that he did and based on the work that Gale Norton did.

And that's one reason I believe that Ken Salazar, our Democratic attorney general in Colorado, along with four other Democratic attorney generals, has endorsed Gale's nomination.

I'm so proud of what she did with Rocky Mountain Arsenal. This is a chemical warfare plant that we have just outside of the Denver metropolitan area. She sued the federal government to force a cleaner standard, a higher standard of cleanup, actually to force the federal government to follow Colorado's standard rather than federal standards for the cleanup of that site, and she won that lawsuit. In suing the federal government, she also sued Shell Oil Company.

She's done the same thing with Rocky Flats, our nuclear bomb factory, which also is right outside of Denver, Colorado. She has gone to court to allow individuals to sue the federal government under the Superfund Act.

This is a lady that is moderate and centrist and has worked hard for our environment in Colorado, and I know would do an outstanding job as secretary of the Interior.

One final issue that I know you're going to hear about, and it concerns a legal case called the Aderand case in the state of Colorado. It's a case involving minority set-asides and involving a lawsuit against the state of Colorado by a gentleman named Aderand.

Colorado had in place a set of required, mandatory set-asides for construction projects. Over the years, the Supreme Court had successively weakened its standard and in fact made it clear that our Aderand case was indefensible in court based on Supreme Court dicta.

So there was an attempt in Colorado to pursue this case to higher courts. Our governor, Governor Roy Romer, wanted to pursue the appeals higher. Gale Norton, as an attorney and as attorney general, said we're going to lose if we do so.

Senator Bingaman, you've been an attorney general, and I know we have a former governor, Mr. Bayh, Senator Bayh. She said to her client, we can't win this case and we shouldn't pursue it. Under Colorado law, the governor had the right to pursue it and did so by retaining outside counsel, a former supreme court justice, and we lost twice in the U.S. Supreme Court. She was fulfilling her oath as an attorney and as attorney general of Colorado in terms of following what the Supreme Court had told us was legal.

So, gentlemen, I really appreciate your courtesy in allowing a governor to speak to you today. I'm telling you that Colorado is proud of Gale Norton. As a state senator, I voted on 266 of Governor Romer's appointees in my six years in the state senate. I voted for 264 of that governor's appointees. I understand the constitutional responsibility you have to advise and consent. I just ask you to, as I know you will, Mr. Chairman, give this lady a fair hearing, and as you do so I'm confident she'll be confirmed.

Thank you very much.

BINGAMAN: Thank you for your statement. I thank all three of you for your statements.

Ms. Norton, I am required to administer the oath to you, but before I do so, did you have family members you wanted to introduce before we went through that formality?

NORTON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my husband, John Hughes.

BINGAMAN: We welcome him to the committee.

(APPLAUSE)

The rules of the committee, which apply to all nominees, require that the nominee be sworn in connection with their testimony. Could you please rise and raise your right hand, please?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

NORTON: I do.

BINGAMAN: Thank you. Why don't you be seated. And let me ask you three questions. Will you be available to appear before this committee and other congressional committees to represent departmental positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress if you are confirmed?

NORTON: Yes, I will be.

BINGAMAN: Are you aware of any personal holdings, investments or interest that could constitute a conflict or create the appearance of such a conflict should you be confirmed and assume the office to which you have been nominated by the president?

NORTON: I have worked with the Office of Government Ethics to review my finances. We have determined that there is one company in which I own stock, that I will divest, and so that will not be a continuing conflict.

I have also taken additional steps to ensure that appearances of conflict are alleviated. For example, I had a tax-sheltered annuity that was established when I worked with Mountain States Legal Foundation. I will be moving that into another program so there is absolutely no connection with the foundation.

BINGAMAN: OK. And the final question, are you involved or do you have any assets held in blind trusts?

NORTON: No, sir, I do not.

BINGAMAN: OK. Why don't you go ahead with your statement then. Thank you.

NORTON: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee. I am honored to appear before you today as President-elect Bush's nominee for secretary of the interior. I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk with you and to answer any questions that you might have.

I am glad to have this chance to tell you something about the goals that President-elect Bush and I share, and which we hope to achieve, if you see fit to confirm me as secretary of the interior.

As you all know, America is a land of singular beauty. Americans are proud of the many exquisite natural treasures within our shores. President-elect Bush believes, as I do, that the top priority of the Department of the Interior must be to conserve those natural treasures.

One of President-elect Bush's priorities is to protect our national park system. We plan to return scientists to our parks and work with Congress to eliminate the major maintenance backlogs that have been obstacles to resource protection, and to do that within five years.

This initiative would help restore our national parks and ensure a positive legacy of protecting our cultural, natural and recreational treasures for Americans today and in the future.

The great wild places and unspoiled landscapes of this country are the common heritage of all Americans and we must both conserve them and manage them for Americans living today and for the Americans of the future, our children and our children's children. That is our goal.

I don't think any of us here today would disagree on that goal. In that, I believe, lies the basis for common ground. We have the opportunity for bipartisan environmental cooperation and leadership.

I've worked for more than 20 years on environmental issues. I'm proud of my accomplishments. Preserving endangered species. Cleaning up mountain valleys polluted by mining. Working to convert the Rocky Mountain Arsenal from a place polluted by pesticides and nerve gas residues to a wildlife refuge.

Based on these experiences, I am firmly committed to a process of consultation and collaboration. We should listen to all voices and involve all citizens. That is fair.

It is also wise. People are a magnificent resource for ideas, for knowledge, for insights.

I've lived and worked here in Washington. I've also lived and worked in the great American West. Those of us here in Washington need to be good partners with Americans living in other parts of this country and in our territories.

America is a stronger nation because of the diversity of its people. These people hold many different views and perspectives. We need to work with them, to involve them, to benefit from their creativity and their capacity to innovate.

One top priority that I want to mention to you today concerns the special responsibilities of the secretary of the interior with regard to American Indians. I think we should all recognize that the situation in Indian Country is not as it should be. There is much that I believe we can do in partnership with our nation's proud Native American tribes to improve conditions and provide a more hopeful future.

President-elect Bush has said many times that he will leave no child behind. To accomplish that requires that we improve the schools that serve more than 50,000 Native American children. A good education is the key to a better life for any child, whether that child lives in Washington, D.C., or Miami, Florida, or on a reservation in New Mexico.

Recognizing the historic relationship of the federal government and Native American tribal governments, I will work very hard to achieve real results for every Indian child.

President-elect Bush has proposals to build conservation partnerships to help states, local communities and private land owners to conserve wildlife habitat, watersheds and open space. I'm excited by the chance to work together on these proposals. Working together, there is much that we can do to promote conservation in the United States.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will be candid in telling you that I am both a conservative and a conservationist. I see no conflict there. In fact, I am a compassionate conservative and a passionate conservationist. I believe that, too, is entirely consistent.

If confirmed as secretary of the interior, I intend to make the conservation of America's natural resources my top priority. Using consultation and collaboration, forging partnerships with interested citizens, we can succeed in our effort to conserve America's most precious places. What's more, we can achieve this while maintaining America's prosperity and economic dynamism, while respecting constitutional rights and nurturing diverse traditions and cultures.

It won't always be easy. It will require a lot of hard work and the willingness to be creative, to think outside the usual boxes.

That is the mission that President-elect Bush has asked me to undertake. With your help, your wisdom and your cooperation, I believe that we can succeed.

Thank you very much.

BINGAMAN: Thank you very much.

Let me start with some questions.

Your statement about your priorities is welcome and I certainly heard that with great interest.

A few years ago, according to a writing that you did, you described yourself as a free market conservative, an advocate of judicial restraint, as well as a champion of state's rights. And over the years you have taken some positions on the takings clause, for example, on the federal taxing power, on the 10th Amendment, on the now long-discredited theory about economic due process, which seem, at least as I read some of those earlier writings of yours, to be at odds with mainstream legal thought.

Can you give this committee assurance that, if confirmed, you would feel comfortable enforcing the existing laws and regulations of the Department of Interior as they now stand?

NORTON: Mr. Chairman, I have served in eight years in the capacity of a state attorney general, enforcing the laws of Colorado and of the United States, and I feel very comfortable in enforcing the laws as they are written. I will be fully committed to ensuring that our nation's environmental laws and laws for the protection of natural resources will be fully enforced.

BINGAMAN: Many of the Republican members of Congress, some on this committee, have been sharply critical of the environmental initiatives and policies of Secretary Babbitt and of President Clinton and his administration. Which, if any, of those legal or policy positions that have been adopted by the Department of Interior during this last eight years would you depart from or attempt to change?

NORTON: There are many things that have been adopted over the past few years. We will be looking at what needs to be changed, in our views, and at the many things that will remain the same. We will examine issues across the boards and apply the best legal standards, as well as the views that I believe many of us would share, to ensure that we are doing the best to preserve our natural resources.

At this point, I'm not sure where we may depart from the past administration. But we will carefully examine those things and work with this Congress in order to examine issues.

BINGAMAN: One issue that the president and the secretary of interior--the current secretary of interior had been roundly criticized about by Republicans here in the Congress is this issue of designation of national monuments. I believe this president has designed 19 areas as national monuments under the authority that he has under the Antiquities Act.

Do you believe that President Clinton's use of that Antiquities Act was appropriate or not?

NORTON: The goal of preserving lands is an admirable goal and I share the goal of trying to be sure that we are identifying those areas that ought to be natural treasures and setting those aside.

The process in which those decisions were made is one that causes me concern. Many of those decisions were made through a top-down process without consulting the people who are most affected by those decisions.

President-elect Bush has established his view, and I certainly share that, that decisions about the land should be made in a process that includes the people who are affected by those decisions. And I would certainly hope that in the future we would hear input from those of you on this committee, from governors, from local communities, before we take actions that are going to deeply impact people's lives.

BINGAMAN: Would you advocate repeal of the Antiquities Act or some changes in that basic statute?

NORTON: The Antiquities Act is something that has been very useful in the past. It has shown its ability to preserve some of our most important national monuments.

I would like to see a process of involvement of the people most affected by decisions. That certainly would be the practice that would be followed in a Bush administration if I am selected to be secretary of the interior. Whether that would require changes in that statute for the long term is a decision that I have not made in terms of what we would advocate, and obviously would require congressional action in order to make any of those changes.

BINGAMAN: On this issue of water rights, do you agree that when the federal government reserves land from the public domain, that it also impliedly reserves a sufficient quantity of water to fulfill the primary purposes of the land that it has reserved, thereby creating a federal reserved water right?

NORTON: The U.S. Supreme Court has established clear standards for determining whether a federal reserved water rights is established with any particular reservation and it depends on an examination of each particular area and the purposes for that.

What it boils down to at the core is the intent of Congress and whether Congress intended, when it set aside some land, or whether in a presidential proclamation setting aside land, the purpose of that proclamation, whether the intent of Congress or of the president was to create a reserved water right. And that's a decision that needs to be made on a case-by-case evaluation for each particular reservation.

BINGAMAN: In the case of areas designated as wilderness, do you have a general view as to whether an implied federal reserve water right is intended to be created with the designation of an area as wilderness?

NORTON: Obviously, it's important for us to preserve wilderness areas and to be sure that those wilderness areas are able to preserve the values that we want to see. One of the issues that I will need to address as secretary of the interior, if I am confirmed, is exactly that issue of water rights in wilderness areas.

As you know, the Idaho Supreme Court recently held that Congress did not intend to set aside water rights when it created wilderness areas. And so that decision will be coming up for review.

I will carefully study that and work with the Department of Justice. Of course, it is their decision as to what position the United States would take. And I will work with them to evaluate that case and determine what the course of action should be following from that.

BINGAMAN: My time is up.

Senator Murkowski?

MURKOWSKI: Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman.

And again, Ms. Norton, let me welcome you to the committee. I was particularly pleased that you chose to mention the plight of the American Indian reservation and the manner in which the Department of Interior has handled its responsibilities. And I would encourage you to evaluate the system within the Department of Interior in recognizing that there's a great deal of technology and expertise to be contracted for, as opposed to trying to maintain a function that a trust department or a notarized public accounting firm would guide you into expert procedures for reporting back to the individual native tribes, because it is an unbelievable set of circumstances.

I would also call your attention--as I indicated in my opening statement--to the plight of some of our territories that are going to require your attention. The Virgin Islands--I hope that, Chairman Bingaman, that we can take some of the members down there and see the difficulty and the debt load that those folks are under, and their inability to have any realistic relief, other than the reality that we're going to have to recognize some debt forgiveness, and try and help them restructure. It's a tragedy that's been overlooked. And the same is true in American Samoa. I've been out there, and these are territories that we've simply ignored.

You're going to have to bring together, I think, in order to develop a policy that President-elect George W. Bush has indicated, relative to the energy situation in this country. We have lacked a cohesive policy. We've lacked a direction, and I think, partially due to a management style.

You know, you've got the Department of Interior that controls land, controls access. Then you've got the Environmental Protection Agency that's concerned, as they should be, with air quality, and environmental sensitivities. And then you've got, say, the Department of Energy. And in many cases, the secretaries have been going different ways, as opposed to coming together to say, "All right, within the administration, we're going to have to address this crisis."

And as we look at the hearing that we held this morning, a good deal of discussion was on California, and the fact that the lights are about out. People are getting stuck in elevators. Traffic lights don't work, in revolving blackouts, which suggests we're going to have to do something about the problem, that somebody's going to have to make some decisions. And that's why I have mentioned a great deal of effort's going to have to go into balancing this process.

Do you feel that you can bring together, within this new administration, the wherewithal, and the policy-makers to resolve and make some decisions about how we're going to relieve our dependence on imports--56 percent, going up to, we heard this morning, 62 by the year 2004?

Our greatest source seems to be coming, now, from Saddam Hussein. We fought a war in '92; we lost 147 lives. We can't address what to do with our nuclear waste. Oil prices continue to go up. We're looking towards natural gas, now. We're using it faster than we're finding it.

You're going to have to come up with some of these answers, with your collective colleagues. How do you propose to do it?

NORTON: The issue of Americans being so dependent on foreign oil is, obviously, a great cause for concern. The idea that people in California, this very day, are facing serious shortages of energy, is another great cause of concern. We will have to pull together all of our resources, and work across departmental lines, to find ways of addressing those issues.

Obviously, it's going to be difficult to find short-term answers. We'll have to do a lot of planning to find long-term answers. We would hope to work with you to find the right kinds of solutions that would balance environmental protection, as well as finding ways of providing the kind of energy resources that need to be available.

MURKOWSKI: I think it's appropriate that I bring up the issue of ANWR, because some would be disappointed if I didn't. And in any event, many members of our environmental community have opposed your nomination, because of the president-elect's position on environmentally responsible oil and gas exploration in that small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my state of Alaska. However, the reality is that you, nor the president, currently has the authority to open up this area; only Congress has that authority.

And in this regard, I have two questions for you. If Congress is to undertake the debate on this issue, will you commit to aid those debates with the very best science available from the Department of Interior?

NORTON: Absolutely. I view the role of the Department of Interior as helping provide the information to this Congress so that you can make an informed decision. We hope to look at the issues of how we can provide the best scientific evaluation of the environmental consequences, how we can do any exploration and production, if it is done, in the absolute most environmentally conscious way that we can have that happen.

MURKOWSKI: My second question is, if Congress approves a measure to allow exploration and development of the coastal plain and it becomes law, will you uphold the law Congress passes and use all the powers afforded to you to mitigate any potential negative environmental consequences?

NORTON: I will certainly follow any laws that are passed to be sure that the protection of the important resources of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are preserved at the same time that any exploration or production would take place.

MURKOWSKI: Thank you.

Now, moving over to Prudhoe Bay, which was discovered 30-some-odd years ago. In the search for oil in Prudhoe Bay--which has been providing this nation with about 20 percent of the total domestic crude oil produced for some 27 years and it's falling off now as Prudhoe Bay declines. But, not looking for it, but as a sidelight, we found some 36 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Nobody paid much attention to it because of the cost of getting that gas out when gas was $2.16 per thousand cubic feet, which is what it was a year ago. Now gas is $8.40. And as we look at our reserves and the fact that we're pulling down our reserves, there's more and more thought given to marketing that gas.

In order for this to become a reality, it's going to take a transportation system. And it's going to require an investment of about $10 billion, the largest single construction product that would be on the horizon and larger than anything that we've undertaken in this country. Should the owners of the gas decide to move forward with such a project, the Department of Interior, through the Joint Pipeline Office, will have an awful lot to say about the permitting and development.

My question to you is, if confirmed, will you act, in your role as secretary, to provide all the resources needed to the Joint Pipeline Office in Alaska to help expedite a project of this magnitude, if indeed it becomes a reality?

NORTON: I'm aware of the important need for natural gas, not just because our economy is expanding and there's more demand for energy, but also because natural gas is seen as one of the ways of having the cleanest supply of energy. So it's important for us to have some mechanisms to be able to draw upon gas resources.

I will look forward to working with you to learn more about that issue. It's not one that I have had the opportunity, obviously, to discuss the details on. I will look forward to working with you so that we can resolve that issue.

MURKOWSKI: February or March are a good time for a visit to Prudhoe Bay because you can see it as it really is nine months of the year.

My last appeal to you is please come visit us in Glacier Bay. Glacier Bay is the number two tourist destination in our state. Number one is Denali National Park, both of which are maintained by the Park Service.

But there seems to be a great reluctance in the Park Service to allow the entries of passenger ships during the season, which is only 90 days of the year, to allow two ships a day so that the visitors can see this. And to suggest that the environmental damage would be more than an occasional cigarette butt that somebody might throw over the side of the ship, it's pretty hard to make a case that there's not a more compatible environmental way to see this beautiful area than by cruise ship. And for the life of me, the Park Service just doesn't want to let access in. And they have no good scientific, justifiable reason.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BINGAMAN: Senator Dorgan?

DORGAN: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

And Gale Norton, welcome to the committee.

As we hear the public debate that occurs on this nomination, it occurs to me that various groups describe two different Gale Nortons. One of them is described as bright and charming, interesting, soft-spoken, confident, reasonable, thoughtful and moderate.

Another some describe is a nominee who thinks on the political fringes, favors polluters, cares little about the environment, is unsympathetic to endangered species, is a friend of both lead paint and James Watt. And so, the question is, who's Gale Norton?

I don't know Gale Norton except to have met you last week. We need to separate the fact from the fiction in this debate. And saying that, I recognize that the spotlights that shine on public lives these day can sometimes offer almost perfect vision and other times offer a pretty warped view of what is real.

I'm going to ask you a series of questions about things that have been said about you and things that you have said and I'd like to get some response. I kind of feel about the same way as Senator Bingaman feels; I've not made a decision about this nomination, but I do believe that presidents have the opportunity to send us their candidates and we have an opportunity, of course, under the advice and consent responsibility, to ask questions.

And you have a very distinguished record, you've done a lot of things. I'm a graduate of the graduate school of the University of Denver, and I'm pleased to hear that you were on the faculty.

Let me ask you some questions and I'll try to do a number of them quickly. Global warming: You have written that there is little consensus over whether global warming is occurring. Do you think there is any kind of a scientific consensus at all that there is some significant climate change occurring or global warming occurring?

NORTON: Thank you very much for the opportunity to begin to reconcile the parts of my record and to have the opportunity to explain myself so that, perhaps, the picture of me that emerges at some point will be a little more clearer.

Global warming is an issue that has seen scientific information developing over time, and the further we go through the process, the more information we have available. The article that you referred to is something that was written several years ago. I will maintain an open mind and receive new scientific information as it is put forward.

DORGAN: But, my question is, do you think there is a consensus on any side of this issue? Some would say, "While there are doubters certainly, and some respected doubters, there seems to be a fairly overwhelming consensus among most scientist that something is occurring in the area of global warming." Do you share that view?

NORTON: It does seem, based on my evaluation, which is not a scientific one, that there is beginning to be more of a consensus that global warming is occurring. There is still disagreement as to the causes and the long-term future, and, obviously, there is disagreement about what ought to be done in that regard. I will certainly rely on scientific information as it becomes available and evaluate the information as it is presented to me.

DORGAN: Thank you. Let me ask you about the issue of the Fifth Amendment takings clause and some of the comments that have been made about your position on that. You have indicated that the government must pay compensation when its actions interfere with private property rights in an article you wrote or speech you gave, and you talked about that may even extend to a property owner's right to pollute. Can you tell us what you meant by that?

NORTON: The issue of private property rights is something that is important to me, beginning from the time that I worked with farmers and ranchers who feel very strongly about the land that belongs to them, and who care very much as stewards for that land. I think it's important for government to be able to work with the people who feel closest to land and to try to find ways to reconcile with them ways of protecting the environment and allowing people to enjoy their property.

In an article, I once was talking about extreme examples of environmental analysis and the analysis of takings laws. The idea of a right to pollute is not something that I support. That was actually a phrase that is taken from some work that I did earlier on the concept of emissions trading. The idea of emissions trading, of the ability to find economic incentive ways of dealing with pollution, is something that early on called an emissions credit a right to pollute, and that is a tradable concept that has now been embodied in the Clean Air Act and it has very mainstream acceptance.

It is absolutely not clear from that article that that was the way in which I was using that phrase, and I recognize that. I do not support the concept of the right to pollute as many people have tried to characterize that.

DORGAN: I'll try to come back to that in the future. But, let me just ask, on the takings issue, you believe that local governments have a right to be involved in zoning? For example, if you have a home in Denver and I buy the lot next door and put up a sheep barn and bring in 2,000 sheep, you have a right to complain about that because I've violated zoning? Or because they say I can't put up a sheep barn and house some sheet next to your house, have they taken something from me?

NORTON: The concept of zoning and of the way in which we use our property are things that do require an evaluation of property rights. I think it's certainly appropriate for a local government to say you can't put a sheep ranch right next to a residential community.

DORGAN: And that is not a taking?

NORTON: That is not a taking. Going back to the ancient aspects of common law, there have always been limits on using property. You cannot use property in a way that harms the property of your neighbor. And that's a concept I wholeheartedly agree with.

My view of property rights is, as it applies to the Department of the Interior, what inspires me to want to find ways of working cooperatively with landowners to have incentive-based approaches to encourage them to enhance the habitat on their property or to protect endangered species on their property.

I think we can find very cooperative ways of working with farmers and ranchers and other landowners that are based on recognition of the importance of property rights and to tie that in with protection of the environment.

DORGAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm just about out of time.

Let me--I want to just ask two very brief questions you can perhaps answer them at the same time. One is, do you support the Endangered Species Act? Give me your thoughts about that. And second, can you just briefly describe your feeling about states' rights overriding tribal self-governance rights with respect to Indian nations?

NORTON: I support the Endangered Species Act and the preservation of endangered species. I've been privileged to work on the protection of species like the California condor, on the endangered fish species in the Colorado River. I think we've seen some accomplishments there that hopefully will allow those species to survive, so I do support that.

As to states' rights and tribal sovereignty, those are complex legal questions. It boils down, I think, to the idea that decisions of government are often best made when made closest to the people who are affected by those decisions. And what is true for states is true for tribes. Self-government is very important and I support that as a concept.

DORGAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time.

Thank you very much for your responses.

BINGAMAN: Thank you.

Senator Domenici?

DOMENICI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me say to you that I did not know that you were also a Denver University graduate. I can say it that way because I graduated from their law school a long time before you ever got involved.

First, I want to thank the three public officials who testified on your behalf. I think each one of them contributed in a very special way, two senators first, in, kind of, shedding a view of you that, from my standpoint, I had already arrived at.

I read most of the attacks and allegations, and then I read the reality of them. And I had already concluded that President Bush wants you to be his secretary of interior and that you ought to have the job; that you see more of what you feel and see and think about public land issues are in tune with his philosophy and that's as it should be.

If, as a matter of fact, that does not suit every single senator, then they have prerogatives. But to bring up ideas that would diminish the fact that you can serve him well by doing what he thinks is the right thing, to me does not make any sense; I believe you're entitled to the job.

And I'd like to say I read the newspapers that are associated with your history, that would be the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post. And I'm actually very pleased with both of their editorials. And I would say to anyone that thinks the negative record that is being made here as the other side of Gale Norton that they ought to read these editorials.

I mean they say, in the first three paragraphs of each one, that you are competent, you're a wonderful legal scholar, you bring people together. And while the environmentalist community does not agree with you on everything, that in many instances, such as the reserved water debate, that you are in tune with the legal issues and that you have indeed been on the right side of most of those issues even if there are some who would not like that view.

I would ask that those two editorials be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.

BINGAMAN: They'll be included in the record.

DOMENICI: Now I would say for the record, from this senator's standpoint, I read the Summitsville (ph) mine issue in its entirety. I believe you have done everything appropriate in that regard and the state of Colorado is lucky to have you represent them in that issue.

And now to the third person that testified in your behalf, let me say to the distinguished governor who I've recently had an opportunity to meet, everyone should know I met him in the campaign of George W. Bush, right so there's no doubt about it, we are on the same side.

And I think today, for those who are thinking that there are two sides to this very, scholarly attorney general, I think you have convinced me and you should convince most Americans that you know her best. And the side that you have described as the positive side of her is the real Gale Norton, and I don't think there's any question about it; you did a marvelous job and I thank you.

Now Madam soon-to-be-Secretary, I would be very upset if you didn't disagree with the secretary of interior who is leaving in some respects and on some issues. As a matter of fact, if you choose to be as mellow about the way you feel about some of his decisions, I might not vote for you.

(LAUGHTER)

I mean you ought to honestly tell us that many of the things he has done and that he put on the books of this country are not exactly what George Bush for president wants. But you will comply with the law and hopefully you can make some changes.

Changes in what? Changes in the endangered species law. Not that it should be abolished, but we are so timid and so frightened, we won't even consider and amendment to it when now, when even the administration and the Republicans agree because somebody is fearful that you shouldn't tinker with that law.

Well, it's not working very well. If you want to know about it, come down to my state and see how the Bureau of Reclamation is about to determine that our water is all federally controlled because of an endangered species. And we aren't going to let that happen. We don't believe the endangered species, in that case a minnow that's preserved there, that we should let the government run all of our water up and down the Rio Grande, our only real water supply. And we're not going to let that happen.

And I'm very pleased this election occurred because I believe you're not going to let it happen. When you see the equities of that, you're going to work toward some habitat and cut out the fighting that has been going on down there.

My last observation is if you weren't willing to take some new views on energy supply, as it pertains to your properties, the properties you will run for all of us, then I would not be voting for you, because I believe we need some changes. We have a detailed report of energy supply from the public domain. It was issued only two months ago. I urge that you read it.

It says on properties that have been withdrawn, there are 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It is worth looking at those in light of our energy dilemma when we use 20 trillion a year, that's 10 years supply. There ought to be a darn good reason for locking it up when California got their lights out today and maybe tomorrow they won't have any industry left.

In conclusion, I assume you would be willing to be tasked by the president to work on energy issues as you work on the other issues and to look at those in light of your policy decisions; is that correct?

NORTON: Senator Domenici, I would be proud to work on trying to solve those difficult problems.

DOMENICI: My last one has to do with Indians. You talked about what you might do and you left out one big thing so I would ask you to include it, because you talked about what the president-elect said. He said to the Indian leaders in New Mexico as a public statement that he would put $1 billion in this year's budget for Indian public schools. And I think you should add that to your testimony. And since he said it, I would hope you would agree that you will support it.

NORTON: I will strongly support that.

DOMENICI: What we've got now is a school system where the buildings are falling down. The Indian kids are in buildings we would not have other than Indians in and he wants to get rid of the problem in five or six or seven years. We've been working on it for five or six. I laud him for it and I think you should support that.

NORTON: The concept of zoning and of the way in which we use our property are things that do require an evaluation of property rights. I think it's certainly appropriate for a local government to say you can't put a sheep ranch right next to a residential community.

DORGAN: And that is not a taking?

NORTON: That is not a taking. Going back to the ancient aspects of common law, there have always been limits on using property. You cannot use property in a way that harms the property of your neighbor. And that's a concept I wholeheartedly agree with.

My view of property rights is, as it applies to the Department of the Interior, what inspires me to want to find ways of working cooperatively with landowners to have incentive-based approaches to encourage them to enhance the habitat on their property or to protect endangered species on their property.

I think we can find very cooperative ways of working with farmers and ranchers and other landowners that are based on recognition of the importance of property rights and to tie that in with protection of the environment.

DORGAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm just about out of time.

Let me--I want to just ask two very brief questions you can perhaps answer them at the same time. One is, do you support the Endangered Species Act? Give me your thoughts about that. And second, can you just briefly describe your feeling about states' rights overriding tribal self-governance rights with respect to Indian nations?

NORTON: I support the Endangered Species Act and the preservation of endangered species. I've been privileged to work on the protection of species like the California condor, on the endangered fish species in the Colorado River. I think we've seen some accomplishments there that hopefully will allow those species to survive, so I do support that.

As to states' rights and tribal sovereignty, those are complex legal questions. It boils down, I think, to the idea that decisions of government are often best made when made closest to the people who are affected by those decisions. And what is true for states is true for tribes. Self-government is very important and I support that as a concept.

DORGAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time.

Thank you very much for your responses.

BINGAMAN: Thank you.

Senator Domenici?

DOMENICI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me say to you that I did not know that you were also a Denver University graduate. I can say it that way because I graduated from their law school a long time before you ever got involved.

First, I want to thank the three public officials who testified on your behalf. I think each one of them contributed in a very special way, two senators first, in, kind of, shedding a view of you that, from my standpoint, I had already arrived at.

I read most of the attacks and allegations, and then I read the reality of them. And I had already concluded that President Bush wants you to be his secretary of interior and that you ought to have the job; that you see more of what you feel and see and think about public land issues are in tune with his philosophy and that's as it should be.

If, as a matter of fact, that does not suit every single senator, then they have prerogatives. But to bring up ideas that would diminish the fact that you can serve him well by doing what he thinks is the right thing, to me does not make any sense; I believe you're entitled to the job.

And I'd like to say I read the newspapers that are associated with your history, that would be the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post. And I'm actually very pleased with both of their editorials. And I would say to anyone that thinks the negative record that is being made here as the other side of Gale Norton that they ought to read these editorials.

I mean they say, in the first three paragraphs of each one, that you are competent, you're a wonderful legal scholar, you bring people together. And while the environmentalist community does not agree with you on everything, that in many instances, such as the reserved water debate, that you are in tune with the legal issues and that you have indeed been on the right side of most of those issues even if there are some who would not like that view.

I would ask that those two editorials be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.

BINGAMAN: They'll be included in the record.

DOMENICI: Now I would say for the record, from this senator's standpoint, I read the Summitville mine issue in its entirety. I believe you have done everything appropriate in that regard and the state of Colorado is lucky to have you represent them in that issue.

And now to the third person that testified in your behalf, let me say to the distinguished governor who I've recently had an opportunity to meet, everyone should know I met him in the campaign of George W. Bush, right so there's no doubt about it, we are on the same side.

And I think today, for those who are thinking that there are two sides to this very, scholarly attorney general, I think you have convinced me and you should convince most Americans that you know her best. And the side that you have described as the positive side of her is the real Gale Norton, and I don't think there's any question about it; you did a marvelous job and I thank you.

Now Madam soon-to-be-Secretary, I would be very upset if you didn't disagree with the secretary of interior who is leaving in some respects and on some issues. As a matter of fact, if you choose to be as mellow about the way you feel about some of his decisions, I might not vote for you.

(LAUGHTER)

I mean you ought to honestly tell us that many of the things he has done and that he put on the books of this country are not exactly what George Bush for president wants. But you will comply with the law and hopefully you can make some changes.

Changes in what? Changes in the endangered species law. Not that it should be abolished, but we are so timid and so frightened, we won't even consider and amendment to it when now, when even the administration and the Republicans agree because somebody is fearful that you shouldn't tinker with that law.

Well, it's not working very well. If you want to know about it, come down to my state and see how the Bureau of Reclamation is about to determine that our water is all federally controlled because of an endangered species. And we aren't going to let that happen. We don't believe the endangered species, in that case a minnow that's preserved there, that we should let the government run all of our water up and down the Rio Grande, our only real water supply. And we're not going to let that happen.

And I'm very pleased this election occurred because I believe you're not going to let it happen. When you see the equities of that, you're going to work toward some habitat and cut out the fighting that has been going on down there.

My last observation is if you weren't willing to take some new views on energy supply, as it pertains to your properties, the properties you will run for all of us, then I would not be voting for you, because I believe we need some changes. We have a detailed report of energy supply from the public domain. It was issued only two months ago. I urge that you read it.

It says on properties that have been withdrawn, there are 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It is worth looking at those in light of our energy dilemma when we use 20 trillion a year, that's 10 years supply. There ought to be a darn good reason for locking it up when California got their lights out today and maybe tomorrow they won't have any industry left.

In conclusion, I assume you would be willing to be tasked by the president to work on energy issues as you work on the other issues and to look at those in light of your policy decisions; is that correct?

NORTON: Senator Domenici, I would be proud to work on trying to solve those difficult problems.

DOMENICI: My last one has to do with Indians. You talked about what you might do and you left out one big thing so I would ask you to include it, because you talked about what the president-elect said. He said to the Indian leaders in New Mexico as a public statement that he would put $1 billion in this year's budget for Indian public schools. And I think you should add that to your testimony. And since he said it, I would hope you would agree that you will support it.

NORTON: I will strongly support that.

DOMENICI: What we've got now is a school system where the buildings are falling down. The Indian kids are in buildings we would not have other than Indians in and he wants to get rid of the problem in five or six or seven years. We've been working on it for five or six. I laud him for it and I think you should support that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield.

BINGAMAN: Senator Wyden?

WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And Ms. Norton, thank you for the chance to have visited with you. I believe the American people will vigorously resist the exploitation of public lands by private interests.

I also believe that they will not resist, and, in fact, will welcome, an interior secretary with creative ideas for forging consensus so as to protect bout our treasures and be sensitive to economic needs.

Anyone who believes it can't be done ought to just take a look to my right--he likes to say he's always to my right--where Senator Larry Craig sits. He and I worked together to resolve one of the most contentious natural resources issues last session, dealing with timber harvest and payments to rural counties. So it is possible to find consensus on these issues.

And I can tell you as a Westerner, I share the view that one size does not fit all. When you're trying to comply with environmental law, what works in the Bronx may not necessarily work in Prineville, Oregon.

But you have to convince me in these hearings, that as you provide flexibility to the states and various other parties, your bottomline will be unwavering: All federal environmental laws must be complied with and you have to enforce them.

Finally, I will tell you I am concerned about the approach that you have supported in the past with respect to self-policing. Here again, it's a matter of degree. I like the idea of having people come forward and take the initiative but I am a concerned in a number of cases, like Summitville, where that approach was allowed to go on for too long and I hope that you will take a different position.

Now for purposes of my question, I would like to follow up on what Senator Bingaman asked about in terms of enforcing the law. You said categorically you would and we appreciate that.

But I have an article that I'd like to submit for the record from the Denver Post, where when you disagreed with the affirmative action program in Colorado, they had to go out and hire outside counsel to represent the state.

Now I know absolutely nothing about the affirmation action law in your state. I am against quotas. Affirmative action can certainly be improved. But would you do that again, or have your attitudes changed? Because when you told Senator Bingaman you would carry out the laws of the land as they are written, and I have in front of me the governor having to go out and hire outside counsel to carry out a state statute, that doesn't seem to square.

NORTON: Senator Wyden, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the questions that you have raised. Let me begin with the last points on affirmative action.

As Governor Owens described in his comments--and I thank him for his warm comments toward me--the program in question was not a state law. It was a program that was adopted on a discretionary basis and that program was later held to not comply with the standards established by the federal courts, and so that program was essentially thrown out by the courts.

As attorney general, it is my responsibility to advise the agencies of state government and I provided that advice to them. They felt that--and I concurred that it would be stronger for them to have someone else who had not provided the advice that I did to them, and they went forward with a different attorney and they were not successful.

I think my position on that was vindicated.

As to Summitville, I think there has been some misconception that Summitville was an example of self policing. It was not. It was a situation that was a company that did not comply with the laws that were in effect. My office took a very vigorous role in trying to deal with the Summitville mine situation.

When we heard that that company was going into bankruptcy and had plans to just walk away and not operate the water treatment system, that cyanide would be flowing down into the river, we immediately stepped in to get a court order to prevent that from happening. We worked in the bankruptcy courts to obtain as much as we could through that company's bankruptcy to try to use that money for the clean-up process.

We cooperated with the EPA, with the other state agencies to try to have a coordinated approach. And as a result of that coordinate approach, working with the states and the federal regulators, we have taken actions to deal with what was a disastrous and awful situation.

WYDEN: I know you cooperated with the federal government, but my concern is, when it was in your court, my sense is you were slow to deal with the issue.

And, for example, the Denver Post, on November 10 of 1995, took you to task when they said that the environmental task force, of which you worked closely with, was debating whether to extend the statute of limits on environmental crimes. You ultimately decided not to press the issue. They thought you should, rather than take it to the federal government.

And I guess my concern is, as with the answer on affirmative action, I gather there, you felt you would lose, so you shouldn't challenge the law. The law is on the books. On the Summitville, you know, question, I think there was an opportunity for the state to have demonstrated leadership earlier on. And these are some of the philosophical, you know, questions that, I think, need to be explored.

Now, in your comments to Senator Dorgan, you touched on an area that is very important to my constituents, and that's the Endangered Species Act. And I happen to believe that we can protect these species, and be sensitive to local communities. You challenged the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act in an amicus brief, that you filed in the Sweet Home case. Now, I would like to know whether you would no longer file that brief today, given the opportunity to serve in this position, and whether that's what you meant when you told Senator Dorgan you supported the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act.

NORTON: Let me first address an unfinished point, as to the Summitville matter. And that is that criminal prosecutions did occur. My office worked with the federal agencies. And yes, we were frustrated by the fact that we had a short statute of limitations. We felt that, in that situation, working through the environmental crimes task force that my office took the initiative in establishing, that it was best for us to work cooperatively with the federal agencies. And that has resulted in, I believe, the strongest possible action being taken against the operator of that mine. We have recovered--and just recently, they've recovered millions and millions of dollars against that operator, that will go into the clean-up of that site.

As to the Endangered Species Act, I was involved in a piece of litigation that dealt, primarily, with the interpretation of the act, and how that would be applied. The states of Arizona and Colorado filed a brief in which we've said that it should be interpreted in one way. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that it should be interpreted differently. I will certainly uphold the position taken by the U.S. Supreme Court, and will enforce the Endangered Species Act.

WYDEN: I have a number of other questions, Mr. Chairman, but the light is on, and I appreciate it.

BINGAMAN: Thank you very much.

Senator Craig?

CRAIG: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Gale, it is really an honor for all of us to have you before this committee for your confirmation hearings.

As the crowd was gathering, I had never seen so many photographers in my life. Now, as a politician, I was extremely jealous.

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, I work at trying to get a crowd out like this, and they never come. I couldn't imagine that that crowd had assembled for you. Really, I thought they'd come to see Ben's new bike.

(LAUGHTER)

If you don't know, Ben's got a beautiful new bike that he's going to have in the inaugural parade the day after tomorrow. And it is a gorgeous sight to behold, I'm told. And I was quite confident that's why all of you photographers had assembled. Not the case.

The case was that you had been promoted in a way that just does not meet the standards of the record. And it is exciting for me, not only to hear your governor, but your colleagues, your two senators begin to set that record straight. And we have heard repeatedly again, here today, that somehow what has been said about you over the last good number of days, when literally has placed a gag order on your colleagues, simply doesn't seem to match.

And so it's always fun, exciting and appropriate that we have you here to speak in your own words as you are so well doing at this moment on these kinds of issues.

My colleague from Oregon, Ron Wyden, mentioned the success that he and I had recently on a piece of legislation that dealt with public lands and communities of interest that had been dramatically depleted of their resources, for schools and counties and roads and bridges over the last decade because we have reduced logging on our national forests by over 80 percent.

Now, having said that, I am not going to suggest that you come and return to that. But what I am of the belief of, and you've mentioned at least three times in your statements, and I've kept track. You've used the word "collaborative." That is an exciting term that the national preservationists shutter at. Ron Wyden and I implemented it for local communities to begin to work together with all the stakeholders of interests at those local community levels to resolve the current crisis and the relationship between economies and local communities and public lands around them.

Now, the reason the national preservationists don't like that term, and the reason the photographers have assembled today, and the reason the word has gone out about you, is that they are losing their top-down authority to control the way decisions are made without public participation, without the collaborative process, and, most importantly, without this community or this committee of jurisdiction.

I find it interesting, Gale, that your predecessor, who is soon to be leaving his office, treated this authorizing committee in this way. He said it is, "a highly partisan debating society staffed by munchkins that wrangle a lot." Now, I know that aggregated the "H" out of me, and my guess is if you continued to treat us like your predecessor has, it would begin to aggregate the heck out of my colleagues on the other side.

You see, collaboration not only is important for local communities of interest today, it is extremely important for all of us, working with you to arrive, under the law, at the way we resolve these public land disputes when they occur, but, most importantly, to establish long-term policy that impacts our states and these valuable lands and the treasures upon them.

As you know, yesterday the president, again in great pride and gesture, announced new monuments. Let me tell you, briefly, the story of one that occurred in Idaho in the last few weeks. It is to recognize internment camps where Japanese-Americans were held during World War II. It was a time in our nation's history we will not repeat and we are embarrassed about. And, that area, an internment camp in Minidoka County, south central Idaho, should be recognized. I agree on the whole of the delegation, and our governor agreed.

Herein lies the problem. And as I describe it to you, you will know all so well why I had to publicly oppose the designation, not the intent, not the purpose, and not the value.

We were told it was going to happen; some 70,000 acres set aside for the designation. I said to the gentleman at Interior and the Council of Environmental Equality, "Do you realize that within your area there is an irrigation canal and a right of way for that canal for the Minidoka irrigation district? Do you realize there is also a road right of way? And that you're creating a new level of bureaucracy and a whole new relationship that this irrigation district and road right of way, county in this instance, will have to establish with the National Park Service? If you move your lines a little bit and you adjust a little bit, you can still have the purpose, but you avoid the conflict."

There answer was basically they didn't care. They wouldn't hold a public hearing. They wouldn't listen to the public. They wouldn't incorporate the interest of the broader area to adjust the boundaries to avoid the conflict. They seemed to be an awful lot interested in politics and not very interested in local involvement and collaboration and, if you will, a rather democratic process.

So it is exciting to me that you would use the word "collaborative." Oh, it's inflammatory, because it suggests that all of us ought to be involved in decision-making on the resources of our public lands.

I find it also interesting that you're being attacked over state's rights and Tenth Amendment issues. We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. We are a union of states. And we are still that, even though some would like to deny that. And that means that states should and must have equal standing when it comes to deliberations that involve them, their resources and their people. And somehow over the last eight years, we've just forgotten all about that. Or at least some have who preside within the Beltway of this city.

You and I may differ a little bit on states rights. But I think we understand the relationships; the value of states and governors and our responsibility to them, but also our responsibility to the nation and to the resources involved.

I look forward to working with you. I think you will be confirmed by a large and substantial vote of the United States Senate because the billing that you're getting isn't holding up. The record will set you free, because it is an outstanding record of service to the public, service to the resources and to the environment that we all love.

I thank you for your willingness to commit yourself to what you have committed to for the next four years. And I'm confident that we will have a collaborative working relationship that involves both Democrats and Republicans, that we will not see king-like actions being dictated to us by a Bush administration recognizing that all of us ought to have a piece of the action. That's the way our country works in a republic through a democratic process.

Thank you for being with us.

NORTON: Thank you.

BINGAMAN: Senator Graham?

GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And welcome, Ms. Norton.

I would like to talk some about the issue that Senator Craig has just explored, and that is collaboration. And my particular interest is your views on the role of the states and the federal government, and particularly the department that you've been nominated to head, in the management of natural resources which are either within that state or adjacent to that state.

Could you give us some general statement of your philosophy of what should be the role of the states in determining uses of natural resources that are in properties owned by the federal government but either within or adjacent to those states?

NORTON: Thank you, Senator Graham. The very difficult issues of trying to manage public lands are best illuminated by the information that comes from the people who know those lands the best. The federal government, obviously, has control of its lands, and constitutionally it is the federal government that makes the decision about those lands. And there's no mistake that it is Congress and the federal government that have control over those issues.

We ought to have, though, a cooperative working relationship with the states. And when decisions are made in a way that involves the states, those I think are the best decisions in the long run.

A few years ago, I worked with Senator Hank Brown, when he was in your midst, on the issue of wilderness areas in the state of Colorado. As state attorney general, I worked with him in trying to deal with some of the water issues that came from the designation of that wilderness area. And we worked with environmental groups and local governments, trying to find the best way of handling those issues that was really tailored to what we needed in Colorado to be able to preserve our wilderness.

NORTON: What you need in Florida is, obviously, different than what we needed in Colorado. There are no one-size-fits all solutions. So I would hope to work with the states to be able to find the things that would best fit each state.

GRAHAM: Well, I am pleased at that response. The particular issue--or application of that issue that I'm concerned with is the use of the Outer Continental Shelf which is adjacent to our state. For 20 years, through Republican and Democratic administrations here and in Tallahassee, if there has been one issue which has united our state it is an appreciation for the potential vulnerability of both our environment and our economy to oil and gas development in that Outer Continental Shelf. For approximately 20 years, the Congress has repeatedly passed a series of moratoriums against any additional grant of leases in that--off the coast of Florida.

I was concerned when I saw an item issued by the National Ocean Industries Association urging the Minerals Management Service to include offshore moratoria regions in the agency's next five-year Outer Continental Shelf leasing program. Could you comment as to what you feel should be the significance of a state's determination in opposition to further Outer Continental Shelf leasing in areas adjacent to that state?

NORTON: Consistent with the idea of trying to take into account the wishes of local communities, President-elect Bush has made clear that he supports continuing the moratorium on offshore leasing, as to California and as to Florida where the states have opposed that offshore activity.

There are, as you know, some areas that are not covered by that because the process has already taken place. And those issues will need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

GRAHAM: Would you believe that if other states, such as North Carolina, which has taken a similar position, would be accorded the same treatment that California and Florida would be accorded?

NORTON: We would work with the officials from those states to try to reach an appropriate solution.

GRAHAM: During the administration of the first President George Bush, there was not only the continuation of the moratorium on existing leases, but a buy-back program for leases, particularly in the area of the Florida Keys. Would you support an expansion of that lease repurchase program to other areas adjacent to states which have taken a position similar to Florida?

NORTON: That, Senator, is an issue that I will have to explore more and learn more about as I move into the position of secretary, if I am confirmed. I will be happy to work with this committee and with you to try to resolve that issue.

GRAHAM: All right. I would hope that, early on in your administration, that we would have the opportunity to sit down and develop a plan that would be acceptable to the administration and to the states affected for that purpose of eliminating the threat that is represented by leases, many of which are many years old, to the environment and economy of those states.

There is an immediate issue now and that is a proposal for the grant of a drilling permit on one of those leases in the vicinity of Pensacola, Florida. Would you plan to work with the--with my state and other states that might be subject to such a potential drilling to assure that the wishes of the state are fulfilled?

NORTON: Yes, Senator Graham. I would be quite interested in working with those states and in learning more information about that issue so that we can make a good decision.

GRAHAM: When we met in my office, we talked about some of your principles as they relate to private property rights, and I tried to suggest a few hypothetical cases in order to elucidate how those principles might apply in a reality case.

If I could suggest another of those hypotheticals, assume that the unfortunate situation should occur that a drilling permit were to be granted for one of these currently outstanding leases. The effect of doing so would have an adverse effect on the value of private property adjacent to where those wells might be drilled. It would also have an adverse effect on commercial activities, such as hotels and motels. Would you support federal compensation for commercial and private owners who experienced a reduction in the value of their property as a result of the federal government first granting the leases and then granting the drilling permits to utilize those leases?

NORTON: Senator, it's important to realize the impact of any federal action on the people who are affected by it. There are legal standards for determining when compensation is appropriate. And that kind of situation is probably not the, sort of, situation where direct compensation is normally paid under the court system. The issue of compensation is usually a legal issue that depends upon the statues and the court analysis.

We also need to bear in mind that sometimes ways of trying to compensate people, whether that is direct compensation or whether it's ways of trying to mitigate harms that are caused by an action, are also things that ought to be taken into account from a policy perspective in trying to be sure that, when we have a benefit to society, the burdens of that are appropriately and fairly spread across other people within society.

To the extent that there are impacts upon people who are affected by a government program, whether it's people in Florida in the kind of situation that you describe, or whether it is people in the West who are affected by government decisions about federal lands, those are things we ought to take into account. And we ought to look at the whole range of different ways of trying to make sure that everyone is as satisfied as we can have with the decisions that are made.

GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I'd like the next round to come back and pursue this a little further. Thank you.

BINGAMAN: Very good.

Senator Campbell?

CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gale, have you read the papers lately and read some of the paid-for advertisements that have been put in the paper about how bad you are?

NORTON: I've seen a few of those unfortunately.

CAMPBELL: Did it hurt your feelings?

NORTON: Well, I have to say it doesn't hurt my feelings that much because it doesn't sound like me.

CAMPBELL: It didn't sound like you to me, either. But I have to tell you, I was--as one who was in that pool for interior for a while, am I glad you got it.

(LAUGHTER)

My wife's particularly glad you got it. I am seriously glad because I know you could do a better job than I could anyway.

My colleagues have talked about a lot of things. I want to focus just a little bit on Indian issues, since I'm the chairman of that committee. And one in particular that you're familiar with and you've worked on yourself for years and years the so-called Animus Laplata.

Years ago when secretary--the last secretary came in for his confirmation, he made a commitment that he would do everything he could to get that built. But unfortunately because the environmental community did sue under the Endangered Species Act, everybody over there in Interior went kind of limp and lost their spine and decided not to pursue it.

And so we had to redo the whole thing and Senator Bingaman, Senator Allard and I worked--and Senator Domenici, the four of us worked hard on this revised bill that you're now familiar with that the president recently signed as part of the omnibus package. I just wanted to get your commitment that you're going to do the best you can to get that thing built.

As you know, in 1988, when we first passed it, it was supposed to be built by the year 2000. And if we did not, the tribes would have the opportunity to go back and pursue a lawsuit against the federal government. They signed off on the lawsuit. We actually paid them to give up that lawsuit on condition we build it. We paid them and the thing wasn't built.

Well, under this new bill now we're off on a whole new direction and hopefully we'll get it built. And we wrote the bill as tight as we could but there's no doubt in my mind the environmental community do not want any compromise or consensus. They want to kill that project, end of story. They want to kill that project.

They're already talking about going back to court and saying that the Justice Department was involved with discussions and a whole bunch of other things to try to stop it in the courts again. I would hope in your tenure that we'd have a little more courage over there and not just simply knuckle under the first threat of the environmental community going back to sue to stop that project again.

It's the right thing to do. The states of Colorado and New Mexico have collectively spent over $50 million on building water projects, pipelines as their part of the agreement. We've given the tribes over $57 million. In fact, there'll be $10 more million under this bill; it goes to them as part of the agreement to get them to relinquish some of their rights. And we know, those who have worked on it, it's the right thing to do. But we have not been able to get the past administration to show some courage and get that thing built. I would hope you would do that.

NORTON: Senator, as you well know, the history of Animus Laplata reflects so much of the tragic history that American tribes have faced in the past. There was a settlement reached. It was approved by Congress. And yet that settlement was completely disregarded when it came time to really carry through.

As the attorney general of Colorado, I looked at that from the issue of the water rights for the tribes, and warned that we would be back in litigation that would go on for decades if we did not keep some of the commitments that had been made to the tribes. And I support the efforts that you have engaged in and I personally participated in meetings that if it had the attendance of the number of people here today who are concerned about Animus Laplata and about trying to reach further resolution of the issues in a way that would carry forward the commitment to the tribes.

And I look forward to working with you to be sure that we can follow through now that Congress has reached a resolution.

CAMPBELL: Well, we detailed in some depth in this bill all of the environmental things that we've complied with. In fact, we've complied with everything that we had to from the federal level, and so that will be in your corner if you have to end up in court defending the thing.

Let me also mention that Senator Domenici talked a little bit about the president's commitment to Indian school construction. I was with him when the president made that commitment in Las Cruces in front of 13 tribal chairmen. He did commit $920 million to $1 billion the first year that he's in office.

And Senator Dorgan has taken the lead many times around this place in committee and on the floor too talking about just the horrendous conditions of Indian schools where children are expected to learn with broken windows and drafty walls and just unbelievably unsanitary and dangerous conditions. They can't learn in conditions like that. It's as simple as that. They can't.

And I'm just very pleased that the president-elect has made a commitment to doing something about that construction. But that construction will come through your department, and so I just wanted to alert you to that. And I would hope you would support that, too.

NORTON: That has my wholehearted personal commitment.

CAMPBELL: Thank you.

And last, Senator Murkowski and I spent a good number of hours and, in fact, even introduced a bill to try to straighten out this mess with the trust assets that you're aware of, this missing $2.5 billion that I mentioned in my opening statement. The administration opposed that bill, and we couldn't get the thing moving because they think for some reason there they have the expertise to be able to do it.

But just yesterday, in the Denver Post, there was another article, another story about how they are not straightening it up. It is still a mess. I mean they've got--they estimate over 100,000 missing documents. They've got documents stored in trash bags and old cardboard boxes full of rat feces in warehouses in New Mexico and around the country. And I just am still not sure that they're going to be able to straighten it up in-house.

But I would hope you would also make that a priority and work with Chairman Murkowski and Senator Bingaman and I, who are all very concerned about that.

NORTON: It's alarming to hear that we have such large amounts of money that ought to belong to the Indian people themselves that has become lost somewhere in the bureaucracy of the Department of the Interior. And I will do what I can to work to straighten that out. I will work with this committee to try to find the best way to resolve that so that we can see that it's all straightened out at some point in the future.

CAMPBELL: Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BINGAMAN: Senator Bayh?

BAYH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And Ms. Norton, thank you for being with us. I want to express my appreciation for the courtesy you paid me of coming to visit and acknowledge that we have several friends in common who I have a great deal of respect for, including the former attorney general of our state, who I happen to be having dinner with tonight. So maybe I'll continue my queries with him this evening over dinner.

Let me just give to you my framework that I would ordinarily apply for hearings like this in making decisions on confirmations like this. I customarily would feel that the president is entitled to a great deal of deference in choosing members of his Cabinet for a couple of reasons; first at that in most circumstances would express support for the will of the American people as demonstrated by at least a plurality in the recent election.

And secondly, because the remedy for public policy disputes is almost always or almost always should be take it to the next election. If you have a difference of opinion, take it to the voters. Let them decide.

There'd be a caveat for that, though, when it would come to examples of public policy that might have long-lasting consequences not susceptible of being remedied in the next election or anytime soon.

So just to give you, sort of, the parameters of my thinking it would be short-run policy differences, take it to the next election; long-term consequences for policy changes not susceptible of remedy anytime soon, maybe not quite as much deference in those sorts of cases.

So with that as a background, I'd like to start by asking you some questions of broad policy or philosophy and then get to a couple of specific examples. And I'm going to start by--Ben had to leave but I think, and Governor Owens, several others alluded to some of the ads that have been running, to some of the characterizations comparing you to Mr. Watt and that kind of thing. Those sorts of things, I want to make clear, are unfortunate.

And from our personal interaction, I can tell you're a very--a person with a very pleasant demeanor and conciliating manner which I think is good. I don't know Mr. Watt so I can't speak to him, but some people have said there's a stylistic difference.

My concern is more of a substantive nature. Based upon his actions when he headed this department or some of the positions he's taken publicly or in the institute that he helped to found, can you give us an example of an important public policy with which you disagree with Mr. Watt?

NORTON: Senator, that is difficult for me in a respect that you might find surprising. And that is, I don't know everything that Jim Watt thinks about issues. I have only, really, spoken with him once in the last 10 years. I am not in constant communication with him and discussion of policy issues.

I think we might have issues in common, but in the 20 years since I worked at Mountain States Legal Foundation at the same time Jim Watt did, I've had a lot of different experiences.

My experiences at Mountain States Legal Foundation were in defending some wonderful people of the west, defending ranchers and farmers and small business people who were very earnest about the things that they did and who, in good faith, really felt strongly about their land and their ability to make decisions.

Since that time, I've also had the opportunity, as attorney general, to deal with people who did not have that kind of a regard, to deal with people who thumbed their noses at the environmental laws, who flagrantly violated those laws. Those people, some of them are spending time in prison because of our prosecution of them. We recovered tens of millions of dollars in fines and penalties against those who violated Colorado's laws.

I think the reality of who I am is different from the characterization of who Jim Watt his. I mean him no disrespect, but I am my own person.

BAYH: Thank you. I think you know that some of Ray's questions want to draw analogies between you and Mr. Watt because of your association long ago and you can understand why they would--I think you answered my question sufficiently and I appreciate that. But I think you can understand why they would be looking for, perhaps, some specifics to say, "Look, I wouldn't be like him," or the philosophy in some particular respects. I recommend that to you.

Secondly, again from a broader philosophical term, you've been an eloquent spokesperson for the rights of individuals, of states, of businesses. As a former governor, I can certainly--the interests of states certainly resonates with me. You've expressed some doubt about some different federal statues, the Endangered Species Act, the Surface Mining Act, the Clean Air Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act.

My question would be that if there is not a compelling national interest in these cases, when would you find--when is there a compelling national interest in protecting the American people in these or other areas? And philosophically speaking, when should the national interest predominate?

NORTON: As an attorney who has dealt with constitutional issues, and dealt with those issues from the perspective of a state attorney general and as someone who has represented other states as an attorney, I look at the ways in which laws are structured. Because I might disagree with the way in which a law is structured and the kinds of mandates it puts onto a state, I don't necessarily disagree with the goals of those laws.

I support the endangered species goals of preserving and protecting endangered species. I think that mining operations ought to be reclaimed as the Surface Mining Reclamation Act requires. I think that we ought to provide opportunities for people with disabilities. In fact, the second law review article I ever wrote was about providing access to mass transportation for those with handicaps.

There are many things where we may disagree about the ways in which laws are structured where the states might like to see more control in their own ability to make decisions; the federal government might like to see more control lodged with it. But there is a broad national consensus behind those laws and that should not dissuade us from pursuing the goals of those laws. And where...

BAYH: Your concern was not that there was not a legitimate national interest or even that national legislation was inappropriate, it was simply in the specifics, the details of the different acts?

NORTON: There are often times ways in which the federal government can reach the same result in two different ways.

And one of those results can impact very heavily on the states, and cause problems for states in being able to implement it, while another way of reaching that same endpoint is one that allows the states and the federal government to work cooperatively together. I've tried to work for those areas where that kind of cooperation can take place.

BAYH: Thank you. I'd also--is there a light? I don't want to go on and on here, over my time, Mr. Chairman.

BINGAMAN: You have 13 seconds.

BAYH: Thirteen seconds--ah, well, I can't do more in that amount of time, Ms. Norton, than thank you again, and say that, perhaps in a round of questioning, tomorrow--and I apologize for having to slip out--we've got multiple balls we're trying to keep in the air, around here. But I noted that Senator Graham was asking about some aspect of takings. And I'm interested in some of your thoughts about that, perhaps we can pursue in the next round of questioning.

But again, I appreciate your presence here, today, and your visit, and your willingness to address our questions. Thank you.

BINGAMAN: Senator Thomas?

THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's an interesting--welcome, Gale. So nice to have you here. It's interesting how sometimes you're asked to differentiate yourself from mountain states, but seldom do we ask others to differentiate themselves from the League of Conservation voters. It would be something we probably ought to try.

I agree with my friend from New Mexico, that you know, we need to take some different approaches to resolving the problems that are involved in resource management. Taking a different approach than a previous secretary in solving these problems, however, doesn't preclude concern for our natural resources. And I think that's what you've said. For the last eight years, this previous administration, the relationship between the agency and the people in the West, has been pretty marked by mistrust. And I think we need to change that.

It's time, I believe, for a new chapter in the Department of Interior, which reflects cooperation, as we search for conservation goals, and public access, which, I think, is one of the things.

I'm particularly interested, as you know, in parks. In our last budget, the administration put more emphasis and more dollars into acquisition than they did on maintenance. And yet we talk a lot about backlogs, which are real, and we need to do something about that. Would you support a plan, and the management necessary to carry out a plan, to maintain the current needs, and pick up on those needs, in order to safeguard our parks?

NORTON: Senator Thomas, I was very surprised to learn that, despite the fact that we have an almost $5 billion backlog in maintenance and care for our national parks, the outgoing administration cut back on the budget for maintenance of our parks. I think it's very important--and President-Elect Bush has made clear, that it is very important to him--that we adequately maintain our national treasures.

THOMAS: I certainly agree. One of the issues, of course, in states that are 50, 60 percent owned by the federal government, is the question of multiple use. It's very important. We've talked about it, generally. How would you, sort of, intend to guide the Park Service and Bureau of Land Management with regard to access and multiple use of those resources?

NORTON: I value the preservation of our lands. And I value the ability of people to use those lands in an appropriate way. Now, you recognize that where we come from, in the West, often the only way to effectively live people's lives is to have access to the public lands. When vast portions of many of our states are owned by the federal government, the ability to have access to those federal lands is very important. And I will work to be sure that, again, those local issues are resolved with an eye to what makes sense on a local basis, in trying to figure out those things on a collaborative basis that are going to work best in each of those states.

THOMAS: I can't resist a follow-up, on an issue that's now involved in Yellowstone and Teton, with respect to snow machines in the winter. I don't think anyone suggests that we continue to do what's been done, in terms of the machines, in terms of the noise, in terms of the exhaust. But, in fact, rather than to seek to find clean machines, to change the management, why the department has just wanted to terminate that kind of access. What would you think about taking a look at seeing if it couldn't be changed, so that access, and preservation of the resources couldn't go together?

NORTON: I've been out cross-country skiing in the quiet of a snowy day in the forest and had snowmobiles go by, and I know that people can be disturbed by that. I also know that wildlife can be disturbed by snowmobiles. But I'm hopeful there are ways that we can reconcile those issues.

I would look forward to working with you, to see if there are avenues of trying to allow us to use our resources so that all of that can be satisfied.

THOMAS: There's an interesting--and the process is more the issue, than called Jack Morrow Hills in Wyoming. And they studied for about three years, in terms of EIS and the NEPA project, to figure out how to handle it. They came up, after all the public input, and so on, with some plans. And then the secretary arrived, took a look at it, and suggested a different plan, and they discarded all that's been done.

Now, this is pretty destructive to the NEPA process, and to the EIS process. Do you think that's an appropriate way to deal with those kinds of issues?

NORTON: Obviously, I'm not familiar with the details of that particular situation. But we would hope to use correctly the processes that call for scientific study and public input, to reach the right, kind of, well-thought-out result.

THOMAS: We've delved again, in the endangered species, for 10 years, at least, on de-listing grizzly bears. And all the scientists have indicated that there is, indeed, numbers that exceed what the plan was. The difficulty is, of course, designing some, sort of, rules on habitat. In any event, it's gone on forever. And I've suggested, and will probably introduce again, the proposition, where when you list an endangered species, you also have to have a plan for recovery, so that there is some effort to--which is the purpose of endangered species, is to find recovery. But it just goes on and on. What's your reaction to that?

NORTON: Well, I would look forward to working with you to study that issue in more detail.

THOMAS: Well, it's a tough one.

We also--I'm sharing all our little problems with you--wild horses. It's, you know, pretty clear, when you have any critters out on a range of some kind, there's a limit to how much grazing there can be, and how many units can be there. But--and, of course, in years past, why, they starved to death, or whatever, which we don't want them to do now. We haven't seemed to be able to come up, despite a lawsuit--which was in favor of doing some limitation--to finding a solution. It just seems like we need to commit ourselves to coming up with an answer, and getting the question resolved.

I don't know that I expect an answer, but I do want to share that situation with you, and I hope you'll take a look at it.

I'm excited about your opportunity to be interior secretary, and certainly I'm delighted that you're here. And thank you.

NORTON: Thank you.

BINGAMAN: Senator Smith?

SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Norton, welcome to this committee. In 2002, one of the loveliest places in the state of Oregon is going to celebrate a 100th anniversary. It is the Crater Lake National Park. Can you commit to me today, that we will have an appropriate celebration, and that Ron Wyden and I will be invited?

(LAUGHTER)

NORTON: I would be happy to see Senator Wyden and you, Senator Smith, at that.

SMITH: Gale, I appreciated the chance to visit with you the other day. And I think I mentioned to you, my hope that you would find a way to enforce our environmental laws, to keep an environmental stewardship, but that you would remember a human stewardship that we have as well.

I commend to you a model that the Oregon delegation--Republican and Democrat alike--pursued with Bruce Babbitt, that separated our state from, as far as I know, all the others, in terms of these national monuments that have been designated. We found a way to create 170,000 acres of wilderness in the high Steens. And we did it without destroying the economy of Harney County. We respected the heritage of the people that were there, that are there. And I think it's a credit to the joint goal that we ought to have of leaving the environment better, but remembering that people count in the environment as well.

And I could go over tons of local issues, like the Umatilla Project, where we exchange water--we leave water in rivers. So many creative things can be done if we just work together, instead of yell at each other. The Oregon Salmon Plan, our governor developed that with a Republican legislature.

SMITH: It has not had any standing in the environmental community because it's not driven by Washington, D.C.

A lot of things can work if we will start working together. And I hope you will bring that spirit to this job. I have reason to believe you will.

I am going to submit a written question to you about fiber optic facilities on public land and I hope you will give us a response on that. It will require a more detailed answer than you're probably able to do now. But it matters a great deal to fiber optics spreading throughout the West and how the BLM and the Forest Service respond to those.

I would like to quote in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, a person that I know is more than just a Democrat, a person I know is something different than just a committed environmentalist, a person that I know is more than just a Coloradan--his name is Representative Mark Udall. I know him as a cousin. My mother is Jessica Udall.

Mark Udall said and I quote, "She is articulate, highly intelligent and hard working. She is certainly knowledgeable about natural resource law and is regarded as someone who can work effectively in a bipartisan way."

It's good enough for Mark; it's good enough for this Udall. And I hope my colleagues will vote for you in a bipartisan way.

And I noted with interest this rag with your--half of your face on it and I thought back to my own political experience in seeing things like this. I even saw one about my colleague Senator Wyden, because he did a bill with Representative Craig, by some of these same outfits. And I've got to tell you it's not helpful, because it isn't true. This at best fall of half-truths, and, in fact, I believe it is a gross defamation of a public servant.

I look forward to casting an enthusiastic vote for you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BINGAMAN: Thank you.

Senator Burns?

BURNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that my full statement be made part of the record and...

BINGAMAN: It will be made part of the record.

BURNS: Gale, thank you for stepping forward and doing this, because public service is very good service, and you've chosen to do it in a very difficult area in time of a need of where we have to reevaluate some things that happened with our natural resources.

It seems as though the last administration, they did not manage resources and it seems like their policies intentionally set up areas where there will be conflicts, and so they managed conflicts. And I like your approach much better, that we manage our resources and we also do at the local level.

I was interested in remarks of my friend from Oregon, Senator Smith, because he is coming on the Commerce Committee and I chair communications. I've always held that just because a kid is born in Rifle, Colorado, or Jordan, Montana, or Embler (ph), Oregon, remote as those areas are, those kids deserve the benefit of distance learning and the same educational opportunities as those who are born in more urban areas and have a broader spectrum of curriculum.

We have been denied--and when you hit the word access, that is key, because of not only the siting of powers for wireless, broad-band access to the Internet, or ability to interact in distance education with our learning centers like, in his case, Oregon and Oregon State and our University of Montana, and Montana State and our other Rocky Mountain College and MSUB, but access to actually use those lands as a connector of communities. And I think that's what we're all about is bringing communities together, not only the guise of education, but also how we interact on environmental problems, how we deliver and manage health care for our elderly that live in those remote areas because we know that is changing every day. Telemedicine is a real part of the fabric of each one of us in our small communities. So I'm very, very excited about your approach to those kind of issues and how they serve rural America.

I am not blessed with a great urban area in the state of Montana. I said this morning I represent a state that has a great deal of dirt between light bulbs...

(LAUGHTER)

... and we have to deal with that. And our--if you look from Eureka, Montana, to Alzada, Montana, it is further than it is as the crow flies from Chicago to Washington, D.C. And those people deserve all of the benefits that this free land offers and they should have them.

And through that is through this thing of communications. I've always been on the Commerce Committee. I have worked in this area of communications and distance learning and tele-medicine and those areas of hooking communities together to where we can solve problems in those areas. So I welcome your approach.

I, too, have been fallen victim to the Antiquities Act. I am sure that we can work together on some of this area because it has taken--in some areas which I think is very sensitive to those people that live in that area--everybody in Washington, D.C., and I regard this place as 17 square miles of logic-free environment.

(LAUGHTER)

But we are hammered by groups that do not believe that the people that live along the Missouri River or in eastern Montana or the western Dakotas have faces. What about their next generation? What about their kids and their kids and their grandkids?

What about our Native Americans that are on our reservations that we can't even build schools for and build water systems? And I've been very lucky, I've got two big water systems going in on the Rocky Boy and the Fort Peck--the basic thing of water.

And Gale, your approach, as was mentioned awhile ago about water, how many of us have created a vision of what will this country look like in 2015, 2020, 2030 and our demand for fresh water and where will we get it? Water management, as in spectrum management, as in management of hooking together communities.

I think that is part of our responsibility here is to be a part of vision. It doesn't hurt to stop and dream a little bit and to think where we want to be in 20 years. So--and I think you've thought that out.

I thank you for your visit. I thank you for your visit with our group down there. We're just a rogue group, but nonetheless, we appreciate your commitment to what we think are the values that I think all Americans embrace.

And so I appreciate--national parks; we are behind. Glacier and Yellowstone and you know, the area in between in one of our greatest resources in the state of Montana. We want to maintain that as we build the Going to the Sun Highway and we do some things on infrastructure that allows people to enjoy that tremendous view, and a tremendous uplifting of American values that is represented in the grandeur of those two parks. So we really appreciate you.

And I was taken by Senator Graham who wanted to make sure you wanted to honor the moratorium of no offshore drilling as far as the state of Florida was concerned. And I'm sure that the senator from California is also concerned about the same thing. I would also ask them if they would support us if my state wants access for exploration and management of our natural resources. We want access, so ours is another request. If we honor theirs, will they honor ours? And I think that's a logical question.

And thanks again for coming, and I'm going to support you wholeheartedly and I look forward to working with your department and working with Ben Campbell. And we've done some great things for reservations. We've got water settlements to do and we must do that and deal with the area of jurisdiction to make sure that every people, all of the people who live on reservations, are represented evenly and fairly.

And thank you for coming.

NORTON: Thank you .

BURNS: If you want to respond to that, I don't know--you may.

(LAUGHTER)

NORTON: I think I will let your statement speak for itself. And thank you very much.

BURNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BINGAMAN: Thank you.

Senator Cantwell, you will ask the final set of questions.

CANTWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that opportunity, being the new member on the committee.

And Ms. Norton, welcome to the committee. Again, I have heard compliments by former colleagues of yours, our attorney general. So I appreciate your work.

Obviously, the secretary of interior is a very significant position for our entire country, but has a significant impact on the Pacific Northwest. So I would like to--I know there's been a lot of conversation, dialogue about your statements, but I actually was curious about your thoughts on a comment that President-elect Bush made recently. It was in the New York Times on the 14th of this month, in which he said, "I understand the Western mentality and I want the Western mentality represented in this administration."

He went on to say that, "We've got lawyers looking at every single issue, every single opportunity to reverse the actions Mr. Clinton has taken in the waning weeks of his presidency."

So I wanted to get your thoughts about that comment because, obviously, I look at the Western mentality maybe from a little bit different perspective although I don't think that means that I have munchkins working as my staff, or I'm joining the debate society here. I just believe, for many parts of Washington state, where we've had explosive growth, that those environmental policies have allowed us to grow and preserve a great quality of life.

In fact, the last five years I've spent hiring a lot of people in a company that grew from about 15 in five years to over 1,000 and I can tell you that one of the number one questions they asked was about the environmental quality in the Northwest. In fact, had to convince a candidate at one point in time to join the company because we really did have urban growth boundaries in the state of Washington and the Puget Sound area to protect the quality of life, and the state that that person was coming from didn't have those urban growth boundaries.

So to me the Western mentality means also preserving a great quality of life and I know that that's a hard challenge.

My specific questions come on two areas where the Northwest has managed, because of these policies, to implement good plans. And the first of that is under the Endangered Species Act, the Habitat Conservation Plans. In fact I was just in the state last week and heard from some of the timber industry, who wanted to brief me on now much success they had made under those HCPs.

So my first question is, do you plan to request the necessary funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service so that those HCPs and further HCPs, the Habitat Conservation Plans, can continue to be implemented?

NORTON: Thank you for that question. President-elect Bush has said that he very much values the efforts being made to preserve the salmon, and it's certainly consistent with the philosophy that I have discussed of trying to work with the locals to recognize the important efforts that have gone into the Pacific Northwest efforts to maintain the salmon population.

And while I don't know all of the specifics about that, that's something I certainly plan to study if I am confirmed as secretary of the interior.

But I do know that President-elect Bush has made clear his desire to work towards the efforts recognized by the governors of the states affected by the salmon issues in the Pacific Northwest to try to have preservation of the salmon.

CANTWELL: The--thank you for that answer. The second question is similar situation where I feel like we've made great progress. We would have--on protection of the Hanford Reach, that was designated. I know you had some questions earlier about the Antiquities Act. But our community was working well before the development of that as a national monument trying to work out an agreement. And so there had been a lot, in fact, there had been developed a local plan.

So while not 100 percent consensus, there had been a local plan. So in that regard, this is a particular area playing a vital role on salmon recovery and has--covers over 195,000 acres of the last undammed stretch of the Columbia River. So, in thinking about moving forward, in some of the statements, what will you do to make sure that we preserve that as a national monument? And will you commit to not making any changes in that unless consulting with the Northwest delegation?

NORTON: Well, I, again, look forward to learning more about that. I'm not really familiar with that particular area and with what the status of that area is. So, I'll look forward to learning more from you about that.

CANTWELL: So is that something that we could get a comment--again, not to take the rest of the remaining few minutes of the committee's time, but is that something we could get a comment giving you more details on, because it is a project that we would want to know your support of?

NORTON: We could certainly look at providing some comments for the record on that--some written comments.

CANTWELL: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that indulgence.

BINGAMAN: Thank you very much.

We'll plan to recess to recess until 9:00 tomorrow. And at that time, we'll continue with any senators that haven't had a chance to ask the first round of questions. If they're not here, we'll start with the second round.

Thank you very much.