Comments on Gale Norton Nomination
History shows that only rarely have our groups opposed presidential cabinet nominees; in fact, to my knowledge, this is the first time for Defenders of Wildlife. We didn’t even oppose James Watt when he was nominated to be Interior Secretary. Of course we didn’t know then that James Watt was going to turn out to be that JAMES WATT. Well, we do know that Gale Norton will be the next James Watt, because she’s told us so.
Clearly, Ms. Norton’s nomination is intended to satisfy only the extremist right-wing element of Mr. Bush’s party, which has been salivating for years to open our public lands to massive resource exploitation. And to make his position unambiguously clear to his friends in the oil industry, President-elect Bush promised that he would allow drilling in this country’s crown jewel among wildlife sanctuaries, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
We already know what the American people think about this scheme.
Indeed, the League of Conservation Voters poll taken immediately after the election, by a bipartisan polling team, found that American voters oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge by a whopping 66% to 25% margin; and this included Bush voters who oppose drilling by 52% to 37%, a huge 15-point spread.
When her nomination was announced on December 30th, Ms. Norton chose to use her few minutes before the TV cameras to extol the incredible virtues of our public lands, citing of all things, "the untamed wilderness of Alaska" which she identified as one of those "beautiful and special places" that she looked forward to having the "awesome responsibility" for preserving. What hogwash. A couple of minutes later she was explaining how she wholeheartedly supports drilling in the biological heart of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, this nation’s greatest wildlife sanctuary, and one that is incredibly vulnerable to being irreparably damaged by oil drilling. Oil and wildlife don’t mix, and neither do oil and wildlife refuges, especially in the fragile arctic tundra.
And of course it isn’t just the Arctic Refuge at risk here. If George Bush and Gale Norton have no hesitancy drilling in the crown jewel of our wildlife sanctuaries, why would they hesitate to drill - or mine - or cut timber - in any of our public lands, save perhaps Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades and the Grand Canyon? The answer is: They wouldn’t hesitate. That’s what candidate Bush meant when he said he wants to put the public lands to work. And that’s what Ms Norton meant when she said she supports his positions on resource issues.
There is no reason for the country to pay the same high price as paid by Colorado for Ms. Norton’s support of corporate polluters and scofflaws. News accounts abound explaining how time and again, she effectively told the people of her state "Tough Luck!" when their lives and property were harmed by mining companies that dumped cyanide in streams, by sawmills that illegally smoked people out of their homes, or by nuclear waste dumps in the middle of Denver. Not only did citizens have to fight the companies that had harmed their health or property, but they had to take on their own state attorney general to do it.
And so we feel we have no alternative but to oppose the extremist Norton nomination. When John Kennedy was President, he warned that "Each generation must deal anew with the ‘raiders’" who would unsustainably exploit the "public resources for private profit." I’m sure he didn’t expect those raiders to actually try to occupy the Department of the Interior and try to use it as a kind of Trojan horse to conquer the public lands. But that is what Ms. Norton’s nomination represents.
Time is very short. The public can send their message of disapproval to their senators by simply going to this web site: www.SayNoToNorton.org. In fact, that’s the best way to also send a message to President-elect Bush that we want real stewardship of our environment and public lands.
Contact(s):
Cat Lazaroff, (202) 772-3270