These words are not only uncivil, but they distract from sincere differences over principle and policy that have made this nomination troubling for those concerned about the environment.

I oppose Norton's nomination because, for a Cabinet post that demands that its occupant strike a difficult and delicate balance between conservation and development, Bush has selected an individual whose philosophy is remarkably unbalanced.

The secretary of the interior is responsible for protecting almost 500 million acres of public land, including our parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. The secretary is the steward of Yosemite, Yellowstone, Everglades, Great Smoky Mountains, Glacier, Mt. Rainier, and our other national treasures. The secretary implements critical parts of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Superfund, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and other laws that protect our natural resources.

At the same time, the interior secretary manages the development of our public lands. Private companies use our nation's water, minerals, timber, oil, gas, and other public resources, contributing to national economic growth and providing thousands of jobs.

The secretary must strike the proper balance between conservation and development, yet Norton has staked out positions favoring excessive development over sound conservation.

As a constitutional attorney, Norton argued that bedrock federal environmental, public health, and other laws are unconstitutional or otherwise fatally flawed. If her core convictions were the basis for this new administration's actions, it would unravel most of our nation's environmental safeguards.

Norton has written that we should consider ''a homesteading right to pollute or to make noise in an area.'' While she has acknowledged that that statement is unclear, the policy consequence is clear: to protect the air, water, or land from pollution, we must pay the polluter to stop polluting.

Norton has argued that all or parts of the Clean Air Act and other protections are unconstitutional under her view of states' rights. She has argued that the Surface Mining Act - ensuring mines operate safely - is unconstitutional and ''threatens to destroy the federal structure of government.''

She has called for weakening environmental considerations in the National Environmental Policy Act. She has argued against the Superfund law's ''polluter pays'' provisions, a fundamental principle that protects the taxpayers from paying the cost of cleaning up toxic waste sites or enduring environmental degradation in their communities.

Norton's record as Colorado attorney general - another job in which she pledged to enforce the law - provides a troublesome perspective of how she might use the discretion of federal office.

At the same time that Norton cut her office's environmental enforcement budget by more than 30 percent, government watchdog groups report that she pursued the federal government for environmental violations but lightly prosecuted corporate polluters.

She failed to take action against a power plant repeatedly violating the Clean Air Act, a refinery discharging oil into a creek, require a strong cleanup plan from a company emitting heavy metals, or pursue action against a polluting mill that ultimately received $37 million in fines for willfully covering up violations.

At her confirmation hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Norton stated a willingness to rethink her views and pledged to enforce the laws of the Interior Department. But too often absolutist legal views were cast aside with little or vague explanation.

She declined comment on a range of issues in which her philosophy could play a central role in decision making, offering to review them once in office.

This is not an academic exercise. It was only six years ago that the Newt Gingrich-led Congress sought to enact the philosophy Norton has advocated. Her record as attorney general itself highlights the difference between blanket proclamations and executive discretion. Nor has President Bush explained why he has chosen Norton to implement laws she has passionately argued are unconstitutional or substantially flawed for roughly two decades.

I do not believe a citizen can or should be expected to disavow a career's record to join the Cabinet and serve this nation. Neither do I believe senators should be expected to cast away legitimate concerns about that record for the sake of an expedient transition. Bipartisanship is compromise - not capitulation.

Given the assaults on the environment of the past few years and knowing the sanctity of our public treasures hangs in the balance, I will vote against the nomination of a secretary-designate whose philosophy threatens that balance.

John F. Kerry is a US senator.