[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 54 (Thursday, May 4, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3499-S3500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      PARK SERVICE SNOWMOBILE BAN

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to talk 
about the Department of Interior's recent decision to ban snowmobiling 
in most units of the National Park System.
  While the Interior Department's recent decision will not ban 
snowmobiling in Minnesota's Voyageurs National Park, it will impact 
snowmobiling in at least two units of the Park System in my home 
State--Grand Portage National Monument and the St. Croix National 
Scenic Riverway. In addition, this decision will greatly impact 
Minnesotans who enjoy snowmobiling, not only in Minnesota, but in many 
of our National Parks, particularly in the western part of our country.
  When I think of snowmobiling in Minnesota, I think of families and 
friends. I think of people who come together on their free time to 
enjoy the wonders of Minnesota in a way no other form of transportation 
allows them. I also think of the fact that in many instances 
snowmobiles in Minnesota are used for much more than just recreation. 
For some, they're a mode of transportation when snow blankets our 
state. For others, snowmobiles provide a mode of search and rescue 
activity. Whatever the reason, snowmobiles are an extremely important 
aspect of commerce, travel, recreation, and safety in my home state.
  Minnesota, right now, is home to over 280,000 registered snowmobiles 
and 20,000 miles of snowmobile trails. According to the Minnesota 
United Snowmobilers Association, an association with over 51,000 
individual members, Minnesota's 311 snowmobile riding clubs raised 
$264,000 for charity in 1998 alone. Snowmobiling creates over 6,600 
jobs and $645 million of economic activity in Minnesota. Minnesota is 
home to two major snowmobile manufacturers--Arctic Cat and Polaris. And 
yes, I enjoy my own snowmobiles.
  People who enjoy snowmobiling come from all walks of life. They are 
farmers, lawyers, nurses, construction workers, loggers, and miners. 
They are men, women, and young adults. They are people who enjoy the 
outdoors, time with their families, and the recreational opportunities 
our diverse climate offers. These are people who not only enjoy the 
natural resources through which they ride, but understand the important 
balance between enjoying and conserving our natural resources.
  Just 3 years ago, I took part in a snowmobile ride through a number 
of cities and trails in northern Minnesota. While our ride didn't take 
us through a unit of the National Park Service, it did take us through 
parks, forests, and trails that sustain a diverse amount of plant and 
animal species. I talked with my fellow riders and I learned a great 
deal about the work their snowmobile clubs undertake to conserve 
natural resources, respect the integrity of the land upon which they 
ride, and educate their members about the need to ride responsibly.
  The time I spent with these individuals and the time I have spent on 
my own snowmobiles have given me a great respect for both the quality 
and enjoyment of the recreational experience and the need to ride 
responsibly and safely. They have also given me reason to strongly 
disagree with the approach the Park Service has chosen in banning 
snowmobiles from our National Parks.
  I was stunned to read of the severity of the Park Service's ban and 
the rhetoric used by Assistant Secretary Donald J. Barry in announcing 
the ban. In the announcement, Assistant Secretary Barry said, ``The 
time has come for the National Park Service to pull in its welcome mat 
for recreational snowmobiling.'' He went on to say that snowmobiles 
were, ``machines that are no longer welcome in our national parks.'' 
These are not the words of someone who is approaching a sensitive issue 
in a thoughtful way. These are the words of a bureaucrat whose agenda 
has been handwritten for him by those opposed to snowmobiling.
  The last time I checked, Congress is supposed to be setting the 
agenda of the Federal agencies. The last time I checked, Congress 
should be determining who is and is not welcome on our Federal lands. 
And the last time I checked, the American people own our public-lands--
not the Clinton administration and certainly not Donald J. Barry.
  In light of such brazenness, it's amazing to me that this 
administration, and some of my colleagues in Congress, question our 
objections to efforts that would allow the Federal Government to 
purchase even larger tracts of private land. If we were dealing with 
Federal land managers who considered the intent of Congress, who worked 
with local officials, or who listened to the concerns of those most 
impacted by Federal land-use decisions, we might be more inclined to 
consider their efforts. But when this administration, time and again, 
thumbs its nose at Congress and acts repeatedly against the will of 
local officials and American citizens, it is little wonder the some in 
Congress might not want to turn over more private land to this 
administration.
  I cannot begin to count the rules, regulations, and executive orders 
this administration has undertaken without even the most minimal 
consideration for Congress or local officials. It has happened in state 
after state, to Democrats and Republicans, and with little or no regard 
for the rule or the intent of law. I want to quote Interior Secretary 
Bruce Babbitt from an article in the National Journal, dated May 22, 
1999. In the article, Secretary Babbitt was quoted as saying:

       When I got to town, what I didn't know was that we didn't 
     need more legislation. But we looked around and saw we had 
     authority to regulate grazing policies. It took 18 months to 
     draft new grazing regulations. On mining, we have also found 
     that we already had authority over, well, probably two-thirds 
     of the issues in contention. We've switched the rules of the 
     game. We are not trying to do anything legislatively.

  That is a remarkable statement by an extremely candid man, and his 
intent to work around Congress is clearly reflected in this most recent 
decision. Clearly, Secretary Babbit and his staff felt the rules that 
they've created allow them to ``pull the welcome mat for recreational 
users'' to our national parks.
  As further evidence of this administration's abuse of Congress--and 
therefore of the American people--Environmental Protection Agency 
Administrator Carol Browner was quoted in the same article as saying:

       We completely understand all of the executive tools that 
     are available to us--And boy do we use them.

  While Ms. Browner's words strongly imply an intent to work around 
Congress, at least she did not join Secretary Babbit in coming right 
out and admitting it.
  Mr. President, I for one am getting a little sick and tired of 
watching this

[[Page S3500]]

administration force park users out of their parks, steal land from our 
States and counties, impose costly new regulations on farmers and 
businesses without scientific justification, and force Congress to 
become a spectator on many of the most controversial and important 
issues before the American people.
  It is getting to the point where I am not sure what to tell my 
constituents. I have been on the phone with snowmobilers in Minnesota 
and they ask what can be done. I start to explain that because of the 
filibuster in the Senate and the President's ability to veto, it will 
be difficult for Congress to take any action. I have found myself 
saying that a lot lately. Whether it is regulations on Total Maximum 
Daily Loads, efforts to put 50 million acres of forests in wilderness, 
or new rules to regulate a worker's house should they choose to work at 
home, this aAdministration just doesn't respect the legislative process 
or the role of Congress. Nor does this administration respect the jobs, 
traditions, cultures, of lifestyles of millions of Americans. If you 
are an American who has yet to be negatively impacted by the actions of 
this administration, just wait your turn because you were evidently at 
the end of the list. Sooner or later, if they get their way in the next 
few months, they're going to kill your job, render your private 
property unusable, and ban you from accessing public lands that have 
been accessible for generations.Regrettably, many of us in Congress are 
now left with the proposition of telling our constituents that we must 
wait for a new administration. I have to tell them that this 
administration is on its way out the door and they're employing a 
scorched earth exit strategy. And I have to warn them that the 
situation could get worse if a certain Vice President finds himself 
residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year.
  I have to admit, there is nothing pleasurable about telling your 
constituents to wait until next year. I think it is important to 
remember that, as Senators, we are the representatives of every one of 
our constituents. When I have to tell a constituent that Congress has 
lost its power to act on this matter, I am actually telling that 
constituent that he or she has lost their power on this matter. When I 
have to tell a snowmobiler that the administration doesn't care what 
Congress has to say about snowmobile in national parks, I am really 
telling him or her that the administration doesn't care what the 
American people have to say about snowmobiling in national parks. Well, 
I doubt any of us could've said that any better than Donald J. Barry 
said it himself.
  When forging public policy, those of us in Congress often have to 
consider the opinions of the state and local officials who are most 
impacted. If I'm going to support an action on public land, I usually 
contact the state and local officials who represent the area to see 
what they have to say. I know that if I don't get their perspective, I 
might miss a detail that could improve my efforts. I also know that the 
local officials can tell me if my efforts are necessary or if they're 
misplaced. They can alert me to areas where I need to forge a broader 
consensus and of ways in which my efforts might actually hurt the 
people I represent. I think that is a prudent way to forge public 
policy and a fair way to deal with state and local officials.
  I know, however, that no one from the Park Service ever contacted me 
to see how I felt about banning snowmobiling in Park Service units in 
Minnesota. I was never consulted on snowmobiling usage in Minnesota or 
on any complaints that I might have received from my constituents. 
While I've not checked with every local official in Minnesota, not one 
local official has called me to say that the Park Service contacted 
them. In fact, while I knew the Park Service was considering taking 
action to curb snowmobile usage in some Parks, I had no idea the Park 
Service was considering an action so broad, and so extreme, nor did I 
think they would issue it this quickly.
  This quick, overreaching action by the Park Service, I believe, was 
unwarranted. It did not allow time for federal, state, or local 
officials to work together on the issue. It didn't bring snowmobile 
users to the table to discuss the impact of the decision. It didn't 
allow time for Congress and the Administration to look at all of the 
available options or to differentiate between parks with heavy 
snowmobile usage and those with occasional usage. This decision stands 
as a dramatic example of how not to conduct policy formulation and is 
an affront to the consideration American citizens deserve from their 
elected officials.
  I hope we take a hard look at this decision and call the 
administration before Senate Committees for hearings. I have long 
believed that we can have an impact on these matters by holding strong 
oversight hearings and by forcing the Administration to account for its 
actions. We cannot, however, simply stand by and watch as the 
Administration continues its quest for even greater power at the 
expense of the deliberative legislative processes envisioned by the 
founders of our country. Secretary Babbit, Administrator Browner, and 
Donald J. Barry may believe they're above working with Congress, but 
only we can make sure they're reminded, in the strongest possible 
terms, that when they neglect Congress they're neglecting the American 
people.
  I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________