[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7477-7478]
[From the U.S. 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're 
farmers, lawyers, nurses, construction workers, loggers, and miners. 
They're men, women, and young adults. They're 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 three 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've 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've 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 that some in 
Congress might not want to turn over more private land to this 
Administration.
  I can't 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're not trying to do anything legislatively.

  In other words, an end run of Congress, which is an end run of the 
American people.
  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 Babbitt 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.

  So it is handy for them to avoid the legislative route, to avoid 
coming through Congress; they do it through executive orders and 
mandates.

[[Page 7478]]

  While Ms. Browner's words strongly imply an intent to work around 
Congress, at least she did not join Secretary Babbitt in coming right 
out and admitting it.
  I for one am getting a little sick and tired of watching this 
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's getting to the point where I'm not sure what to tell my 
constituents. I've 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've found myself saying 
that a lot lately. Whether it's 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 Administration 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're 
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's nothing pleasurable about telling your 
constituents to wait until next year. I think it's 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'm 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 snowmobiling 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. 
Congress did not get a chance to debate it or to represent the people 
back home. 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 snowmobile 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. I do not think any local officials thought 
this would happen. I know those involved in the snowmobile industry had 
no idea, while talking with this administration, this was going to come 
down. It was a shot out of the blue.
  I believe this quick overreaching by the Park Service was 
unwarranted. It did not allow time for Federal, State, or local 
officials to work together on this issue. It did not bring snowmobile 
users to the table to discuss the impact of this decision on them. It 
did not 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 formation and 
formulation. It is an affront to the consideration American citizens 
deserve from their elected officials.
  I would like to repeat that. This decision stands as a very dramatic 
example of how not to conduct policy formulation and is an affront to 
the consideration that I believe 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 believe there 
has been one scheduled. Senator Craig Thomas, I believe, will be 
holding such a hearing on May 25 to try to bring some administration 
officials before Congress and to ask some very simple questions: Why 
was this action taken? I have long believed we can have an impact on 
these matters by holding strong oversight hearings and by forcing the 
administration to be accountable for their actions. We cannot, however, 
simply stand by and watch as this administration continues its quest, 
in its final, waning days, for even greater power, power that will come 
at the expense of the deliberative, legislative process envisioned by 
the founders of this country.
  Secretary Babbitt, Administrator Browner, and Donald J. Barry may 
believe they are above working with this Congress. But only we can make 
sure that they are reminded, and we can do it in the strongest possible 
terms, that when they neglect Congress they are neglecting the American 
people.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________