RO D G R A M S WASHINGTON OFFICE. PH 202-224-3244 c o m m it t e e s : FAX 202 228-0956 INTERNET: MAIL_GRAMS@GRAMS SENATE GlV b a n k i n g , h o u s i n g , a n d u r b a n a f f a i r s MINNESOTA OFFICE: ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Senate 2013 SECONO AVENUE NORTH WASHINGTON, DC 20510 FOREIGN RELATIONS ANOKA. MN 55303 PH 612-427-5921 JOINT ECONOMIC FAX 612-427-8872

STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR Before the House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands on Legislation Regarding the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park July 16, 1996

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s important hearing on the issues surrounding the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. Knowing that you have already chaired two field hearings on these national treasures, 1 truly appreciate your longstanding commitment to hearing the views of Minnesotans and citizens nationwide.

Mr. Chairman, we are here to discuss how it is possible to both protect and enjoy the beauty and splendor of these two national treasures. As you can see from the proposals we are debating today, we in the Minnesota delegation agree with each other on these goals, but differ as to how best to achieve them.

During the two congressional field hearings in Minnesota, I found that nearly every Minnesotan also shares these goals. With that in mind, I have joined my colleague , who represents the areas containing both the BWCAW and Voyageurs National Park, in introducing modest, common-sense proposals to return to the original intents of the laws creating these two areas and to give the public a say in how their land is managed. As the dean of the Minnesota delegation and one of the architects of the laws governing Voyageurs National Park, Congressman Oberstar knows firsthand how and why these areas were created and his expertise in these matters is highly regarded by all involved.

I'm also proud to be involved in a coalition — one that crosses party lines, political ideology and geography — of hard-working and caring Minnesotans who are passionate about preserving their lands for current and future generations, while remaining dedicated to restoring the commitments that the federal government has made since the 1970's.

There has been spirited opposition to our legislation — from the Washington bureaucrats who have failed to be accountable to the people they serve, from the defenders of the status quo who have blocked the needed changes in the management of the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs, and from the far element of the environmental movement who are afraid of giving the public a greater say in the restoration of the commitments made long ago to the people of northern Minnesota. Their goals are embodied in the bill introduced by my colleague from St. Paul, Congressman — legislation which is in direct contradiction to the bills Congressman Oberstar and I have introduced. Instead of trying to right the wrongs of the past 25 years, the Vento bill imposes even further restrictions on those who want responsible access and use in the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. Simply put, at a time when people are asking Congress to help them play a larger role in the process, the Vento bill gives them nothing more than the Washington-knows-best policies that have failed in the past. Surely we do not want to move any further in that direction.

In contrast, the Oberstar bills are about restoring the commitments made by the likes of the late Senator , who pledged that wilderness designation would not hurt northern Minnesota. Due to inequities over the 1978 law creating the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, however, northern Minnesotans have been forced out of a land they once called their own.

Our bills restore limited mechanized portaging, make common-sense boundaiy adjustments, and reaffirm the intent of certain aspects of the 1978 Boundary Waters law. Moreover, both bills create a mechanism which maximizes citizen input into the federal land management process. Like my bill, the Oberstar legislation forms an intergovernmental council in each area to ensure that federal, state and local officials and the people are all given a seat at the table — that management is conducted by agreement and partnership, not by edict.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, allow me to give you a single, real-life example of why such a council is needed. In April of this year, the National Park Service imposed a ban on the use of live bait in the interior lake 3 of the Park — a decision imposed without solicitation of the public or notification to area sportsmen and women or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Let me quote one state official who said, "It was a big surprise to us. There was no prior discussion with us on the ban. There’s a longstanding tradition in the Park of beina able to use live bait."

After further objections were raised, the Park Service lifted the ban. In doing so, the Park Superintendent was quoted in area papers as saying, "I had no idea this was going to be a problem. If I had known, trust me, I would have dealt with it differently." Under our legislation, such missteps on the part of the Park Service would no longer occur.

Under current law, however, these examples are all too common. Whether it’s the imposition of unfair snowmobiling regulations which are not based on science, or the failure of the Park Service to conduct a visitor-use study in Voyageurs National Park, or definition changes and ever-increasing quotas on motorboat use in the Boundary Waters, the real answer to the problem lies in giving the public an avenue to make their voices heard. Maybe that's why almost two-thirds of respondents said in a recent St. Paul Pioneer Press poll that management should not rest solely in the hands of the federal government. And as part of my testimony, I ask unanimous consent to submit an editorial from the International Falls Daily Journal which describes the need for such public input.

Americans take pride in the fact that our government is based on the pursuit of democracy — in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." That principle should have as much relevance today as it did when President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address.

If we are truly committed to restoring the principles of democracy outlined by President Lincoln, we can start by passing the Oberstar bills and defeating the Vento proposal. Let us no longer block the march of democracy but help pave the way for it across America — and let that movement begin in the national treasures we call the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee today.