Summary:

All articles in Senate section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
(Senate - July 17, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7014-S7043] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Rhode Island. Amendment No. 3798 Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 3798 at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an amendment numbered 3798. Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To increase funding for weatherization assistance grants, with an offset) On page 182, beginning on line 9, strike ``$761,937,000'' and all that follows through ``$138,000,000'' on line 17 and insert ``$769,937,000, to remain available until expended, of which $2,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the Biomass Energy Development account and $8,000,000 shall be derived by transfer of a proportionate amount from each other account for which this Act makes funds available for travel, supplies, and printing expenses: Provided, That $172,000,000 shall be for use in energy conservation programs as defined in section 3008(3) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows: $146,000,000''. Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy and Senator Schumer be added as cosponsors of this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would provide an additional $8 million for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program. Across the country this summer, Americans have faced unacceptably high gasoline prices. Last winter, our constituents, particularly in the Northeast, saw extraordinary increases in home heating oil prices. Members of this body have offered various proposals to address this issue, ranging from urging OPEC to increase production; increasing domestic crude oil production, by drilling in new areas; building up our refining capacity; and expanding our use of ethanol and alternative fuels. Essentially, all of these proposals are supply side proposals, increasing the supply of energy. In fact, we are reaching a point now where the proposal to encourage OPEC might be running out of time. I note that the Saudi Arabians are asking for a meeting of OPEC in the next few days, because if there is not a meeting immediately, even if there is an increase in production, it will be insufficient in terms of reaching our markets for the winter heating season. All of these supply side proposals are interesting, but we are neglecting an important aspect of the overall composition of the heating market--and that is demand. The weatherization program goes right to this critical issue of demand. By weatherizing homes, by making them more energy efficient, we are literally cutting down the demand for energy, and typically foreign energy. As Congress debates these proposals for supply relief, we should also start thinking seriously about demand reduction. That is critically involved in the whole issue of energy efficiency and weatherization. At the same time, our weatherization program protects the most vulnerable people in our society because they are aimed at the elderly, individuals with disabilities, children, all of them being subject to huge increases in heating costs, not only in the wintertime--that is the case in the Northeast--but in the Southeast and Southwest and the very hot parts of this country in the summertime. In fact, it was not too long ago--several years ago--in Chicago where there was an extraordinary heat spell. People literally died because they could not afford to keep their air-conditioners running, if they had air-conditioning. Or they could not afford to keep paying exorbitant energy costs because their homes were inefficient in terms of retaining the cool air from air-conditioning. So this is a program that cuts across the entire country. The Weatherization Assistance Program supports the weatherization of over 70,000 low-income homes each year. To date, over 5 million American homes have been weatherized with Federal funds, and also local funds, which must be part of the formula in order to provide this type of assistance for American homes. Last December, I had a chance to witness this program in action. I was in Providence, RI, with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. We went to a low-income home in Providence. In just a few hours, a contractor was able [[Page S7015]] to blow in insulation between the walls; they were able to caulk windows and doorways; they were able to conduct tests to ensure that the energy efficiency of the structure had increased dramatically. This was a home of a family of first-generation Americans. They had come from Southeast Asia in the turmoil of the war in Southeast Asia. The father was in his late 40s, early 50s, and had several children-- all of them American success stories. The children were in college. His mother was living with them. She was disabled, suffering from Alzheimer's. This is typically the type of families--low-income families, struggling, working hard with jobs, trying to get kids through college--who are the beneficiaries of this program. It is an excellent program. It is a program that is terribly needed by these low-income families. Typically, low-income families will spend about 15 percent of their income on heat--or in the summer, air-conditioning--more than four times the average of more affluent families. Over 90 percent of the households that are served by this weatherization program have annual incomes of less than $15,000. This is a program that works. It works for these individual families. Not only that, it also works for us. It creates jobs. About 8,000 jobs throughout the country have been created because of this weatherization program. It also saves us from consuming and wasting energy. I argue, as I have initially, one should look at the supply side complications of the energy crisis. One should implore OPEC to increase production. One should have sensible problems to ensure supply. But if we neglect the demand part of the equation, we are not only missing the boat, but I think we are deficient in our responsibility to formulate a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency in this country. In 1996, the budget was $214 million, but because of cuts generated by the Contract With America, and other proposals, it dipped down to about $111 million--a significant cut. This was one of those programs that was devastated by the budget policies of the mid-1990s. Since that time, we have added money back because, again, I believe this body particularly recognizes both the fairness and the efficiency of this program. But still we are at about $135 million in fiscal year 2000. That is still 37 percent below the 1996 figure. If we can afford, as Senator Kennedy said, at length and eloquently, to engage in trillion-dollar tax cuts, multibillion-dollar benefits that go to the very wealthiest Americans, we should be able to at least increase our weatherization funding by $8 million to cover additional families, low-income families, families who have disabled members, families who are working hard trying to get by and need this type of assistance. Again, as we look over the last several weeks, and even this week, talking about relief for the marriage penalty, estate tax relief, it reminds me of a play on Winston Churchill's famous line about the RAF, ``never have so many owed so much to so few.'' We seem to be in a position of saying, never have so few gotten so much from so many. I want to ensure that at least when it comes to weatherization we are responding to the critical needs of families across this country. I had hoped we could move towards the President's request of $154 million. That would be about a 14-percent increase over our present level of $135 million. My amendment does not seek that full increase. It simply seeks an additional $8 million. I think the money will be well spent. The program works. It puts people to work. It helps low-income families. It helps us address a problem which is growing with increasing importance, and that is to control our insatiable demand for energy, particularly petroleum. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope, perhaps, we can even work out a way in which this amendment can be accepted by the chairman and his colleagues. If it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just under 2 hours ago, at the outset of this debate, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, came to the floor with an eloquent plea about the lack of money to properly manage Great Smokey National Park and pointed out the tremendous challenges to that major national park in our system. The Senator from Nevada, the other Mr. Reid, spoke in agreement with that proposition. The Senator from Tennessee did not have an amendment to increase the appropriations for Great Smokey National Park or for any other. I have found it curious that in the several years I have managed this bill and written this bill, almost without exception the amendments that are brought to the floor are amendments to increase the amount of money we donate to other units of Government for their primary purposes and almost never do they express a concern for increasing the amount of money to support the functions of the Government of the United States itself. I have gone a long way--my committee has gone a long way--in drafting this bill at least to begin to make up for the deferred maintenance in our national parks and in our national forests and with respect to our Indian reservations and our Indian programs and the management of the Bureau of Public Lands. I think we have at least turned the corner. As I said in my opening remarks on the bill, this is our primary function and our primary goal; that is, to see to it that we manage the public lands of the United States and the other functions in this bill that are exclusively Federal functions first and deal with other matters later. I sympathize with the eloquent statement of the Senator from Rhode Island. In fact, I have supported that case in this bill for several years. When one compares this appropriation with that in the first year during which I managed this bill, it is increased by a good 20 percent. But here we have a proposal to add another $8 million, which will come out of every program for which the U.S. Government has exclusive responsibility. It will mean there will be less--not much less, but there will be less --for Great Smokey National Park. There will be less for the Fish and Wildlife Service and its multitude of obligations. There will be less for the Smithsonian Institution. There will be less for research and development of the very programs for energy efficiency which are the key to providing both energy independence and the proper and efficient use of energy. With all respect to the Senator from Rhode Island, this has nothing to do with the tax debate. We have a budget resolution and a set of allocations that have given this committee a fixed number of dollars with which to work. I repeat that: a fixed number of dollars with which to work. It is all spent in this bill. So we can't just add this $8 million or $18 million to the bill and say, well, let's take it out of a tax cut or out of a budget surplus or the like. The Senator from Rhode Island recognizes that. He has a match for this $8 million. But I simply have to repeat: The match is from the primary functions of the Federal Government, the management of our national parks and forests, the energy research we undertake, the cultural institutions of the United States. That is from where this match comes. A year ago, we said: If this program is so important to the States, let's require them to match what we come up with by 25 percent. Let them come up with 25 percent. Some States do provide some money for this. We had to postpone that for a year. In this bill we have had to have a way to grant State waivers, when States regard this program evidently as so lacking in importance that they are not willing to put up 25 percent of the money for their own citizens for something that is primarily their responsibility. As I said, we are $3 million above the level for the current year. The House is $5 million above the level for the current year. If we end up with a larger allocation--and, personally, I hope for a larger allocation--by the time the conference committee has completed its [[Page S7016]] work, we will have a modestly larger amount of money for this program in a final conference committee report. But it is not responsible to take it out of our National Park System. It is not responsible to take it out of our existing energy research. It is not responsible to take it out of the cultural institutions of the United States. That is precisely what this does. Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield? Mr. GORTON. Certainly. Mr. REED. Mr. President, I do applaud the Senator's efforts over many years to increase this account. He has done that. I think it makes a great deal of sense to provide a local match, which he has, and we would encourage more local participation. It is true we have provided an offset because I recognize that we do not have unlimited free money to put back into the budget. We have taken money from every Federal agency. But I am told that our cut represents .05 percent per agency coming out of travel pay, coming out of administrative overhead. I think that is probably something they could well absorb. I daresay it would not require them to either turn down the heat or turn off the air-conditioning, whereas we are talking about a situation of homes throughout this country where they don't have that luxury. So I agree in principle that we are taking it from agencies, but we are taking such a minute fraction that I think it would be readily absorbed. And we are putting it into a program that is both worthwhile and necessary in so many cases, and also going to the heart of ensuring that people can go into this heating season --particularly in the Northeast--with a little more confidence. I am concerned we are going to see tremendous oil heating price hikes which will force people into very difficult choices between heating or eating. This is a way, I believe, in which we can begin to start addressing this point. Again, I recognize that the chairman has very diligently and sincerely tried to increase these funds. I hope we can do better. I don't think we are penalizing the agencies, and I don't anticipate a park being shut down by the loss of .5 percent of their travel expenses and other overhead. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, first, there is another far more important program and far more expensive program that goes to these very issues. The appropriations bill for military construction included many other matters. There was $600 million more for the direct assistance to people with their heating oil bills. In some respects, this is every bit as important a program because it tries to lower the bills in the first place. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct; this is a small percentage of the budgets for the national parks. It is also the subject of match for several other amendments here because it is so easy. We don't say this program is much more important than another program, so let's cut the other program; we just say, in effect, cut them all across the board. But it is $8 million more in deferred maintenance for our national parks, or for our other national lands. And since this is a program that, over the course of the last 5 years, has increased more rapidly, bluntly, than the amount of money we have for these primary responsibilities, that is the reason we came up with the amount that we did. Would I have liked to come up with more? Yes. If I have a larger allocation later, I will. Will there be more? There will be. I don't think at this point, for a State program, that many States aren't matching--and the requirement for match is only 25 percent--that this is as important as the national priorities that are the subject of the rest of this bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wyoming is recognized. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 3800 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 3800. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To provide authority for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the management of conflicting activities and uses) On page 125, line 25 strike ``$58,209,000'' through page 126, line 2 and insert in lieu thereof ``$57,809,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be available to carry out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.). SEC. . MANAGEMENT STUDY OF CONFLICTING USES. (a) Snow Machine Study.--Of funds made available to the Secretary of the Interior for the operation of National Recreation and Preservation Programs of the National Park Service $400,000 shall be available to conduct a study to determine how the National Park Service can: (1) minimize the potential impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System; and (2) properly manage competing recreational activities in units of the National Park System. (b) Limitation of Funds Pending Study Completion.--No funds appropriated under this Act may be expended to prohibit, ban or reduce the number of snow machines from units of the National Park System that allowed the use of snow machines during any one of the last three winter seasons until the study referred to in subsection (a) is completed and submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue that is very important to many people. It is certainly important to me as chairman of the parks subcommittee in the Senate and as a supporter of parks. Having grown up right outside of Yellowstone Park, the parks there are very much a part of our lives. Let me quickly summarize what this amendment does. I can do it very quickly because it is quite simple. It deals with the idea and the concept of having access to national parks, when it is appropriate, for the use of individual snow machines--something we have done for some 20 years--frankly, without any particular objection until this last year, and without any real evidence that we can't make some changes that would allow us to continue to do that. Unfortunately, rather than looking for an opportunity to bring about some changes in the machines, or some changes in the way they are used, or to manage the way they are used, this administration has simply said: We are going to bring about a regulation unilaterally that will eliminate the use of snow machines in the parks of the United States. What this amendment does, simply, is provide some money--$400,000; and we have found a place to get that money--to conduct a study to determine how the national parks can do a couple of things: One, minimize the potential impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System. That is pretty logical stuff. In fact, you can almost ask yourself, haven't they done this? The answer is that they have not. Two, properly manage competing recreational activities in units of the national park. Again, that is pretty easy to do. In Yellowstone Park, where there is a great demand for using snow machines, on the one hand, and cross-country skiing, on the other, with management you can separate these two so that they are not conflicting uses. Of course, that requires some management. So then the second part of it is that no funds may be appropriated until such time, basically, as the Park Service has completed their study and submitted it back to the Committee on Appropriations in the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate. So this doesn't put any long-time restriction on what can be done. It simply says: Here is some money; take a look at where we are, what the problems are, and what we can do about them, and bring that back and make some management decisions. It is fairly simple and, I think, fairly reasonable. That is what this amendment is all about. [[Page S7017]] I guess the real issue comes about due to the fact that we have had a considerable amount of activity. What really brings it about is a winter use study that is going on now in Yellowstone and the Teton Parks. It has to do with the broad aspect of winter use and with buffalo moving out of the park and what kinds of things can be done there; and how people can get in and out of the parks and utilize them in the wintertime, which really brought about this whole thing. The Assistant Secretary of the Interior went out to look and came back with an idea--I think mostly of his own--that we ought to do away with snowmobile use. He did this without having any facts, science, or looking at what could be done so that you could be consistent with the purpose of the park. The purpose of a park is basically to maintain the resource and to maintain it in such a way that its owners can enjoy the use of it. Those things are not inconsistent. Those things are not inconsistent with snowmobiles, in my judgment. But whether it is my judgment or not, more importantly, the idea to come to the conclusion that they are inconsistent without any facts is something we ought not to accept. I am a little surprised that someone in this Congress would rise to defend the authority of the executive branch to go around the Congress and to do something without even including the Congress or the people. That is not the way this place is set up. That is not what we are here for. That is why we have a division between the executive and the legislative and the judicial--a very important division. It is, frankly, being ignored by this administration not only on this issue but on many of them. They are overtly saying: If we don't get approval, we will just do it. That is not the way things are supposed to happen. I am also a little surprised, frankly, that a representative of a public lands State would be interested in having the agencies that manage--in the case of Nevada--nearly 90 percent of the land and, in Wyoming, over half, making decisions without involving some of the people who should be involved, who are involved with living in these areas. I think we are really talking about a system of rulemaking--a system of regulation--and one that needs to be based on facts and based on the idea that you take a look at issues. Frankly, the substantial amount of evidence about what has been said about snowmobiles in west Yellowstone and other places simply isn't factual. I could go through all of that stuff, but I will not. But it is terribly important that we try to do things based on real facts. The Department of Interior has announced that it intends to ban snowmobiles in all but 12 of about 30 parks--not all in the West, as a matter of fact. We sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior some time ago with 12 signatures on it. They quickly came to the Senate from Maine, from Minnesota, from the west coast, and some from the Rocky Mountains. It is not only in the area that has limited interest; it has interest from all over the whole country. The Department claims that only a complete ban to curb snowmobiles on issues and noise will protect the wildlife. That simply isn't the only alternative that is available. I want to make it very clear that it is not my position, nor would I defend the notion that snowmobiles ought to continue to be used as they are currently being used. They can be changed substantially. We have had meetings with the manufacturers, which, by the way, have a very strong presence in Minnesota. Lots of jobs and lots of issues are involved. Jobs isn't really the issue. The issue is access to the land that belongs to the people of this country, but they can be changed. One of the things that has not happened and that should happen is there ought to have been some standard established for snowmobiles, saying here is the level of emissions that is acceptable, and here is the level of noise that is acceptable. If you want to use your machine in the park, you have to have one that complies with these regulations. There have been none. The same thing could be said about where you use the machine. If you are going to be in the same track as deer, it doesn't need to be that way. We have had failure on the part of management of the Park Service to do something to make these kinds of uses compatible with the purposes of the parks. Rather than do that, or rather than making efforts to do that, they simply say, no. They are just going to cut it out; they aren't going to do that. I object to that process. I don't think that is the kind of process that we ought to look forward to in this country--whether it is snowmobiles, or water, or whether it is automobiles, or whether it is food regulations, or whatever. We have to have something better. Interior has never considered a single management scheme to be able to make it better. Certainly I hear all the time: Well, the snow machine people should have done something better. Maybe so. I don't argue with that. However, if you were a developer of snow machines, if you were a manufacturer and you were going to invest a good deal of money to make changes in them, I think it would be important to you to know what the standard is going to be so you are able to meet those requirements and continue to be able to put out the machine that would comply. We have had hearings. We have met with those manufacturers. They testified they can and will produce and market the machine, if EPA will set the standard. It is kind of interesting that most of the parks, such as Yellowstone, are full of cars, buses, and all kinds of things in the summertime which do not seem to have an impact here. But in the wintertime, it seems that something much less in terms of numbers is what we are going to cut off. I want to deal largely with the concept that we ought to really pay attention to the purpose of these resources--to make them available, to have access to them, that we need to have a system that is based on findings of fact and science, and be able to come up with alternatives rather than simply making the bureaucrat decision downtown that we are going to do away with this or we are going to do away with that. We ought to put into effect a time that this agency can study this issue, look at the alternatives, provide some money to do that, have them bring their findings back, and then certainly make some choices. This amendment is simple and straightforward. I think that is better than the bureaucratic approach of just deciding somewhere in the bowels of the Interior Department we are going to do something. I find a great deal of reaction to it in my State, of course, and the surrounding States which are very much impacted. This is not a partisan issue. I have worked with the majority leader and the Senator from Montana to try to find a solution. We are looking for solutions. That is really what we need some time to be able to do. Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to reverse the snowmobile ban in our national parks and provide funding for a study to determine how the National Park Service can minimize the impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System. I want to thank Senators Thomas and Craig for their efforts to bring this important amendment before the Senate for consideration. While the Interior Department's ill-conceived ban will not immediately affect 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, [[Page S7018]] 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 the 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. It has 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 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. 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 legislative. 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 Babbitt in coming right out and admitting it. Well, Mr. President, I for one am getting a little sick and tried 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. Quite frankly, I'm getting a little sick and tired of this Administration's positions of zero-cut, zero-access, and zero-fun on public lands. 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 official 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 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. 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. That is why this amendment is so important. It reverses the dark of night, back room tactics used by this Administration to arrive at this decision. We cannot 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 Babbitt, 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. This amendment does just that. Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment introduced by the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Craig Thomas, regarding a study on snowmobile use within our National Parks. The development of the Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks winter use plan draft environmental impact statement has been a landmark exercise for inclusion and cooperation between state, local and Federal Agencies involved in the land management planning process. While this endeavor has not progressed without flaws, it has established that local and state governments possess the expertise and ability to respond in a timely and educated manner to address issues critical to the development of a comprehensive land-use document. In spite of these efforts, however, the United States Department of the Interior has announced a decision to usurp this process and has chosen to implement an outright ban on all snowmobiles, in virtually all national parks, including Yellowstone. I must admit I am not surprised at the over-reaching nature of this action. In fact, several months ago I predicted that the Park Service would ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park and would [[Page S7019]] extend its ban on snowmobiles to all national parks. I am further concerned that this action will spread to include other public land including the national forests. In fact, discussions with National Forest supervisors surrounding Yellowstone indicate that all it will take is an adverse opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ban snowmobiles altogether. The United States Forest Service could claim that increased snowmobile use on our national forests will impact the Canadian lynx, or some other threatened or endangered species, without proof or documentation to put such a ban in place. After a ban in the forests, we can expect action on BLM lands. After snowmobiles, what next? A ban on automobiles and then even on bicycles? If that sounds farfetched, think back just three years ago when we were assured that snowmobiles would not be banned in Yellowstone Park. Soon, we may even expect that bans on other types of recreation will follow and our public lands will no longer be available to the public. As one of the Senators representing the bulk of Yellowstone, I feel it is my duty to correct some of the misconceptions that surround this proposal by the federal government to prohibit access to our nation's oldest and dearest of national parks. Millions of visitors come to Yellowstone National Park each year to experience first hand the park's unique and awesome beauty. They come from all over the world to see Earth's largest collection of geothermal features and to witness some of the largest free-roaming bison and elk herds in the United States. In a proposal announced March 24, 2000 the U.S. Department of the Interior declared its plan to permanently ban snowmobiles from the park beginning in 2002. This announcement was followed by a later statement, on April 27, 2000, where the Department of Interior expanded a proposed ban to dozens of other national parks across the country. If federal officials and national special interest groups have their way, however, a visit to Yellowstone National Park may become as rare and endangered as the trumpeter swan or black footed ferret. There is little evidence to support claims that this proposal was made to protect the environment or to reduce the impact on Park animals. In fact, later statements by park personnel indicate that the main reason for this ban was to comply with changing Park Service policy which was developed to supersede ongoing efforts to reach a reasonable compromise on national park winter use. As I stated earlier, the decision to ban snowmobiles was announced before the Park Service had completed its review of comments on a draft environmental impact statement created by the park and adjacent states and counties to address concerns over winter use in Yellowstone and its neighbor, Grand Teton National Park. The announcement also came before officials could incorporate revisions and amendments to major studies that the Park Service relied on in drafting the draft environmental impact statement. The Park Service admits these initial studies were seriously flawed and exaggerated snowmobile pollution estimates. The original draft study on snowmobile emissions erroneously computed emissions amounts using pounds instead of grams as is used to compute all standard emission amounts. So what is the real reason for banning snowmobiles from Yellowstone and all other national parks? The Park Service's proposal to ban snowmobiles is all about deciding who will have the privilege of experiencing the Park up close and in person, and who will be forced to stay home. Unfortunately, this will leave an even larger segment of the United States ignorant of how vast and wonderful our parks really are. It is vitally important, therefore, that a true picture be painted for the American public to understand what is really being taken away from them. One poll touted by national environmental organizations claims most Americans favor banning snowmobiles, partially based on an image of snowmobiles as heinous, smog producing, noisy devices used to run down poor, defenseless animals and lacking a conception of the size of the park and the limited number of snowmobiles accessing the park on any given day. The administration failed to inform the public of other alternatives to an outright ban that were in the works. For example: snowmobile manufacturers are interested in cleaner, quieter machines. There was also discussion about reducing the number of snowmobiles that could access the park every winter. Not many people realize that local leaders were very involved in trying to resolve the situation to avoid implementing a full fledged ban. In addition, the snowmobile industry has been working for several years to develop air and noise standards with the Environmental Protection Agency so there is a clear target for cleaner, quieter machines. Industry has stated time and time again that once they have clearly defined standards they will develop the technology to meet those standards (assuming some reasonableness to the standard) One company even gave the Park Service some advanced model snowmobiles to test. Right now, snowmobiles are only allowed on groomed roads, the same roads used by cars in the summer and average less than two-thousand snowmobiles a day. A speed limit of 45 miles per hour is strictly enforced. Any driver who puts one ski off the designated trails is subject to fines and possible arrest. The same goes for speeding. This is a significant point to make by the way, because the Executive order this ban is based on regulates off-road vehicle use on our national parks, and as I just noted, snowmobiles are not off-road vehicles in national parks. What a snowmobile ban really does is deny access for old and young riders with physical limitations that preclude them from snowshoeing or cross country skiing into the park. The only alternative left for those visitors unable to snowshoe or ski into the park will only be able to access the park via a mass transit vehicle known as a snow coach. Because of its size, and the type of terrain, it is incredibly impractical to limit access to Yellowstone to just snow coaches or cross country skis and snowshoes. Yellowstone is made up of approximately 2.2 million acres, most of which is already closed to public access other than by foot, snow shoe or skis, and has less than 2,000 snowmobiles inside the park on any given day. By comparison, the State of Connecticut is slightly larger than Yellowstone Park with more than 3.3 million people, many of which drive a car every day. Perspective is important. On its face, and in the safety of your own living room, the idea of riding a van-sized, over snow vehicle may sound like a romantic mode of travel, but in reality, snow coaches are large, cumbersome vehicles that grind, scrape, and shake their way across high mountain passes. It is impossible to ride in a snow coach for long periods of time. As a result, the proposal to only access the park by means of mass transit further restricts time and access to the park by virtually eliminating all entrances to Yellowstone except for the gate at West Yellowstone, Montana. The terrain and elevation at Wyoming's East Gate is so rugged and high that it is impractical for snow coaches to travel in that area of the park. Sylvan Pass reaches an elevation of 8,530 feet and is surrounded by mountains that rise well over 10,000 feet on one side, and gorges with sheet drops of several thousand feet on the other. This is definitely not a place for a snow coach. Furthermore, by moving the southern access point from Flag Ranch to Colter Bay, the Park Service makes any southern day trip into Yellowstone an impossible 113 miles round trip. This also creates a serious safety problem for Idaho snow groomers who, in the past, filled up their gas tanks at Flag Ranch. Under the current proposal, these facilities will be closed and the groomers will not have enough gas to make one complete round trip. This creates a serious safety problem and shuts off access to more than 60 miles of non-Park Service trails. Once again, I would like to reiterate that the complete banning of snowmobiles is not the only available alternative for national park recreational winter use. For the past three years, I have worked with the communities surrounding Yellowstone to develop a more practical and more inclusive approach to Yellowstone winter use. [[Page S7020]] After holding dozens of meetings with residents and business owners, we have been able to create a proposal that preserves the park's environmental health while at the same time ensuring future access--for everyone. This amendment will enable the Park Service to rethink its actions and hopefully incorporate a more positive approach to winter management. I grew up spending time in Yellowstone where grandparents camped inside the park all summer. I have been back many times since, sometimes on a snowmobile. In fact, I get there every year. Over the years the park has improved, not been overrun or run down as efforts mostly to get additional funds imply. Anyone who knows and loves Yellowstone like I do can attest to the fact that there is room enough for wildlife, snowmobiles, snowshoers, cross country skiers and snow coaches in Yellowstone, and a reasonable compromise can be reached to include all of these uses, that is unless federal officials don't step in first and ensure everyone is excluded. Wildlife and human enjoyment of the wildlife are not mutually exclusive. Good administration would accommodate both. The study outlined in this amendment would establish a necessary first step in restoring access, not just to the park, but to the land planning process, for those people who will bear the brunt of the Park Service's decision to ban snowmobiles. Clearly, the Park Service's decision in this matter is an arbitrary decision that bypassed local communities, counties, states and even Congress. The Park Service needs the direction provided for in this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is recognized. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand in support of my colleague from Wyoming on his amendment. I was quite surprised when Senator Reid of Nevada spoke on the floor about this issue because I heard what he was saying before. It was given in testimony before the Subcommittee on Parks, chaired by the Senator from Wyoming, by the national environmental groups. He was following their script. Their script says: Get all of the snowmobiles out of the park. For some reason that impacts the parks. I have ridden snowmobiles in Yellowstone. I am not sure the Senator from Nevada has. I am not sure many Senators have. I don't dispute the need to manage the number of snowmobiles and the entry of snowmobiles where they travel. But arbitrarily and without justification, Assistant Secretary Barry--who has now fled to the Wilderness Society once he tried to accomplish his damage here in this administration with the Park Service--came before the committee and emphatically said they had to go. In a press conference a few days prior to that hearing in almost a defiant, arrogant way, he said he was going to take all of them out of the parks, finish the rulemaking in Yellowstone, and so be it--failing to recognize the industries that have built up around snowmobiling at both entrances to Yellowstone Park; failing to deal with them in a responsible, cooperative way--so that he could ensure the mantra of the Clinton administration, and that public lands generate economies in recreation and tourism. Here quite the opposite was going on--no economy, everything for the environment, even though the facts bear out that you can still have an economy, meaning people on snowmobiles in Yellowstone in the wintertime, and still protect the environment. How do you accomplish that? You work with the industry. What do you do with the industry? You ask them to redesign their sleds so they make little to no noise and very little pollution --if there is any of consequence that would damage the environment to begin with. What does the industry say? They can do it. In fact, last winter they were operating in Yellowstone with a prototype put out by one of the snowmobile manufacturers. It was a four-cycle instead of a two-cycle engine. The Senator from Nevada was bemoaning the pollution of the two- cycle. We now know they can produce a four-cycle that will be certainly less environmentally damaging. They are willing to do that. The moment the industry said to the Park Service we can supply you with a new sled that meets these standards, the Park Service says: Oh, well, it wasn't air pollution, it wasn't noise pollution, it was wildlife harassment. Somehow the wildlife of Yellowstone is going through some emotional problem as a result of snowmobiles trafficking by recreationists on a daily basis. I am not quite sure they have had any examples of these wildlife species in therapy. But somehow they seem to know a great deal about it. The bottom line is simply this: The environmentalists have told this administration they want snowmobiles out of the parks. I suggest to the National Park Service that they have a real problem on their hands in management. In other words, they are denying public access to parks that were designed to protect the environment and also allow public access. They have a crisis in management. They don't have an environmental problem in Yellowstone, they have a management problem, a failure on the part of this administration, and certainly this President, to recognize the cooperative balance between the environment and the public and how one benefits from creating this kind of balance for all to benefit from. Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield? Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I note another Senator interested in the subject. I note there are 55 minutes between now and 6:15. I have a minimum of 3 amendments that I know are going to be debated and will require votes, and perhaps five. While there are no limitations on this, I appreciate it being concluded relatively quickly so we can go to the Senator from Nevada. His amendment will be contested, and there will be more after that. We are scheduled to go off this bill, for good, except for votes, at 6:15. Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for giving an evaluation of the time remaining on the amendments that must be dealt with. I know the chairman has been struggling since around 3:15 to get Senators to debate the amendments, and now all of a sudden they appear on the floor in the last minutes. I conclude my debate. The Senator from Montana, I know, wants to speak to this issue. It impacts his State and the economy of his State. Once again I say to the administration, shame on you for taking people out of the environment, all in the name of the environment. It doesn't seem a very good solution to me, if you are going to tout tourism and recreation to us western States as an alternative to the elimination of the extractive resource industries that have provided economies to our States for the last 100-plus years. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Montana is recognized. Mr. BURNS. It will not take long to make the point. I will facilitate everything, as the chairman of the subcommittee wants. If Members want to talk about wildlife in Yellowstone, you will see very little variety in wildlife in Yellowstone in the wintertime. If you have been there, you know that about the only thing you will see is bison. Let me tell you, you don't bother them with a little old snowmobile. They are just walking around, and they go wherever they want to, whenever they want to. So let's not be worried about the bison. Whether you agree with it or not, there are too many bison in the park. We have grazed that country right into the ground. I remind Members that those who operate the snowmobiles out of West Yellowstone have gone to the Park Service and said: We will make arrangements to prevent line-ups at the gate, we will get new, cleaner, quieter machines, we will work with you in order to protect the environment of Yellowstone Park. There will be more people in a week this summer through the park than all of next winter. You cannot even get through that park for traffic right now. One of these days, you will have to go to a gate and pick a number and they call your number and you get to go to the park. The impact is in the summer, not in the winter, no matter what you are riding. It could be an old gray horse or a snowmobile, it doesn't make any difference. And are we concerned about that? [[Page S7021]] Let's not be shocked. The Senator from Wyoming has a good idea. It is time we take a realistic look at this, do the study, and go forward with the recommendations that are made. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued proposed regulations governing the emissions of snowmobiles in our National Park System. It is very clear that these vehicles cause big problems. Why do I say that? A single snowmobile belches out the same pollution that 20 automobiles do. One snowmobile equals the pollution of 20 passenger cars. Also, my friend from Tennessee earlier talked about the air pollution in the Great Smoky Mountains because of coal-fired generating plants in that area. There isn't much that can be done, at this stage at least, to stop those longstanding power producers from generating the emissions they do. But there is something we can do to stop air pollution from developing as it has in our National Park System. It is a national disgrace that the levels of toxic pollution, such as carbon monoxide--in Yellowstone National Park, to pick just one--rival major urban centers such as Los Angeles and Denver. I repeat, it is a national disgrace that levels of toxic pollutants such as carbon monoxide, in our national parks--especially Yellowstone--at times, rival major urban centers such as Los Angeles and Denver. That is significant. But what is being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency is nothing that is going to eliminate snowmobiling in our country. For example, of the more than 130,000 miles of designated snowmobile trails in the United States, less than 1,000 of those miles are in national parks--to be exact, there are 600 miles. So this furor, and the offering of this amendment, to eliminate this proposal to stop the air pollution of snowmobiles in national parks is really a red herring. There are other places you can ride snowmobiles. In fact, you can ride them over 129,000 miles in the United States alone. We need not ride them this 600 miles in national parks. Appropriate access to national parks is important, but such access does not include all forms of transportation at all times. Protecting parks from air, water, and noise pollution, for the enjoyment of all Americans, should be our No. 1 goal. I am very happy that the Senator from Tennessee spoke earlier about how important national parks are. I agree with him. We are the envy of the rest of the world with our national parks. Yosemite, Great Basin National Park, Yellowstone National Park--these wonderful gems of nature, that we are attempting to preserve, need to be preserved. The amendment would prohibit the Park Service from doing its job to protect some of America's most awe-inspiring national treasures. The landscape of our national parks should reflect the wonders of our Creator, which I think we have an obligation to protect. National parks do not need to serve as racetracks for noisy, high-polluting snow machines. The State of Nevada shares Lake Tahoe with California. We wish we had all of Lake Tahoe, but we do not mind sharing it with California. It is a wonderful, beautiful lake. There is only one other lake like it in the world, and that is Lake Bakal in the former Soviet Union, now Russia, an alpine glacial lake. Lake Tahoe it is very deep--not as deep as Lake Bakal, which is over 5,000 feet deep, but very deep. It was only 35 years ago they found the bottom of Lake Tahoe. It is extremely cold. It is beautiful. It is emerald colored. But one of the things contributing to the ruination of Lake Tahoe is two-stroke engines. They were outlawed last year. I am glad they were outlawed. People may complain: What are we going to do for recreation? There are plenty of things to do for recreation without these two- stroke engines. They are gone now. The lake is less polluted. It sounds better. Two-stroke engines are also the engines that snowmobiles use. They have been outlawed at Lake Tahoe. Why? Because they are inefficient, highly polluting, and contribute disproportionately to the decline of the lake's legendary clarity and degradation of its water quality. Our national parks deserve similar protection from the pollution produced by these snow machines. In sum, the use of snowmobiles currently prevents adequate protection of air and water quality for wildlife. Damage is being done to national parks not some time in the future but right now. The unnecessary delay caused by this amendment would allow further damage to our parks. Congress should allow individual parks that currently allow snowmobiling to go through a public comment process to determine what course of action is appropriate. This amendment would eliminate that. EPA agrees that the Park Service has the primary and immediate duty to take action to protect parks from snowmobile impacts. In comments on the draft EIS for winter use at Yellowstone, EPA said: We encourage the National Park Service to take the steps necessary to protect human health and the environment immediately rather than to depend on future regulations of off-highway vehicle engines from EPA. They are saying let's not wait for us to do it. The Park Service has an obligation to do it right now. Postponing Park Service action on the snowmobile issue is a delay tactic, pure and simple. The amendment we are debating assumes there is an inherent right of snowmobiles to run wild in the national parks, irrespective of their impact on other users and the environment. This is a very flawed assumption. They have no inherent right to run wild in national parks. All Americans have the right to enjoy our national parks but only in ways that do not damage the parks. Prohibiting snowmobiles in national parks will have an insignificant impact on recreational opportunities available to snowmobilers. Again, there are more than 130,000 miles of designated trails in the United States, and less than 1,000 of those miles are in national parks. That is less than 1 percent. Because millions of acres of public lands are already open to public snowmobiling, banning snow machines in national parks does not prevent recreationists from using their vehicles. It just prevents them from using the most sensitive and heavily visited public lands. Arguing that every form of recreational access should be allowed in national parks is silly. Visitors do not need to jet boat in Crater Lake National Park. Visitors do not need to ride dirt bikes in the Grand Canyon. Visitors do not need to bungee jump from the Washington Monument. Prohibitions against such activities do not restrict Americans' access to our parks; rather, they indicate a willingness to protect parks for the enjoyment of all visitors. Great Basin National Park in Nevada already prohibits snowmobile use. Glacier and Yosemite Parks do not allow snowmobile use. What are some of the environmental problems caused by snowmobiles in national parks? Environmental analyses

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
(Senate - July 17, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7014-S7043] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Rhode Island. Amendment No. 3798 Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 3798 at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an amendment numbered 3798. Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To increase funding for weatherization assistance grants, with an offset) On page 182, beginning on line 9, strike ``$761,937,000'' and all that follows through ``$138,000,000'' on line 17 and insert ``$769,937,000, to remain available until expended, of which $2,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the Biomass Energy Development account and $8,000,000 shall be derived by transfer of a proportionate amount from each other account for which this Act makes funds available for travel, supplies, and printing expenses: Provided, That $172,000,000 shall be for use in energy conservation programs as defined in section 3008(3) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows: $146,000,000''. Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy and Senator Schumer be added as cosponsors of this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would provide an additional $8 million for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program. Across the country this summer, Americans have faced unacceptably high gasoline prices. Last winter, our constituents, particularly in the Northeast, saw extraordinary increases in home heating oil prices. Members of this body have offered various proposals to address this issue, ranging from urging OPEC to increase production; increasing domestic crude oil production, by drilling in new areas; building up our refining capacity; and expanding our use of ethanol and alternative fuels. Essentially, all of these proposals are supply side proposals, increasing the supply of energy. In fact, we are reaching a point now where the proposal to encourage OPEC might be running out of time. I note that the Saudi Arabians are asking for a meeting of OPEC in the next few days, because if there is not a meeting immediately, even if there is an increase in production, it will be insufficient in terms of reaching our markets for the winter heating season. All of these supply side proposals are interesting, but we are neglecting an important aspect of the overall composition of the heating market--and that is demand. The weatherization program goes right to this critical issue of demand. By weatherizing homes, by making them more energy efficient, we are literally cutting down the demand for energy, and typically foreign energy. As Congress debates these proposals for supply relief, we should also start thinking seriously about demand reduction. That is critically involved in the whole issue of energy efficiency and weatherization. At the same time, our weatherization program protects the most vulnerable people in our society because they are aimed at the elderly, individuals with disabilities, children, all of them being subject to huge increases in heating costs, not only in the wintertime--that is the case in the Northeast--but in the Southeast and Southwest and the very hot parts of this country in the summertime. In fact, it was not too long ago--several years ago--in Chicago where there was an extraordinary heat spell. People literally died because they could not afford to keep their air-conditioners running, if they had air-conditioning. Or they could not afford to keep paying exorbitant energy costs because their homes were inefficient in terms of retaining the cool air from air-conditioning. So this is a program that cuts across the entire country. The Weatherization Assistance Program supports the weatherization of over 70,000 low-income homes each year. To date, over 5 million American homes have been weatherized with Federal funds, and also local funds, which must be part of the formula in order to provide this type of assistance for American homes. Last December, I had a chance to witness this program in action. I was in Providence, RI, with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. We went to a low-income home in Providence. In just a few hours, a contractor was able [[Page S7015]] to blow in insulation between the walls; they were able to caulk windows and doorways; they were able to conduct tests to ensure that the energy efficiency of the structure had increased dramatically. This was a home of a family of first-generation Americans. They had come from Southeast Asia in the turmoil of the war in Southeast Asia. The father was in his late 40s, early 50s, and had several children-- all of them American success stories. The children were in college. His mother was living with them. She was disabled, suffering from Alzheimer's. This is typically the type of families--low-income families, struggling, working hard with jobs, trying to get kids through college--who are the beneficiaries of this program. It is an excellent program. It is a program that is terribly needed by these low-income families. Typically, low-income families will spend about 15 percent of their income on heat--or in the summer, air-conditioning--more than four times the average of more affluent families. Over 90 percent of the households that are served by this weatherization program have annual incomes of less than $15,000. This is a program that works. It works for these individual families. Not only that, it also works for us. It creates jobs. About 8,000 jobs throughout the country have been created because of this weatherization program. It also saves us from consuming and wasting energy. I argue, as I have initially, one should look at the supply side complications of the energy crisis. One should implore OPEC to increase production. One should have sensible problems to ensure supply. But if we neglect the demand part of the equation, we are not only missing the boat, but I think we are deficient in our responsibility to formulate a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency in this country. In 1996, the budget was $214 million, but because of cuts generated by the Contract With America, and other proposals, it dipped down to about $111 million--a significant cut. This was one of those programs that was devastated by the budget policies of the mid-1990s. Since that time, we have added money back because, again, I believe this body particularly recognizes both the fairness and the efficiency of this program. But still we are at about $135 million in fiscal year 2000. That is still 37 percent below the 1996 figure. If we can afford, as Senator Kennedy said, at length and eloquently, to engage in trillion-dollar tax cuts, multibillion-dollar benefits that go to the very wealthiest Americans, we should be able to at least increase our weatherization funding by $8 million to cover additional families, low-income families, families who have disabled members, families who are working hard trying to get by and need this type of assistance. Again, as we look over the last several weeks, and even this week, talking about relief for the marriage penalty, estate tax relief, it reminds me of a play on Winston Churchill's famous line about the RAF, ``never have so many owed so much to so few.'' We seem to be in a position of saying, never have so few gotten so much from so many. I want to ensure that at least when it comes to weatherization we are responding to the critical needs of families across this country. I had hoped we could move towards the President's request of $154 million. That would be about a 14-percent increase over our present level of $135 million. My amendment does not seek that full increase. It simply seeks an additional $8 million. I think the money will be well spent. The program works. It puts people to work. It helps low-income families. It helps us address a problem which is growing with increasing importance, and that is to control our insatiable demand for energy, particularly petroleum. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope, perhaps, we can even work out a way in which this amendment can be accepted by the chairman and his colleagues. If it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just under 2 hours ago, at the outset of this debate, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, came to the floor with an eloquent plea about the lack of money to properly manage Great Smokey National Park and pointed out the tremendous challenges to that major national park in our system. The Senator from Nevada, the other Mr. Reid, spoke in agreement with that proposition. The Senator from Tennessee did not have an amendment to increase the appropriations for Great Smokey National Park or for any other. I have found it curious that in the several years I have managed this bill and written this bill, almost without exception the amendments that are brought to the floor are amendments to increase the amount of money we donate to other units of Government for their primary purposes and almost never do they express a concern for increasing the amount of money to support the functions of the Government of the United States itself. I have gone a long way--my committee has gone a long way--in drafting this bill at least to begin to make up for the deferred maintenance in our national parks and in our national forests and with respect to our Indian reservations and our Indian programs and the management of the Bureau of Public Lands. I think we have at least turned the corner. As I said in my opening remarks on the bill, this is our primary function and our primary goal; that is, to see to it that we manage the public lands of the United States and the other functions in this bill that are exclusively Federal functions first and deal with other matters later. I sympathize with the eloquent statement of the Senator from Rhode Island. In fact, I have supported that case in this bill for several years. When one compares this appropriation with that in the first year during which I managed this bill, it is increased by a good 20 percent. But here we have a proposal to add another $8 million, which will come out of every program for which the U.S. Government has exclusive responsibility. It will mean there will be less--not much less, but there will be less --for Great Smokey National Park. There will be less for the Fish and Wildlife Service and its multitude of obligations. There will be less for the Smithsonian Institution. There will be less for research and development of the very programs for energy efficiency which are the key to providing both energy independence and the proper and efficient use of energy. With all respect to the Senator from Rhode Island, this has nothing to do with the tax debate. We have a budget resolution and a set of allocations that have given this committee a fixed number of dollars with which to work. I repeat that: a fixed number of dollars with which to work. It is all spent in this bill. So we can't just add this $8 million or $18 million to the bill and say, well, let's take it out of a tax cut or out of a budget surplus or the like. The Senator from Rhode Island recognizes that. He has a match for this $8 million. But I simply have to repeat: The match is from the primary functions of the Federal Government, the management of our national parks and forests, the energy research we undertake, the cultural institutions of the United States. That is from where this match comes. A year ago, we said: If this program is so important to the States, let's require them to match what we come up with by 25 percent. Let them come up with 25 percent. Some States do provide some money for this. We had to postpone that for a year. In this bill we have had to have a way to grant State waivers, when States regard this program evidently as so lacking in importance that they are not willing to put up 25 percent of the money for their own citizens for something that is primarily their responsibility. As I said, we are $3 million above the level for the current year. The House is $5 million above the level for the current year. If we end up with a larger allocation--and, personally, I hope for a larger allocation--by the time the conference committee has completed its [[Page S7016]] work, we will have a modestly larger amount of money for this program in a final conference committee report. But it is not responsible to take it out of our National Park System. It is not responsible to take it out of our existing energy research. It is not responsible to take it out of the cultural institutions of the United States. That is precisely what this does. Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield? Mr. GORTON. Certainly. Mr. REED. Mr. President, I do applaud the Senator's efforts over many years to increase this account. He has done that. I think it makes a great deal of sense to provide a local match, which he has, and we would encourage more local participation. It is true we have provided an offset because I recognize that we do not have unlimited free money to put back into the budget. We have taken money from every Federal agency. But I am told that our cut represents .05 percent per agency coming out of travel pay, coming out of administrative overhead. I think that is probably something they could well absorb. I daresay it would not require them to either turn down the heat or turn off the air-conditioning, whereas we are talking about a situation of homes throughout this country where they don't have that luxury. So I agree in principle that we are taking it from agencies, but we are taking such a minute fraction that I think it would be readily absorbed. And we are putting it into a program that is both worthwhile and necessary in so many cases, and also going to the heart of ensuring that people can go into this heating season --particularly in the Northeast--with a little more confidence. I am concerned we are going to see tremendous oil heating price hikes which will force people into very difficult choices between heating or eating. This is a way, I believe, in which we can begin to start addressing this point. Again, I recognize that the chairman has very diligently and sincerely tried to increase these funds. I hope we can do better. I don't think we are penalizing the agencies, and I don't anticipate a park being shut down by the loss of .5 percent of their travel expenses and other overhead. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, first, there is another far more important program and far more expensive program that goes to these very issues. The appropriations bill for military construction included many other matters. There was $600 million more for the direct assistance to people with their heating oil bills. In some respects, this is every bit as important a program because it tries to lower the bills in the first place. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct; this is a small percentage of the budgets for the national parks. It is also the subject of match for several other amendments here because it is so easy. We don't say this program is much more important than another program, so let's cut the other program; we just say, in effect, cut them all across the board. But it is $8 million more in deferred maintenance for our national parks, or for our other national lands. And since this is a program that, over the course of the last 5 years, has increased more rapidly, bluntly, than the amount of money we have for these primary responsibilities, that is the reason we came up with the amount that we did. Would I have liked to come up with more? Yes. If I have a larger allocation later, I will. Will there be more? There will be. I don't think at this point, for a State program, that many States aren't matching--and the requirement for match is only 25 percent--that this is as important as the national priorities that are the subject of the rest of this bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wyoming is recognized. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 3800 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 3800. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To provide authority for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the management of conflicting activities and uses) On page 125, line 25 strike ``$58,209,000'' through page 126, line 2 and insert in lieu thereof ``$57,809,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be available to carry out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.). SEC. . MANAGEMENT STUDY OF CONFLICTING USES. (a) Snow Machine Study.--Of funds made available to the Secretary of the Interior for the operation of National Recreation and Preservation Programs of the National Park Service $400,000 shall be available to conduct a study to determine how the National Park Service can: (1) minimize the potential impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System; and (2) properly manage competing recreational activities in units of the National Park System. (b) Limitation of Funds Pending Study Completion.--No funds appropriated under this Act may be expended to prohibit, ban or reduce the number of snow machines from units of the National Park System that allowed the use of snow machines during any one of the last three winter seasons until the study referred to in subsection (a) is completed and submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue that is very important to many people. It is certainly important to me as chairman of the parks subcommittee in the Senate and as a supporter of parks. Having grown up right outside of Yellowstone Park, the parks there are very much a part of our lives. Let me quickly summarize what this amendment does. I can do it very quickly because it is quite simple. It deals with the idea and the concept of having access to national parks, when it is appropriate, for the use of individual snow machines--something we have done for some 20 years--frankly, without any particular objection until this last year, and without any real evidence that we can't make some changes that would allow us to continue to do that. Unfortunately, rather than looking for an opportunity to bring about some changes in the machines, or some changes in the way they are used, or to manage the way they are used, this administration has simply said: We are going to bring about a regulation unilaterally that will eliminate the use of snow machines in the parks of the United States. What this amendment does, simply, is provide some money--$400,000; and we have found a place to get that money--to conduct a study to determine how the national parks can do a couple of things: One, minimize the potential impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System. That is pretty logical stuff. In fact, you can almost ask yourself, haven't they done this? The answer is that they have not. Two, properly manage competing recreational activities in units of the national park. Again, that is pretty easy to do. In Yellowstone Park, where there is a great demand for using snow machines, on the one hand, and cross-country skiing, on the other, with management you can separate these two so that they are not conflicting uses. Of course, that requires some management. So then the second part of it is that no funds may be appropriated until such time, basically, as the Park Service has completed their study and submitted it back to the Committee on Appropriations in the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate. So this doesn't put any long-time restriction on what can be done. It simply says: Here is some money; take a look at where we are, what the problems are, and what we can do about them, and bring that back and make some management decisions. It is fairly simple and, I think, fairly reasonable. That is what this amendment is all about. [[Page S7017]] I guess the real issue comes about due to the fact that we have had a considerable amount of activity. What really brings it about is a winter use study that is going on now in Yellowstone and the Teton Parks. It has to do with the broad aspect of winter use and with buffalo moving out of the park and what kinds of things can be done there; and how people can get in and out of the parks and utilize them in the wintertime, which really brought about this whole thing. The Assistant Secretary of the Interior went out to look and came back with an idea--I think mostly of his own--that we ought to do away with snowmobile use. He did this without having any facts, science, or looking at what could be done so that you could be consistent with the purpose of the park. The purpose of a park is basically to maintain the resource and to maintain it in such a way that its owners can enjoy the use of it. Those things are not inconsistent. Those things are not inconsistent with snowmobiles, in my judgment. But whether it is my judgment or not, more importantly, the idea to come to the conclusion that they are inconsistent without any facts is something we ought not to accept. I am a little surprised that someone in this Congress would rise to defend the authority of the executive branch to go around the Congress and to do something without even including the Congress or the people. That is not the way this place is set up. That is not what we are here for. That is why we have a division between the executive and the legislative and the judicial--a very important division. It is, frankly, being ignored by this administration not only on this issue but on many of them. They are overtly saying: If we don't get approval, we will just do it. That is not the way things are supposed to happen. I am also a little surprised, frankly, that a representative of a public lands State would be interested in having the agencies that manage--in the case of Nevada--nearly 90 percent of the land and, in Wyoming, over half, making decisions without involving some of the people who should be involved, who are involved with living in these areas. I think we are really talking about a system of rulemaking--a system of regulation--and one that needs to be based on facts and based on the idea that you take a look at issues. Frankly, the substantial amount of evidence about what has been said about snowmobiles in west Yellowstone and other places simply isn't factual. I could go through all of that stuff, but I will not. But it is terribly important that we try to do things based on real facts. The Department of Interior has announced that it intends to ban snowmobiles in all but 12 of about 30 parks--not all in the West, as a matter of fact. We sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior some time ago with 12 signatures on it. They quickly came to the Senate from Maine, from Minnesota, from the west coast, and some from the Rocky Mountains. It is not only in the area that has limited interest; it has interest from all over the whole country. The Department claims that only a complete ban to curb snowmobiles on issues and noise will protect the wildlife. That simply isn't the only alternative that is available. I want to make it very clear that it is not my position, nor would I defend the notion that snowmobiles ought to continue to be used as they are currently being used. They can be changed substantially. We have had meetings with the manufacturers, which, by the way, have a very strong presence in Minnesota. Lots of jobs and lots of issues are involved. Jobs isn't really the issue. The issue is access to the land that belongs to the people of this country, but they can be changed. One of the things that has not happened and that should happen is there ought to have been some standard established for snowmobiles, saying here is the level of emissions that is acceptable, and here is the level of noise that is acceptable. If you want to use your machine in the park, you have to have one that complies with these regulations. There have been none. The same thing could be said about where you use the machine. If you are going to be in the same track as deer, it doesn't need to be that way. We have had failure on the part of management of the Park Service to do something to make these kinds of uses compatible with the purposes of the parks. Rather than do that, or rather than making efforts to do that, they simply say, no. They are just going to cut it out; they aren't going to do that. I object to that process. I don't think that is the kind of process that we ought to look forward to in this country--whether it is snowmobiles, or water, or whether it is automobiles, or whether it is food regulations, or whatever. We have to have something better. Interior has never considered a single management scheme to be able to make it better. Certainly I hear all the time: Well, the snow machine people should have done something better. Maybe so. I don't argue with that. However, if you were a developer of snow machines, if you were a manufacturer and you were going to invest a good deal of money to make changes in them, I think it would be important to you to know what the standard is going to be so you are able to meet those requirements and continue to be able to put out the machine that would comply. We have had hearings. We have met with those manufacturers. They testified they can and will produce and market the machine, if EPA will set the standard. It is kind of interesting that most of the parks, such as Yellowstone, are full of cars, buses, and all kinds of things in the summertime which do not seem to have an impact here. But in the wintertime, it seems that something much less in terms of numbers is what we are going to cut off. I want to deal largely with the concept that we ought to really pay attention to the purpose of these resources--to make them available, to have access to them, that we need to have a system that is based on findings of fact and science, and be able to come up with alternatives rather than simply making the bureaucrat decision downtown that we are going to do away with this or we are going to do away with that. We ought to put into effect a time that this agency can study this issue, look at the alternatives, provide some money to do that, have them bring their findings back, and then certainly make some choices. This amendment is simple and straightforward. I think that is better than the bureaucratic approach of just deciding somewhere in the bowels of the Interior Department we are going to do something. I find a great deal of reaction to it in my State, of course, and the surrounding States which are very much impacted. This is not a partisan issue. I have worked with the majority leader and the Senator from Montana to try to find a solution. We are looking for solutions. That is really what we need some time to be able to do. Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to reverse the snowmobile ban in our national parks and provide funding for a study to determine how the National Park Service can minimize the impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System. I want to thank Senators Thomas and Craig for their efforts to bring this important amendment before the Senate for consideration. While the Interior Department's ill-conceived ban will not immediately affect 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, [[Page S7018]] 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 the 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. It has 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 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. 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 legislative. 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 Babbitt in coming right out and admitting it. Well, Mr. President, I for one am getting a little sick and tried 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. Quite frankly, I'm getting a little sick and tired of this Administration's positions of zero-cut, zero-access, and zero-fun on public lands. 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 official 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 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. 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. That is why this amendment is so important. It reverses the dark of night, back room tactics used by this Administration to arrive at this decision. We cannot 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 Babbitt, 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. This amendment does just that. Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment introduced by the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Craig Thomas, regarding a study on snowmobile use within our National Parks. The development of the Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks winter use plan draft environmental impact statement has been a landmark exercise for inclusion and cooperation between state, local and Federal Agencies involved in the land management planning process. While this endeavor has not progressed without flaws, it has established that local and state governments possess the expertise and ability to respond in a timely and educated manner to address issues critical to the development of a comprehensive land-use document. In spite of these efforts, however, the United States Department of the Interior has announced a decision to usurp this process and has chosen to implement an outright ban on all snowmobiles, in virtually all national parks, including Yellowstone. I must admit I am not surprised at the over-reaching nature of this action. In fact, several months ago I predicted that the Park Service would ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park and would [[Page S7019]] extend its ban on snowmobiles to all national parks. I am further concerned that this action will spread to include other public land including the national forests. In fact, discussions with National Forest supervisors surrounding Yellowstone indicate that all it will take is an adverse opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ban snowmobiles altogether. The United States Forest Service could claim that increased snowmobile use on our national forests will impact the Canadian lynx, or some other threatened or endangered species, without proof or documentation to put such a ban in place. After a ban in the forests, we can expect action on BLM lands. After snowmobiles, what next? A ban on automobiles and then even on bicycles? If that sounds farfetched, think back just three years ago when we were assured that snowmobiles would not be banned in Yellowstone Park. Soon, we may even expect that bans on other types of recreation will follow and our public lands will no longer be available to the public. As one of the Senators representing the bulk of Yellowstone, I feel it is my duty to correct some of the misconceptions that surround this proposal by the federal government to prohibit access to our nation's oldest and dearest of national parks. Millions of visitors come to Yellowstone National Park each year to experience first hand the park's unique and awesome beauty. They come from all over the world to see Earth's largest collection of geothermal features and to witness some of the largest free-roaming bison and elk herds in the United States. In a proposal announced March 24, 2000 the U.S. Department of the Interior declared its plan to permanently ban snowmobiles from the park beginning in 2002. This announcement was followed by a later statement, on April 27, 2000, where the Department of Interior expanded a proposed ban to dozens of other national parks across the country. If federal officials and national special interest groups have their way, however, a visit to Yellowstone National Park may become as rare and endangered as the trumpeter swan or black footed ferret. There is little evidence to support claims that this proposal was made to protect the environment or to reduce the impact on Park animals. In fact, later statements by park personnel indicate that the main reason for this ban was to comply with changing Park Service policy which was developed to supersede ongoing efforts to reach a reasonable compromise on national park winter use. As I stated earlier, the decision to ban snowmobiles was announced before the Park Service had completed its review of comments on a draft environmental impact statement created by the park and adjacent states and counties to address concerns over winter use in Yellowstone and its neighbor, Grand Teton National Park. The announcement also came before officials could incorporate revisions and amendments to major studies that the Park Service relied on in drafting the draft environmental impact statement. The Park Service admits these initial studies were seriously flawed and exaggerated snowmobile pollution estimates. The original draft study on snowmobile emissions erroneously computed emissions amounts using pounds instead of grams as is used to compute all standard emission amounts. So what is the real reason for banning snowmobiles from Yellowstone and all other national parks? The Park Service's proposal to ban snowmobiles is all about deciding who will have the privilege of experiencing the Park up close and in person, and who will be forced to stay home. Unfortunately, this will leave an even larger segment of the United States ignorant of how vast and wonderful our parks really are. It is vitally important, therefore, that a true picture be painted for the American public to understand what is really being taken away from them. One poll touted by national environmental organizations claims most Americans favor banning snowmobiles, partially based on an image of snowmobiles as heinous, smog producing, noisy devices used to run down poor, defenseless animals and lacking a conception of the size of the park and the limited number of snowmobiles accessing the park on any given day. The administration failed to inform the public of other alternatives to an outright ban that were in the works. For example: snowmobile manufacturers are interested in cleaner, quieter machines. There was also discussion about reducing the number of snowmobiles that could access the park every winter. Not many people realize that local leaders were very involved in trying to resolve the situation to avoid implementing a full fledged ban. In addition, the snowmobile industry has been working for several years to develop air and noise standards with the Environmental Protection Agency so there is a clear target for cleaner, quieter machines. Industry has stated time and time again that once they have clearly defined standards they will develop the technology to meet those standards (assuming some reasonableness to the standard) One company even gave the Park Service some advanced model snowmobiles to test. Right now, snowmobiles are only allowed on groomed roads, the same roads used by cars in the summer and average less than two-thousand snowmobiles a day. A speed limit of 45 miles per hour is strictly enforced. Any driver who puts one ski off the designated trails is subject to fines and possible arrest. The same goes for speeding. This is a significant point to make by the way, because the Executive order this ban is based on regulates off-road vehicle use on our national parks, and as I just noted, snowmobiles are not off-road vehicles in national parks. What a snowmobile ban really does is deny access for old and young riders with physical limitations that preclude them from snowshoeing or cross country skiing into the park. The only alternative left for those visitors unable to snowshoe or ski into the park will only be able to access the park via a mass transit vehicle known as a snow coach. Because of its size, and the type of terrain, it is incredibly impractical to limit access to Yellowstone to just snow coaches or cross country skis and snowshoes. Yellowstone is made up of approximately 2.2 million acres, most of which is already closed to public access other than by foot, snow shoe or skis, and has less than 2,000 snowmobiles inside the park on any given day. By comparison, the State of Connecticut is slightly larger than Yellowstone Park with more than 3.3 million people, many of which drive a car every day. Perspective is important. On its face, and in the safety of your own living room, the idea of riding a van-sized, over snow vehicle may sound like a romantic mode of travel, but in reality, snow coaches are large, cumbersome vehicles that grind, scrape, and shake their way across high mountain passes. It is impossible to ride in a snow coach for long periods of time. As a result, the proposal to only access the park by means of mass transit further restricts time and access to the park by virtually eliminating all entrances to Yellowstone except for the gate at West Yellowstone, Montana. The terrain and elevation at Wyoming's East Gate is so rugged and high that it is impractical for snow coaches to travel in that area of the park. Sylvan Pass reaches an elevation of 8,530 feet and is surrounded by mountains that rise well over 10,000 feet on one side, and gorges with sheet drops of several thousand feet on the other. This is definitely not a place for a snow coach. Furthermore, by moving the southern access point from Flag Ranch to Colter Bay, the Park Service makes any southern day trip into Yellowstone an impossible 113 miles round trip. This also creates a serious safety problem for Idaho snow groomers who, in the past, filled up their gas tanks at Flag Ranch. Under the current proposal, these facilities will be closed and the groomers will not have enough gas to make one complete round trip. This creates a serious safety problem and shuts off access to more than 60 miles of non-Park Service trails. Once again, I would like to reiterate that the complete banning of snowmobiles is not the only available alternative for national park recreational winter use. For the past three years, I have worked with the communities surrounding Yellowstone to develop a more practical and more inclusive approach to Yellowstone winter use. [[Page S7020]] After holding dozens of meetings with residents and business owners, we have been able to create a proposal that preserves the park's environmental health while at the same time ensuring future access--for everyone. This amendment will enable the Park Service to rethink its actions and hopefully incorporate a more positive approach to winter management. I grew up spending time in Yellowstone where grandparents camped inside the park all summer. I have been back many times since, sometimes on a snowmobile. In fact, I get there every year. Over the years the park has improved, not been overrun or run down as efforts mostly to get additional funds imply. Anyone who knows and loves Yellowstone like I do can attest to the fact that there is room enough for wildlife, snowmobiles, snowshoers, cross country skiers and snow coaches in Yellowstone, and a reasonable compromise can be reached to include all of these uses, that is unless federal officials don't step in first and ensure everyone is excluded. Wildlife and human enjoyment of the wildlife are not mutually exclusive. Good administration would accommodate both. The study outlined in this amendment would establish a necessary first step in restoring access, not just to the park, but to the land planning process, for those people who will bear the brunt of the Park Service's decision to ban snowmobiles. Clearly, the Park Service's decision in this matter is an arbitrary decision that bypassed local communities, counties, states and even Congress. The Park Service needs the direction provided for in this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is recognized. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand in support of my colleague from Wyoming on his amendment. I was quite surprised when Senator Reid of Nevada spoke on the floor about this issue because I heard what he was saying before. It was given in testimony before the Subcommittee on Parks, chaired by the Senator from Wyoming, by the national environmental groups. He was following their script. Their script says: Get all of the snowmobiles out of the park. For some reason that impacts the parks. I have ridden snowmobiles in Yellowstone. I am not sure the Senator from Nevada has. I am not sure many Senators have. I don't dispute the need to manage the number of snowmobiles and the entry of snowmobiles where they travel. But arbitrarily and without justification, Assistant Secretary Barry--who has now fled to the Wilderness Society once he tried to accomplish his damage here in this administration with the Park Service--came before the committee and emphatically said they had to go. In a press conference a few days prior to that hearing in almost a defiant, arrogant way, he said he was going to take all of them out of the parks, finish the rulemaking in Yellowstone, and so be it--failing to recognize the industries that have built up around snowmobiling at both entrances to Yellowstone Park; failing to deal with them in a responsible, cooperative way--so that he could ensure the mantra of the Clinton administration, and that public lands generate economies in recreation and tourism. Here quite the opposite was going on--no economy, everything for the environment, even though the facts bear out that you can still have an economy, meaning people on snowmobiles in Yellowstone in the wintertime, and still protect the environment. How do you accomplish that? You work with the industry. What do you do with the industry? You ask them to redesign their sleds so they make little to no noise and very little pollution --if there is any of consequence that would damage the environment to begin with. What does the industry say? They can do it. In fact, last winter they were operating in Yellowstone with a prototype put out by one of the snowmobile manufacturers. It was a four-cycle instead of a two-cycle engine. The Senator from Nevada was bemoaning the pollution of the two- cycle. We now know they can produce a four-cycle that will be certainly less environmentally damaging. They are willing to do that. The moment the industry said to the Park Service we can supply you with a new sled that meets these standards, the Park Service says: Oh, well, it wasn't air pollution, it wasn't noise pollution, it was wildlife harassment. Somehow the wildlife of Yellowstone is going through some emotional problem as a result of snowmobiles trafficking by recreationists on a daily basis. I am not quite sure they have had any examples of these wildlife species in therapy. But somehow they seem to know a great deal about it. The bottom line is simply this: The environmentalists have told this administration they want snowmobiles out of the parks. I suggest to the National Park Service that they have a real problem on their hands in management. In other words, they are denying public access to parks that were designed to protect the environment and also allow public access. They have a crisis in management. They don't have an environmental problem in Yellowstone, they have a management problem, a failure on the part of this administration, and certainly this President, to recognize the cooperative balance between the environment and the public and how one benefits from creating this kind of balance for all to benefit from. Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield? Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I note another Senator interested in the subject. I note there are 55 minutes between now and 6:15. I have a minimum of 3 amendments that I know are going to be debated and will require votes, and perhaps five. While there are no limitations on this, I appreciate it being concluded relatively quickly so we can go to the Senator from Nevada. His amendment will be contested, and there will be more after that. We are scheduled to go off this bill, for good, except for votes, at 6:15. Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for giving an evaluation of the time remaining on the amendments that must be dealt with. I know the chairman has been struggling since around 3:15 to get Senators to debate the amendments, and now all of a sudden they appear on the floor in the last minutes. I conclude my debate. The Senator from Montana, I know, wants to speak to this issue. It impacts his State and the economy of his State. Once again I say to the administration, shame on you for taking people out of the environment, all in the name of the environment. It doesn't seem a very good solution to me, if you are going to tout tourism and recreation to us western States as an alternative to the elimination of the extractive resource industries that have provided economies to our States for the last 100-plus years. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Montana is recognized. Mr. BURNS. It will not take long to make the point. I will facilitate everything, as the chairman of the subcommittee wants. If Members want to talk about wildlife in Yellowstone, you will see very little variety in wildlife in Yellowstone in the wintertime. If you have been there, you know that about the only thing you will see is bison. Let me tell you, you don't bother them with a little old snowmobile. They are just walking around, and they go wherever they want to, whenever they want to. So let's not be worried about the bison. Whether you agree with it or not, there are too many bison in the park. We have grazed that country right into the ground. I remind Members that those who operate the snowmobiles out of West Yellowstone have gone to the Park Service and said: We will make arrangements to prevent line-ups at the gate, we will get new, cleaner, quieter machines, we will work with you in order to protect the environment of Yellowstone Park. There will be more people in a week this summer through the park than all of next winter. You cannot even get through that park for traffic right now. One of these days, you will have to go to a gate and pick a number and they call your number and you get to go to the park. The impact is in the summer, not in the winter, no matter what you are riding. It could be an old gray horse or a snowmobile, it doesn't make any difference. And are we concerned about that? [[Page S7021]] Let's not be shocked. The Senator from Wyoming has a good idea. It is time we take a realistic look at this, do the study, and go forward with the recommendations that are made. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued proposed regulations governing the emissions of snowmobiles in our National Park System. It is very clear that these vehicles cause big problems. Why do I say that? A single snowmobile belches out the same pollution that 20 automobiles do. One snowmobile equals the pollution of 20 passenger cars. Also, my friend from Tennessee earlier talked about the air pollution in the Great Smoky Mountains because of coal-fired generating plants in that area. There isn't much that can be done, at this stage at least, to stop those longstanding power producers from generating the emissions they do. But there is something we can do to stop air pollution from developing as it has in our National Park System. It is a national disgrace that the levels of toxic pollution, such as carbon monoxide--in Yellowstone National Park, to pick just one--rival major urban centers such as Los Angeles and Denver. I repeat, it is a national disgrace that levels of toxic pollutants such as carbon monoxide, in our national parks--especially Yellowstone--at times, rival major urban centers such as Los Angeles and Denver. That is significant. But what is being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency is nothing that is going to eliminate snowmobiling in our country. For example, of the more than 130,000 miles of designated snowmobile trails in the United States, less than 1,000 of those miles are in national parks--to be exact, there are 600 miles. So this furor, and the offering of this amendment, to eliminate this proposal to stop the air pollution of snowmobiles in national parks is really a red herring. There are other places you can ride snowmobiles. In fact, you can ride them over 129,000 miles in the United States alone. We need not ride them this 600 miles in national parks. Appropriate access to national parks is important, but such access does not include all forms of transportation at all times. Protecting parks from air, water, and noise pollution, for the enjoyment of all Americans, should be our No. 1 goal. I am very happy that the Senator from Tennessee spoke earlier about how important national parks are. I agree with him. We are the envy of the rest of the world with our national parks. Yosemite, Great Basin National Park, Yellowstone National Park--these wonderful gems of nature, that we are attempting to preserve, need to be preserved. The amendment would prohibit the Park Service from doing its job to protect some of America's most awe-inspiring national treasures. The landscape of our national parks should reflect the wonders of our Creator, which I think we have an obligation to protect. National parks do not need to serve as racetracks for noisy, high-polluting snow machines. The State of Nevada shares Lake Tahoe with California. We wish we had all of Lake Tahoe, but we do not mind sharing it with California. It is a wonderful, beautiful lake. There is only one other lake like it in the world, and that is Lake Bakal in the former Soviet Union, now Russia, an alpine glacial lake. Lake Tahoe it is very deep--not as deep as Lake Bakal, which is over 5,000 feet deep, but very deep. It was only 35 years ago they found the bottom of Lake Tahoe. It is extremely cold. It is beautiful. It is emerald colored. But one of the things contributing to the ruination of Lake Tahoe is two-stroke engines. They were outlawed last year. I am glad they were outlawed. People may complain: What are we going to do for recreation? There are plenty of things to do for recreation without these two- stroke engines. They are gone now. The lake is less polluted. It sounds better. Two-stroke engines are also the engines that snowmobiles use. They have been outlawed at Lake Tahoe. Why? Because they are inefficient, highly polluting, and contribute disproportionately to the decline of the lake's legendary clarity and degradation of its water quality. Our national parks deserve similar protection from the pollution produced by these snow machines. In sum, the use of snowmobiles currently prevents adequate protection of air and water quality for wildlife. Damage is being done to national parks not some time in the future but right now. The unnecessary delay caused by this amendment would allow further damage to our parks. Congress should allow individual parks that currently allow snowmobiling to go through a public comment process to determine what course of action is appropriate. This amendment would eliminate that. EPA agrees that the Park Service has the primary and immediate duty to take action to protect parks from snowmobile impacts. In comments on the draft EIS for winter use at Yellowstone, EPA said: We encourage the National Park Service to take the steps necessary to protect human health and the environment immediately rather than to depend on future regulations of off-highway vehicle engines from EPA. They are saying let's not wait for us to do it. The Park Service has an obligation to do it right now. Postponing Park Service action on the snowmobile issue is a delay tactic, pure and simple. The amendment we are debating assumes there is an inherent right of snowmobiles to run wild in the national parks, irrespective of their impact on other users and the environment. This is a very flawed assumption. They have no inherent right to run wild in national parks. All Americans have the right to enjoy our national parks but only in ways that do not damage the parks. Prohibiting snowmobiles in national parks will have an insignificant impact on recreational opportunities available to snowmobilers. Again, there are more than 130,000 miles of designated trails in the United States, and less than 1,000 of those miles are in national parks. That is less than 1 percent. Because millions of acres of public lands are already open to public snowmobiling, banning snow machines in national parks does not prevent recreationists from using their vehicles. It just prevents them from using the most sensitive and heavily visited public lands. Arguing that every form of recreational access should be allowed in national parks is silly. Visitors do not need to jet boat in Crater Lake National Park. Visitors do not need to ride dirt bikes in the Grand Canyon. Visitors do not need to bungee jump from the Washington Monument. Prohibitions against such activities do not restrict Americans' access to our parks; rather, they indicate a willingness to protect parks for the enjoyment of all visitors. Great Basin National Park in Nevada already prohibits snowmobile use. Glacier and Yosemite Parks do not allow snowmobile use. What are some of the environmental problems caused by snowmobiles in national parks? Environmenta

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
(Senate - July 17, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7014-S7043] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Rhode Island. Amendment No. 3798 Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 3798 at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an amendment numbered 3798. Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To increase funding for weatherization assistance grants, with an offset) On page 182, beginning on line 9, strike ``$761,937,000'' and all that follows through ``$138,000,000'' on line 17 and insert ``$769,937,000, to remain available until expended, of which $2,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the Biomass Energy Development account and $8,000,000 shall be derived by transfer of a proportionate amount from each other account for which this Act makes funds available for travel, supplies, and printing expenses: Provided, That $172,000,000 shall be for use in energy conservation programs as defined in section 3008(3) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows: $146,000,000''. Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy and Senator Schumer be added as cosponsors of this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would provide an additional $8 million for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program. Across the country this summer, Americans have faced unacceptably high gasoline prices. Last winter, our constituents, particularly in the Northeast, saw extraordinary increases in home heating oil prices. Members of this body have offered various proposals to address this issue, ranging from urging OPEC to increase production; increasing domestic crude oil production, by drilling in new areas; building up our refining capacity; and expanding our use of ethanol and alternative fuels. Essentially, all of these proposals are supply side proposals, increasing the supply of energy. In fact, we are reaching a point now where the proposal to encourage OPEC might be running out of time. I note that the Saudi Arabians are asking for a meeting of OPEC in the next few days, because if there is not a meeting immediately, even if there is an increase in production, it will be insufficient in terms of reaching our markets for the winter heating season. All of these supply side proposals are interesting, but we are neglecting an important aspect of the overall composition of the heating market--and that is demand. The weatherization program goes right to this critical issue of demand. By weatherizing homes, by making them more energy efficient, we are literally cutting down the demand for energy, and typically foreign energy. As Congress debates these proposals for supply relief, we should also start thinking seriously about demand reduction. That is critically involved in the whole issue of energy efficiency and weatherization. At the same time, our weatherization program protects the most vulnerable people in our society because they are aimed at the elderly, individuals with disabilities, children, all of them being subject to huge increases in heating costs, not only in the wintertime--that is the case in the Northeast--but in the Southeast and Southwest and the very hot parts of this country in the summertime. In fact, it was not too long ago--several years ago--in Chicago where there was an extraordinary heat spell. People literally died because they could not afford to keep their air-conditioners running, if they had air-conditioning. Or they could not afford to keep paying exorbitant energy costs because their homes were inefficient in terms of retaining the cool air from air-conditioning. So this is a program that cuts across the entire country. The Weatherization Assistance Program supports the weatherization of over 70,000 low-income homes each year. To date, over 5 million American homes have been weatherized with Federal funds, and also local funds, which must be part of the formula in order to provide this type of assistance for American homes. Last December, I had a chance to witness this program in action. I was in Providence, RI, with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. We went to a low-income home in Providence. In just a few hours, a contractor was able [[Page S7015]] to blow in insulation between the walls; they were able to caulk windows and doorways; they were able to conduct tests to ensure that the energy efficiency of the structure had increased dramatically. This was a home of a family of first-generation Americans. They had come from Southeast Asia in the turmoil of the war in Southeast Asia. The father was in his late 40s, early 50s, and had several children-- all of them American success stories. The children were in college. His mother was living with them. She was disabled, suffering from Alzheimer's. This is typically the type of families--low-income families, struggling, working hard with jobs, trying to get kids through college--who are the beneficiaries of this program. It is an excellent program. It is a program that is terribly needed by these low-income families. Typically, low-income families will spend about 15 percent of their income on heat--or in the summer, air-conditioning--more than four times the average of more affluent families. Over 90 percent of the households that are served by this weatherization program have annual incomes of less than $15,000. This is a program that works. It works for these individual families. Not only that, it also works for us. It creates jobs. About 8,000 jobs throughout the country have been created because of this weatherization program. It also saves us from consuming and wasting energy. I argue, as I have initially, one should look at the supply side complications of the energy crisis. One should implore OPEC to increase production. One should have sensible problems to ensure supply. But if we neglect the demand part of the equation, we are not only missing the boat, but I think we are deficient in our responsibility to formulate a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency in this country. In 1996, the budget was $214 million, but because of cuts generated by the Contract With America, and other proposals, it dipped down to about $111 million--a significant cut. This was one of those programs that was devastated by the budget policies of the mid-1990s. Since that time, we have added money back because, again, I believe this body particularly recognizes both the fairness and the efficiency of this program. But still we are at about $135 million in fiscal year 2000. That is still 37 percent below the 1996 figure. If we can afford, as Senator Kennedy said, at length and eloquently, to engage in trillion-dollar tax cuts, multibillion-dollar benefits that go to the very wealthiest Americans, we should be able to at least increase our weatherization funding by $8 million to cover additional families, low-income families, families who have disabled members, families who are working hard trying to get by and need this type of assistance. Again, as we look over the last several weeks, and even this week, talking about relief for the marriage penalty, estate tax relief, it reminds me of a play on Winston Churchill's famous line about the RAF, ``never have so many owed so much to so few.'' We seem to be in a position of saying, never have so few gotten so much from so many. I want to ensure that at least when it comes to weatherization we are responding to the critical needs of families across this country. I had hoped we could move towards the President's request of $154 million. That would be about a 14-percent increase over our present level of $135 million. My amendment does not seek that full increase. It simply seeks an additional $8 million. I think the money will be well spent. The program works. It puts people to work. It helps low-income families. It helps us address a problem which is growing with increasing importance, and that is to control our insatiable demand for energy, particularly petroleum. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope, perhaps, we can even work out a way in which this amendment can be accepted by the chairman and his colleagues. If it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just under 2 hours ago, at the outset of this debate, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, came to the floor with an eloquent plea about the lack of money to properly manage Great Smokey National Park and pointed out the tremendous challenges to that major national park in our system. The Senator from Nevada, the other Mr. Reid, spoke in agreement with that proposition. The Senator from Tennessee did not have an amendment to increase the appropriations for Great Smokey National Park or for any other. I have found it curious that in the several years I have managed this bill and written this bill, almost without exception the amendments that are brought to the floor are amendments to increase the amount of money we donate to other units of Government for their primary purposes and almost never do they express a concern for increasing the amount of money to support the functions of the Government of the United States itself. I have gone a long way--my committee has gone a long way--in drafting this bill at least to begin to make up for the deferred maintenance in our national parks and in our national forests and with respect to our Indian reservations and our Indian programs and the management of the Bureau of Public Lands. I think we have at least turned the corner. As I said in my opening remarks on the bill, this is our primary function and our primary goal; that is, to see to it that we manage the public lands of the United States and the other functions in this bill that are exclusively Federal functions first and deal with other matters later. I sympathize with the eloquent statement of the Senator from Rhode Island. In fact, I have supported that case in this bill for several years. When one compares this appropriation with that in the first year during which I managed this bill, it is increased by a good 20 percent. But here we have a proposal to add another $8 million, which will come out of every program for which the U.S. Government has exclusive responsibility. It will mean there will be less--not much less, but there will be less --for Great Smokey National Park. There will be less for the Fish and Wildlife Service and its multitude of obligations. There will be less for the Smithsonian Institution. There will be less for research and development of the very programs for energy efficiency which are the key to providing both energy independence and the proper and efficient use of energy. With all respect to the Senator from Rhode Island, this has nothing to do with the tax debate. We have a budget resolution and a set of allocations that have given this committee a fixed number of dollars with which to work. I repeat that: a fixed number of dollars with which to work. It is all spent in this bill. So we can't just add this $8 million or $18 million to the bill and say, well, let's take it out of a tax cut or out of a budget surplus or the like. The Senator from Rhode Island recognizes that. He has a match for this $8 million. But I simply have to repeat: The match is from the primary functions of the Federal Government, the management of our national parks and forests, the energy research we undertake, the cultural institutions of the United States. That is from where this match comes. A year ago, we said: If this program is so important to the States, let's require them to match what we come up with by 25 percent. Let them come up with 25 percent. Some States do provide some money for this. We had to postpone that for a year. In this bill we have had to have a way to grant State waivers, when States regard this program evidently as so lacking in importance that they are not willing to put up 25 percent of the money for their own citizens for something that is primarily their responsibility. As I said, we are $3 million above the level for the current year. The House is $5 million above the level for the current year. If we end up with a larger allocation--and, personally, I hope for a larger allocation--by the time the conference committee has completed its [[Page S7016]] work, we will have a modestly larger amount of money for this program in a final conference committee report. But it is not responsible to take it out of our National Park System. It is not responsible to take it out of our existing energy research. It is not responsible to take it out of the cultural institutions of the United States. That is precisely what this does. Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield? Mr. GORTON. Certainly. Mr. REED. Mr. President, I do applaud the Senator's efforts over many years to increase this account. He has done that. I think it makes a great deal of sense to provide a local match, which he has, and we would encourage more local participation. It is true we have provided an offset because I recognize that we do not have unlimited free money to put back into the budget. We have taken money from every Federal agency. But I am told that our cut represents .05 percent per agency coming out of travel pay, coming out of administrative overhead. I think that is probably something they could well absorb. I daresay it would not require them to either turn down the heat or turn off the air-conditioning, whereas we are talking about a situation of homes throughout this country where they don't have that luxury. So I agree in principle that we are taking it from agencies, but we are taking such a minute fraction that I think it would be readily absorbed. And we are putting it into a program that is both worthwhile and necessary in so many cases, and also going to the heart of ensuring that people can go into this heating season --particularly in the Northeast--with a little more confidence. I am concerned we are going to see tremendous oil heating price hikes which will force people into very difficult choices between heating or eating. This is a way, I believe, in which we can begin to start addressing this point. Again, I recognize that the chairman has very diligently and sincerely tried to increase these funds. I hope we can do better. I don't think we are penalizing the agencies, and I don't anticipate a park being shut down by the loss of .5 percent of their travel expenses and other overhead. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, first, there is another far more important program and far more expensive program that goes to these very issues. The appropriations bill for military construction included many other matters. There was $600 million more for the direct assistance to people with their heating oil bills. In some respects, this is every bit as important a program because it tries to lower the bills in the first place. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct; this is a small percentage of the budgets for the national parks. It is also the subject of match for several other amendments here because it is so easy. We don't say this program is much more important than another program, so let's cut the other program; we just say, in effect, cut them all across the board. But it is $8 million more in deferred maintenance for our national parks, or for our other national lands. And since this is a program that, over the course of the last 5 years, has increased more rapidly, bluntly, than the amount of money we have for these primary responsibilities, that is the reason we came up with the amount that we did. Would I have liked to come up with more? Yes. If I have a larger allocation later, I will. Will there be more? There will be. I don't think at this point, for a State program, that many States aren't matching--and the requirement for match is only 25 percent--that this is as important as the national priorities that are the subject of the rest of this bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wyoming is recognized. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 3800 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 3800. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To provide authority for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the management of conflicting activities and uses) On page 125, line 25 strike ``$58,209,000'' through page 126, line 2 and insert in lieu thereof ``$57,809,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be available to carry out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.). SEC. . MANAGEMENT STUDY OF CONFLICTING USES. (a) Snow Machine Study.--Of funds made available to the Secretary of the Interior for the operation of National Recreation and Preservation Programs of the National Park Service $400,000 shall be available to conduct a study to determine how the National Park Service can: (1) minimize the potential impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System; and (2) properly manage competing recreational activities in units of the National Park System. (b) Limitation of Funds Pending Study Completion.--No funds appropriated under this Act may be expended to prohibit, ban or reduce the number of snow machines from units of the National Park System that allowed the use of snow machines during any one of the last three winter seasons until the study referred to in subsection (a) is completed and submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue that is very important to many people. It is certainly important to me as chairman of the parks subcommittee in the Senate and as a supporter of parks. Having grown up right outside of Yellowstone Park, the parks there are very much a part of our lives. Let me quickly summarize what this amendment does. I can do it very quickly because it is quite simple. It deals with the idea and the concept of having access to national parks, when it is appropriate, for the use of individual snow machines--something we have done for some 20 years--frankly, without any particular objection until this last year, and without any real evidence that we can't make some changes that would allow us to continue to do that. Unfortunately, rather than looking for an opportunity to bring about some changes in the machines, or some changes in the way they are used, or to manage the way they are used, this administration has simply said: We are going to bring about a regulation unilaterally that will eliminate the use of snow machines in the parks of the United States. What this amendment does, simply, is provide some money--$400,000; and we have found a place to get that money--to conduct a study to determine how the national parks can do a couple of things: One, minimize the potential impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System. That is pretty logical stuff. In fact, you can almost ask yourself, haven't they done this? The answer is that they have not. Two, properly manage competing recreational activities in units of the national park. Again, that is pretty easy to do. In Yellowstone Park, where there is a great demand for using snow machines, on the one hand, and cross-country skiing, on the other, with management you can separate these two so that they are not conflicting uses. Of course, that requires some management. So then the second part of it is that no funds may be appropriated until such time, basically, as the Park Service has completed their study and submitted it back to the Committee on Appropriations in the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate. So this doesn't put any long-time restriction on what can be done. It simply says: Here is some money; take a look at where we are, what the problems are, and what we can do about them, and bring that back and make some management decisions. It is fairly simple and, I think, fairly reasonable. That is what this amendment is all about. [[Page S7017]] I guess the real issue comes about due to the fact that we have had a considerable amount of activity. What really brings it about is a winter use study that is going on now in Yellowstone and the Teton Parks. It has to do with the broad aspect of winter use and with buffalo moving out of the park and what kinds of things can be done there; and how people can get in and out of the parks and utilize them in the wintertime, which really brought about this whole thing. The Assistant Secretary of the Interior went out to look and came back with an idea--I think mostly of his own--that we ought to do away with snowmobile use. He did this without having any facts, science, or looking at what could be done so that you could be consistent with the purpose of the park. The purpose of a park is basically to maintain the resource and to maintain it in such a way that its owners can enjoy the use of it. Those things are not inconsistent. Those things are not inconsistent with snowmobiles, in my judgment. But whether it is my judgment or not, more importantly, the idea to come to the conclusion that they are inconsistent without any facts is something we ought not to accept. I am a little surprised that someone in this Congress would rise to defend the authority of the executive branch to go around the Congress and to do something without even including the Congress or the people. That is not the way this place is set up. That is not what we are here for. That is why we have a division between the executive and the legislative and the judicial--a very important division. It is, frankly, being ignored by this administration not only on this issue but on many of them. They are overtly saying: If we don't get approval, we will just do it. That is not the way things are supposed to happen. I am also a little surprised, frankly, that a representative of a public lands State would be interested in having the agencies that manage--in the case of Nevada--nearly 90 percent of the land and, in Wyoming, over half, making decisions without involving some of the people who should be involved, who are involved with living in these areas. I think we are really talking about a system of rulemaking--a system of regulation--and one that needs to be based on facts and based on the idea that you take a look at issues. Frankly, the substantial amount of evidence about what has been said about snowmobiles in west Yellowstone and other places simply isn't factual. I could go through all of that stuff, but I will not. But it is terribly important that we try to do things based on real facts. The Department of Interior has announced that it intends to ban snowmobiles in all but 12 of about 30 parks--not all in the West, as a matter of fact. We sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior some time ago with 12 signatures on it. They quickly came to the Senate from Maine, from Minnesota, from the west coast, and some from the Rocky Mountains. It is not only in the area that has limited interest; it has interest from all over the whole country. The Department claims that only a complete ban to curb snowmobiles on issues and noise will protect the wildlife. That simply isn't the only alternative that is available. I want to make it very clear that it is not my position, nor would I defend the notion that snowmobiles ought to continue to be used as they are currently being used. They can be changed substantially. We have had meetings with the manufacturers, which, by the way, have a very strong presence in Minnesota. Lots of jobs and lots of issues are involved. Jobs isn't really the issue. The issue is access to the land that belongs to the people of this country, but they can be changed. One of the things that has not happened and that should happen is there ought to have been some standard established for snowmobiles, saying here is the level of emissions that is acceptable, and here is the level of noise that is acceptable. If you want to use your machine in the park, you have to have one that complies with these regulations. There have been none. The same thing could be said about where you use the machine. If you are going to be in the same track as deer, it doesn't need to be that way. We have had failure on the part of management of the Park Service to do something to make these kinds of uses compatible with the purposes of the parks. Rather than do that, or rather than making efforts to do that, they simply say, no. They are just going to cut it out; they aren't going to do that. I object to that process. I don't think that is the kind of process that we ought to look forward to in this country--whether it is snowmobiles, or water, or whether it is automobiles, or whether it is food regulations, or whatever. We have to have something better. Interior has never considered a single management scheme to be able to make it better. Certainly I hear all the time: Well, the snow machine people should have done something better. Maybe so. I don't argue with that. However, if you were a developer of snow machines, if you were a manufacturer and you were going to invest a good deal of money to make changes in them, I think it would be important to you to know what the standard is going to be so you are able to meet those requirements and continue to be able to put out the machine that would comply. We have had hearings. We have met with those manufacturers. They testified they can and will produce and market the machine, if EPA will set the standard. It is kind of interesting that most of the parks, such as Yellowstone, are full of cars, buses, and all kinds of things in the summertime which do not seem to have an impact here. But in the wintertime, it seems that something much less in terms of numbers is what we are going to cut off. I want to deal largely with the concept that we ought to really pay attention to the purpose of these resources--to make them available, to have access to them, that we need to have a system that is based on findings of fact and science, and be able to come up with alternatives rather than simply making the bureaucrat decision downtown that we are going to do away with this or we are going to do away with that. We ought to put into effect a time that this agency can study this issue, look at the alternatives, provide some money to do that, have them bring their findings back, and then certainly make some choices. This amendment is simple and straightforward. I think that is better than the bureaucratic approach of just deciding somewhere in the bowels of the Interior Department we are going to do something. I find a great deal of reaction to it in my State, of course, and the surrounding States which are very much impacted. This is not a partisan issue. I have worked with the majority leader and the Senator from Montana to try to find a solution. We are looking for solutions. That is really what we need some time to be able to do. Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to reverse the snowmobile ban in our national parks and provide funding for a study to determine how the National Park Service can minimize the impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System. I want to thank Senators Thomas and Craig for their efforts to bring this important amendment before the Senate for consideration. While the Interior Department's ill-conceived ban will not immediately affect 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, [[Page S7018]] 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 the 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. It has 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 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. 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 legislative. 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 Babbitt in coming right out and admitting it. Well, Mr. President, I for one am getting a little sick and tried 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. Quite frankly, I'm getting a little sick and tired of this Administration's positions of zero-cut, zero-access, and zero-fun on public lands. 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 official 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 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. 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. That is why this amendment is so important. It reverses the dark of night, back room tactics used by this Administration to arrive at this decision. We cannot 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 Babbitt, 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. This amendment does just that. Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment introduced by the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Craig Thomas, regarding a study on snowmobile use within our National Parks. The development of the Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks winter use plan draft environmental impact statement has been a landmark exercise for inclusion and cooperation between state, local and Federal Agencies involved in the land management planning process. While this endeavor has not progressed without flaws, it has established that local and state governments possess the expertise and ability to respond in a timely and educated manner to address issues critical to the development of a comprehensive land-use document. In spite of these efforts, however, the United States Department of the Interior has announced a decision to usurp this process and has chosen to implement an outright ban on all snowmobiles, in virtually all national parks, including Yellowstone. I must admit I am not surprised at the over-reaching nature of this action. In fact, several months ago I predicted that the Park Service would ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park and would [[Page S7019]] extend its ban on snowmobiles to all national parks. I am further concerned that this action will spread to include other public land including the national forests. In fact, discussions with National Forest supervisors surrounding Yellowstone indicate that all it will take is an adverse opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ban snowmobiles altogether. The United States Forest Service could claim that increased snowmobile use on our national forests will impact the Canadian lynx, or some other threatened or endangered species, without proof or documentation to put such a ban in place. After a ban in the forests, we can expect action on BLM lands. After snowmobiles, what next? A ban on automobiles and then even on bicycles? If that sounds farfetched, think back just three years ago when we were assured that snowmobiles would not be banned in Yellowstone Park. Soon, we may even expect that bans on other types of recreation will follow and our public lands will no longer be available to the public. As one of the Senators representing the bulk of Yellowstone, I feel it is my duty to correct some of the misconceptions that surround this proposal by the federal government to prohibit access to our nation's oldest and dearest of national parks. Millions of visitors come to Yellowstone National Park each year to experience first hand the park's unique and awesome beauty. They come from all over the world to see Earth's largest collection of geothermal features and to witness some of the largest free-roaming bison and elk herds in the United States. In a proposal announced March 24, 2000 the U.S. Department of the Interior declared its plan to permanently ban snowmobiles from the park beginning in 2002. This announcement was followed by a later statement, on April 27, 2000, where the Department of Interior expanded a proposed ban to dozens of other national parks across the country. If federal officials and national special interest groups have their way, however, a visit to Yellowstone National Park may become as rare and endangered as the trumpeter swan or black footed ferret. There is little evidence to support claims that this proposal was made to protect the environment or to reduce the impact on Park animals. In fact, later statements by park personnel indicate that the main reason for this ban was to comply with changing Park Service policy which was developed to supersede ongoing efforts to reach a reasonable compromise on national park winter use. As I stated earlier, the decision to ban snowmobiles was announced before the Park Service had completed its review of comments on a draft environmental impact statement created by the park and adjacent states and counties to address concerns over winter use in Yellowstone and its neighbor, Grand Teton National Park. The announcement also came before officials could incorporate revisions and amendments to major studies that the Park Service relied on in drafting the draft environmental impact statement. The Park Service admits these initial studies were seriously flawed and exaggerated snowmobile pollution estimates. The original draft study on snowmobile emissions erroneously computed emissions amounts using pounds instead of grams as is used to compute all standard emission amounts. So what is the real reason for banning snowmobiles from Yellowstone and all other national parks? The Park Service's proposal to ban snowmobiles is all about deciding who will have the privilege of experiencing the Park up close and in person, and who will be forced to stay home. Unfortunately, this will leave an even larger segment of the United States ignorant of how vast and wonderful our parks really are. It is vitally important, therefore, that a true picture be painted for the American public to understand what is really being taken away from them. One poll touted by national environmental organizations claims most Americans favor banning snowmobiles, partially based on an image of snowmobiles as heinous, smog producing, noisy devices used to run down poor, defenseless animals and lacking a conception of the size of the park and the limited number of snowmobiles accessing the park on any given day. The administration failed to inform the public of other alternatives to an outright ban that were in the works. For example: snowmobile manufacturers are interested in cleaner, quieter machines. There was also discussion about reducing the number of snowmobiles that could access the park every winter. Not many people realize that local leaders were very involved in trying to resolve the situation to avoid implementing a full fledged ban. In addition, the snowmobile industry has been working for several years to develop air and noise standards with the Environmental Protection Agency so there is a clear target for cleaner, quieter machines. Industry has stated time and time again that once they have clearly defined standards they will develop the technology to meet those standards (assuming some reasonableness to the standard) One company even gave the Park Service some advanced model snowmobiles to test. Right now, snowmobiles are only allowed on groomed roads, the same roads used by cars in the summer and average less than two-thousand snowmobiles a day. A speed limit of 45 miles per hour is strictly enforced. Any driver who puts one ski off the designated trails is subject to fines and possible arrest. The same goes for speeding. This is a significant point to make by the way, because the Executive order this ban is based on regulates off-road vehicle use on our national parks, and as I just noted, snowmobiles are not off-road vehicles in national parks. What a snowmobile ban really does is deny access for old and young riders with physical limitations that preclude them from snowshoeing or cross country skiing into the park. The only alternative left for those visitors unable to snowshoe or ski into the park will only be able to access the park via a mass transit vehicle known as a snow coach. Because of its size, and the type of terrain, it is incredibly impractical to limit access to Yellowstone to just snow coaches or cross country skis and snowshoes. Yellowstone is made up of approximately 2.2 million acres, most of which is already closed to public access other than by foot, snow shoe or skis, and has less than 2,000 snowmobiles inside the park on any given day. By comparison, the State of Connecticut is slightly larger than Yellowstone Park with more than 3.3 million people, many of which drive a car every day. Perspective is important. On its face, and in the safety of your own living room, the idea of riding a van-sized, over snow vehicle may sound like a romantic mode of travel, but in reality, snow coaches are large, cumbersome vehicles that grind, scrape, and shake their way across high mountain passes. It is impossible to ride in a snow coach for long periods of time. As a result, the proposal to only access the park by means of mass transit further restricts time and access to the park by virtually eliminating all entrances to Yellowstone except for the gate at West Yellowstone, Montana. The terrain and elevation at Wyoming's East Gate is so rugged and high that it is impractical for snow coaches to travel in that area of the park. Sylvan Pass reaches an elevation of 8,530 feet and is surrounded by mountains that rise well over 10,000 feet on one side, and gorges with sheet drops of several thousand feet on the other. This is definitely not a place for a snow coach. Furthermore, by moving the southern access point from Flag Ranch to Colter Bay, the Park Service makes any southern day trip into Yellowstone an impossible 113 miles round trip. This also creates a serious safety problem for Idaho snow groomers who, in the past, filled up their gas tanks at Flag Ranch. Under the current proposal, these facilities will be closed and the groomers will not have enough gas to make one complete round trip. This creates a serious safety problem and shuts off access to more than 60 miles of non-Park Service trails. Once again, I would like to reiterate that the complete banning of snowmobiles is not the only available alternative for national park recreational winter use. For the past three years, I have worked with the communities surrounding Yellowstone to develop a more practical and more inclusive approach to Yellowstone winter use. [[Page S7020]] After holding dozens of meetings with residents and business owners, we have been able to create a proposal that preserves the park's environmental health while at the same time ensuring future access--for everyone. This amendment will enable the Park Service to rethink its actions and hopefully incorporate a more positive approach to winter management. I grew up spending time in Yellowstone where grandparents camped inside the park all summer. I have been back many times since, sometimes on a snowmobile. In fact, I get there every year. Over the years the park has improved, not been overrun or run down as efforts mostly to get additional funds imply. Anyone who knows and loves Yellowstone like I do can attest to the fact that there is room enough for wildlife, snowmobiles, snowshoers, cross country skiers and snow coaches in Yellowstone, and a reasonable compromise can be reached to include all of these uses, that is unless federal officials don't step in first and ensure everyone is excluded. Wildlife and human enjoyment of the wildlife are not mutually exclusive. Good administration would accommodate both. The study outlined in this amendment would establish a necessary first step in restoring access, not just to the park, but to the land planning process, for those people who will bear the brunt of the Park Service's decision to ban snowmobiles. Clearly, the Park Service's decision in this matter is an arbitrary decision that bypassed local communities, counties, states and even Congress. The Park Service needs the direction provided for in this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is recognized. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand in support of my colleague from Wyoming on his amendment. I was quite surprised when Senator Reid of Nevada spoke on the floor about this issue because I heard what he was saying before. It was given in testimony before the Subcommittee on Parks, chaired by the Senator from Wyoming, by the national environmental groups. He was following their script. Their script says: Get all of the snowmobiles out of the park. For some reason that impacts the parks. I have ridden snowmobiles in Yellowstone. I am not sure the Senator from Nevada has. I am not sure many Senators have. I don't dispute the need to manage the number of snowmobiles and the entry of snowmobiles where they travel. But arbitrarily and without justification, Assistant Secretary Barry--who has now fled to the Wilderness Society once he tried to accomplish his damage here in this administration with the Park Service--came before the committee and emphatically said they had to go. In a press conference a few days prior to that hearing in almost a defiant, arrogant way, he said he was going to take all of them out of the parks, finish the rulemaking in Yellowstone, and so be it--failing to recognize the industries that have built up around snowmobiling at both entrances to Yellowstone Park; failing to deal with them in a responsible, cooperative way--so that he could ensure the mantra of the Clinton administration, and that public lands generate economies in recreation and tourism. Here quite the opposite was going on--no economy, everything for the environment, even though the facts bear out that you can still have an economy, meaning people on snowmobiles in Yellowstone in the wintertime, and still protect the environment. How do you accomplish that? You work with the industry. What do you do with the industry? You ask them to redesign their sleds so they make little to no noise and very little pollution --if there is any of consequence that would damage the environment to begin with. What does the industry say? They can do it. In fact, last winter they were operating in Yellowstone with a prototype put out by one of the snowmobile manufacturers. It was a four-cycle instead of a two-cycle engine. The Senator from Nevada was bemoaning the pollution of the two- cycle. We now know they can produce a four-cycle that will be certainly less environmentally damaging. They are willing to do that. The moment the industry said to the Park Service we can supply you with a new sled that meets these standards, the Park Service says: Oh, well, it wasn't air pollution, it wasn't noise pollution, it was wildlife harassment. Somehow the wildlife of Yellowstone is going through some emotional problem as a result of snowmobiles trafficking by recreationists on a daily basis. I am not quite sure they have had any examples of these wildlife species in therapy. But somehow they seem to know a great deal about it. The bottom line is simply this: The environmentalists have told this administration they want snowmobiles out of the parks. I suggest to the National Park Service that they have a real problem on their hands in management. In other words, they are denying public access to parks that were designed to protect the environment and also allow public access. They have a crisis in management. They don't have an environmental problem in Yellowstone, they have a management problem, a failure on the part of this administration, and certainly this President, to recognize the cooperative balance between the environment and the public and how one benefits from creating this kind of balance for all to benefit from. Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield? Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I note another Senator interested in the subject. I note there are 55 minutes between now and 6:15. I have a minimum of 3 amendments that I know are going to be debated and will require votes, and perhaps five. While there are no limitations on this, I appreciate it being concluded relatively quickly so we can go to the Senator from Nevada. His amendment will be contested, and there will be more after that. We are scheduled to go off this bill, for good, except for votes, at 6:15. Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for giving an evaluation of the time remaining on the amendments that must be dealt with. I know the chairman has been struggling since around 3:15 to get Senators to debate the amendments, and now all of a sudden they appear on the floor in the last minutes. I conclude my debate. The Senator from Montana, I know, wants to speak to this issue. It impacts his State and the economy of his State. Once again I say to the administration, shame on you for taking people out of the environment, all in the name of the environment. It doesn't seem a very good solution to me, if you are going to tout tourism and recreation to us western States as an alternative to the elimination of the extractive resource industries that have provided economies to our States for the last 100-plus years. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Montana is recognized. Mr. BURNS. It will not take long to make the point. I will facilitate everything, as the chairman of the subcommittee wants. If Members want to talk about wildlife in Yellowstone, you will see very little variety in wildlife in Yellowstone in the wintertime. If you have been there, you know that about the only thing you will see is bison. Let me tell you, you don't bother them with a little old snowmobile. They are just walking around, and they go wherever they want to, whenever they want to. So let's not be worried about the bison. Whether you agree with it or not, there are too many bison in the park. We have grazed that country right into the ground. I remind Members that those who operate the snowmobiles out of West Yellowstone have gone to the Park Service and said: We will make arrangements to prevent line-ups at the gate, we will get new, cleaner, quieter machines, we will work with you in order to protect the environment of Yellowstone Park. There will be more people in a week this summer through the park than all of next winter. You cannot even get through that park for traffic right now. One of these days, you will have to go to a gate and pick a number and they call your number and you get to go to the park. The impact is in the summer, not in the winter, no matter what you are riding. It could be an old gray horse or a snowmobile, it doesn't make any difference. And are we concerned about that? [[Page S7021]] Let's not be shocked. The Senator from Wyoming has a good idea. It is time we take a realistic look at this, do the study, and go forward with the recommendations that are made. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued proposed regulations governing the emissions of snowmobiles in our National Park System. It is very clear that these vehicles cause big problems. Why do I say that? A single snowmobile belches out the same pollution that 20 automobiles do. One snowmobile equals the pollution of 20 passenger cars. Also, my friend from Tennessee earlier talked about the air pollution in the Great Smoky Mountains because of coal-fired generating plants in that area. There isn't much that can be done, at this stage at least, to stop those longstanding power producers from generating the emissions they do. But there is something we can do to stop air pollution from developing as it has in our National Park System. It is a national disgrace that the levels of toxic pollution, such as carbon monoxide--in Yellowstone National Park, to pick just one--rival major urban centers such as Los Angeles and Denver. I repeat, it is a national disgrace that levels of toxic pollutants such as carbon monoxide, in our national parks--especially Yellowstone--at times, rival major urban centers such as Los Angeles and Denver. That is significant. But what is being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency is nothing that is going to eliminate snowmobiling in our country. For example, of the more than 130,000 miles of designated snowmobile trails in the United States, less than 1,000 of those miles are in national parks--to be exact, there are 600 miles. So this furor, and the offering of this amendment, to eliminate this proposal to stop the air pollution of snowmobiles in national parks is really a red herring. There are other places you can ride snowmobiles. In fact, you can ride them over 129,000 miles in the United States alone. We need not ride them this 600 miles in national parks. Appropriate access to national parks is important, but such access does not include all forms of transportation at all times. Protecting parks from air, water, and noise pollution, for the enjoyment of all Americans, should be our No. 1 goal. I am very happy that the Senator from Tennessee spoke earlier about how important national parks are. I agree with him. We are the envy of the rest of the world with our national parks. Yosemite, Great Basin National Park, Yellowstone National Park--these wonderful gems of nature, that we are attempting to preserve, need to be preserved. The amendment would prohibit the Park Service from doing its job to protect some of America's most awe-inspiring national treasures. The landscape of our national parks should reflect the wonders of our Creator, which I think we have an obligation to protect. National parks do not need to serve as racetracks for noisy, high-polluting snow machines. The State of Nevada shares Lake Tahoe with California. We wish we had all of Lake Tahoe, but we do not mind sharing it with California. It is a wonderful, beautiful lake. There is only one other lake like it in the world, and that is Lake Bakal in the former Soviet Union, now Russia, an alpine glacial lake. Lake Tahoe it is very deep--not as deep as Lake Bakal, which is over 5,000 feet deep, but very deep. It was only 35 years ago they found the bottom of Lake Tahoe. It is extremely cold. It is beautiful. It is emerald colored. But one of the things contributing to the ruination of Lake Tahoe is two-stroke engines. They were outlawed last year. I am glad they were outlawed. People may complain: What are we going to do for recreation? There are plenty of things to do for recreation without these two- stroke engines. They are gone now. The lake is less polluted. It sounds better. Two-stroke engines are also the engines that snowmobiles use. They have been outlawed at Lake Tahoe. Why? Because they are inefficient, highly polluting, and contribute disproportionately to the decline of the lake's legendary clarity and degradation of its water quality. Our national parks deserve similar protection from the pollution produced by these snow machines. In sum, the use of snowmobiles currently prevents adequate protection of air and water quality for wildlife. Damage is being done to national parks not some time in the future but right now. The unnecessary delay caused by this amendment would allow further damage to our parks. Congress should allow individual parks that currently allow snowmobiling to go through a public comment process to determine what course of action is appropriate. This amendment would eliminate that. EPA agrees that the Park Service has the primary and immediate duty to take action to protect parks from snowmobile impacts. In comments on the draft EIS for winter use at Yellowstone, EPA said: We encourage the National Park Service to take the steps necessary to protect human health and the environment immediately rather than to depend on future regulations of off-highway vehicle engines from EPA. They are saying let's not wait for us to do it. The Park Service has an obligation to do it right now. Postponing Park Service action on the snowmobile issue is a delay tactic, pure and simple. The amendment we are debating assumes there is an inherent right of snowmobiles to run wild in the national parks, irrespective of their impact on other users and the environment. This is a very flawed assumption. They have no inherent right to run wild in national parks. All Americans have the right to enjoy our national parks but only in ways that do not damage the parks. Prohibiting snowmobiles in national parks will have an insignificant impact on recreational opportunities available to snowmobilers. Again, there are more than 130,000 miles of designated trails in the United States, and less than 1,000 of those miles are in national parks. That is less than 1 percent. Because millions of acres of public lands are already open to public snowmobiling, banning snow machines in national parks does not prevent recreationists from using their vehicles. It just prevents them from using the most sensitive and heavily visited public lands. Arguing that every form of recreational access should be allowed in national parks is silly. Visitors do not need to jet boat in Crater Lake National Park. Visitors do not need to ride dirt bikes in the Grand Canyon. Visitors do not need to bungee jump from the Washington Monument. Prohibitions against such activities do not restrict Americans' access to our parks; rather, they indicate a willingness to protect parks for the enjoyment of all visitors. Great Basin National Park in Nevada already prohibits snowmobile use. Glacier and Yosemite Parks do not allow snowmobile use. What are some of the environmental problems caused by snowmobiles in national parks? Environmental analyses

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued
(Senate - July 17, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7014-S7043] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Rhode Island. Amendment No. 3798 Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 3798 at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an amendment numbered 3798. Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To increase funding for weatherization assistance grants, with an offset) On page 182, beginning on line 9, strike ``$761,937,000'' and all that follows through ``$138,000,000'' on line 17 and insert ``$769,937,000, to remain available until expended, of which $2,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from unobligated balances in the Biomass Energy Development account and $8,000,000 shall be derived by transfer of a proportionate amount from each other account for which this Act makes funds available for travel, supplies, and printing expenses: Provided, That $172,000,000 shall be for use in energy conservation programs as defined in section 3008(3) of Public Law 99-509 (15 U.S.C. 4507): Provided further, That notwithstanding section 3003(d)(2) of Public Law 99-509, such sums shall be allocated to the eligible programs as follows: $146,000,000''. Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy and Senator Schumer be added as cosponsors of this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would provide an additional $8 million for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program. Across the country this summer, Americans have faced unacceptably high gasoline prices. Last winter, our constituents, particularly in the Northeast, saw extraordinary increases in home heating oil prices. Members of this body have offered various proposals to address this issue, ranging from urging OPEC to increase production; increasing domestic crude oil production, by drilling in new areas; building up our refining capacity; and expanding our use of ethanol and alternative fuels. Essentially, all of these proposals are supply side proposals, increasing the supply of energy. In fact, we are reaching a point now where the proposal to encourage OPEC might be running out of time. I note that the Saudi Arabians are asking for a meeting of OPEC in the next few days, because if there is not a meeting immediately, even if there is an increase in production, it will be insufficient in terms of reaching our markets for the winter heating season. All of these supply side proposals are interesting, but we are neglecting an important aspect of the overall composition of the heating market--and that is demand. The weatherization program goes right to this critical issue of demand. By weatherizing homes, by making them more energy efficient, we are literally cutting down the demand for energy, and typically foreign energy. As Congress debates these proposals for supply relief, we should also start thinking seriously about demand reduction. That is critically involved in the whole issue of energy efficiency and weatherization. At the same time, our weatherization program protects the most vulnerable people in our society because they are aimed at the elderly, individuals with disabilities, children, all of them being subject to huge increases in heating costs, not only in the wintertime--that is the case in the Northeast--but in the Southeast and Southwest and the very hot parts of this country in the summertime. In fact, it was not too long ago--several years ago--in Chicago where there was an extraordinary heat spell. People literally died because they could not afford to keep their air-conditioners running, if they had air-conditioning. Or they could not afford to keep paying exorbitant energy costs because their homes were inefficient in terms of retaining the cool air from air-conditioning. So this is a program that cuts across the entire country. The Weatherization Assistance Program supports the weatherization of over 70,000 low-income homes each year. To date, over 5 million American homes have been weatherized with Federal funds, and also local funds, which must be part of the formula in order to provide this type of assistance for American homes. Last December, I had a chance to witness this program in action. I was in Providence, RI, with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson. We went to a low-income home in Providence. In just a few hours, a contractor was able [[Page S7015]] to blow in insulation between the walls; they were able to caulk windows and doorways; they were able to conduct tests to ensure that the energy efficiency of the structure had increased dramatically. This was a home of a family of first-generation Americans. They had come from Southeast Asia in the turmoil of the war in Southeast Asia. The father was in his late 40s, early 50s, and had several children-- all of them American success stories. The children were in college. His mother was living with them. She was disabled, suffering from Alzheimer's. This is typically the type of families--low-income families, struggling, working hard with jobs, trying to get kids through college--who are the beneficiaries of this program. It is an excellent program. It is a program that is terribly needed by these low-income families. Typically, low-income families will spend about 15 percent of their income on heat--or in the summer, air-conditioning--more than four times the average of more affluent families. Over 90 percent of the households that are served by this weatherization program have annual incomes of less than $15,000. This is a program that works. It works for these individual families. Not only that, it also works for us. It creates jobs. About 8,000 jobs throughout the country have been created because of this weatherization program. It also saves us from consuming and wasting energy. I argue, as I have initially, one should look at the supply side complications of the energy crisis. One should implore OPEC to increase production. One should have sensible problems to ensure supply. But if we neglect the demand part of the equation, we are not only missing the boat, but I think we are deficient in our responsibility to formulate a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency in this country. In 1996, the budget was $214 million, but because of cuts generated by the Contract With America, and other proposals, it dipped down to about $111 million--a significant cut. This was one of those programs that was devastated by the budget policies of the mid-1990s. Since that time, we have added money back because, again, I believe this body particularly recognizes both the fairness and the efficiency of this program. But still we are at about $135 million in fiscal year 2000. That is still 37 percent below the 1996 figure. If we can afford, as Senator Kennedy said, at length and eloquently, to engage in trillion-dollar tax cuts, multibillion-dollar benefits that go to the very wealthiest Americans, we should be able to at least increase our weatherization funding by $8 million to cover additional families, low-income families, families who have disabled members, families who are working hard trying to get by and need this type of assistance. Again, as we look over the last several weeks, and even this week, talking about relief for the marriage penalty, estate tax relief, it reminds me of a play on Winston Churchill's famous line about the RAF, ``never have so many owed so much to so few.'' We seem to be in a position of saying, never have so few gotten so much from so many. I want to ensure that at least when it comes to weatherization we are responding to the critical needs of families across this country. I had hoped we could move towards the President's request of $154 million. That would be about a 14-percent increase over our present level of $135 million. My amendment does not seek that full increase. It simply seeks an additional $8 million. I think the money will be well spent. The program works. It puts people to work. It helps low-income families. It helps us address a problem which is growing with increasing importance, and that is to control our insatiable demand for energy, particularly petroleum. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope, perhaps, we can even work out a way in which this amendment can be accepted by the chairman and his colleagues. If it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just under 2 hours ago, at the outset of this debate, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, came to the floor with an eloquent plea about the lack of money to properly manage Great Smokey National Park and pointed out the tremendous challenges to that major national park in our system. The Senator from Nevada, the other Mr. Reid, spoke in agreement with that proposition. The Senator from Tennessee did not have an amendment to increase the appropriations for Great Smokey National Park or for any other. I have found it curious that in the several years I have managed this bill and written this bill, almost without exception the amendments that are brought to the floor are amendments to increase the amount of money we donate to other units of Government for their primary purposes and almost never do they express a concern for increasing the amount of money to support the functions of the Government of the United States itself. I have gone a long way--my committee has gone a long way--in drafting this bill at least to begin to make up for the deferred maintenance in our national parks and in our national forests and with respect to our Indian reservations and our Indian programs and the management of the Bureau of Public Lands. I think we have at least turned the corner. As I said in my opening remarks on the bill, this is our primary function and our primary goal; that is, to see to it that we manage the public lands of the United States and the other functions in this bill that are exclusively Federal functions first and deal with other matters later. I sympathize with the eloquent statement of the Senator from Rhode Island. In fact, I have supported that case in this bill for several years. When one compares this appropriation with that in the first year during which I managed this bill, it is increased by a good 20 percent. But here we have a proposal to add another $8 million, which will come out of every program for which the U.S. Government has exclusive responsibility. It will mean there will be less--not much less, but there will be less --for Great Smokey National Park. There will be less for the Fish and Wildlife Service and its multitude of obligations. There will be less for the Smithsonian Institution. There will be less for research and development of the very programs for energy efficiency which are the key to providing both energy independence and the proper and efficient use of energy. With all respect to the Senator from Rhode Island, this has nothing to do with the tax debate. We have a budget resolution and a set of allocations that have given this committee a fixed number of dollars with which to work. I repeat that: a fixed number of dollars with which to work. It is all spent in this bill. So we can't just add this $8 million or $18 million to the bill and say, well, let's take it out of a tax cut or out of a budget surplus or the like. The Senator from Rhode Island recognizes that. He has a match for this $8 million. But I simply have to repeat: The match is from the primary functions of the Federal Government, the management of our national parks and forests, the energy research we undertake, the cultural institutions of the United States. That is from where this match comes. A year ago, we said: If this program is so important to the States, let's require them to match what we come up with by 25 percent. Let them come up with 25 percent. Some States do provide some money for this. We had to postpone that for a year. In this bill we have had to have a way to grant State waivers, when States regard this program evidently as so lacking in importance that they are not willing to put up 25 percent of the money for their own citizens for something that is primarily their responsibility. As I said, we are $3 million above the level for the current year. The House is $5 million above the level for the current year. If we end up with a larger allocation--and, personally, I hope for a larger allocation--by the time the conference committee has completed its [[Page S7016]] work, we will have a modestly larger amount of money for this program in a final conference committee report. But it is not responsible to take it out of our National Park System. It is not responsible to take it out of our existing energy research. It is not responsible to take it out of the cultural institutions of the United States. That is precisely what this does. Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield? Mr. GORTON. Certainly. Mr. REED. Mr. President, I do applaud the Senator's efforts over many years to increase this account. He has done that. I think it makes a great deal of sense to provide a local match, which he has, and we would encourage more local participation. It is true we have provided an offset because I recognize that we do not have unlimited free money to put back into the budget. We have taken money from every Federal agency. But I am told that our cut represents .05 percent per agency coming out of travel pay, coming out of administrative overhead. I think that is probably something they could well absorb. I daresay it would not require them to either turn down the heat or turn off the air-conditioning, whereas we are talking about a situation of homes throughout this country where they don't have that luxury. So I agree in principle that we are taking it from agencies, but we are taking such a minute fraction that I think it would be readily absorbed. And we are putting it into a program that is both worthwhile and necessary in so many cases, and also going to the heart of ensuring that people can go into this heating season --particularly in the Northeast--with a little more confidence. I am concerned we are going to see tremendous oil heating price hikes which will force people into very difficult choices between heating or eating. This is a way, I believe, in which we can begin to start addressing this point. Again, I recognize that the chairman has very diligently and sincerely tried to increase these funds. I hope we can do better. I don't think we are penalizing the agencies, and I don't anticipate a park being shut down by the loss of .5 percent of their travel expenses and other overhead. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, first, there is another far more important program and far more expensive program that goes to these very issues. The appropriations bill for military construction included many other matters. There was $600 million more for the direct assistance to people with their heating oil bills. In some respects, this is every bit as important a program because it tries to lower the bills in the first place. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct; this is a small percentage of the budgets for the national parks. It is also the subject of match for several other amendments here because it is so easy. We don't say this program is much more important than another program, so let's cut the other program; we just say, in effect, cut them all across the board. But it is $8 million more in deferred maintenance for our national parks, or for our other national lands. And since this is a program that, over the course of the last 5 years, has increased more rapidly, bluntly, than the amount of money we have for these primary responsibilities, that is the reason we came up with the amount that we did. Would I have liked to come up with more? Yes. If I have a larger allocation later, I will. Will there be more? There will be. I don't think at this point, for a State program, that many States aren't matching--and the requirement for match is only 25 percent--that this is as important as the national priorities that are the subject of the rest of this bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wyoming is recognized. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 3800 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 3800. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To provide authority for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the management of conflicting activities and uses) On page 125, line 25 strike ``$58,209,000'' through page 126, line 2 and insert in lieu thereof ``$57,809,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be available to carry out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.). SEC. . MANAGEMENT STUDY OF CONFLICTING USES. (a) Snow Machine Study.--Of funds made available to the Secretary of the Interior for the operation of National Recreation and Preservation Programs of the National Park Service $400,000 shall be available to conduct a study to determine how the National Park Service can: (1) minimize the potential impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System; and (2) properly manage competing recreational activities in units of the National Park System. (b) Limitation of Funds Pending Study Completion.--No funds appropriated under this Act may be expended to prohibit, ban or reduce the number of snow machines from units of the National Park System that allowed the use of snow machines during any one of the last three winter seasons until the study referred to in subsection (a) is completed and submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue that is very important to many people. It is certainly important to me as chairman of the parks subcommittee in the Senate and as a supporter of parks. Having grown up right outside of Yellowstone Park, the parks there are very much a part of our lives. Let me quickly summarize what this amendment does. I can do it very quickly because it is quite simple. It deals with the idea and the concept of having access to national parks, when it is appropriate, for the use of individual snow machines--something we have done for some 20 years--frankly, without any particular objection until this last year, and without any real evidence that we can't make some changes that would allow us to continue to do that. Unfortunately, rather than looking for an opportunity to bring about some changes in the machines, or some changes in the way they are used, or to manage the way they are used, this administration has simply said: We are going to bring about a regulation unilaterally that will eliminate the use of snow machines in the parks of the United States. What this amendment does, simply, is provide some money--$400,000; and we have found a place to get that money--to conduct a study to determine how the national parks can do a couple of things: One, minimize the potential impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System. That is pretty logical stuff. In fact, you can almost ask yourself, haven't they done this? The answer is that they have not. Two, properly manage competing recreational activities in units of the national park. Again, that is pretty easy to do. In Yellowstone Park, where there is a great demand for using snow machines, on the one hand, and cross-country skiing, on the other, with management you can separate these two so that they are not conflicting uses. Of course, that requires some management. So then the second part of it is that no funds may be appropriated until such time, basically, as the Park Service has completed their study and submitted it back to the Committee on Appropriations in the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate. So this doesn't put any long-time restriction on what can be done. It simply says: Here is some money; take a look at where we are, what the problems are, and what we can do about them, and bring that back and make some management decisions. It is fairly simple and, I think, fairly reasonable. That is what this amendment is all about. [[Page S7017]] I guess the real issue comes about due to the fact that we have had a considerable amount of activity. What really brings it about is a winter use study that is going on now in Yellowstone and the Teton Parks. It has to do with the broad aspect of winter use and with buffalo moving out of the park and what kinds of things can be done there; and how people can get in and out of the parks and utilize them in the wintertime, which really brought about this whole thing. The Assistant Secretary of the Interior went out to look and came back with an idea--I think mostly of his own--that we ought to do away with snowmobile use. He did this without having any facts, science, or looking at what could be done so that you could be consistent with the purpose of the park. The purpose of a park is basically to maintain the resource and to maintain it in such a way that its owners can enjoy the use of it. Those things are not inconsistent. Those things are not inconsistent with snowmobiles, in my judgment. But whether it is my judgment or not, more importantly, the idea to come to the conclusion that they are inconsistent without any facts is something we ought not to accept. I am a little surprised that someone in this Congress would rise to defend the authority of the executive branch to go around the Congress and to do something without even including the Congress or the people. That is not the way this place is set up. That is not what we are here for. That is why we have a division between the executive and the legislative and the judicial--a very important division. It is, frankly, being ignored by this administration not only on this issue but on many of them. They are overtly saying: If we don't get approval, we will just do it. That is not the way things are supposed to happen. I am also a little surprised, frankly, that a representative of a public lands State would be interested in having the agencies that manage--in the case of Nevada--nearly 90 percent of the land and, in Wyoming, over half, making decisions without involving some of the people who should be involved, who are involved with living in these areas. I think we are really talking about a system of rulemaking--a system of regulation--and one that needs to be based on facts and based on the idea that you take a look at issues. Frankly, the substantial amount of evidence about what has been said about snowmobiles in west Yellowstone and other places simply isn't factual. I could go through all of that stuff, but I will not. But it is terribly important that we try to do things based on real facts. The Department of Interior has announced that it intends to ban snowmobiles in all but 12 of about 30 parks--not all in the West, as a matter of fact. We sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior some time ago with 12 signatures on it. They quickly came to the Senate from Maine, from Minnesota, from the west coast, and some from the Rocky Mountains. It is not only in the area that has limited interest; it has interest from all over the whole country. The Department claims that only a complete ban to curb snowmobiles on issues and noise will protect the wildlife. That simply isn't the only alternative that is available. I want to make it very clear that it is not my position, nor would I defend the notion that snowmobiles ought to continue to be used as they are currently being used. They can be changed substantially. We have had meetings with the manufacturers, which, by the way, have a very strong presence in Minnesota. Lots of jobs and lots of issues are involved. Jobs isn't really the issue. The issue is access to the land that belongs to the people of this country, but they can be changed. One of the things that has not happened and that should happen is there ought to have been some standard established for snowmobiles, saying here is the level of emissions that is acceptable, and here is the level of noise that is acceptable. If you want to use your machine in the park, you have to have one that complies with these regulations. There have been none. The same thing could be said about where you use the machine. If you are going to be in the same track as deer, it doesn't need to be that way. We have had failure on the part of management of the Park Service to do something to make these kinds of uses compatible with the purposes of the parks. Rather than do that, or rather than making efforts to do that, they simply say, no. They are just going to cut it out; they aren't going to do that. I object to that process. I don't think that is the kind of process that we ought to look forward to in this country--whether it is snowmobiles, or water, or whether it is automobiles, or whether it is food regulations, or whatever. We have to have something better. Interior has never considered a single management scheme to be able to make it better. Certainly I hear all the time: Well, the snow machine people should have done something better. Maybe so. I don't argue with that. However, if you were a developer of snow machines, if you were a manufacturer and you were going to invest a good deal of money to make changes in them, I think it would be important to you to know what the standard is going to be so you are able to meet those requirements and continue to be able to put out the machine that would comply. We have had hearings. We have met with those manufacturers. They testified they can and will produce and market the machine, if EPA will set the standard. It is kind of interesting that most of the parks, such as Yellowstone, are full of cars, buses, and all kinds of things in the summertime which do not seem to have an impact here. But in the wintertime, it seems that something much less in terms of numbers is what we are going to cut off. I want to deal largely with the concept that we ought to really pay attention to the purpose of these resources--to make them available, to have access to them, that we need to have a system that is based on findings of fact and science, and be able to come up with alternatives rather than simply making the bureaucrat decision downtown that we are going to do away with this or we are going to do away with that. We ought to put into effect a time that this agency can study this issue, look at the alternatives, provide some money to do that, have them bring their findings back, and then certainly make some choices. This amendment is simple and straightforward. I think that is better than the bureaucratic approach of just deciding somewhere in the bowels of the Interior Department we are going to do something. I find a great deal of reaction to it in my State, of course, and the surrounding States which are very much impacted. This is not a partisan issue. I have worked with the majority leader and the Senator from Montana to try to find a solution. We are looking for solutions. That is really what we need some time to be able to do. Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to reverse the snowmobile ban in our national parks and provide funding for a study to determine how the National Park Service can minimize the impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System. I want to thank Senators Thomas and Craig for their efforts to bring this important amendment before the Senate for consideration. While the Interior Department's ill-conceived ban will not immediately affect 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, [[Page S7018]] 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 the 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. It has 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 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. 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 legislative. 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 Babbitt in coming right out and admitting it. Well, Mr. President, I for one am getting a little sick and tried 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. Quite frankly, I'm getting a little sick and tired of this Administration's positions of zero-cut, zero-access, and zero-fun on public lands. 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 official 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 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. 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. That is why this amendment is so important. It reverses the dark of night, back room tactics used by this Administration to arrive at this decision. We cannot 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 Babbitt, 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. This amendment does just that. Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment introduced by the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Craig Thomas, regarding a study on snowmobile use within our National Parks. The development of the Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks winter use plan draft environmental impact statement has been a landmark exercise for inclusion and cooperation between state, local and Federal Agencies involved in the land management planning process. While this endeavor has not progressed without flaws, it has established that local and state governments possess the expertise and ability to respond in a timely and educated manner to address issues critical to the development of a comprehensive land-use document. In spite of these efforts, however, the United States Department of the Interior has announced a decision to usurp this process and has chosen to implement an outright ban on all snowmobiles, in virtually all national parks, including Yellowstone. I must admit I am not surprised at the over-reaching nature of this action. In fact, several months ago I predicted that the Park Service would ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park and would [[Page S7019]] extend its ban on snowmobiles to all national parks. I am further concerned that this action will spread to include other public land including the national forests. In fact, discussions with National Forest supervisors surrounding Yellowstone indicate that all it will take is an adverse opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ban snowmobiles altogether. The United States Forest Service could claim that increased snowmobile use on our national forests will impact the Canadian lynx, or some other threatened or endangered species, without proof or documentation to put such a ban in place. After a ban in the forests, we can expect action on BLM lands. After snowmobiles, what next? A ban on automobiles and then even on bicycles? If that sounds farfetched, think back just three years ago when we were assured that snowmobiles would not be banned in Yellowstone Park. Soon, we may even expect that bans on other types of recreation will follow and our public lands will no longer be available to the public. As one of the Senators representing the bulk of Yellowstone, I feel it is my duty to correct some of the misconceptions that surround this proposal by the federal government to prohibit access to our nation's oldest and dearest of national parks. Millions of visitors come to Yellowstone National Park each year to experience first hand the park's unique and awesome beauty. They come from all over the world to see Earth's largest collection of geothermal features and to witness some of the largest free-roaming bison and elk herds in the United States. In a proposal announced March 24, 2000 the U.S. Department of the Interior declared its plan to permanently ban snowmobiles from the park beginning in 2002. This announcement was followed by a later statement, on April 27, 2000, where the Department of Interior expanded a proposed ban to dozens of other national parks across the country. If federal officials and national special interest groups have their way, however, a visit to Yellowstone National Park may become as rare and endangered as the trumpeter swan or black footed ferret. There is little evidence to support claims that this proposal was made to protect the environment or to reduce the impact on Park animals. In fact, later statements by park personnel indicate that the main reason for this ban was to comply with changing Park Service policy which was developed to supersede ongoing efforts to reach a reasonable compromise on national park winter use. As I stated earlier, the decision to ban snowmobiles was announced before the Park Service had completed its review of comments on a draft environmental impact statement created by the park and adjacent states and counties to address concerns over winter use in Yellowstone and its neighbor, Grand Teton National Park. The announcement also came before officials could incorporate revisions and amendments to major studies that the Park Service relied on in drafting the draft environmental impact statement. The Park Service admits these initial studies were seriously flawed and exaggerated snowmobile pollution estimates. The original draft study on snowmobile emissions erroneously computed emissions amounts using pounds instead of grams as is used to compute all standard emission amounts. So what is the real reason for banning snowmobiles from Yellowstone and all other national parks? The Park Service's proposal to ban snowmobiles is all about deciding who will have the privilege of experiencing the Park up close and in person, and who will be forced to stay home. Unfortunately, this will leave an even larger segment of the United States ignorant of how vast and wonderful our parks really are. It is vitally important, therefore, that a true picture be painted for the American public to understand what is really being taken away from them. One poll touted by national environmental organizations claims most Americans favor banning snowmobiles, partially based on an image of snowmobiles as heinous, smog producing, noisy devices used to run down poor, defenseless animals and lacking a conception of the size of the park and the limited number of snowmobiles accessing the park on any given day. The administration failed to inform the public of other alternatives to an outright ban that were in the works. For example: snowmobile manufacturers are interested in cleaner, quieter machines. There was also discussion about reducing the number of snowmobiles that could access the park every winter. Not many people realize that local leaders were very involved in trying to resolve the situation to avoid implementing a full fledged ban. In addition, the snowmobile industry has been working for several years to develop air and noise standards with the Environmental Protection Agency so there is a clear target for cleaner, quieter machines. Industry has stated time and time again that once they have clearly defined standards they will develop the technology to meet those standards (assuming some reasonableness to the standard) One company even gave the Park Service some advanced model snowmobiles to test. Right now, snowmobiles are only allowed on groomed roads, the same roads used by cars in the summer and average less than two-thousand snowmobiles a day. A speed limit of 45 miles per hour is strictly enforced. Any driver who puts one ski off the designated trails is subject to fines and possible arrest. The same goes for speeding. This is a significant point to make by the way, because the Executive order this ban is based on regulates off-road vehicle use on our national parks, and as I just noted, snowmobiles are not off-road vehicles in national parks. What a snowmobile ban really does is deny access for old and young riders with physical limitations that preclude them from snowshoeing or cross country skiing into the park. The only alternative left for those visitors unable to snowshoe or ski into the park will only be able to access the park via a mass transit vehicle known as a snow coach. Because of its size, and the type of terrain, it is incredibly impractical to limit access to Yellowstone to just snow coaches or cross country skis and snowshoes. Yellowstone is made up of approximately 2.2 million acres, most of which is already closed to public access other than by foot, snow shoe or skis, and has less than 2,000 snowmobiles inside the park on any given day. By comparison, the State of Connecticut is slightly larger than Yellowstone Park with more than 3.3 million people, many of which drive a car every day. Perspective is important. On its face, and in the safety of your own living room, the idea of riding a van-sized, over snow vehicle may sound like a romantic mode of travel, but in reality, snow coaches are large, cumbersome vehicles that grind, scrape, and shake their way across high mountain passes. It is impossible to ride in a snow coach for long periods of time. As a result, the proposal to only access the park by means of mass transit further restricts time and access to the park by virtually eliminating all entrances to Yellowstone except for the gate at West Yellowstone, Montana. The terrain and elevation at Wyoming's East Gate is so rugged and high that it is impractical for snow coaches to travel in that area of the park. Sylvan Pass reaches an elevation of 8,530 feet and is surrounded by mountains that rise well over 10,000 feet on one side, and gorges with sheet drops of several thousand feet on the other. This is definitely not a place for a snow coach. Furthermore, by moving the southern access point from Flag Ranch to Colter Bay, the Park Service makes any southern day trip into Yellowstone an impossible 113 miles round trip. This also creates a serious safety problem for Idaho snow groomers who, in the past, filled up their gas tanks at Flag Ranch. Under the current proposal, these facilities will be closed and the groomers will not have enough gas to make one complete round trip. This creates a serious safety problem and shuts off access to more than 60 miles of non-Park Service trails. Once again, I would like to reiterate that the complete banning of snowmobiles is not the only available alternative for national park recreational winter use. For the past three years, I have worked with the communities surrounding Yellowstone to develop a more practical and more inclusive approach to Yellowstone winter use. [[Page S7020]] After holding dozens of meetings with residents and business owners, we have been able to create a proposal that preserves the park's environmental health while at the same time ensuring future access--for everyone. This amendment will enable the Park Service to rethink its actions and hopefully incorporate a more positive approach to winter management. I grew up spending time in Yellowstone where grandparents camped inside the park all summer. I have been back many times since, sometimes on a snowmobile. In fact, I get there every year. Over the years the park has improved, not been overrun or run down as efforts mostly to get additional funds imply. Anyone who knows and loves Yellowstone like I do can attest to the fact that there is room enough for wildlife, snowmobiles, snowshoers, cross country skiers and snow coaches in Yellowstone, and a reasonable compromise can be reached to include all of these uses, that is unless federal officials don't step in first and ensure everyone is excluded. Wildlife and human enjoyment of the wildlife are not mutually exclusive. Good administration would accommodate both. The study outlined in this amendment would establish a necessary first step in restoring access, not just to the park, but to the land planning process, for those people who will bear the brunt of the Park Service's decision to ban snowmobiles. Clearly, the Park Service's decision in this matter is an arbitrary decision that bypassed local communities, counties, states and even Congress. The Park Service needs the direction provided for in this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is recognized. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand in support of my colleague from Wyoming on his amendment. I was quite surprised when Senator Reid of Nevada spoke on the floor about this issue because I heard what he was saying before. It was given in testimony before the Subcommittee on Parks, chaired by the Senator from Wyoming, by the national environmental groups. He was following their script. Their script says: Get all of the snowmobiles out of the park. For some reason that impacts the parks. I have ridden snowmobiles in Yellowstone. I am not sure the Senator from Nevada has. I am not sure many Senators have. I don't dispute the need to manage the number of snowmobiles and the entry of snowmobiles where they travel. But arbitrarily and without justification, Assistant Secretary Barry--who has now fled to the Wilderness Society once he tried to accomplish his damage here in this administration with the Park Service--came before the committee and emphatically said they had to go. In a press conference a few days prior to that hearing in almost a defiant, arrogant way, he said he was going to take all of them out of the parks, finish the rulemaking in Yellowstone, and so be it--failing to recognize the industries that have built up around snowmobiling at both entrances to Yellowstone Park; failing to deal with them in a responsible, cooperative way--so that he could ensure the mantra of the Clinton administration, and that public lands generate economies in recreation and tourism. Here quite the opposite was going on--no economy, everything for the environment, even though the facts bear out that you can still have an economy, meaning people on snowmobiles in Yellowstone in the wintertime, and still protect the environment. How do you accomplish that? You work with the industry. What do you do with the industry? You ask them to redesign their sleds so they make little to no noise and very little pollution --if there is any of consequence that would damage the environment to begin with. What does the industry say? They can do it. In fact, last winter they were operating in Yellowstone with a prototype put out by one of the snowmobile manufacturers. It was a four-cycle instead of a two-cycle engine. The Senator from Nevada was bemoaning the pollution of the two- cycle. We now know they can produce a four-cycle that will be certainly less environmentally damaging. They are willing to do that. The moment the industry said to the Park Service we can supply you with a new sled that meets these standards, the Park Service says: Oh, well, it wasn't air pollution, it wasn't noise pollution, it was wildlife harassment. Somehow the wildlife of Yellowstone is going through some emotional problem as a result of snowmobiles trafficking by recreationists on a daily basis. I am not quite sure they have had any examples of these wildlife species in therapy. But somehow they seem to know a great deal about it. The bottom line is simply this: The environmentalists have told this administration they want snowmobiles out of the parks. I suggest to the National Park Service that they have a real problem on their hands in management. In other words, they are denying public access to parks that were designed to protect the environment and also allow public access. They have a crisis in management. They don't have an environmental problem in Yellowstone, they have a management problem, a failure on the part of this administration, and certainly this President, to recognize the cooperative balance between the environment and the public and how one benefits from creating this kind of balance for all to benefit from. Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield? Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I note another Senator interested in the subject. I note there are 55 minutes between now and 6:15. I have a minimum of 3 amendments that I know are going to be debated and will require votes, and perhaps five. While there are no limitations on this, I appreciate it being concluded relatively quickly so we can go to the Senator from Nevada. His amendment will be contested, and there will be more after that. We are scheduled to go off this bill, for good, except for votes, at 6:15. Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for giving an evaluation of the time remaining on the amendments that must be dealt with. I know the chairman has been struggling since around 3:15 to get Senators to debate the amendments, and now all of a sudden they appear on the floor in the last minutes. I conclude my debate. The Senator from Montana, I know, wants to speak to this issue. It impacts his State and the economy of his State. Once again I say to the administration, shame on you for taking people out of the environment, all in the name of the environment. It doesn't seem a very good solution to me, if you are going to tout tourism and recreation to us western States as an alternative to the elimination of the extractive resource industries that have provided economies to our States for the last 100-plus years. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Montana is recognized. Mr. BURNS. It will not take long to make the point. I will facilitate everything, as the chairman of the subcommittee wants. If Members want to talk about wildlife in Yellowstone, you will see very little variety in wildlife in Yellowstone in the wintertime. If you have been there, you know that about the only thing you will see is bison. Let me tell you, you don't bother them with a little old snowmobile. They are just walking around, and they go wherever they want to, whenever they want to. So let's not be worried about the bison. Whether you agree with it or not, there are too many bison in the park. We have grazed that country right into the ground. I remind Members that those who operate the snowmobiles out of West Yellowstone have gone to the Park Service and said: We will make arrangements to prevent line-ups at the gate, we will get new, cleaner, quieter machines, we will work with you in order to protect the environment of Yellowstone Park. There will be more people in a week this summer through the park than all of next winter. You cannot even get through that park for traffic right now. One of these days, you will have to go to a gate and pick a number and they call your number and you get to go to the park. The impact is in the summer, not in the winter, no matter what you are riding. It could be an old gray horse or a snowmobile, it doesn't make any difference. And are we concerned about that? [[Page S7021]] Let's not be shocked. The Senator from Wyoming has a good idea. It is time we take a realistic look at this, do the study, and go forward with the recommendations that are made. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Environmental Protection Agency has issued proposed regulations governing the emissions of snowmobiles in our National Park System. It is very clear that these vehicles cause big problems. Why do I say that? A single snowmobile belches out the same pollution that 20 automobiles do. One snowmobile equals the pollution of 20 passenger cars. Also, my friend from Tennessee earlier talked about the air pollution in the Great Smoky Mountains because of coal-fired generating plants in that area. There isn't much that can be done, at this stage at least, to stop those longstanding power producers from generating the emissions they do. But there is something we can do to stop air pollution from developing as it has in our National Park System. It is a national disgrace that the levels of toxic pollution, such as carbon monoxide--in Yellowstone National Park, to pick just one--rival major urban centers such as Los Angeles and Denver. I repeat, it is a national disgrace that levels of toxic pollutants such as carbon monoxide, in our national parks--especially Yellowstone--at times, rival major urban centers such as Los Angeles and Denver. That is significant. But what is being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency is nothing that is going to eliminate snowmobiling in our country. For example, of the more than 130,000 miles of designated snowmobile trails in the United States, less than 1,000 of those miles are in national parks--to be exact, there are 600 miles. So this furor, and the offering of this amendment, to eliminate this proposal to stop the air pollution of snowmobiles in national parks is really a red herring. There are other places you can ride snowmobiles. In fact, you can ride them over 129,000 miles in the United States alone. We need not ride them this 600 miles in national parks. Appropriate access to national parks is important, but such access does not include all forms of transportation at all times. Protecting parks from air, water, and noise pollution, for the enjoyment of all Americans, should be our No. 1 goal. I am very happy that the Senator from Tennessee spoke earlier about how important national parks are. I agree with him. We are the envy of the rest of the world with our national parks. Yosemite, Great Basin National Park, Yellowstone National Park--these wonderful gems of nature, that we are attempting to preserve, need to be preserved. The amendment would prohibit the Park Service from doing its job to protect some of America's most awe-inspiring national treasures. The landscape of our national parks should reflect the wonders of our Creator, which I think we have an obligation to protect. National parks do not need to serve as racetracks for noisy, high-polluting snow machines. The State of Nevada shares Lake Tahoe with California. We wish we had all of Lake Tahoe, but we do not mind sharing it with California. It is a wonderful, beautiful lake. There is only one other lake like it in the world, and that is Lake Bakal in the former Soviet Union, now Russia, an alpine glacial lake. Lake Tahoe it is very deep--not as deep as Lake Bakal, which is over 5,000 feet deep, but very deep. It was only 35 years ago they found the bottom of Lake Tahoe. It is extremely cold. It is beautiful. It is emerald colored. But one of the things contributing to the ruination of Lake Tahoe is two-stroke engines. They were outlawed last year. I am glad they were outlawed. People may complain: What are we going to do for recreation? There are plenty of things to do for recreation without these two- stroke engines. They are gone now. The lake is less polluted. It sounds better. Two-stroke engines are also the engines that snowmobiles use. They have been outlawed at Lake Tahoe. Why? Because they are inefficient, highly polluting, and contribute disproportionately to the decline of the lake's legendary clarity and degradation of its water quality. Our national parks deserve similar protection from the pollution produced by these snow machines. In sum, the use of snowmobiles currently prevents adequate protection of air and water quality for wildlife. Damage is being done to national parks not some time in the future but right now. The unnecessary delay caused by this amendment would allow further damage to our parks. Congress should allow individual parks that currently allow snowmobiling to go through a public comment process to determine what course of action is appropriate. This amendment would eliminate that. EPA agrees that the Park Service has the primary and immediate duty to take action to protect parks from snowmobile impacts. In comments on the draft EIS for winter use at Yellowstone, EPA said: We encourage the National Park Service to take the steps necessary to protect human health and the environment immediately rather than to depend on future regulations of off-highway vehicle engines from EPA. They are saying let's not wait for us to do it. The Park Service has an obligation to do it right now. Postponing Park Service action on the snowmobile issue is a delay tactic, pure and simple. The amendment we are debating assumes there is an inherent right of snowmobiles to run wild in the national parks, irrespective of their impact on other users and the environment. This is a very flawed assumption. They have no inherent right to run wild in national parks. All Americans have the right to enjoy our national parks but only in ways that do not damage the parks. Prohibiting snowmobiles in national parks will have an insignificant impact on recreational opportunities available to snowmobilers. Again, there are more than 130,000 miles of designated trails in the United States, and less than 1,000 of those miles are in national parks. That is less than 1 percent. Because millions of acres of public lands are already open to public snowmobiling, banning snow machines in national parks does not prevent recreationists from using their vehicles. It just prevents them from using the most sensitive and heavily visited public lands. Arguing that every form of recreational access should be allowed in national parks is silly. Visitors do not need to jet boat in Crater Lake National Park. Visitors do not need to ride dirt bikes in the Grand Canyon. Visitors do not need to bungee jump from the Washington Monument. Prohibitions against such activities do not restrict Americans' access to our parks; rather, they indicate a willingness to protect parks for the enjoyment of all visitors. Great Basin National Park in Nevada already prohibits snowmobile use. Glacier and Yosemite Parks do not allow snowmobile use. What are some of the environmental problems caused by snowmobiles in national parks? Environmenta