STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROD GRAMS

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROD GRAMS Return to Top Level Document

"STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROD GRAMS"
IMPLEMENTATION OF WILDERNESS ACT OVERSIGHT HEARING

EXPLORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1964 WILDERNESS ACT BY THE FOREST SERVICE, THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE APRIL 15, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC

  Senator GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Chenoweth and other distinguished members of this panel. I appreciate the time to come and talk to you this morning. I commend you for holding this very important oversight hearing and appreciate the opportunity to speak on wilderness before the panel today.

  Wilderness protection and management is often perceived as a Western lands matter, but this issue is important within my home State of Minnesota. Nearly every Minnesotan, including myself, is proud of our State's pristine wilderness area.

  In both 1964 and 1978, Congress designated portions of northeastern Minnesota as one of our nation's only lakeland-based Federal wilderness areas. First envisioned by Hubert Humphrey, whom many regard as the father of the wilderness system, this was to be a unique wilderness area, allowing for legitimate multiple recreational uses.

  Specifically in 1964, when Senator Humphrey first included the Boundary Waters as part of the National Wilderness System, he made a promise to the people of northeastern Minnesota, saying, quote, ''The wilderness bill will not ban motorboats.'' It is safe to say, without that commitment, this region would not be a wilderness area today.

  In 1978, additional legislation was passed, making further enhancements such as a ban on logging and mining. The 1978 law also limited recreational uses. For instance, motorboat users could only enjoy 18 of the area's 1,078 lakes. Today, we recognize this one million acres as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

  Like many laws passed by Congress, the 1978 legislation was well intended and had unforeseen consequences. Indeed, many segments within the law were justified, but other provisions imposed significant economic and social costs in neighboring northeastern Minnesota.

  The debate over the 1978 law has become a symbol of the difference between what the role of government should be and what it has become with many in northeastern Minnesota pointing to the ongoing struggle to restore the rights of citizens to have reasonable input and access into the cherished Boundary Waters.

  Since 1978, the people have been subjected to ever-increasing forest regulation in the Boundary Waters. Many in the area have seen their customs, cultures and traditions uprooted by Federal regulations which have shut them out of the land they have responsibly cared for in the past and now continue to call home.

  Definition changes and bans are just some of the administrative changes that have twisted the original intent of the Boundary Waters legislation. Many point to what they believe are unfair permit reductions, which effectively keep them out of the few motorized lakes in the Boundary Waters. Even the Forest Service admits the permit system needs some simplification. But even if the permit system was reformed, it would not make a difference for those who are less physically fortunate.

  Perhaps the most egregious example of how the 1978 law has been turned on its head is the court-mandated closure of three motorized portages which allowed the disabled, the elderly and those with young families to enter into the wilderness area. Under the legalistic trickery, radical environmentalists deceived the Congress and the people of northern Minnesota into believing these portages which connect motorized lakes would stay open. Unfortunately, that was not the case after 1993, when the Federal Court of Appeals ruled in favor of shutting out those less fortunate.

  Now the Forest Service justifies the Court's action, saying accessibility is not being denied, but you can't tell that to those who can no longer access our public lands. For example, John Novak, a veteran from Ely, Minnesota, wrote me about his frustration with the closing of the portage, saying, I quote, ''I was good enough to go into the armed services for our country for 3 years back in the 1940's, but now that I am disabled, I am not good enough to get into the Boundary Waters.''

  Another letter from a man named Joe Madden in Virginia, Minnesota, stated, ''I went to visit the Boundary Waters with my grandfather. We wanted to go fishing in Trout Lake, but we couldn't get there because we could not get my grandfather's boat over the portage. Please open it up so Grandfather and I can go fishing.'' A simple request.

  The culmination of all these restrictions has had a dramatic impact on the nearby community of Ely, Minnesota. During one of the Congressional hearings on this issue, the mayor of Ely spoke on how class enrollments are down 50 percent since 1978. Minnesota State Senator, Doug Johnson, who represents this area, stated how massive amounts of State money have helped prop up the Ely community.

  So, my distinguished colleagues, there can be heavy costs to wilderness, especially to those who live nearby, and that shouldn't be the case. And for this reason, Congressman Oberstar, the dean of the Minnesota delegation, and I have introduced legislation in the last Congress to help restore the commitments made in 1964 and in 1978 and to give nearby communities a reasonable and legitimate voice in the Federal management process.

  While our bill was effectively killed in the waning days of the last Congress, I look forward to working once again on behalf of legislation that will be aimed at restoring past recreational commitments.

  I and many others have waited patiently while the mediation team struggled to find a solution to the Minnesota wilderness question, and while this effort failed to resolve the major items of disagreement, the time to act will be soon in order to give the same thing every American wants from our government--that is, accountability to the people.

  Accountability means balancing the protection of our pristine wilderness, but balancing with the rights of people to legitimately enjoy natural resources, restoring the promises made in the past, and forming a partnership with the people to ensure those promises will be honored in the future. And it also means keeping the Federal Government in check to guarantee it works for the best interests of the people and not just for a select few. And above all, it means keeping our public lands truly available to the public.

  We who love the Boundary Waters canoe area are working toward those goals. I strongly believe those goals are worthy of every Federal wilderness area, and I would urge this panel to keep them in mind as it pursues its oversight responsibilities and its legislative actions.

  That concludes my testimony, so please save any of the hard questions for those with me here today, who will be testifying later on the issue. And again I want to commend you for your leadership and your past help on this issue, and I look forward to working with you once again in the future on this very important legislation.