[Senate Hearing 110-185]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-185
CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 1253, A BILL TO ESTABLISH A FUND FOR THE
NATIONAL PARK CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
AUGUST 2, 2007
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-893 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel, K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii................. 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Wyoming................... 4
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 2
Bomar, Mary, Director, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior....................................................... 6
Buchholtz, Curt, President, National Park Friends Alliance, Estes
Park, CO....................................................... 28
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from North Carolina............. 3
Cipolla, Vin, President And Chief Executive Officer, National
Park Foundation................................................ 19
Kiernan, Tom, President, National Parks Conservation Association. 23
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 5
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 39
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 49
CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE
----------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM
HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Good afternoon.
Ms. Bomar. Good afternoon.
Senator Akaka. Today, the Subcommittee on National Parks
will receive testimony on S. 1253, the administration's
Centennial Challenge Initiative for the National Park Service,
which Senator Bingaman and I introduced by request earlier this
year.
The Centennial Challenge is one of the most ambitious
national park funding proposals put forward in recent years.
For that, I congratulate Secretary Kempthorne and Director
Bomar for your efforts to secure additional funding for our
national parks.
While I have questions about how this initiative will be
implemented, and concerns with some provisions in the bill, I
strongly support any efforts to increase funding for our
national parks. So, I hope to use this hearing as an
opportunity to explore and discuss possible changes that will
help this effort move forward.
Originally, I had intended to hold an oversight hearing to
examine the state of the national park system before holding a
hearing on the Centennial Challenge legislative proposal.
However, after talking to the Director--we had a great first
meeting--and talking to her last month, I agreed to move up the
hearing on S. 1253 so that we could get this scheduled before
the August recess. So, here we are. However, I hope we can use
this hearing to address some of the general park oversight
issues, as well.
Among the key issues in S. 1253 that we will need to
address is the question of whether the bill will need to be
offset; and, if so, whether those offsets--what those should
be. As proposed by the administration, S. 1253 would provide
for up to $1 billion in new direct spending over the next 10
years as a match to donations received by the Park Service.
Although Interior Department officials have previously stated
that the administration's budget proposal was offset, many of
those revenue assumptions are not likely to be approved, and
the bill itself is not offset, so we will need to address that
issue.
I understand that the Park Service hopes to finalize its
initial list of signature projects and programs that would be
funded by this bill sometime later this month. The question of
how to determine which project should receive funding, and how
to balance congressional and agency approval of these projects,
is another key issue we will need to resolve. While I have
concerns with some of the specific provisions in this bill, I
support its overall goal and look forward to working with the
Director and my colleagues on the committee to see if we can
find a way to move it forward.
Last week, the committee approved the Republican members'
selection of Richard Burr as the new ranking member of the
subcommittee. I'm so happy to know that, and look forward to
working with him. Senator Burr will be here, and I thought I'd
move forward here, and, when he comes, he will be able to
present his statement. I want him to know that I'm looking
forward to working with him and hope that we can continue the
long bipartisan tradition of this subcommittee.
So, at this time, I'd like to call on the chairman of the
energy and interior committees, Mr. Bingaman--Senator Bingaman,
for his statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka, for
having the hearing. I welcome the Director here. This is very
important issue. I'm glad that you were able to schedule this
hearing today, before Congress leaves for the August recess.
I do think that this Centennial Challenge proposal has a
lot of merit in concept. I very much like the proposal, and
support what the Secretary and the Director are trying to do
here, in obtaining significant long-term funding increases for
our national parks, which is certainly something that's
definitely needed. I think you and I have both been here long
enough, Senator Akaka, to know that accomplishing this isn't
always that easy. I remember the debates and problems we had in
trying to pass the CARA bill, some time ago. I proposed in that
a bill that included funding for various conservation programs.
There was 150 million each year in there, and new direct
spending authority for the national parks. We got the provision
out of this committee, but we were not able to overcome
objections on the Senate floor and proceed to pass it.
Let me just mention two or three concerns that I do have.
I'm not able to stay for your full hearing, but I just wanted
to make a record of these concerns.
Some of the specific authorities in the bill, and how they
would be implemented, is one concern. I think the bill does
leave a great deal of discretion to the administration in
determining funding needs. I hope that we can be more specific
about the criteria that is involved. The way I read it now, the
standard is that they can fund any project or program the
Director identifies as one that will preserve the national
parks for another century of conservation, preservation, and
enjoyment. That's pretty broad. I hope we can be more specific.
Next concern would be that additional funding for the
Centennial Challenge obviously can't come at the expense of the
other ongoing needs of the Park Service, and that's something
that I think you alluded to in your comments, as well.
The final point that I would make--and I think this is
something that maybe the Director will speak to--is we need to
really be very sure that setting up this program that
contemplates significant increases in private philanthropy does
not open the door for increased pressure to have corporate
sponsors of our various parks and park facilities. I think
that's an issue that we've debated around here before. I
remember when we had the debate a few years ago about
advertising on the National Mall, and concerns there. I think
the Senate voted, with a fairly large bipartisan vote, to
prohibit that in the future, at least when it occurred in that
instance. The donor recognition standards that the Park Service
has adopted, I think that we need to be sure that those are not
undermined.
So, let me stop with that. Again, thank you for having the
hearing. I'm sorry I'm not able to be here for the entire
hearing, but appreciate the chance to make this statement.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman, for
your statement.
As I look here, I--it seems as though this is a hearing of
the Bs. We've just heard from Bingaman, and we will hear from
Burr, and, following the members, we'll hear from Bomar. But,
before Bomar, we'll hear from Barrasso.
[Laughter.]
Senator Akaka. So, here we are----
The Chairman. Senator Salazar, that's the one exception.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burr. We weren't going to let him speak.
[Laughter.]
Senator Akaka. But I'm delighted to call, next, on our new
ranking member, Senator Burr, and we're delighted to have him.
Then, too, this is the first--I think I'm correct--first
meeting that we're having with Director Bomar, too. So, here we
are.
Senator Burr.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. More importantly,
thank you for the very warm welcome. My apologies for my
tardiness. I welcome the Director, as well.
It's great to be a part of a Subcommittee that really
treasures our national treasure, and that's our parks. The
agenda for today's hearing includes only one bill, S. 1253, the
National Park Centennial Challenge Fund Act. It's unusual for
this subcommittee to devote an entire hearing to a single bill.
I'm not sure that it's happened while I'm here. But it's most
appropriate, in this instance, because the bill has the
potential to improve visitor services and park operations in
many ways, in many years to come.
The years leading up to the centennial, in 2016, are a time
to reflect on the past as we prepare for the future. When
Woodrow Wilson signed the Organic Act, on August 25, 1916, he
created a new bureau with responsibility for 35 national parks
and monuments. The mission of the new bureau was to conserve
the scenery, the natural and historic objects and the wildlife,
and leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations. We have the same charge.
In the ensuing years, the number of units has grown from 35
to 391. This increase has created a challenge to abide by the
mandate to maintain parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of
future generations. The Centennial Challenge Fund will help the
National Park Service achieve that mandate of all 391 units.
Senate bill 1253 outlines a new and creative way to fund
Federal projects. The program will combine appropriated funds
with matching private dollars, something I hope this Congress
uses in other areas--as I have suggested, already, in
education. This method of funding if successful, could be a
model for other funding projects with special needs. However,
we must also ensure that this legislation does not conflict
with existing policies regarding donations and fundraising
established in Director's Order 21. The witnesses here today
can help us to find a way to avoid that potential conflict.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe it's important to
remember that national parks are an American treasure that
preserve and interpret the history of our Nation. Other
countries have tried to emulate this program, but none have
come close to achieving the quality and the diversity of
America's national park system. The bill under consideration
today will help the National Park Service maintain its status
as a world leader in natural and cultural resources and
stewardship.
I want to thank the Chair. I know his commitment is strong
to our national parks, as was his previous ranking member, who
we all miss. I look forward to working with the Chairman, as
well as the other Senators on this subcommittee, and Senators
at large that have interest, to make sure that we find the
appropriate way to move forward.
I thank the Chair.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Burr.
To follow the early bird order here, I'm going to call on
Senator Barrasso for your statement, and it'll be followed by
Senator Salazar.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
looking forward to serving on this subcommittee.
The Secretary stopped by my office yesterday to drop off
``The Future of America's National Parks.'' You're shown there
in the Easter Egg Roll at the White House. Looks like a great
event. Looking through this, the pictures are beautiful, but
the words tell a wonderful story. There's an incredible
timeline here, Mr. Chairman, with 1872--Yellowstone is created
when Congress sets aside 2.2 million acres of wilderness to be
forever, quote, ``a public park or pleasuring ground for the
benefit and enjoyment of the people.'' Then, it's not for
another 44 years that the National Park Service was created.
So, the record can accurately reflect that Wyoming has been
involved in this even before the Federal Government, and I look
forward to working as a member of this committee and working
with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Salazar.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka. It's
an honor and pleasure to sit on this subcommittee with you.
Welcome, to Senator Burr, as the new ranking member. I very
much look forward to working with him as we work together to
protect the Nation's treasures under our park system.
I want to also welcome you here for the first time,
Director Bomar.
Ms. Bomar. Thank you.
Senator Salazar. I look forward to working with you on the
parks issues, not only in Colorado, but all around the country.
I also want to extend a special thank you to Curt
Buchholtz, who hails from Colorado and is here with us today.
Curt is a great champion of the parks in our State and he knows
full well how important these parks are to Colorado and to our
Nation.
On several occasions, I have shared with Secretary
Kempthorne and with Director Bomar my pleasure with the
enthusiasm that they are showing for the National Park
Centennial, in 2016. The Centennial Challenge, if done right,
is a great opportunity to revitalize our parks and restore the
Nation's fascination with these treasures over the American
landscape.
We have 12 National Park Service units in Colorado, of
which we are very proud. My history in association with the
creation of those parks is something that I will always
treasure.
Today, we will discuss S. 1253, the administration's
proposal to match up to $100 million in private donations with
Federal dollars. If combined--and I say ``if combined''--with a
sustained increase in the annual operations and maintenance and
education and construction accounts by the Federal Government,
by this Congress and in the administration's budget, this
concept has promise. We clearly have to resolve a number of
issues, however, if this is to work. There is no offset in the
administration's bill that--to tell us how we're going to pay
for it, and it is not clear to me what the public's role, or
Congress's role, is in guiding the selection of the signature
projects. We need to consider what impacts this will have on
other Park Service accounts, friends groups, and existing
philanthropic initiatives that now support our national park
system.
These are not insurmountable barriers to overcome, and I
look forward to working with you, Director Bomar, and----
Ms. Bomar. Thank you.
Senator Salazar [continuing]. With Secretary Kempthorne, to
see how we can overcome these barriers.
I want to just briefly discuss a bill, that I will be
introducing shortly, that will be part of our Centennial
Challenge. It'll be a bill that will allow schools and local
education agencies to partner with the Park Service to bring
more rangers into classrooms and more kids into parks. The bill
will create a grant program through which schools that partner
with the Park Service can compete for up to $25,000 that can go
toward curriculum development, teacher training, visits to
parks, and other initiatives taken in conjunction with the Park
Service.
The bill will go through the HELP Committee, but because it
pertains to the Centennial Challenge and our parks, I wanted to
raise it in this hearing, and make sure that I brought it to
your attention, Director Bomar.
It is, in many ways, not dissimilar to a program I started
in Colorado, now some 17 years ago, called the Youth and
Natural Resources Program. It's a program where we ended up
bringing thousands of young men and women into our parks and
wildlife programs in the State of Colorado. I always saw that
effort as achieving two very important goals. The first goal
was to educate young people about some of the treasures that we
had in parks and wildlife in my State of Colorado. The second,
frankly, is these young people became a great part of our work
force, helping us in the summer in all of our facilities in
Colorado. I hope to be able to work with you on, not only this
legislation that I'm proposing, but also in efforts that are
similar to that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to
comment.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Salazar.
Our first witness this afternoon is the Honorable Mary
Bomar, Director of the National Park Service. This is your
first appearance, and we're happy to have you here at the
committee. Director Bomar, we'll include your entire written
statement in the record, so please feel free to summarize your
testimony. Please proceed with your statement, then we'll have
a round of questions.
STATEMENT OF MARY BOMAR, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Bomar. All right. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to present the Department of Interior's views
on S. 1253, a bill to establish a fund for the National Park
Centennial Challenge.
The Department strongly supports enactment of S. 1253,
which is one of Secretary Kempthorne's top priorities. We are
grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Senator Bingaman, for
sponsoring this legislation, and we look forward to continuing
to work with you as S. 1253 moves through the legislative
process.
S. 1253, along with other components of the Centennial
Initiative, offers the greatest prospect for re-engaging the
American public with their national parks and rejuvenate their
pride in ``the best idea America ever had''; increasing the
capacity of the national park system through increased funding
to meet the needs of the next century; and recruiting,
retaining, training, and preparing the next generation of
leaders for our parks.
Secretary Kempthorne and I are excited about partnering
with the American people on innovative projects and programs
that will capture the imagination of the public and that will
welcome and inspire the generations who will inherit the great
national treasures under our stewardship.
The Centennial Initiative would not only provide vital
funding for the national parks, but would also provide more
avenues for Americans to become involved in their national
parks and the legacy they represent.
National parks are special places that unite us all as
Americans, and it is our shared responsibility to preserve them
for generations yet to come. The Centennial Initiative is a
true reflection of that sentiment.
The Centennial Initiative proposes $3 billion in new funds
for the National Park Service over the next 10 years. Of that
amount, $1 billion is for the Centennial Commitment--100
million in additional annual appropriations for each of the
next 10 years. Congress has already taken steps toward approval
of that funding, for which we are grateful.
The other $2 billion would come from what we call the
Centennial Challenge: the challenge to individuals,
foundations, and businesses to contribute at least $100 million
annually to support signature projects and programs. Each year,
$100 million in donations would be matched by $100 million of
Federal funding for the National Park Service Centennial
Challenge Fund, the mandatory spending fund that would be
established under S. 1253.
The President asked for a report on implementation of the
Centennial Initiative by May 31, 2007. Secretary Kempthorne and
I led the Department and the National Park Service to reach out
to the American public and listen to their ideas for our
national parks. With ideas from more than 40 listening sessions
throughout the Nation, and from further discussion among park
managers and staff, five overarching goals emerged. They are
articulated in the Secretary's report, May 31, ``The Future of
America's National Parks.''
Our efforts are now focused on two fronts. First, each park
superintendent and program manager has been asked to complete
an implementation strategy this summer that describes their
vision and desired accomplishments for their individual areas
to support the five overarching goals.
Second, across the service, park employees and partners are
working together to propose centennial projects and programs
for 2008 and 2009. Secretary Kempthorne and I plan to report on
the individual park plans and programs and centennial
implementation strategies, and announce the centennial projects
and programs approved for funding consideration for 2008 in
late August, this month.
The Centennial Challenge Fund would build on a long
tradition of philanthropy in our national parks, from donations
of land by the Rockefeller family to the coins given by
schoolchildren to help restore the Statue of Liberty. In the
outreach we conducted this past spring, we found broad public
support for the idea of financing projects through a public/
private match, and we found the ``challenge'' approach to
fundraising to be a familiar concept. The possibility of
matching funds has excited our partners and enticed new donors,
and we have every indication that we will readily raise more
than $100 million a year necessary for the $100-million annual
Federal match.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir, for being so kind and having
us here today. Again, we appreciate your leadership on this
legislation. We stand ready to work with you to ensure that the
legislation is approved by Congress in a timely way, to help
ensure that our national parks--our national treasures--are in
top condition when we begin our second century of stewardship,
in 2016.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or members of the
committee have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bomar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary A. Bomar, Director, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, on S. 1253
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the Department of the Interior's views on S. 1253, a
bill to establish a fund for the National Park Centennial Challenge,
and for other purposes.
The Department strongly supports enactment of S. 1253. As the
committee is aware, this bill--an Administration legislative proposal--
is one of Secretary Kempthorne's top priorities. We are grateful to
you, Mr. Chairman, and to Senator Bingaman for sponsoring this
legislation, and we look forward to continuing to work with you as S.
1253 moves through the legislative process. Secretary Kempthorne and I
are very excited about partnering with the American people on
innovative projects and programs that will capture the imagination of
the public and that will welcome and inspire the generations who will
inherit the great national treasures under our stewardship.
S. 1253, along with other components of the Centennial Initiative,
offers the greatest prospects for fulfilling what I believe are the
three most important goals for the National Park Service:
Re-engaging the support of the American people for the
National Parks and rejuvenating their pride in ``the best idea
America ever had,'' in the famous words of a British diplomat;
Increasing the capacity of the National Park System, through
increased funding, to meet the needs of a changing population;
and
Recruiting, retaining, training, and preparing a new
generation of leadership for the National Park Service.
The Centennial Initiative would not only provide vital funding for
the national parks, but also provide more avenues for Americans to
become involved in their national parks and the legacy they represent.
National parks are special places that unite us all as Americans, and
it is our shared responsibility to preserve them for generations yet to
come. The Centennial Initiative is a true reflection of that sentiment.
In preparing for the National Park Service's second century of
stewardship, it is worth noting the growth and change that has occurred
since the National Park Service was first established. In 1916, the
Department of the Interior oversaw 14 national parks, 21 national
monuments, and two land reservations--all of which had been set aside
for conservation purposes during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
However, these areas were not managed in a systematic way, nor was
their preservation assured, until Congress passed the National Park
Service Organic Act, which not only established a new agency
responsible for these units, but also directed the National Park
Service to ``conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects
and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.''
While the fundamental mission of the National Park Service has
remained the same for 90 years, our responsibilities have grown in size
and breadth. Several new parks and monuments were added in the 1920's,
including parks in the East, and in 1933, a major governmental
reorganization transferred responsibility for 44 historical areas to
the National Park Service. Two Executive Orders in 1933 clarified that
the National Park Service has a responsibility to care for historical
as well as natural areas, making the National Park System truly
national in scope. Two years later, Congress confirmed the National
Park Service's role as the leading Federal agency in this field with
passage of the 1935 Historic Sites Act that led to the National
Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmark
designations.
The 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's saw the expansion of the National
Park System to include national recreation areas, including those in
large urban areas. Fifty-two historical areas were added between 1952
and 1972. During the 1950's, the National Park Service launched
``Mission 66,'' a ten-year effort to upgrade park facilities as the
National Park Service approached its 50th anniversary in 1966. In 1980,
the establishment of large expanses of land in Alaska as national park
areas doubled the acreage under the management of the National Park
Service. Along with continued growth, the conservation mission of the
National Park Service was reaffirmed and strengthened in the 1970
General Authorities Act, which formally recognized all the lands
administered by the National Park Service, regardless of their title,
as part of one National Park System.
During the 1980's and 1990's, Congress added more units, mostly
historic sites, including many that reflect the diversity of our
nation, such as Manzanar National Historic Site, where Japanese
Americans were held during World War II and Brown v. Board of Education
National Historic Site, commemorating the Supreme Court decision on
school segregation. Many sites across the country expanded interpretive
services to appeal to diverse demographic groups and some began
providing bilingual exhibits and information. Parks were made more
accessible to the disabled. National Park Service programs that assist
or advise communities, such as Rivers and Trails and National Heritage
Areas, added more responsibilities.
Today, the responsibilities of the National Park Service include
administering 391 park units along with multiple programs across a
broad spectrum that help conserve our nation's natural, cultural, and
historical resources. The Service has more than 22,000 employees and an
FY 2007 budget of $2.3 billion. Since 2000, our emphasis has been on
taking better care of the resources under our stewardship, which has
included a major effort to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance
in our parks as well as to complete documentation and enhance
management of natural resources under the umbrella of the Natural
Resource Challenge. We have stressed developing partnerships to
facilitate conservation, that includes the initiation of the Preserve
America program. The boldest and most comprehensive initiative of this
era, however, is the one that is the subject of today's hearing.
The legislative proposal before you was developed following the
Presidential directive that was announced on August 25, 2006, the 90th
anniversary of the National Park Service. President Bush issued a
memorandum directing Secretary Kempthorne to ``enhance our national
parks during the decade leading up to the 2016 centennial celebration .
. . [and] prepare them for another century of conservation,
preservation and enjoyment.'' From that bold directive, the Department
developed the multi-year Centennial Initiative, which was presented in
February as part of the President's FY 2008 Budget.
The Centennial Initiative proposes $3 billion in new funds for the
National Park Service over the next ten years. Of that amount, $1
billion is the ``Centennial Commitment''--$100 million in additional
annual appropriations for each of the next ten years. The other $2
billion would come from the ``Centennial Challenge''--the challenge to
individuals, foundations, and businesses to contribute at least $100
million annually to support signature programs and projects. Each year,
$100 million in donations would be matched by $100 million of Federal
funding from the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund, the mandatory
spending fund that would be established under S. 1253.
We greatly appreciate the support Congress has already shown for
the Centennial Commitment portion of the Initiative. Both the House-
passed and the Senate committee-approved versions of the FY 2008
Interior appropriations bill contain the $100 million in additional
operations funding identified in the President's Budget as Centennial
Initiative funding. Including the centennial funding, total operations
funding for FY 2008 would increase by $199 million under the House-
passed version over the FY 2007 level, and by $196 million under the
Senate committee-reported version. Enactment of operations funding in
that range would mean that all parks would receive enough funding to
cover fixed costs in FY 2008, and many would also receive more seasonal
rangers, more maintenance funding, and more resource protection
funding, all of which would better enable parks to provide visitors
with safe, enjoyable, and educational experiences.
The President asked for a report on implementation of his August
24, 2006 directive by May 31, 2007. To begin the process of determining
signature programs and projects, Secretary Kempthorne led the
Department and the National Park Service in an unprecedented effort to
reach out to the American public to listen to their ideas for future
goals for the national parks as we move toward the 100th anniversary.
During March and April, after planning 12 listening sessions, we
expanded to more than 40 sessions throughout the nation after the
initial sessions generated such excitement among the American people as
well as National Park Service staff. Some of them were led by the
Secretary and me personally. We also took comments through our website
and by mail; in total, we heard from more than 4,500 people. From these
sessions, and from further discussion among park managers and staff,
five overarching goals emerged. They are articulated in the Secretary's
May 31 report, The Future of America's National Parks, as follows:
Stewardship.--The National Park Service will lead America
and the world in preserving and restoring treasured resources;
Environmental Leadership.--The National Park Service will
demonstrate environmental leadership to the nation;
Recreational Experience.--National parks will be superior
recreational destinations where visitors have fun, explore
nature and history, find inspiration, and improve health and
wellness;
Education.--The National Park Service will foster
exceptional learning opportunities that connect people to
parks; and
Professional Excellence.--The National Park Service will
demonstrate management excellence worthy of the treasures
entrusted to our care.
The report established these goals not only as the foundation for
decisions about specific projects and programs, but also to guide the
work of the National Park Service as we work toward our centennial in
2016. The report also identified specific performance goals within each
overarching goal, and gave examples of actions that would fulfill those
goals.
Our efforts at the present time are focused on two fronts: first,
each park superintendent and program manager has been asked to complete
an implementation strategy this summer that describes their vision and
desired accomplishments for their individual areas to support the five
overarching goals. Second, parks and their enthusiastic partners are
working together to propose centennial projects and programs for 2008
and 2009. The projects and programs proposed for 2008 are being
evaluated in terms of the criteria that were finalized in June. At the
Secretary's request, the Inspector General is engaged in conducting
critical point evaluations of how we intend to implement the Centennial
Challenge. In particular, he has highlighted the issues of transparency
in the project and program selection process and financial
accountability.
Secretary Kempthorne and I plan to report on the individual park
and program centennial implementation strategies, and announce
centennial projects and programs approved for funding consideration for
2008 at the end of August.
The criteria adopted in June require that all proposed projects and
programs:
provide for authorized activities in existing units;
contribute toward at least one of the five centennial goals;
be consistent with our management policies and planning and
compliance documents;
require little or no additional National Park Service
operating funds to be sustainable; and
have partners willing to contribute at least 50 percent of
the project cost in cash from non-Federal sources.
Beyond those basic requirements, projects and programs are being
evaluated by National Park Service interdisciplinary review teams.
Projects approved for 2008 will be analyzed to ensure that the programs
and projects represent a mix of different emphasis areas--the five
centennial goals, different-sized parks, different-sized projects,
multiple park projects, national initiatives, and a mix of projects and
programs. We have been very clear in our quest for a diversity of
centennial undertakings; this is by no means strictly about ``bricks
and mortar'' construction projects. There will be opportunities to
consider more bold and innovative projects and programs in future
years, as parks and their partners rise to the challenge. Over time,
the list will be updated to add new projects and programs and remove
completed ones. We look forward to working with you to identify such
projects and programs.
S. 1253 would assure the funding that is needed to pay for projects
and programs, once they have been selected. This legislation would
establish a U.S. Treasury fund known as the National Park Centennial
Challenge Fund. It would encourage private donations for signature
projects and programs in national parks by matching those donations
with Federal funds of up to $100 million from FY 2008 through FY 2017.
The Fund would be available to the Secretary without further
appropriation and with no fiscal year limitations. The increase in
mandatory spending could be offset by other mandatory savings proposals
within the President's Budget, although the Administration's proposal
did not include specific offsets.
Soliciting for Challenge Fund donations would be done primarily
through the National Park Foundation and local friends' groups. The
legislation specifies that National Park Service employees would be
subject to current rules about soliciting and receiving donations.
The Centennial Challenge Fund would build on a long tradition of
philanthropy in our national parks--from donations of land by the
Rockefeller family to the coins given by school children to help
restore the Statue of Liberty. The challenge component was first
developed in collaboration with philanthropic, non-profit and private
groups. In the outreach we conducted this past spring, we found broad
public support for the idea of financing projects through a public-
private match, and we found the ``challenge'' approach to fundraising
to be a familiar concept. The possibility of matching funds has excited
our partners and enticed new donors, and we have every indication that
we will readily raise more than $100 million a year necessary for a
$100 million annual Federal match.
As Secretary Kempthorne said in his report to the President, ``the
golden years for the national parks have not passed, but are ahead.''
Mr. Chairman, we again thank you for your leadership on this
legislation. We stand ready to work with you to ensure that this
legislation is approved by Congress in a timely way, to help ensure
that our national parks--our national treasures--are in top condition
when we begin our second century of stewardship in 2016.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Director Bomar.
I'd like to begin with a general question----
Ms. Bomar. Yes, sir.
Senator Akaka [continuing]. Before turning to some of the
specific issues in your legislative proposal.
In your opinion, what is the greatest challenge, or threat,
facing the National Park Service right now? To what extent will
your Centennial Initiative address this challenge?
Ms. Bomar. I think--as you know, Senator Akaka, I come from
the field--that one of the biggest challenges that we face
today is operational funding, but we also have a great
opportunity--we have 174 friends groups that work in great
partnership with our national parks across America--and we
feel, together, that, through a public/private partnership, as
well as the additional operational funds, we have some
wonderful opportunities. But we've heard the superintendents,
loud and clear, the challenge is operational funding. Over
decades, the funding has eroded. The 2008 President's budget
would bring 3,000 seasonal employees into the national parks to
give interpretive programs, to give better services. There
would be 1,000 in maintenance, 1,000 in interpretation, and
1,000 in resource protection and law enforcement for the parks.
We heard the park employees and the American public, loud
and clear, on what they felt was needed to take us to the 21st
century, as well as what avenues we should be looking at. It
certainly is the operations of the National Park Service.
Senator Akaka. As you've noted in your written statement,
S. 1253 does not include any offset for the $1 billion in
mandatory spending in the bill. I understand that the
Department's budget did propose various offsets, although many
of those are not likely to be enacted. Will the administration
support enactment of this bill without an offset?
Ms. Bomar. The President's budget, Senator Akaka, for FY
2008, does recommend some mandatory proposals. I would hope
that wouldn't be a barrier for us, that we could work this
through--I'd like to continue a dialog. I have a list of the
mandatory proposals in the President's budget that I'd like to
present to you today. But I would really like to continue to
discuss this--I just feel shame on us if we can't work through
this issue together. I'm sure we can, sir.
Senator Akaka. Many of the national park units in my State
are relatively small sites that are of great cultural and
historical significance. While many of these sites have a very
positive relationship with a local cooperating association,
they don't all have the benefit of a large fundraising
partner----
Ms. Bomar. That's right.
Senator Akaka [continuing]. Like some of the larger
national parks do. What steps are you going to take to ensure
that a historical park, such as Kaloko-Honokohau or Pu'uhonua o
Honaunau is able to compete for funding on an equal footing
with a large national park, such as Grand Canyon or Yosemite
or--that has an active fundraising group?
Ms. Bomar. We say, with the Centennial Challenge, the
beauty of it, Senator, is that there are no winners and losers.
Everybody's a winner with this, including small and medium
parks. One thing that we have put in place is to make sure that
we have solid criteria for selection of the centennial
projects. We have two review teams that are in, this week--one
to review projects, one to review programs. They are some of
the finest subject-matter experts working in the National Park
Service. There is screen-out criteria and also evaluation
criteria, so--to make sure that we address, what some might
say, the have-nots--that provide for authorized activities
within a national park contribute toward at least one of the
five centennial overarching goals, as stated in the ``Future''
document that you've seen; be consistent with all Federal
department regulations; but also that--we want to make sure
that large, small, and medium parks are considered, and that,
through many of our partnerships and friends, the National Park
Foundation, we will identify, through--going through the
project submittal process, whether they have a partner or not.
We have a book in front of me today that has over $300
million--it's actually $301 million worth of funding in
partnership letters that have come in from all over the States;
317 letters offering a commitment for funding. Many of those
reach across a wide spectrum of parks--large, medium, and
small.
For parks that don't have partners, their projects have
been put into a separate pool. That will be a pool that will
not, probably, fit into 2008-2009, but we look to the National
Park Foundation, and many other partners, to help fund the
smaller parks. The beauty of the matching funds is that any
donations that are taken in at the national parks--they can
have a donation box, which many of them do--where they have a
project, a centennial project, described on that donation box
would be eligible for funding under this program. We are trying
to make sure that we have a fair and balanced across-the-board
spectrum of projects selected for the centennial, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
I'd like to now call on Senator Burr for his questions.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, welcome,
Director.
Ms. Bomar. Thank you.
Senator Burr. Two billion in discretionary money is a huge
amount of money in one pot. I think I can use your answer to
the Chairman's question on challenges to envision that those
are your priorities. Let me ask you, do you intend to use this
fund for land acquisition?
Ms. Bomar. There will be a separate pool for land
acquisition. No, again, coming back to what the superintendents
told us that their greatest need was, it was for operations of
the national parks. It'll be for projects and programs within
the national parks. Down the road, there could be some land
acquisition involved; for example Flight 93 is a priority right
now to the Department, sir. But, at the moment, we are focusing
on the operations of the National Park Service. Some land
within boundary from willing sellers, there could be some of
that.
Senator Burr. How will projects that are funded under the
Centennial Challenge be selected? Who's going to be involved in
that selection process?
Ms. Bomar. This started with the 40 listening sessions and
the 5 overarching goals that were developed--the
recommendations that we heard at the 40 listening sessions,
from the America public. All those ideas have been assessed by
the parks, and most of them really fit within the mission of
the National Park Service, and how the parks can be kept
vibrant for the next 100 years. All those projects were put,
through the parks, into a database. They are now going through
our review process. They will be selected by the National Park
Service, and will be brought to Congress for review. That also
will be an opportunity for dialog, sir.
Senator Burr. The National Park Foundation is chartered by
Congress.
Ms. Bomar. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. What do you see the role of the National Park
Foundation being in implementing the Centennial Challenge?
Ms. Bomar. They are a vital partner of ours. They are the
only legally, as we've said, congressionally mandated arm for
fundraising for the National Park Service. Vin Cipolla is here
today, and you'll hear from him later, I think. He has been
building the capacity of the National Park Foundation for the
last 2 years. He has a great staff in place. But their role is
to also step up--which Vin will talk about, today, to you--and
help fundraise for many parks, many programs, such as the
Junior Ranger Program and other educational programs, in many
areas.
Senator Burr. You've alluded to it. Many national parks
have friends groups that raise money----
Ms. Bomar. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr [continuing]. For special projects, organize
volunteers--truly there to assist the park, I think.
Ms. Bomar. Yes.
Senator Burr. They're accustomed to working side by side
with park staff, in some cases, on projects funded by private
donations. What do you see their role being as it relates to
selecting and implementing projects that may be funded under
the Centennial Challenge?
Ms. Bomar. They will be involved as donors. I think the
beauty of this program is that this is the first time, in such
a concentrated effort, that we've had these listening sessions
and that we've gone out to our parks and said, What are our
opportunities? When we see the implementation strategy plans
that come back from the parks--there are 391 units that are
preparing their vision--there might be things out there we have
not thought of, where the National Park Foundation could match
up donations to those needs, such as more efficient light bulbs
under the energy and environmental leadership goal. There could
be a donor that they could match to that particular need. So, I
think that they are going to see many opportunities that we
haven't thought about, with donors.
The American public love their national parks and really
want to be involved in their stewardship. I'm a huge fan--we
all are--of working with partners. But, also, I think there are
partners there that want to give to the National Park Service.
When you read through some of these letters that have come in
from American individuals, from the public, not just from
companies, corporations, government, and States, you see that
they want to give something back to their parks.
So, I think, Senator Burr, there are going to be many
opportunities that we haven't thought about, so we will work
very closely, hand in hand, as we have been doing, with the
Park Foundation, and we'll see what projects they can fund for
us. They are actually putting a funding plan together, as
well--that's my understanding.
Senator Burr. As I said in my opening statement, I'm very
supportive of this initiative of public/private----
Ms. Bomar. Thank you.
Senator Burr [continuing]. Partnerships. It strikes me--and
the reason I take you through all of the different components
of people who have interest----
Ms. Bomar. Yes.
Senator Burr [continuing]. In the park--and some of it's
sweat equity, some of it's financial interest, some of it is a
passion to raise money----
Ms. Bomar. Yes.
Senator Burr [continuing]. At some point, everybody's not
going to be happy with what the choices were. Their priority
might get left out. Senator Bingaman raised the issue that
Congress may not be happy, because it may not be congressional
priorities, necessarily, that get addressed.
I just want to stress with you that, with this, comes a
tremendous amount of accountability.
Ms. Bomar. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. Though I think the effort is designed in a
very positive win-win way--I think you described it--if that
level of communication with stakeholders is not maintained, if,
at any point, that pipe contracts, what is portrayed as a win-
win can turn into a fairly messy thing to deal with, as
stakeholders that are there for the right reasons find reasons
not to be stakeholders.
Ms. Bomar. Right.
Senator Burr. Let me ask one additional question, if I
could. The Proud Partners Program is discussed in Director's
Order 21.
Ms. Bomar. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. Ford Motor Company is a Proud Partner. That
gives them the right to market that role. If Toyota makes a
donation to the Centennial Challenge Fund, does that put you in
a difficult situation, based upon what you've agreed to in the
Proud Partners Program and Ford's position in that?
Ms. Bomar. We have accepted donations for some of our parks
from Toyota. Vin Cipolla and others in the National Park
Foundation are absolutely at the table with us when we do that.
There is no endorsement from us on that. Vin could probably
speak much more intelligently than I can, sir, to you on the
Proud Partner Program, which he probably will----
Senator Burr. I think you understand where I'm going.
Ms. Bomar. Yes.
Senator Burr. Are we locked into something that potentially
locks folks out in the future, even though we're starting a new
program that I think is extremely beneficial? Will we have the
same tools to work with, or will we create a----
Ms. Bomar. Yes.
Senator Burr [continuing]. A potential conflict that might
be difficult for everybody involved?
Ms. Bomar. Right. I think, speaking in plain English to
you, Senator, that the Proud Partner Program has been around
for many years, and, yes, often exclusivity is an issue. Vin
Cipolla and his staff have certainly recognized that and are
working through that. We're glad to have the Proud Partner
Program, but it is a new concept for us to come forward and ask
for mandatory funding. But I'm very pleased to say that,
working with the National Park Foundation under Vin Cipolla's
leadership, we have a great partner that is willing to work
with us and is very much onboard with the Centennial--very
enthusiastic about the Centennial Initiative.
Senator Burr. I thank you.
I----
Ms. Bomar. Thank you, sir.
Senator Burr [continuing]. Yield, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Burr.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Following up on both the Chairman's comments and the
ranking member I look at the issues of deferred maintenance,
and I'm concerned with just deferred maintenance in the parks,
in general. I see that in Grand Teton, in Yellowstone, and in
other parks that I've visited. I've heard different figures as
to how much really needs to be done in our parks across the
whole system, and it's a number that I've heard, you know, well
in excess of $100 million a year. I know it's not been fully
inventoried. I don't know if you have some kind of a grasp on
what you think that number is. I'm just trying to put all this
into perspective.
Ms. Bomar. Yes. You will often hear, for deferred
maintenance, that it could be as high as $8 billion. However,
we have just finalized comprehensive inventories of our parks
for maintenance, and that figure would be to bring everything
into perfect condition in our 391 units of the National Park
System. Probably $1 billion of that is for critical
infrastructure, such as sewerage.
I applaud Congress and the President for staying focused on
maintenance, including through using fee funding to improve our
facility condition index. I think the President's mandate was
$4.9 billion. We are now past $6 billion in spending on backlog
maintenance--deferred maintenance. We'll continue to move
forward in that program, sir.
Senator Barrasso. That was my question. Based on this
program, are we looking at all new programs, or is some to help
with some deferred maintenance, as well, and how you view that
distribution, if I could, please.
Ms. Bomar. Yes. Coming back to the partnerships, and coming
back to these letters of commitment--I will use the Ben
Franklin Museum in Philadelphia as an example. My staff have
heard me say it many times; it's a very easy project to get
your hands around. There is an underground museum that is an
$18-million project for renovation. On a daily basis, there are
work orders for that museum. It hasn't been renovated since
1976. That is one of the projects. Pew Foundation, Penn
Foundation, Gerry Lenfest, and the Governor of Pennsylvania,
have come in and said, ``We'll put $12 million up. You know,
when is the Federal Government going to stand up, Mary, and put
their Federal match against that?'' That would absolutely
reduce the facility condition index by taking that off the
deferred maintenance list. That, maybe, wouldn't rise right to
the top of a regional priority list, but it is certainly within
our maintenance backlog. So, absolutely--many of these projects
will reduce, and eliminate, in some cases, deferred
maintenance.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, that leads to my final
question, which--as you said, the Ben Franklin Museum and the
12 million Governor Rendell or others have said----
Ms. Bomar. Two-to-one--two-to-one match, sir.
Senator Barrasso [continuing]. When do you do the match?
So, would the local fundraising that a community can do around
a favored national park then put somebody else higher up on the
line for that match, or is it--I'm trying to see how this match
works, if you're just trying to collect all money, and it
doesn't get into different boxes, well, this much is for
Yellowstone, and this much for Teton, and you come in----
Ms. Bomar. No. Because it will go through the screen- out
and evaluation process as we review all those projects that
come in to us. There are projects that we'll be looking at for
2008, 2009, and then for future outyears. I have 17 years in
the Park Service, Senator, and I've watched and worked with
many partners through my whole tenure. I went through one of
the largest urban redevelopments in Philadelphia when I was
there, a $360-million project, and partners were glad to step
in and help us in new construction and renovations. I really
feel that's very true. It's happening here with us now in
Washington, DC. It's that same mentality. We have some
tremendous opportunities through the Centennial Challenge, as
noted by our telephone ringing off the line and the fax going
crazy.
Senator Barrasso. Perhaps I didn't ask it right. Then, is
there an assurance to that partner that the Federal Government
will help them, or do they say, ``Well, put all this money up,
and then we'll see where you shake out on this list'' as the--
--
Ms. Bomar. That's right. They're going to have to compete.
They will have to compete for that project. There will be no
assurances until the project selection is done.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman--and then, the competition
will be based on the need of the project, not how much money
that foundation----
Ms. Bomar. No, sir----
Senator Barrasso [continuing]. That's spending its----
Ms. Bomar [continuing]. Absolutely not. Thank you, Senator.
No, it's not going to be based on the big highrollers that are
going to come in with funding. Are partners going to control
and commercialize our parks? Absolutely not. That's why the
criteria is very strict, and the process that we're going
through is very careful. One of the things that Secretary
Kempthorne had recommended was to bring the IG, the Inspector
General, in up front instead of waiting for problems, maybe,
later on. I don't want to be embarrassed. I don't want the
National Park Service to be embarrassed, or the Department. I
want to make sure that we're transparent, that we're credible
in our selection process. The IG will sit with us along the way
as we move through this process, and, at critical evaluation
points, will come back and brief us, Senator.
So, I think, when you look through the evaluation criteria
and the way that the process in place is right now, and the
review teams we have, I feel very comfortable with where we're
at.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Ms. Bomar.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso.
I, finally, have two questions, Director.
Ms. Bomar. Yes.
Senator Akaka. I have worked with the National Park Service
for many years to increase the diversity of American history
that is presented to park visitors. One of the House companion
bills has proposed funding education opportunities
specifically, and I'm quoting, ``for persons under 18 years of
age, particularly those from populations historically
underrepresented among visitors to units of the national park
system,'' unquote. What do you think about incorporating this
requirement into the legislation?
Ms. Bomar. Sir, the comments that came back to us through
the listening sessions absolutely addressed just what you've
talked about, about education and about diversity. It's not
just about the diversity of our work force, which is addressed
in professional excellence as one of our specific performance
goals, but also in our visitors, that we are relevant and
welcoming to our different cultures. The process we went
through has been a great exercise for us in the National Park
Service. Many of us were operating and still telling the
stories the same way we did 20 years ago. We looked at a case
for change--changing demographics, migration, high technology,
today. All those things have said we must be relevant. Many of
our parks today, sir, have programs presented to the visitors
in 16 languages. New visitor centers coming onboard--many have
10 to 15 languages now available to the visiting public.
But, also, our staff should be diverse. One of the goals
that we have set--and the Secretary has said this many times--
is that we want the National Park Service to be one of the top
ten places in America to work, and that a second goal is to
meet 100 percent of diversity recruitment goals by employing
people who reflect the face of America. Our prior directors
have said the same. There will be, in looking at the FY-2008
budget, the centennial commitment of $100 million, part of
which will be used to bring in 3,000 seasonal employees. We
want to make sure that it's not business as usual, that it is
used to get out and bring in the face of America. This is the
first time that we've really had the opportunity to go out with
a large recruitment effort and make a change.
Senator Akaka. Many scientists recommend that we begin to
implement strategies to increase the resistance and resilience
of fish, wildlife, and plants to global warming. Some of these
invaluable resources are located within park boundaries.
Ms. Bomar. Yes.
Senator Akaka. Do you envision addressing global warming in
your initiative, particularly with respect to parks that may
contain highly vulnerable fish and wildlife population?
Ms. Bomar. Yes, sir. The Secretary has appointed a task
force that will address three specific climate change goals. He
has made this a very high priority. For years, we have a great
gentleman working with us, Mike Soukup, who heads up our
science division, and he has certainly been a leader in many of
the natural resource areas--air quality issues, water issues,
flora, fauna, and species. One of the projects that's
identified in the Centennial Challenge is what we call a
``BioBlitz.'' There will be seven national parks that will be
participating. Over the next few years, they will do a
BioBlitz--for 24 hours, bring in students and children and
families into parks to do inventories of flora, fauna, and
species. When it comes to global climate change, the Secretary
has made that a very high priority, and has pulled subject-
matter experts together to really look at the sciences involved
and address are three areas. There is land and water, there's
science--and what is the third one? Policy and law. How could I
forget that one? Policy and law, sir.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much for your
responses, Director.
Ms. Bomar. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Are there any questions--further questions?
I want to thank you so much for your responses, Director.
You can tell that we are trying to understand----
Ms. Bomar. I know, sir.
Senator Akaka [continuing]. This, and will continue to work
on it. I understand, Director Bomar, that you've agreed to sit
with the next panel so that we can have a discussion with you
and with the panel members on this proposal.
Ms. Bomar. Yes.
Senator Akaka [continuing]. I want to thank you so much for
accommodating us.
Ms. Bomar. No, au contraire. Thank you very much, Senator
Akaka. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
So, I'd like to call up the next panel, at this time: Vin
Cipolla, the president and chief executive officer of the
National Park Foundation; Tom Kiernan, president of the
National Parks Conservation Association; and Curt Buchholtz,
the president of the National Park Friends Alliance, from Estes
Park, Colorado.
I'd like to welcome all of you to the subcommittee. We will
include your full written statements in the hearing record, so
we'd ask that you please limit your remarks to no more than 5
minutes. Following your statements, we will have a round of
questions for you, and for the Director.
Mr. Cipolla, will you please begin with your statement?
STATEMENT OF VIN CIPOLLA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION
Mr. Cipolla. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. We
commend the sponsors in this committee for their commitment to
preparing our national parks for the challenges and
opportunities of the next century.
My name is Vin Cipolla, and I am the president and CEO of
the National Park Foundation.
The National Park Foundation is the national charitable arm
of the National Park Service, chartered by Congress in 1967, to
encourage private philanthropic support for America's national
parks. Involvement by a diverse charitable community deepens
connections to an understanding of both the history of the
parks and how much they mean for our future.
Since February, when the President focused the attention of
the Nation on the National Park Service Centennial in 2016,
there has been a lot of thoughtful dialog on how to ensure the
future of our national parks. As the national charitable
partner for the parks, we think it is key to continue the rich
tradition in which the parks were founded and have been
sustained, public and private interests working in tandem.
The proposed bill recognizes the importance of this
complementary approach. The National Park Centennial Challenge
Fund Act, 1253, seeks to raise up to $100 million each year
over a 10-year period from private donations, and to match
those donations with Federal funding up to $100 million
annually. This proposal continues the long history of private
philanthropy that has created our unequaled system of national
parks.
More than 100 years ago, people from across this country
gathered to protect the places they loved and the places they
knew would matter long into the future. It is their spirit and
ideals on which the national park system was founded. In fact,
30 parks were directly created through donations.
The future of philanthropic support is in both diversifying
the opportunity to experience national parks and in
diversifying the opportunity to support our parks. The National
Park Foundation and friends groups, cooperating associations,
and others continue this legacy of public/private partnership.
Together, we are reinvigorating a movement for park
philanthropy to benefit all parks.
In the United States, charitable giving in 2005 exceeded
$260 billion, of which approximately 90 billion went to causes
related to the National Park Service mission: education,
health, arts, culture, and humanities, and the environment. The
national parks received only a small portion of these gifts. We
can do better. We see great opportunities to make the national
parks an important and prominent place for individual
charitable giving. In the last fiscal year, we've been able to
increase our number of individual donors by 40 percent.
Also throughout its history, the National Park Foundation
has worked with many significant corporate partners. Their
support has enabled the National Park Service to enhance and
expand important programs in such areas as education,
preservation, community engagement, health, wellness, and
volunteerism.
Unilever, the longest-standing corporate partner of the
National Park Foundation, has been working with us for nearly
15 years, and, through one of the many programs they fund, has
provided nearly 200 of our parks with 11,000 miles of recycled
lumber. This product has been used for the decking around Old
Faithful, the drydock for the USS Constitution, and miles of
trails and boardwalks.
For the last 8 years, Ford Motor Company has helped place
Ph.D. students in parks across the system to help fund--park
managers understand and find solutions to challenging
transportation issues.
American Airlines has helped us fund critical programs in
global conservation initiatives dealing with migratory birds.
Having worked with the parks for such a long time and in
such significant ways, I can assure you that both the
Foundation and its partners understand and share the concern
that corporate support for parks not become confused with, and
not lead to, commercialization. We will work carefully with
Director's Order 21 to ensure that corporate involvement
adheres to this guideline.
Today's rich media environment creates multiple
opportunities for donors and parks to work together in new and
creative ways that do not lead to the commercialization of
parks, such as the way we can use the Web to express the
partnership and encourage engagement.
Charitable involvement of the American people has helped
preserve and protect our parks, as well as connect children to
our parks, something then Federal Government can't do alone.
The National Park Foundation continues to expand and support
our own programs surrounding this initiative. We have seen
support for the Junior Rangers and WebRangers Programs increase
over the last 2 years, and we continue to expand and increase
our electronic field trips, where we connected 37 million
children in a simultaneous visit to our parks during the last
National Park Week.
The state of our parks at the centennial celebration in
2016 will say a lot about our priorities as a Nation. I applaud
efforts to increase base funding for the National Park Service
so it can carry out its mission more fully. Opportunities for
philanthropy must be central to any centennial legislation, and
we confident this can be accomplished in a manner that allows
our partners at the local level to be successful, and for
programs at the national level to extend the benefits of
philanthropy to all parks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your ongoing support of
national parks and for allowing me the opportunity to speak
about the important role philanthropy plays in supporting the
noble mission of the National Park Service.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cipolla follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vin Cipolla, President and CEO, National Park
Foundation, on S. 1253
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. We commend the sponsors and
this committee for their commitment to preparing our national parks for
the challenges and opportunities of the next century. My name is Vin
Cipolla and I am the President and CEO of the National Park Foundation.
The National Park Foundation is the national charitable arm of the
National Park Service, chartered by Congress in 1967 to encourage
private philanthropic support for America's national parks. Involvement
by a diverse charitable community deepens connections to an
understanding of both the history of the parks and how much they mean
for our future.
Since February, when the President focused the attention of the
nation on the National Park Service Centennial in 2016, there has been
a lot of thoughtful dialogue on how to ensure the future of our
national parks. As the national charitable partner for the parks, we
think it is key to continue the rich tradition in which the parks were
founded and have been sustained--public and private interests working
in tandem.
The proposed bill recognizes the importance of this complementary
approach. The National Park Centennial Challenge Fund Act (S. 1253)
seeks to raise up to $100 million each year over a ten year period from
private donations and to match those donations with federal funding up
to $100 million annually. This proposal continues the long history of
private philanthropy that has created our unequalled system of national
parks.
More than one hundred years ago, people from across this country
gathered to protect the places they loved and the places they knew
would matter long into the future. It is their spirit and ideals on
which the National Park System was founded. Together, they had the
vision to transform the natural treasures of our country into the first
national parks so future generations could enjoy these magnificent
places and learn about our nation's proud history. Thirty parks were
directly created through donations.
Private philanthropy has traditionally been held in the hands of a
few individuals whose commitment is strong, consistent, and valuable.
We view the future success of private support not only in the capable
hands of Congress and the National Park Service, but also in the hands
of the 80 million plus national park visitors and enthusiasts. The
future of philanthropic support is in both diversifying the opportunity
to experience national parks, and in diversifying the opportunity to
support our parks.
The National Park Foundation and friends groups, cooperating
associations and others, continue this legacy of public private
partnership. Together, we are reinvigorating a movement for park
philanthropy to benefit all parks.
This new century presents wonderful opportunities for our national
parks, but also serious challenges. The parks exist in increasingly
complex environments with varied and often competing demands placed
upon them: the U.S. population is growing older and more diverse,
children are spending less time outdoors, and technology is bringing
rapid changes. The National Park Service and we as a nation are
challenged to respond.
We believe the American people, like the generations before, are
ready to embrace this challenge and provide the innovation, creativity,
and charitable support necessary to protect these places for the next
100 years and beyond. In the United States, charitable giving in 2005
exceeded $260 billion. Of which, approximately $90 billion went to
causes related to the National Park Service mission--education; health;
arts; culture and humanities; and the environment. The National Parks
received only a small portion of these gifts. We can do better. Our
preliminary conversations with major donors and philanthropic
organizations surrounding the Centennial have been very promising. We
see great opportunities to make the national parks an important and
prominent place for individual charitable giving. In the last fiscal
year, we've been able to increase our number of individual donors by
40%. We believe these gifts pay dividends in deepening not just the
financial, but also the emotional commitment that Americans have to
their parks.
Throughout its history, The National Park Foundation has worked
with many significant corporate partners. Their support has enabled the
National Park Service to enhance and expand important programs in such
areas as education, preservation, community engagement, health and
wellness, and volunteerism. Unilever, the longest-standing corporate
partner of the National Park Foundation, has been working with us for
nearly 15 years and through one of the many programs they fund has
provided nearly 200 of our parks with 1,100 miles of recycled lumber.
For the last eight years, Ford Motor Company has helped place PhD
students in parks across the system to help park managers understand
and find solutions to challenging transportation issues. American
Airlines has helped us fund critical programs and global conservation
initiatives dealing with migratory birds. Coca Cola North America
recently pledged several millions of dollars to help parks across the
system restore hiking trails for visitors.
Having worked with the parks for such a long time and in such
significant ways, I can assure you that both the Foundation and its
partners understand and share the concern that corporate support for
parks not become confused with and not lead to commercialization. We
will work carefully within Director's Order #21 to ensure that
corporate involvement adheres to this guideline. Over the last number
of years, we have looked at this issue far too conventionally. Today's
media environment creates multiple opportunities for donors and parks
to work together in new and creative ways that do not lead to the
commercialism of parks.
This renewed interest in encouraging park philanthropy and
partnerships creates many opportunities. First is the opportunity to
connect and strengthen the fabric of support for parks on a national
and local level. Our parks offer the best investments in the areas of
youth-enrichment, education, health, and volunteerism, yet
philanthropic potential on a grand scale and in line with contemporary
thresholds has not been realized. Federal funding offers incentives for
charitable partners to work collaboratively and creatively to develop
fundraising campaigns that affect the entire park system. The National
Park Foundation is prepared to take the necessary national leadership
role to make this a reality and is currently working with an outside
firm to examine the feasibility for creating a national philanthropic
campaign to support national parks for the next century.
Second is the opportunity to expand the dialogue around park
partnerships. A richer conversation about parks will lead to
incorporating best practices and innovation, especially at the state
and local levels, which allow us to bring new ideas and models to
national parks.
Third is the opportunity to support the National Park Service as it
works to enhance important youth and diversity programs system-wide.
The approaching Centennial encourages us to build relationships that
crosscut the full spectrum of American society. By working together to
address under-reached audiences in ways that create meaningful park
experiences, we ensure that all Americans feel connected to our shared
heritage and accept their responsibility as future stewards of the
national parks.
While the charitable involvement of the American people has helped
preserve and protect our parks, a lot of charitable activity today
helps connect children to our parks--something the federal government
can't do alone. The National Park Foundation continues to expand and
support our own programs surrounding this initiative. We have seen
support for the Junior Ranger and WebRangers programs at about $2.5
million over the last two years and continue to expand and increase our
Electronic Field Trips, connecting 37 million children in a
simultaneous visit to our parks during the last national park week. We
will continue to work to improve the relationship of children to their
national parks, and plan to work with private charitable organizations
promoting these programs. Additionally, the African American Experience
Fund is working to connect people with national parks that present
African American history and culture.
We at the National Park Foundation look forward to this century of
giving. We will be convening the first National Leadership Summit on
Philanthropy and Parks at the University of Texas in Austin on October
14-16 to bring together leaders from across our nation to shape
strategies, which will ensure that our national parks remain the
world's premier centers of learning, science, recreation, preservation,
and partnership.
The state of our parks at the Centennial Celebration in 2016 will
say a lot about our priorities as a nation. I applaud efforts to
increase base funding for the National Park Service so it can carry out
its mission more fully. Opportunities for philanthropy must be central
to any Centennial legislation and we are confident this can be
accomplished in a manner that allows our partners at the local level to
be successful and for programs at the national level to extend the
benefits of philanthropy to all parks. Philanthropy is critical to not
only leveraging the federal investment, but to creating new
opportunities for more of the public to relate to their parks and to
generate the creativity and innovation the National Park Service will
need in the coming century.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your ongoing support of national parks
and for allowing me the opportunity to speak about the important role
philanthropy plays in supporting the noble mission of the National Park
Service and in connecting all Americans to these very special places.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Cipolla.
Now we will hear from Mr. Kiernan.
STATEMENT OF TOM KIERNAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARKS
CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kiernan. Mr. Chairman, Senator Burr, Senator Barrasso,
I'm Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks Conservation
Association. I'm very pleased to be here this afternoon
representing our over 330,000 members nationwide who care very
deeply, as you all do, about our beloved national parks.
Let me say, at the outset, it's a pleasure to have the
Senator from North Carolina in your new ranking role, sir. It's
wonderful to have your experience and the perspective from your
region. We look forward to working closely with you and with
the new Senator, Senator Barrasso, from Wyoming. We look very
much forward to working with you.
Let me also thank the Chairman and Senator Burr for holding
this hearing in this very busy time before your August recess.
It definitely goes to show that you share our collective goal
of making national parks a national priority as we approach
their centennial in 2016.
NPCA strongly supports the concept of creating a special
dedicated fund, over and above amounts provided through the
appropriations process, to carry out selected priority projects
and programs to enhance the park system, with philanthropic
partners, during the years leading up to the centennial.
To be successful, this initiative needs to, in our view,
first, be viewed as part of a larger comprehensive solution to
restore the parks by their 2016 centennial; second, it needs to
effectively encourage appropriate increases in philanthropy;
and, third, it needs to be integrated into, and support, a
vision for the national park system as a whole.
Elaborating on these three points, chronic funding
shortfalls continue to be the most pervasive threat to our
national parks. Our analysis over the last decade or so has
shown that the parks suffer from a annual funding shortfall of
approximately $800 million each year that is causing, as a
result, many park managers to have to reduce their work forces,
limit visitor center hours, perhaps even close some visitor
centers, reduce the number of programs, and even reduce some of
the ranger-led tours. Given this significant $800-million
annual funding shortfall for the parks, I want to emphasize
that the 100 million, or 200 million with the philanthropic
portion, of this centennial fund idea must be thought of as
only a part--a very important part, but only a part--of a
concerted, comprehensive, multiyear effort to restore and
adequately fund the Nation's parks.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you're interested in seeing these
funding problems remedied, and want to know what the long-term
vision of the national park system should be with all of these
additional funds. To help in that consideration, along with, I
know, the Secretary's document, other documents, I'd like to
submit for the record this document that NPCA put together,
``Five Ways Americans Can Help Fix Our National Parks,'' that
also includes some visionary thoughts on what the park system
should look like when fully funded.
Senator Akaka. It will be included in the record.
Mr. Kiernan. Thank you, sir.
Toward this end, we are also very pleased with the FY- 08
Interior appropriations process that has cleared the House and
has cleared the Senate committee, that would lead to roughly
$200 million of additional annual operating support, reducing
that funding shortfall from roughly 800 million to roughly 600
million. I know that, Mr. Chairman, in this committee you all
have worked to encourage increased funding for the parks, and I
thank you for that.
Let me also just mention that these proposed funding
increases have been catalyzed by the thinking and leadership of
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, who shares this
vision. It's also been a personal pleasure to work with such an
experienced and competent director of the National Park Service
as Mary Bomar. So, I want to publicly thank the administration
for their leadership on this initiative.
I would like to now specifically, for a moment, talk about
philanthropy. From its inception, the national park system has
benefited greatly from the generosity of the American people,
who have contributed millions of dollars to help ensure its
excellence. We see increasing appropriate philanthropy as an
integral and positive part of the initiative. But to
effectively encourage appropriate increases in philanthropy,
I'd like to make three specific recommendations about the bill
that you're considering, Senate 1253.
First, the administration's bill proposes to create a
required match program whereby Federal funds would be matched,
dollar for dollar, with non-Federal sources, the cash they
contribute. We believe counting only cash contributions paid
into the Treasury, as stipulated in this bill, is too limiting.
By far, the largest share of the private contributions to the
park system are in the form of in-kind materials and services.
We believe these in-kind contributions and materials and
services, and the related project management capabilities of
the larger friends groups, should be included in the match
process, as well.
Second, some accommodation should be made for those parks
that have very small or nonexistent friends groups. They should
be a part of this program. This morning, I had the good fortune
to testify on the House side in regards to the House bill 3094
that you, I believe, briefly quoted. I do want to mention that
that bill does not include a formal match requirement, but
makes the philanthropic component more flexible. Therefore, it
obviates the problems I just mentioned, and we would encourage
the Senate to seriously consider that bill.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this
hearing, and we look forward to working with you and the
committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kiernan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas C. Kiernan, President, National Parks
Conservation Association, on S. 1253
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I am Tom Kiernan,
president of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). Since
1919, NPCA has been the leading independent voice of the American
people for protecting and enhancing our National Park System for
present and future generations. I am pleased to be here today on behalf
of our more than 330,000 members nationwide who visit and care deeply
about America's national parks.
I particularly appreciate that the subcommittee has chosen to hold
this important hearing on the proposed national parks centennial
legislation in this time frame with the press of so much other
important business before the Congress. Taking this step in the
legislative process now clearly demonstrates that you share our goal of
making national parks a national priority as the centennial of the
founding of the National Park Service and the unique and magnificent
park system the Park Service was created to manage and conserve
approaches in 2016. Time is certainly of the essence in launching an
ambitious, viable program to help repair and enhance the park system in
order for it to begin its second century in the best condition
possible, prepared for the challenges of the future. It is a task that
requires the Congress, the Administration, philanthropic groups,
conservationists, communities, and individual park advocates working
together for a common purpose--to harness American pride, patriotism
and vision to protect this precious national legacy. Holding this
hearing before the impending recess sends an important message to that
effect.
NPCA strongly supports the effort to create a special, dedicated
fund over and above amounts provided in the regular appropriations
process to address priority programmatic and project initiatives to
enhance the park system during the years leading up to the centennial.
We see this concept not only as an important source of money to pay for
important and worthy programs and projects for the parks, but as a way
to engage the American people in keeping their own heritage alive.
Let me emphasize at the outset, though, that this proposal alone
will not solve the problems and address all the long and short term
needs of the parks which have resulted from decades of funding
shortfalls during many administrations and Congresses. It must be
thought of as one part of a concerted, comprehensive, multi-faceted,
multi-year effort to restore and adequately fund the nation's parks.
Substantial increases in park funding, particularly for operations in
addition to this bill, sustained over many years will be needed to make
the parks whole.
Chronic funding shortfalls continue to be the most pervasive threat
to the national parks. Our analysis shows that the shortage of funding
for park operations has grown to more than $800 million every year. The
backlog of maintenance and preservation needs exceeds $7.8 billion, and
the Park Service has a backlog of $1.9 billion in acquiring inholdings
within park boundaries. Many park managers have been forced to reduce
their work forces, lower the number of public education programs they
are able to offer, shorten visitor center hours or shutter visitor
centers altogether, and deny requests from school groups for ranger-led
tours. In parks across the country, interpretive displays and signage
are outdated, brochures are in short supply or non-existent and
interpretive rangers are missing. In many parks, nationally significant
lands are subject to development threats. Under these constraints, park
managers struggle to engage and inspire visitors, and protect natural
and cultural resources.
Mr. Chairman, I know of your strong interest in seeing these
problems remedied and in knowing what the long-term vision for the
National Park System should be. In order to help address these issues,
I have brought a copy of NPCA's report,* ``5 Ways America Can Fix Our
National Parks'', which lays out our vision of what needs to be done
for the park system to have a bright and successful future. With your
permission, I would like to submit this document as a part of the
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Report has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commitment for sustained funding increases is absolutely
necessary to make progress toward eliminating the annual $800 million
operating budget shortfall. We believe without a doubt that, armed with
the facts, the American people will agree that the protection and
enhancement of the superlative natural, cultural and historic symbols
of our shared American experience should indeed be a national priority,
particularly in these difficult and unsettling times when the meaning
of our heritage is so profound. These places remind us of who we are
and how we got here, as a people and as individuals with personal and
family connections to special park places.
We are very gratified, and frankly relieved that the administration
requested and the full House of Representatives and the Senate
Appropriations Committee have approved FY 2008 Interior appropriations
bills containing a significant first installment in the increases for
park operations that are so essential. It would mean, roughly, that the
$800 million operating shortfall would drop nearly to $600 million for
the 2008 fiscal year. It is a good start. This increase needs to be
sustained as the appropriations process moves forward, and we
respectfully solicit your help in achieving that goal. I know that you,
Mr. Chairman, and many members of this subcommittee, have consistently
supported increased funding for park operations in the appropriations
process, and I want to thank you for that.
Nearly one year ago at Yellowstone National Park, Interior
Secretary Kempthorne announced an initiative to re-focus attention on
the national parks and their needs in anticipation of the 2016
centennial. One of the key elements of that initiative is the so-called
``centennial challenge,'' and how that concept is to be manifest in
legislation is, of course, the subject of today's hearing. But before I
discuss the legislation, let me say a word about Secretary Kempthorne.
Since his arrival, we have experienced a sea change in
receptiveness at the Interior Department to our entreaties about the
needs of the parks and the federal responsibility to address them.
Clearly, he shares our vision about the value of the National Park
System to the American experience, both now and in the future, and I
attribute the lion's share of this administration's newfound interest
in the national parks to his presence and his commitment to help the
parks on his watch. I thank him for his leadership in support of the
national parks.
Having an experienced director who has worked her way up through
the ranks of the Park Service has also been good for the parks. Let me
say for the record that it is a pleasure to work with Director Mary
Bomar.
While the central element of the effort to address the needs of the
National Park System during the years leading up to the 2016 centennial
must be focused on encouraging the federal government to meet its
fundamental stewardship responsibility in protecting and adequately
funding the national parks, much of the attention surrounding the
centennial initiative has been devoted to the idea of creating a
program to carry out selected signature or centennial projects and
programs. We heartily support this concept so long as the specific
projects and programs are integrated into a vision for the National
Park System as a whole and will take the parks to a higher standard of
excellence in preparation for their next century. The program should
consist of new money, and should not result in reduced funding for
other important park needs.
Forty years ago, when the Eisenhower administration launched
``Mission 66'', its commitment of $1 billion in preparation for the
50th anniversary of the National Park System, it did so in the context
of the development of the interstate highway system, with a vision very
much influenced by that endeavor. The $1 billion initiative that
President Eisenhower launched and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson
continued is worth some $7 billion in today's dollars. Although that
investment was devoted to a smaller national park system serving fewer
visitors, it was tremendously important. In hindsight, however, it also
resulted in what is now acknowledged to have been too heavy an
investment in infrastructure projects, some of which needed to be
reworked in later years. Accordingly, the centennial challenge must
incorporate a strong set of criteria for project selection that will
build on the most beneficial aspects of the Mission 66 experience, meet
genuine park system needs, and avoid a repeat of past mistakes. It
should articulate a vision and define priorities based upon the
mandates of the National Park Service Organic Act and its mission. It
must contribute to a compelling case that the Park Service will be
better equipped to restore natural and cultural treasures, to protect
park resources, to serve park visitors, to enhance park science, to
engage the full diversity of our nation in the parks, and better
connect them to schools and universities. It is essential that the Park
Service focus as well on how it needs to evolve in order to fulfill its
mission in the next century and to integrate the parks into the lives
of more Americans and keep them relevant to the communities in which we
live. If that occurs, Congress can be fully justified in making a ten-
year commitment to enhanced park funding.
From its inception, the National Park System has benefited greatly
from the generosity of the American people, who have contributed many
millions of dollars in support of their parks in order to assure a
measure of excellence in the condition of park resources and the
quality of park programs for visitors. According to the Park Service,
in 2005 the combined value of contributed services, aid and funding to
national parks through cooperating associations, volunteers and friends
groups, as well as the National Parks Foundation was approximately $241
million. One of the truly exciting things about the centennial
challenge concept is its potential to increase the level of
philanthropic support for the park system. We see that as an integral
part of the initiative, not just incidental to it.
For its part, the Administration proposes to leverage additional
philanthropic activity by creating a required match program whereby
federal funds would be made available equal to amounts contributed by
non-federal sources, up to $100 million per year. That is to say, if
only $20 million dollars is raised privately under the program in a
year, the federal government would contribute only $20 million. The
``challenge'', therefore, would be to raise at least $100 million in
philanthropy every year to ensure that the full $100 million in federal
dollars could be released for centennial projects and programs.
As is so often the case, the devil is in the details.
The administration's bill, which you and Chairman Bingaman
introduced in the Senate by request as S. 1253, requires that non-
federal contributions be made in cash and paid directly into the
Treasury in order to qualify for the federal match.
What we have learned from the various parks friends groups and
other charitable organizations with whom we have developed close
relationships over many years is that counting only cash contributions
which are paid into the treasury is too limiting. In fact, by far the
largest share of contributions to the park system is in the form of in
kind materials and services. For example, in 2005, friends groups
donated $61 million--$8.5 million in cash and $52.5 in non-cash
contributions, according to Park Service estimates. It is important to
note that non-cash contributions often take the form of turnkey
facilities such as museums and visitor centers, materials such as the
steel used for the restoration at Yosemite Falls, and other projects
providing monetary value to directly benefit a specific park. Because
such friends groups can often achieve market efficiencies through
project management the Park Service cannot, such in kind contributions
often result in substantial cost savings. This should be maintained.
Under the match proposal, parks with particularly active or
successful friends groups likely would be disproportionately advantaged
since projects or programs they support would have a greater chance of
being funded. Today, there are 391 units in the National Park System.
There are some 175 friends groups. Some serve more than one park, but
many if not most units have no such groups. Some accommodation needs to
be made in the match concept to assure that parks without active,
successful friends groups are not disadvantaged or forgotten.
Finally, requiring the matching funds to be channeled through the
treasury could actually be detrimental to the goal of increasing
charitable contributions. Not only does it foreclose giving credit for
in-kind or other non-cash contributions, but high-end donors in
particular understand that financial gifts made directly to the
government do not earn interest but that gifts though intermediary non-
profit groups do. Many of those donors also fear that their
contributions will not be uses as they intended if they write a check
to the federal treasury.
The Grijalva/Rahall centennial bill (H.R.3094) introduced in the
House of Representatives two weeks ago would also create a centennial
fund to be used for selected projects and programs, but makes the
philanthropic component optional rather than mandatory. Although the
House bill clearly is not yet before this subcommittee, I believe you
will find a brief explanation of our views on it informative. Since
H.R. 3094 sets up a straightforward $100 million per year dedicated
fund for the next ten years, it obviates the problems I just outlined
as to what should be considered as qualified matching funds and how
those contributions should be passed through, which are created in the
administration's bill. For example, by using existing partnership
authority, H.R. 3094 avoids the need to create new bureaucratic
mechanisms that would be needed to make a philanthropic match
requirement work. It ensures, for instance, that parks without active
philanthropic partners will receive needed assistance in preparation
for the centennial, while enabling friends groups and their national
park partners to be as creative as possible in developing additional
project or program proposals using the potential federal monetary
commitment to leverage additional philanthropic activity. Without the
requirement of a match, the bill avoids the need to develop a more
encompassing and realistic match definition or to debate the inclusion
of appropriate in kind contributions. By using existing partnership
authority, it eliminates the need to address whether philanthropists
would have to write checks directly to the treasury.
That is not to say the potential to increase philanthropy is
sacrificed. It will be absolutely critical for the Park service and its
partners to work together to maximize the potential for using this
program to attract additional philanthropic support.
H.R. 3094 allows for sufficient flexibility to enable the Park
Service to submit proposals to Congress that include a match component
without requiring that funds be withheld from parks based on the
existence or lack of a non-federal match. Experience shows that park
philanthropies generally follow a philosophy of adding value. If the
private sector sees itself as supplanting rather than supplementing the
federal responsibility to fund the national parks, philanthropy
retreats since no added benefit is evident. Potential donors are in
general unwilling to pay for things they perceive their tax dollars
should already be covering. By the same token, if potential donors
recognize an increase in federal government priority for the national
parks and an improved federal commitment to adequately funding park
operations, their motivation to add value, including specific park
improvements and programs will be invigorated. When coupled with
sustained increases in funding for park operations, creation of the
national park centennial fund clearly demonstrates the kind of
increased federal attention that can lead to expanded charitable giving
for the park system.
Again, Mr. Chairman, let me commend you and all the members of the
Subcommittee, for your interest in taking substantive action to ensure
that our national parks are ready to meet the challenges of their
second century. The lead up to the centennial presents an extraordinary
opportunity to evaluate and prepare to meet these challenges and to
reach the park system's full potential as one of our country's premier
resources. Our sleeves are rolled up and we are ready and willing to
work with you to perfect this important legislation and see it enacted
into law as soon as possible. The national parks should be a national
priority. By 2016, the entire National Park System should be a model
for the world of American excellence and innovation, grounded in
protecting the natural and cultural heritage we hold so dear.
I am happy to respond to any questions you might have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Kiernan.
Now we'll hear from Mr. Buchholtz.
STATEMENT OF CURT BUCHHOLTZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PARK FRIENDS
ALLIANCE, ESTES PARK, CO
Mr. Buchholtz. Mr. Chairman and honorable committee
members, thank you for inviting me to testify today about
Senate 1253.
My name is Curt Buchholtz. I am the executive director of
the Rocky Mountain Nature Association, a nonprofit organization
that's both a cooperating association and a friends group,
helping Rocky Mountain National Park. It was established in
1931, so we've been a friend of Rocky Mountain National Park
for over 75 years.
I am also the president of the National Park Friends
Alliance, which is a confederation of some 48 nonprofit
organizations engaged in fundraising for the national park
system. These organizations, along with the National Park
Foundation, work to engage the American public in philanthropy.
The host of park--nonprofit national park organizations
helping the national parks are collectively proud of their
philanthropic track record and an expanding level of
accomplishments. I'm not going to go into all of the details of
those. I'll include them in my testimony.
Philanthropy benefiting national parks has increased
substantially over the last decade. In 2005, to offer a recent
example, the National Park Service records show that friends
groups generated donations totaling $68 million--this is in
2005--with the National Park Foundation adding another 22
million. In total, contributed services, financial aid, and
assistance to national parks through volunteers, cooperating
associations, and friends groups, totaled 234 million in that
fiscal year. So, I think that's a rather remarkable record.
Having seen park philanthropy increase over the last two
decades, we consider the passage of 1253 as an important step
in the right direction.
Let me summarize the position of the National Park Friends
Alliance.
First, we are very enthusiastic about the National Park
Centennial Initiative, as articulated by Interior Secretary
Kempthorne and Director Bomar. Specifically in regard to the
objectives that she discussed earlier today, they fall right in
concert with our mission.
Second, we endorse the proposal that Federal funds could be
made available to match philanthropic contributions. It's our
belief that that will increase philanthropic giving all across
the country.
Third, we believe that the Centennial Challenge
acknowledges the significance of philanthropy. For the first
time--and I've been working in this field almost 25 years--
Congress has come to realize that there is a wealth of public
spirited interest. I believe this is encouragement and
appreciation for the philanthropy that's current in existence.
Fourth, we support this legislation because it presents a
major opportunity for philanthropy to be nurtured at the local
level--whether in the iconic parks, like Statue of Liberty, or
in Golden Gate, or, as you know, at the USS Arizona, or at the
smaller, newer parks, where perhaps currently there isn't a
friends group in operation--and widens the opportunity for
helping in many different areas, such as wildlife preservation
or land acquisition and many other areas that philanthropy
hasn't touched yet, at this point.
I do have a few concerns, however, that I think we also
need to address.
First of all, if there is a mandate, as it states in the
legislation, that nonprofit organization must transfer donated
funds to the Federal Treasury, it is probable that the
philanthropic component of the Centennial Challenge will fail
simply because of donor reluctance to give directly to the
Federal Government.
Second, this legislation does not qualify the term
``qualified partners.'' We know of no qualifying process or
certification process for nonprofit partners in that sense of
the word, beyond having a general or project agreement with a
national park. A recent National Park Service report counts 174
friends groups and 64-67 cooperating associations. That
represents a fairly sizable set of partners, and presumably
their agreements would qualify them, then, for this campaign.
Third, in order for this challenge to succeed, we assume
the National Park Service will strengthen its resolve to
enhance the productivity of partnerships. Successful
philanthropy means productivity.
Fourth, as envisioned, the Centennial Challenge will be a
decade-long endeavor, and we worry about whether funds will be
appropriated sufficiently to attract either the immediate or
the long-term commitment of donors. We've heard that there are
those who doubt the ability of the nonprofit sector to raise
the funds equal to the proposed $100 million per year, but with
the boost of this legislation, we believe the national parks
are guaranteed to become ever greater objects of philanthropic
giving.
A final concern is that the selection of signature projects
should be developed in a context of collaboration with
nonprofit partners, including as many of the 391 national park
system sites as possible. Here, you find that I agree
wholeheartedly with Mary Bomar's testimony.
Philanthropy is not the wave of the future. It is already
at work. These nonprofit partners that are allied with the
government, should be encouraged and applauded. Together, we
can ensure that the completion of significant national park
improvements, both for the American people and for the next
generation.
Thank you for allowing me to have the National Park Friends
Alliance present its point of view.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buchholtz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Curt Buchholtz, President, National Park Friends
Alliance Estes Park, CO
Mr. Chairman and honorable committee members, thank you for the
invitation to testify today about S. 1253, a bill to establish a fund
for the National Park Centennial Challenge, and for other purposes.
I'm Curt Buchholtz, Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Nature
Association, a nonprofit membership organization working to assist
Rocky Mountain National Park, enhancing the experiences of park
visitors, and engaging citizens in stewardship. The Rocky Mountain
Nature Association was established in 1931 and is a long-term partner
with the National Park Service, helping with dozens of park improvement
projects and hundreds of educational programs.
Permit me to add that I am also the President of the National Park
Friends Alliance, a confederation of some forty nonprofit organizations
engaged in fundraising to benefit the National Park System. These
organizations, along with the National Park Foundation, work to engage
the American public in philanthropy and volunteerism and help protect,
enhance, and interpret park resources. Many local organizations, like
the Yosemite Association, the Mount Rushmore Society, and our own
Nature Association have been partners with our individual parks each in
excess of seventy-five years.
The host of nonprofit partnership organizations helping national
parks are collectively proud of their philanthropic track record and an
expanding level of accomplishments--which now includes hundreds of
completed projects in dozens of parks, ranging from the well-known $550
million campaign to preserve and protect the Statue of Liberty and
Ellis Island to a host of more modest projects, ranging from a $2.4
million visitor center for Rocky Mountain National Park, to land
acquisition, historical preservation, programs for kids, and even an
educational endowment fund for the Blue Ridge Parkway. We are carrying
forward a rich heritage of philanthropic enhancement of our National
Park System, linking us philosophically to Stephen Mather, the National
Park Service's first director, who was also a major park
philanthropist. We cherish deep and positive relationships with the
Park Service and a generous American public. At the same time, we
applaud Congressional support and concern for our parks.
Philanthropy benefiting parks has increased substantially over the
past decade. In 2005, to offer a recent example, National Park Service
records show that friends groups generated donations totaling $68
million, with the National Park Foundation adding another $22 million.
In total, contributed services, financial aid and assistance to
national parks through volunteers, cooperating associations, and
friends groups totaled $234 million in that fiscal year.
Another recent example: a review of philanthropic activity in
December 2006 found National Park Service-approved fundraising projects
having a collective fundraising goal for nonprofit partners of
$295,830,000, with $70,100,000 provided for those specified projects in
matching federal funds.
Having seen park philanthropy increase over the last two decades,
we consider the passage S. 1253 as an important step in the right
direction, giving recognition to the importance of philanthropy for our
parks. Such legislation can create a positive climate for citizen
stewardship and boost the culture of partnerships in public land
conservation.
The Friends Alliance must reaffirm a core principle, however,
stating that charitable funds given to friends groups or directly to a
national park must not be used to pay for basic government operations
or to offset losses in appropriated funds, unless the donor
affirmatively and knowingly restricts the funds to park operations. As
the Alliance has consistently stated, the purpose of philanthropy is to
add value to national parks--creating a margin of excellence beyond
what the Park Service can accomplish alone.
Permit me to summarize the position of the National Park Friends
Alliance in regard to S. 1532:
1) We are enthusiastic about the National Park Centennial
Initiative as articulated by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne
and National Park Service Director Mary Bomar. The five
announced goals of stewardship, environmental leadership,
recreational experience, education, and professional excellence
certainly match our missions as park partners.
2) We heartily endorse the proposal that federal funds could
be made available to match philanthropic contributions. It is
our belief that a federal match will draw attention to park
philanthropy and should increase the magnitude of giving in the
decade ahead.
3) We believe that the Centennial Challenge acknowledges the
significance of philanthropy. It extends both encouragement and
appreciation to public spirited donors. It recognizes that
philanthropy has produced positive results in the past and can
play a significant and increased role within the context of
citizen support for national park stewardship long-term.
4) We support this legislation because it presents a major
opportunity for philanthropy to be nurtured at the local
level--whether in the iconic parks or the smaller, newly-
established sites, opening the opportunity for projects as
diverse as land acquisition or education, trail building or
visitor services, wildlife research or programs for young
people. Innovation is the key to the future. Today it is found
most often at the local park level where the National Park
Service intersects successfully with nonprofit partners. Of
course we also anticipate that major initiatives at the
national level will also have a significant impact, especially
for smaller sites or for parks with friends groups just getting
started.
Any concerns we have in advancing this legislation focus on the way
this Centennial Challenge may be interpreted as it evolves into a
National Park Service program. The success of the Centennial Challenge
depends upon the clarification of critical details. For example:
1) If there is a mandate that nonprofit organizations must
transfer donated funds to the federal treasury, it is probable
the philanthropic component of the Centennial Challenge will
fail, simply because of donor reluctance to ``give'' directly
to the federal government. Based upon our experience very few
donors will place their contributions in federal government
accounts--and this requirement in the current bill would
greatly inhibit philanthropy. An alternative approach is
needed, perhaps through the National Park Foundation, which was
established by Congress to receive philanthropic gifts on
behalf of national parks.
2) The legislation does not define ``qualified partners.''
Perhaps incorrectly, our assumption is that that term includes
friends organizations like our own, cooperating associations,
and other nonprofit organizations having project or general
agreements with the National Park Service. We know of no
``qualifying'' process now in place to establish a partnership
beyond that of general or project agreements. A recent National
Park Service report counts 174 friends groups and 67
cooperating associations, which represents a sizeable set of
partners presumably willing to be ``qualified'' for this
campaign.
3) In order for this Challenge to succeed, we assume the
National Park Service will strengthen its resolve to enhance
the productivity of partnerships. Currently there are a number
of policy issues clouding the horizon, causing projects to be
unnecessarily burdened by delays. Successful philanthropy means
productivity.
4) As envisioned, the Centennial Challenge will be a decade-
long endeavor. We worry that funds will not be appropriated
sufficiently to attract either the immediate or the long-term
commitment of donors.
5) We've heard that there are those who doubt the ability of
the nonprofit sector to raise funds equal to the proposed
Centennial Challenge of $100,000,000 per year. But with a boost
from this legislation, we believe national parks are guaranteed
to become ever greater objects of philanthropic giving.
In answer to that concern, allow us to point to the long tradition
of philanthropy within national park history. Gifts of land created
major national parks, from Muir Woods to the Virgin Islands, from
Acadia to Grand Teton. Just a quick survey of our members, from the
Yosemite Fund and Golden Gate National Park Conservancy, from the
Statue of Liberty to the Mount Rushmore Society, revealed recent gifts
of $1 million from the Goldman Fund, $108,000 from the J.M. Long
Foundation, $288,000 from Toyota, $1 million from the Donovan
Foundation, $250,000 from the RR Foundation, $300,000 from the State of
South Dakota Fund, $500,000 from the Goldsmith Foundation, and $15
million from the Haas Jr. Fund. In my own case, a planned gift of $3
million is being given to the Rocky Mountain Nature Association to
benefit Rocky Mountain National Park, and will, most likely, be placed
toward youth programs and endowments.
Each year the magnitude of campaigns around the National Park
System continues to grow. Offering just two examples from 2007,
Gettysburg is completing a $95 million campaign and the U.S.S. Arizona
Memorial has a $33.7 million campaign underway. National Park Service
funds committed at Gettysburg total $11.2 million and at the U.S.S.
Arizona they total $7.7 million. These two cases alone demonstrate the
skillful leveraging of federal funds.
6) A final concern is that the selection of ``signature
projects'' should be developed in a context of collaboration
with nonprofit partners, including as many of the 391 National
Park System sites as possible. As the Centennial Challenge
begins, nonprofit partners are committed to its success, both
in meeting the expectations of donors and in providing
accountability to the National Park Service and to Congress. In
the spirit of partnership, in some cases nonprofit
organizations will assume project fulfillment; in other cases,
the National Park Service may take the lead role. Philanthropy
is not the wave of the future. It is already at work. These
nonprofit partnerships allied with the government should be
encouraged and applauded. Together we can ensure the completion
of significant national park improvements both for the American
people and the next generation.
The National Park Friends Alliance believes that S. 1253, a bill to
establish a fund for the National Park Centennial Challenge, presents a
challenge to nonprofit partners, no doubt. But it is a welcome
opportunity. I can assure you that everyone I've talked to who is
engaged in philanthropy is willing to participate in this campaign. We
hope the challenge funds will be provided. We hope partnerships are
given the tools to succeed. Friends groups, cooperating associations,
and other nonprofits allied with the National Park System are energized
by this vision and stand ready to help.
Thank you for allowing the National Park Friends Alliance to
present its point of view.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Buchholtz.
I'd like to ask a question to Director Bomar, and ask you
to comment on Mr. Buchholtz's recommendation that in-kind
contributions be counted as part of the challenge, since that's
the way most donations are made now. Why does the
administration's proposal limit Federal matches to cash
donations only? Would you agree to include in-kind
contributions as eligible for a Federal match?
Ms. Bomar. I think we're absolutely flexible, and would
like to continue that dialog. Again, yes, our bill does state
cash--I think we have some concerns about how we calculate the
in-kind, presently. But we are certainly flexible and want to
work with this committee, sir, to figure out the best way to do
that.
Senator Akaka. Then let me ask the other two witnesses, Mr.
Cipolla and Mr. Kiernan, for any comment you may have on--or
whether you agree with Mr. Buchholtz on in-kind contributions,
and whether they should be counted.
Mr. Cipolla. Thank you. The in-kind has been, as already
stated, a very important part of the philanthropic mix. The
thinking, I believe, behind the bill only talking about cash
contributions, was that there is a lot of potential in cash
charitable giving to the national parks, that the parks
themselves, as a charitable cause, barely makes it to the
contemporary threshold, in terms of where charitable giving is
today, and that, if there were more ways to stimulate cash
charitable contributions to individual parks, to the National
Park Service, more would, in fact, be made, that the potential
is there, that the appetite is there among the charitable
community.
Having said that, and to underscore Mary's point, we also
recognize that in-kind products and services have been very
important to the national parks. Those of us in the business of
park philanthropy have accepted in-kind products and services.
We look forward to a continuing dialog as to how that might be
able to be worked into this new approach.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Kiernan.
Mr. Kiernan. Briefly, I'd add our support to including in-
kind contributions in the match process. We want to optimize
the creative roles for what should the Federal Government be
doing, what should the private sector be doing, and having in-
kind as an option, which obviously has worked in the past, we
think can work if appropriately managed in the future. It's a
way of furthering the public engagement in the protection and
enhancement of our parks.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Mr. Cipolla, the administration's legislative proposal does
not specifically mention the National Park Foundation. What do
you envision to be the role of the Foundation if this bill is
enacted?
Mr. Cipolla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, Congress created the National Park Foundation
as a flexible philanthropic charitable vehicle for the National
Park Service, and we have fulfilled, for the National Park
Service, many roles over time.
There are things, though, that a national organization can
do that our absolutely outstanding friends groups can't do as
easily. For example, national awareness, or national
grantmaking programs, or working at the national level with the
Director's office and with the Director's partnership office on
helping strategize programs with potential donors, and also the
requirements in order fill those donations. So, the National
Park Foundation, I think, can have a very broad role in its
partnership with the National Park Service in fulfilling the
needs of the Centennial Challenge.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Cipolla, earlier in the hearing I asked
a similar question to Director Bomar, but I would also
appreciate your views regarding how we assure that parks
without active successful friends groups are not disadvantaged
or forgotten in the program as established by this bill.
Mr. Cipolla. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
This is a distinctive area for the National Park
Foundation. We conduct grantmaking today among about 290
national parks. We would love that to be the entire system. As
a national organization, it's incumbent upon us to be able to
work with all parks and to be sure that resources are
distributed to small and large parks, alike. In many ways, I
think, as the charitable partner for the National Park Service,
we are also the charitable entity for those parks that don't
have friends groups.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Kiernan, your organization recently
issued a report which stated the--and quote, ``critical issue
for the National Park Service is to develop a compelling case
that will induce Congress to make a 10-year funding
commitment,'' unquote. Do you think the agency has done so?
Mr. Kiernan. The Secretary released to the President, May
31, his vision--I think Director Bomar has a copy of it--for
the Centennial Initiative. We think that's a strong document
and a great place for Congress and the American public to
continue building this vision that we have for the parks for,
if you will, their second 100 years of service to this country
and to this world. So, we think the Secretary's vision is a
strong vision, and we look forward to working with the
administration and Congress in making that broad, comprehensive
vision a reality by the 100th anniversary. If we are ever going
to restore the parks, it's going to be over this coming 10-year
window.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Let me call on Senator Burr for his questions, and I have a
few, after that.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me go to the in-kind question that's raised. Mr.
Kiernan, personally I believe in-kind should be something we
should consider. When you state that, do you believe that
volunteerism is considered an in-kind?
Mr. Kiernan. That has been a lively discussion. So far, our
support has been for more materials and services. We've not yet
stated that volunteers should--volunteer time should be part of
the match process. So far, we're saying that materials and
services--and, frankly, the project management capability of
some of the large friends groups, that should be taken account
and be part of this centennial matching process.
Senator Burr. I look forward to exploring this a little
more with everybody concerned. Let me just warn that, when you
get into volunteer time being considered an in-kind, I think
you get into a very dangerous area--I think you begin to lose
people on the Hill, you begin to define things in a way that
potentially it could have some effects outside of the world
we're talking about here. So, I would caution you very much to
try to clearly define, for the purposes of ``in-kind,'' what
might be in that basket.
Vince, let me ask you, because I got in with the Director
on the Proud Partners Program, and used the Ford, sort of,
Toyota scenario. Tell me how that would play out, as you see
it.
Mr. Cipolla. Yes. Thank you, Senator Burr. There are four
organizations that are a part of the Proud Partner construct,
which, of course, was a framework that was created many years
ago. Your question is so spot-on, because the centennial
strategy contemplates potentially much wider philanthropic
support, and corporate philanthropic support, so there could be
tension between those Proud Partner relationships, those four
Proud Partner relationships and new companies that want to
participate very broadly.
The essence is that a Proud Partner has exclusivity around
national marketing of the partnership with the National Park
Service. That is the essence of the exclusivity, the
exclusivity that would be in question.
These terrific partners that have been working with the
National Park Service for many years, these four Proud
Partners, are part of the centennial discussion. They
understand that there's a new framework that's being developed.
None of them want to be responsible for stopping the
philanthropic largesse of another organization. So, more work
is going to be needed on developing that.
Senator Burr. Does this demand--and I agree with all of you
that I think we've only touched the philanthropic potential of
parks--but, given the scope of this challenge, does it almost
demand us to go back and look at the programs we have in
effect, challenge ourselves as to whether we modify those, and,
if we don't modify them, how we incorporate them into the
challenge, in somewhat of a leveled capacity, so everybody's
part of the challenge, there are a few that are considered at a
different level than others, and sort it out before we launch
two programs that could find an intersection that's
uncomfortable?
Mr. Cipolla. Yes, sir. The companies that we're talking
about expect, very much, to be in that conversation, and are in
that conversation. New structures will have to be formed. I
mean, there hasn't been a lot of care given to the variety of
frameworks for a wide potential of philanthropic partnership
and involvement. So, that is the hard work that's underway, and
we'll continue to go on with Director Bomar's organization and
her partnership office, and with the donors themselves. It's
very important, as you recognize, to have them in the tent with
us as we're talking these things through.
Senator Burr. If the Foundation was given the opportunity
to manage $100-million annual matching fund program, what
initial changes would you need to make to take on this
challenge and ensure its success?
Mr. Cipolla. We have been investing in the capacity of the
National Park Foundation. The Foundation is not large, and, for
many years, it didn't take some of the steps really necessary
to encourage and engage the kind of philanthropy we're talking
about today. But, in the last 2 years, we've been making those
investments in our technology platform, in data base
management, in other capacities that we need. So, the Park
Foundation is in a very good spot to support the National Park
Service, as we're chartered to do so, and managing--and having
a broad role in managing the Centennial Challenge. At the same
time, as has been recognized, we have an outstanding field of
friends groups across the country, powerhouse friends
organizations that are very strong charities in their own
right. They can handle the opportunity associated with their
parks, and they don't need to be eclipsed by a national
organization either. So, there's an opportunity, I think;
there's the potential for us all to work together.
Senator Burr. Mr. Buchholtz, I sort of understand what you
say about the reluctance to write the U.S. Treasury a check.
I'm thinking that if there weren't some penalties every year, I
wouldn't want to do it either. But when you're making
donations, it's even a bigger challenge. What would you suggest
as an alternative to writing checks to the U.S. Treasury?
Mr. Buchholtz. I guess I would base my answer upon what
I've already been doing for the last 25 years, and that's
writing my checks to a nonprofit organization that's helping a
national park. You know, philanthropic giving is a matter of
personal choice. We have abiding affection for our national
parks. I mean, that's what causes us to take our checkbook out
and support the charity of our choice in the United States;
and, in some cases, in the national park system, some parks,
because of demonstrated needs, or because of personal interest,
will draw our attention.
I think, in the ideal, it would be wonderful if all 391
parks were engaged in philanthropy, but I'm enough of a realist
to understand that there are some parks that just won't draw
that level of support, for whatever reason--maybe they're--the
case isn't as compelling. But I think, when I write my personal
checks, which I've written thousands of dollars of personal
checks to national parks, I write them because I believe in
them and because I'm convinced that my dollars will be properly
spent at that area, using a nonprofit organization as the
vehicle for that.
Would I send it off to the Federal Treasury? Even if I knew
it were going to be matched, I'd have to think about that. I
think that's too much of a bridge.
Senator Burr. I appreciate your raising the issue, because
I think it is something that we all need to think about, and
there are some merits to a nonprofit intercession there,
because there is some interest that can be earned, where you
can't get it in the Federal Government, I will assure you.
Mr. Kiernan, is land acquisition an appropriate use of the
Centennial Challenge Fund? If so, should S. 1253 be amended to
specify that funds can only be used for acquisition involving
willing sellers?
Mr. Kiernan. We envision this centennial program
implementing a set of themes or goals. One set has been what
the Secretary's put on the table with those themes. We could
see land acquisition as a tactic toward achieving one of the
goals laid out there; so, we would see it as option within
implementation. So, we would want to see funds available for
that. We would be very comfortable with--from willing sellers--
having that be very clear in the bill.
Senator Burr. OK, thank you.
What do you envision as the role of the National Parks
Conservation Association in the context of the Centennial
Challenge?
Mr. Kiernan. As you may know, NPCA was founded in 1919 as
an independent advocate for the national parks. So, we are an
advocate for creating a centennial effort, so we are here to
work with you, with the American public, to generate the
enthusiasm, but we're an advocacy organization, we are not a
fundraising organization, like the Park Foundation or Curt's
organization or the others. So, we're completely separate from
that, and, in all candor, we very strongly applaud their
efforts. In particular, the National Park Foundation over the
last several years, under Vin's leadership, has done a very
good job at building the capacity and the strength of the
National Park Foundation to prepare for the coming work ahead.
So, we applaud their work. We see ourselves as the independent,
separate advocate. We do not do philanthropic work.
Senator Burr. Great. Great. Once again, I'd like to thank
all three of you and the Director for your willingness to share
with us today, and I look forward as we find a way to perfect
this, and move forward very quickly.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Burr.
I have two questions. In your written testimony, Mr.
Buchholtz, you state that there are a number of policy issues
clouding the horizon regarding partnerships with the National
Park Service. If S. 1253 is enacted into law, would these
issues adversely affect implementation of the Centennial
Challenge Fund?
Mr. Buchholtz. I would say that there are some people
within the Department of Interior and the National Park Service
who are listening to the problems that we're facing in the
field at this point relative to collaborative work. They are
policy issues that deal with such things as--cooperative
agreements, for example, would be one, or the issues of
facilitating the construction projects or the various kinds of
things that these nonprofit organizations are now doing in the
national park system. Life isn't as simple as it was 10 years
ago, when philanthropy wasn't quite so active. But, as times
get more complex, obviously we're pushing the envelope in our
ability to have nonprofits work together collaboratively with
the National Park Service. I think that's the kind of policy
issue that I'm talking about.
They are getting sorted out, I'm convinced of that. There
are some good heads working on this, both on the legal side of
it and on the construction side, to make sure that things are
much smoother.
My guess is that this legislation passing will expedite,
will help move those along even faster, and it will get those
issues resolved.
Senator Akaka. Director Bomar----
Ms. Bomar. Yes, sir.
Senator Akaka [continuing]. My question to you, after
hearing Mr. Buchholtz--Do you share his concerns about the Park
Service's relationships with its nonprofit partners?
Ms. Bomar. Yes, I do, Senator Akaka. I've known Curt for
many years. We met at Rocky Mountain many, many years ago. I
was an acting superintendent there, and, as they say, we've
come a long way. We still have some work to do. The Secretary
and I are absolutely committed to improving the process, being
more efficient and effective, and working with our partners.
Yes, we do have some barriers that we have to work with, but we
certainly look forward to this challenge, Senator Akaka. One of
the things that we have said is that Americans have always
loved their national parks. This is not just about the money;
it is about re-engaging the American public. I think that we're
certainly looking at a whole new era, with wonderful
opportunities ahead of us, and we need to seize the day. It's
the right time, right place, right people to make all these
things happen and put this foundation in place. Shame on us in
the Park Service if we can't get our act together in some areas
to make these partnerships work much more efficiently. I give
credit to the partnership office; they have come a long way
with us. We are working very closely with our solicitor's
office to make sure that we can work through some of these
issues.
Mr. Kiernan. Mr. Chairman, if I may just jump in with a
brief comment--and I believe it's consistent, thematically,
with their two comments--that Director's Order 21, as it was
promulgated within the last year, we do see that as an
important framework that articulates the appropriate role of
philanthropy in working with the Park Service. No doubt, there
are places where things still need to get sorted out, but we do
see the current Director's Order 21 as an important framework
to keep in place.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Cipolla, would you care to make any
comments about that?
Mr. Cipolla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the point has been well covered. I would like to
also say, under Director Bomar's leadership, that there has
been a lot of focus on the area of partnership, and a lot of
pragmatism in approaching that focus. We want to applaud the
National Park Foundation, applaud our number-one partner, the
National Park Service, on all the work they're doing in the
partnership area.
Ms. Bomar. Thank you, Vin.
Senator Akaka. I thank all of you for your responses, and
your testimony, as well. I know that Director Bomar, Mr.
Cipolla, and Mr. Kiernan also testified at the House hearing on
this same issue this morning. I looked up at the clock, and I
thought, ``Well, you've had a long day.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Akaka. So, I really appreciate your time and your
patience here, and your testimonies and your responses, because
it's going to help us to try to push this National Park
Centennial Challenge on its way.
As Senator Burr noted earlier this afternoon, we don't
often devote an entire hearing to a single legislative
proposal----
Ms. Bomar. Yes.
Senator Akaka [continuing]. Which we are doing at this
moment. But, since it's not every day that we discuss how to
find an extra billion dollars for our national park, it seemed
worth the extra time. So, here we are together.
All of the testimony today will be very helpful as the
committee considers this bill, and I look forward to working
with Director Bomar, Senator Burr, and the other members of
this committee as we try to figure a way to move this proposal
forward.
We may receive questions from other committee members who
were unable to attend, and, if we do, we'll submit them to you
in writing and ask that you answer them so they can be included
in the hearing record.
Senator Akaka. This has been a great hearing, and thank
you, again, for all that you've done.
This subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Mary Bomar to Questions From Senator Salazar
PUBLIC INPUT
Director Bomar, let me begin by thanking you and your staff
for responding to my request for additional public hearings in
Colorado on the National Park Service Centennial Challenge. You
held hearings in March in Denver. Durango, Alamosa, and Grand
Junction. These public meetings, I trust, will help guide how
you approach the Centennial Challenge, I want to ensure that
the public can continue to play a central role in shaping the
development of the Centennial Challenge. Specifically, the
public needs to be able to help decide what projects are
labeled ``signature projects'' and their input needs to be
systematic and periodic. The people who use the parks and live
near the parks, after all, will have some of the best ideas for
Tlow to prepare our Parks for the 2016 centennial.
Question 1. How will the Park Service continue to solicit
public input on the Centennial Challenge over the next several
years? What role will the public have in suggesting and
reviewing projects that may become ``signature projects''? Are
you planning additional public meetings in Colorado to discuss
the Centennial Challenge?
Answer. The National Park Service conducted more than 40
listening session across the country to create the centennial
vision as expressed in The Future of America's National Parks,
the report that Secretary Kempthorne and Director Bomar
presented to the President and to the American people on May
31, 2007. The public welcomed the listening sessions with such
enthusiasm that the National Park Service has committed to
making them annual events at every park. The public also
submitted comments on line, and we will continue to use that
avenue to collect ideas. We received 6,000 comments, including
many suggestions or ideas for centennial projects. Park
superintendents have access to the comments and ideas related
to their parks to consider for future centennial project calls
or for potential integration into regular park business.
PARKS RANGER SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
In my opening statement, I mentioned that I will be
introducing a bill that will create a grant program for schools
that partner with the National Park Service to bring kids into
the outdoors and more rangers into the classroom. The grants
would be for up to $25,000 over three years.
Question 2. What educational programs are you proposing as
part of the Centennial Challenge? Will you be seeking
authorization for any of these programs through the No Child
Left Behind reauthorization?
Answer. Of the 201 projects and programs that have been
determined to be eligible for Centennial Challenge funding in
FY 2008, more than 70 are in the ``education'' category. These
programs represent a range of initiatives for reaching out to
youth, improving interpretive exhibits and materials, and
taking other steps to use parks as opportunities for learning.
We will not be seeking authorization for any educational
programs through the No Child Left Behind reauthorization or
through any other legislation; all the selected centennial
projects and programs for FY 2008 will be for activities that
are already authorized.
NPS BUDGET
We cannot mistake the $100 million in matching funds that
this bill is proposing to create as a substitute for annual
appropriations to fund operations, maintenance, acquisitions of
inholdings, and educational programs.
Question 3. What commitment will you provide the Committee
that the Administration will submit a budget request that will
reduce the estimated $7.8 billion maintenance backlog, $1.9
billion inholdings acquisition backlog, and reverse the trend
of cuts to education programs and visitor services?
Answer. Funding through the Centennial Challenge Fund is
intended as a supplement to, not at substitute for, funding for
operations, maintenance, land acquisition, and visitor services
that is provided through the annual appropriations process. The
Challenge Fund proposal was paired with the ``Centennial
Commitment'' to help ensure that regular appropriations for the
National Park Service would be increased substantially at the
same time that additional funding was made available through
the Challenge Fund partnership program. The Centennial
Commitment is the Administration's pledge to propose an
additional $100 million each year for operations and
maintenance at national park units, which includes
interpretation and education and other activities that directly
benefit visitors.
Responses of Mary Bomar to Questions From Senator Burr
Question 4a. The National Park Foundation is chartered by
Congress as the only national charitable partner of America's
National Parks. Director Bomar, how would you describe the
relationship between the National Park Foundation and the
National Park Service?
Answer. The relationship between the National Park
Foundation and the National Park Service is strong and
productive. The Foundation's mission is to strengthen the
enduring connection of the American people and their national
parks by raising private funds, making strategic grants,
creating innovative partnerships and increasing public
awareness. The National Park Service and the Foundation operate
under a general agreement outlining strategics, policies and
procedures governing grant-making, partnership communication
and other partnership activities.
In 2005, the Foundation received nearly $22 million of
contributed property, goods, and services, which includes
benefits directly to the parks (e.g. visitor center films,
vehicles, materials for trails, photograph contest prize, etc.)
and to the Foundation. The Foundation also holds many
restricted accounts for parks. Additionally, the Foundation has
established a number of initiatives to directly support
specific National Park sites or types of sites such as the
African-American Experience Fund and the Flight 93 National
Memorial Fund. As our national fundraising partner, the
Foundation is in a unique position to raise funds nationally
for the benefit of the entire National Park System.
Question 4b. What do you see as the role of the National
Park Foundation in implementing the Centennial Challenge Fund?
Answer. As the Congressionally chartered fundraising
partner of the America's national parks, the Foundation has a
40-year track record of raising public awareness, cultivating
citizen stewardship, and increasing philanthropic support for
the benefit of our national parks. The Foundation has stated
that the Centennial Challenge Fund will offer incentives for
charitable partners to work collaboratively and creatively to
develop fundraising campaigns that affect the entire National
Park System. We see the Foundation playing a key role in
cultivating the collaboration and generating the creativity
necessary to make the Centennial Challenge Fund a success.
The Foundation is working to expand the dialogue around
park partnerships, including its hosting of the first-ever
Leadership Summit on Partnership and Philanthropy. The Summit,
held in October at the University of Texas at Austin, explored
how public and private interests can work together. Speakers
and participants included senior business leaders, foundation
directors, park professionals, government officials, educators,
and others excited to help build the next century of citizen
stewardship of our national parks.
Question 5. Many National Park units have friends groups
that raise money for special projects and organize volunteers
to assist the parks. Friends groups are accustomed to working
directly with park staff on projects funded by private
donations. What do you see as the role of friends groups in
selecting and implementing projects funded by the Centennial
Challenge Fund?
Answer. Friends groups will not be selecting the projects
funded under the Centennial Challenge Fund--that was done by
the National Park Service for the FY 2008 projects, and will
continue to be done internally for future selections. However,
the role of friends groups will be critical to the success of
the Centennial Challenge program.
The National Park Service recognizes philanthropic and
volunteer support as both a noble tradition of the national
parks and a vital clement of the Service's success. The
National Park Service actively engages the help of over 170
local friends groups, which contribute time, expertise and
privately raised funds to support our national parks. These
local friends groups range from volunteer and start-up
organizations to large-scale, successful fundraising partners
to long-time programming and education partners.
Potential Challenge Fund projects were generated from the
``ground up'' by park managers who worked closely with their
friends groups to determine the best matches between park needs
and opportunities for friends groups to generate philanthropic
support. Friends groups and other partners have made
commitments worth a total of $215.9 million toward the 201
proposals (worth $369.9 million) that have been determined to
be eligible for Centennial Challenge funding in FY 2008. We see
this as a strong indicator of the commitment and the capacity
our friends groups have in carrying out the Centennial
Challenge.
Question 6. Director's Order Number 21 covers donations and
fund raising by the National Park Service, The Director's
Order, which was updated on May 1, 2006, provides for
philanthropic donations and donations tied to advertising
called Corporate Campaigns. Do you anticipate any changes to
Director's Order 21 if S. 1253 is enacted?
Answer. No, we do not anticipate any changes in Director's
Order No. 21.
Responses of Mary Bomar to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 7. According to your letter to the Committee on
July 19, 2007, ``teams of National Park Service professionals
will evaluate the projects and programs and summarize the
implementation strategies.''
Question 8. What will be the make-up of these teams?
Answer. Three teams met in Washington to evaluate the FY
2008 projects and programs. The ``project'' team was
responsible for evaluating project (i.e--non-programmatic)
centennial proposals based on established criteria. The members
of this team had experience on the National Park Service's
line-item construction team and used a rigorous process called
``choosing by advantages.'' The team members represented all
regions and the Washington office, and was composed of
employees in varied disciplines from landscape architecture,
facility maintenance and park management, to budget and
information technology. The ``program'' team evaluated
potential centennial programs for individual parks while
keeping an eye toward their potential for national application
and benefits. Team members represented a broad knowledge of
National Park Service programs and contributed specific,
applicable knowledge in one or more of the five centennial
goals. These team members also represented every region and the
Washington office, and brought varied expertise as park
superintendents and program managers with experience in
interpretation and education, wilderness management,
partnerships, science, resource stewardship, and information
technology.
The ``strategies'' team, like the others, represented all
regions and the Washington office, and the members brought to
their task a broad understanding of the centennial goals, a
sense of vision, and openness to new ideas. These team members
have varied experience as park superintendents and program
managers. They read, summarized, and excerpted the best and
brightest ideas from the parks' and programs' centennial
strategies.
Question 9. How will the team members be chosen?
Answer. National Park Service Deputy Director Dan Wenk
asked regional directors and associate directors to recommend
the best employees to serve on the teams based on the work of
the teams and the expertise and experience those tasks
required.
Question 10. Do the teams have the final say on the list
recommended projects, or will you and Secretary Kempthorne make
final determinations?
Answer. The teams applied criteria and their expertise in
evaluating the centennial proposals. Based on their work, they
recommended proposals that were ``certified eligible for
Centennial Challenge funding.'' After reviewing the list,
Secretary Kempthorne and Director Bomar made the final
determinations. The teams did an exceptional job in putting
forth proposals that meet the criteria, move us toward
centennial goals, have partner support, and will prepare parks
for another century of conservation, preservation, and
enjoyment.
Question 11. What role will Congress play in deciding how
the $100 million dollars in discretionary funds is allocated
each year and which signature projects and programs are awarded
a federal match?
Answer. Under S. 1253 as introduced, the Secretary would be
required to submit to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, the House Natural Resource Committee, and the
Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee the list of
signature projects and programs eligible for funding from the
Challenge Fund and any additions made to the list as they are
added. In addition to fulfilling these requirements, we are
committed to having an ongoing dialogue with Congress on the
criteria used for the selection of programs and projects and on
the selected programs and projects themselves.
Question 12. Who specifically will administer the federal
matching program and how much will it cost to administer?
Answer. The National Park Service would administer the
matching program in much the same way that other funding
provided to the Service is administered--through our
Comptroller, acting under the direction of the Director, and
delegating responsibility for obligating the money as
appropriate. We have not determined the cost of administering
the program.
Question 13. S. 1253 would require up to $1 billion in
direct spending over 10 years. Do you have an offset in mind to
help Congress in passing this bill?
Answer. There are several mandatory proposals with savings
in the President's budget for FY 2008 that are under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources. They are
listed below with the estimated net amount of savings they
would generate over the next 5 and 10 fiscal years. We are not
asking Congress to use any of these proposals specifically to
offset the Centennial Challenge proposal; we list these only to
illustrate some options for offsets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Savings 2008- Net Savings 2008-
Proposal 2012 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MMS Net Receipt Sharing $227 million $447 million
Deduct states' share of
administrative costs of onshore
mineral leasing program from
their receipts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal Bonuses $426 million
Require full payment of bonuses
on all new coal leases at the
time of leas sale, consistent
with oil and gas leases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Land Transaction $186 million $334 million
Facilitation Act
Update BLM lands available for
disposal and change the
distribution of proceeds from
those sales
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge $4,010 million $4,025 million
Open Section 1002 of Coastal
Plain to energy exploration and
development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM Range Improvements $ 47 million $ 97 million
Deposit grazing fee receipts in
Treasury instead of Range
Improvement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Policy Act of 2005 $184 million $309 million
Repeal fee prohibitions. and
mandatory permit funds
(Sections 224, 234, 344, 345,
365)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick Sloan Missouri Basin $115 million $230 million
Program
Recover capital costs from power
users
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response of Vin Cipolla to Question From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. S. 1253 reflects the Administration's proposal. If you
were developing this proposal from scratch, what would you do
differently?
Answer. We believe the process the National Park Service and the
Department of the Interior have followed to create this proposal has
been open, inclusive, and transparent. Friends groups, user groups,
corporate partners, philanthropic organizations, and the public have
all participated in the process. The proposed bill recognizes the
importance of private and public interests working in tandem and
furthers the tradition of private citizens participating in the
preservation of our national parks.
We encourage you to revisit the requirement in the bill that
private funds must come to the federal government to trigger the
federal match. Many donors are reluctant to give to the federal
government and such a provision will hinder philanthropic giving. To
provide the necessary fiscal responsibility and realize the full
potential of each donation, irrevocable letters of credit could be
employed by the fundraising partner and their local financial
institution. In addition, the National Park Foundation (NPF), as the
congressionally chartered philanthropic arm of the National Park
Service, could act as the repository for philanthropic donations and
act as the fiduciary agent for the Centennial Fund.
Responses of Vin Cipolla to Questions From Senator Burr
Question 1. The National Park Foundation has been chartered for
several decades to raise and distribute funds for National Parks. If
given the chance to amend S. 1253, what would you change to allow the
National Park Foundation to apply its mission toward implementing the
Centennial Challenge Fund?
Answer. As the national philanthropic partner of the National Park
Service, the NPF raises private funds for national parks and serves as
a fiduciary agent. NPF has been asked by the Secretary of the Interior
to lead a national, coordinated fundraising campaign in support of the
Centennial Challenge Initiative. Given its congressional charter, the
NPF could also act as the fiduciary agent for the Challenge and accept
and administer privately raised funds. Removing the requirement that
private funds must be deposited in the federal treasury would encourage
increased giving as many donors are reluctant to donate to the federal
government. This approach would also allow for the private funds to
accrue interest while waiting for release of the federal matching
funds.
Question 2. If the National Park Foundation was given the
opportunity to manage a $100 million dollar annual matching fund
program, what initial changes would you make to take on such a
challenge and ensure success?
Answer. The NPF is gearing up to lead the national capital campaign
in support of the National Park Service centennial. We will conduct
this campaign in concert with national, regional, and local partners
including friends groups and cooperating associations. We have
contracted with an outside firm to prepare a feasibility study that
will recommend how best to structure, administer, and manage a national
philanthropic campaign of this scale over a ten-year period. We will
use recommendations from this study to build and manage the campaign,
including the addition of staff or contractors to provide NPF with the
necessary capacity to achieve the campaign goals.
Question 3. What is the Proud Partners Program and does S. 1253
create any potential conflicts with the program?
Answer. The Proud Partner program is a national cause-marketing
program that was established by the National Park Foundation in 2000.
The program raises public awareness about our national parks and funds
park programs that engage youth, support volunteers, address
conservation and resource issues and restore park trails. Since its
inception, the Proud Partner program has contributed more than $100
million in cash and resources to the National Park Foundation to
support public education initiatives and park programs system-wide.
Several leading corporations have made significant contributions to the
parks through the program including current partners American Airlines,
The Coca Cola Company, Ford Motor Company and Unilever. Each of the
Proud Partners has pledged its commitment and support to the Centennial
Challenge Initiative. We are confident that the NPF, the Proud
Partners, and the NPS Partnerships Office can work through any concerns
regarding the program as it continues to evolve in response to changing
needs and opportunities. The Proud Partners have been long supporters
of the national parks and will be instrumental in raising public
awareness and building our donor base to achieve the philanthropic
goals of the Centennial Initiative.
Question 4. How closely does the National Park Foundation work with
friends groups and do you have an existing arrangement to accept funds
from and distribute funds to the groups?
Answer. The NPF works closely with friends groups to achieve the
highest level of philanthropic support for the national parks and build
lasting relationships between people and their parks. NPF participates
in regular conference calls with the Friends Alliance and hosts the
group's Washington, D.C. meetings. NPF's support of national programs
and awareness campaigns complements and furthers the work of friends
groups at the local level. NPF has also collaborated with friends
groups on specific projects and in the future, may accomplish some of
its work through these organizations.
Question 5. According to S. 1253, an irrevocable letter of credit
is not sufficient for obligating funds towards a project. We have heard
from friends groups that if an irrevocable letter of credit is treated
with greater confidence, donors would be able to hold funds in interest
bearing accounts for a longer period. This would allow the donation to
increase. What is your experience with irrevocable letters of credit
and is there a risk in treating them with greater confidence than S.
1253 would allow?
Answer. Irrevocable letters of credit are well-accepted financial
tools. They are often used in international transactions and while the
NPF does not routinely use them, similar instruments that rely on the
creditworthiness of a financial institution are commonplace. In the
case of the proposed Centennial Challenge, the letter of credit would
be backed by the financial institution and protect the federal
government from the failure of the partner to fulfill their obligation.
The commitment could not be changed or altered without the agreement of
all parties. We do not see a risk in treating letters of credit with
greater confidence.
Responses of Vin Cipolla to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. Have you seen an increase in donor interest since the
announcement of the Centennial Challenge Initiative last August?
Answer. Yes. In the last fiscal year, our number of individual
donors has increased by 40%. Through conversations with donors and in
particular, corporate and foundation partners, interest in the
Centennial Initiative--particularly the Challenge proposal--is high.
The opportunity to leverage their gift with federal funds is very
appealing to donors. We are excited by the energy and innovation these
partners are bringing to the Centennial discussion and by the increase
in philanthropic giving that may result.
Question 2. In my home state, the Grand Teton National Park
Foundation did a fantastic job of raising $13.6 million in private
funds for the construction of a new Craig Thomas Discovery and Visitor
Center in Grand Teton National Park. The Park Service would not accept
a letter of credit to begin the project. Not being able to use a letter
of credit cost the Foundation approximately $500,000 in interest
charges. These donated dollars could have been better used for a
project in the park not on interest on a bank loan. How can we better
use letters of credit to ensure that we maximize private gifts to the
national parks?
Answer. Irrevocable letters of credit, or similar financial tools,
can provide the flexibility necessary to maximize the potential of a
donation. Funds can be released exactly when they are needed to
maximize the interest bearing potential of the private donation. This
is particularly important in multi-year projects and construction
projects when funds must be in place for a project to begin, but may
not need to be released immediately.
Question 3. This bill allows federal matches for letters of credit,
but only one fiscal year at a time, and the funds cannot be obligated
until they are deposited in the Challenge Fund. It can be months after
funds are obligated and contracts are signed before the money is
actually needed to pay the bills? Couldn't these funds be accruing
interest in the interim? Would you change this provision in any way?
Why or why not?
Answer. Letters of credit could be important tools in administering
the Centennial Challenge. They provide the federal government with the
assurance that the necessary donated funds have been secured, while
maximizing the power of the donation by allowing funds to remain in an
interest bearing account until absolutely needed.
______
Response of Tom Kiernan to Question From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. S.1253 reflects the Administration's legislative
proposal. If you were developing this proposal from scratch, what would
you do differently?
Answer. NPCA starts with the presumption that no initiative on
behalf of our national parks will be sufficient unless it is
accompanied by a significant, sustained effort to augment the base
operating budgets of the national parks. This year's effort by the
administration, and by Senate and House appropriators, with important
encouragement from you and many members of your committee, makes a
start and is critically needed by the parks. That said, the idea of a
special program with dedicated funding to carry out selected projects
and programs to make the park system even better is a good one,
particularly if it also serves to raise the park system's profile and
re-engage the American people by encouraging added philanthropic and
other non-federal support. In the past, NPCA has supported the idea of
doing that by creating the opportunity for the American people to
support their parks with a tax check-off on their tax forms. As
embodied in the National Park Centennial Act the stream of revenue
created by the tax check-off would be supplemented by federal dollars
to ensure that the job got done and that the federal government met its
primary responsibility to the parks. We still believe that idea has
merit, and it would have provided greater resources than contemplated
under the Centennial Initiative and Challenge. Nonetheless, one
important parallel between the Centennial Act and the Centennial
Challenge is the involvement of the American people with their parks.
As I mentioned in my testimony, we believe the federal match
requirement in the administration's proposal is unnecessarily limiting
in an effort that has a goal of further involving the American people
in their national parks. Reinvigorating and enhancing the philanthropic
spirit directed toward the national parks is a worthy goal, which can
be achieved while also encouraging other forms of involvement from
civic and educational institutions and communities around the nation
that may not have the means to provide a dollar-for-dollar cash match.
The Secretary's August 23rd announcement of the initial round of
centennial proposals and the truly encouraging level of non-federal,
philanthropic financial support already committed demonstrates the
enormous interest among philanthropies and other non-federal entities
in committing to the reinvigoration of the national park system. We
would suggest that such interest will and should continue regardless of
whether the federal government requires a dollar-for-dollar cash match
or simply encourages matching and other partnership efforts. Clearly,
there is enormous support for enacting the Centennial Challenge in some
form, and we encourage the committee seize this opportunity and move
legislation. NPCA is eager to assist in this endeavor.
Responses of Tom Kiernan to Questions From Senator Burr
Question 1. Mr. Kiernan, what is the relationship between the
National Parks Conservation Association and the National Park
Foundation?
Answer. As a private, non-profit advocacy organization for the
National Park System, NPCA has no direct or formal relationship with
the Congressionally chartered National Park Foundation. We do, maintain
a very strong, cordial working relationship with the Foundation, and we
often consult, cooperate and work closely with NPF personnel on
subjects and projects of mutual interest. The central distinction
between our two missions is the Foundation's role as a philanthropy
that raises money directly for the national parks, and NPCA's historic
and continuing role as the major national advocacy organization working
on behalf of the national parks. The Foundation does not lobby Congress
on behalf of the national parks, and NPCA has no intent or desire to
intrude on the Foundation's mission as an increasingly able and
effective fundraiser on behalf of the parks, themselves.
Question 2. What do you envision as the role of the National Parks
Conservation Association in the Centennial Challenge?
Answer. Again, as a private, non-profit advocacy organization for
the National Park System, we do not envision a formal or explicit role
in the Centennial Challenge. We are extremely proud of the role we
played in encouraging the administration to launch the Centennial
Initiative and in working with so many friends in Congress to
demonstrate the need for such an effort. We will, of course, continue
to be active in providing ideas, comments, encouragement and criticism
to help shape policy decisions we feel are needed to ensure that the
entire Centennial Initiative is carried out in the manner that provides
the greatest possible benefit to the National Park System and its
mandate as set out in the National Park Service Organic Act.
Responses of Tom Kiernan to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. Does the bill do enough to protect the parks from
commercialization?
Answer. The potential for commercialization of the national parks
as a result of increased private financial participation is a concern.
The Interior Department has demonstrated it is sensitive to that
concern by specifying in Section 6, subsection (d) of the bill that it
does not expand existing authority regarding the ability of National
Park Service personnel to receive or solicit donations. It appears the
intent is to make clear the Centennial Challenge is to be executed
under the requirements of Director's Order 21, which was issued a
little over two years ago. In addition to providing rules for
soliciting and receiving private donations, it also restricts the
things that can be done in parks to commemorate these contributions.
NPCA was deeply involved in helping shape Director's Order 21, and we
are generally comfortable that commercialization of the parks will not
occur if its requirements are followed. We would be more comfortable
with the administration's bill if it included an explicit instruction
that all aspects of Director's Order 21 apply to the Centennial
Challenge program, as the bill introduced in the House by Congressman
Grijalva and Congressman Rahall does.
Question 2. Under this federal matching program, do you believe
smaller, less recognized park units will receive the same consideration
and fundraising attention as large, celebrated parks?
Answer. We have been worried that the lesser-known, so-called
``have not'' parks may be disadvantaged under the administration bill's
match formulation. Those parks with the most active and successful
friends organizations tend to be the larger, better know, iconic parks,
and it would seem the non-federal share of money for proposals in those
parks would be more readily available. That is one reason we have
argued that the range of selected projects and programs should include
those that benefit the entire park system, not just individual parks.
It seems the Park Service has been sensitive to this concern, inasmuch
as the list of qualified proposals announced on August 23rd is
relatively well balanced, including system-wide proposals and some from
smaller park units, as well as a number from the iconic parks.
Nonetheless, the absolute requirement for a dollar-for-dollar match,
unless changed, poses the risk that the many units of the National Park
System that do not have major philanthropic partners and are unlikely
to see such entities develop in the near future, could largely be left
out of the Challenge. We would encourage the committee to explore ways
to strongly encourage matching and to celebrate the role and promise of
philanthropy, while also encouraging and providing resources for worthy
and needed endeavors and partnerships that encourage public involvement
where the contemplated dollar match may not be possible.
______
Responses of Curt Buchholtz to Question From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. S. 1253 reflects the Administration's legislative
proposal. If you were developing this proposal from scratch, what would
you do differently?
Answer. If we were developing this proposal from scratch, allow us
to provide the following suggestions:
a) We would voice enthusiasm for the philosophy of challenge
grants and believe it will greatly encourage the philanthropic
community to expand its effort.
b) We would include legislative language that would allow
matching funds from the federal government to be distributed
directly to nonprofit organizations having signed agreements
with the National Park Service for the Centennial Challenge
campaign.
c) We would employ standards and processes already in place
within the federal government in general and the National Park
System in particular to ensure both success and accountability.
d) If federal funds could not be distributed directly to
nonprofit partners and regarding an accounting for funds
raised, we would rely upon the National Park Foundation as an
intermediary between Congressional matching funds and local
nonprofit (or other nonfederal) partners, not unlike the
matching grant system productively in place within the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
e) Only cash would be transferred to the National Park
Foundation for accounting and matching purposes, then returned
to the nonprofit (or other nonfederal partner) to complete
authorized projects. Certified letters of credit could also be
used to validate the existence of matching funds. Cash would be
transferred to the U.S. Treasury only in those cases where the
National Park Service is designated as the project facilitating
agent and the funds could be restricted for specific project
purposes.
f) Rules or regulations related to challenge matched funds
(including such details as recognizing, in-kind services,
lands, or other non-cash matches) should parallel existing
successful programs, such as the National Park Service
challenge cost-share grant program and successful, existent MOA
programs established between individual parks and their
nonprofit partners. An audit committee within the National Park
Foundation comprised of independent and qualified volunteers,
working together with the National Park Service and consistent
with generally accepted auditing and accounting practices,
should establish the accounting requirements, qualifying
criteria, and reports sufficient to satisfy both the Internal
Revenue Service and committees of Congress.
Responses of Curt Buchholtz to Questions From Senator Burr
Question 1. How much did friends groups that belong to the Friends
Alliance donate for National Park Service projects and programs in 2005
and 2006? Would you expect donations to increase if a Federal matching
fund program is enacted?
Answer. The National Park Friends Alliance is just beginning to
track or report donations from its individual members. But that
information can be derived from Line 13 of IRS Form 990 of the
individual nonprofit organizations. For historical purposes, the
Alliance relies on data collected by the National Park Service or the
Government Accounting Office. To quote the most recent data available
from the National Park Service regarding friends groups: ``There are
174 friends groups contributing time, expertise and privately-raised
funds to support our national parks. They range from volunteer and
start-up organizations to large-scale successful fundraising partners
to long-time programming and education partners. Contributions from
friends groups were determined by review of the publicly available 2005
IRS Form 990 for friends groups with incomes $25,000 or greater
(approximately 45% of NPS friends groups). The NPS uses the donation
figures reported by the friends groups to the IRS. These figures are
not equivalent to cash or non-cash donations directly to the National
Park Service but rather show the expenditures of a friends group in
support of their mission and by extension the work of the National Park
Service. In 2005, approximately $8.6 million in cash and $59.8 million
in non-cash support were contributed for a total contribution of $68.4
million.''
Question 2. How many volunteer hours did the members of the Friends
Alliance provide to the National Park Service in 2005 and 2006?
Answer. The National Park Friends Alliance does not collect
information from its members regarding volunteer hours contributed to
the National Park System.
Responses of Curt Buchholtz to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. What role will the National Park Friends Alliance play
in shaping and implementing this federal matching program?
Answer. Over the last fourteen years, the National Park Friends
Alliance has addressed issues related to fundraising policy and
increasing philanthropy within the National Park System. Although the
Alliance remains informal in its structure, its active membership has
steadily grown to forty-eight organizations. It does not represent the
entire array of 174 friends organizations identified by the National
Park Service. But it does represent many of the long-term and most
advanced fundraising organizations within the National Park System. It
enjoys well-established ties with the National Park Foundation, the
Association of Partners for Public Lands and some 67 cooperating
associations.
Since the National Park Friends Alliance has an expressed objective
of enabling and expanding philanthropy within the National Park System,
it is logical that it will not only play a key role in implementing
this new federal matching program, it may be relied upon to help ensure
its success. The individual friends groups will be instrumental in
developing the programs with their national park partners, and
implementing the campaigns to solicit the non-federal funds.
Question 2. If this bill is enacted, how would you prepare for the
increased fundraising and administrative activity required to make the
federal matching program a success?
Answer. Unlike large bureaucracies, nonprofit organizations relish
an ability to respond to opportunities presented in stride with their
mission, exhibiting an almost entrepreneurial zeal. Advancing their
public-spirited missions to help national parks, friends groups stand
ready to rally donors to much-needed projects. But we hasten to add
that raising the needed funds is only a fraction of the workload
envisioned. Producing completed projects in national park requires more
skills than fundraising. To be successful we must have expeditious
decision making, both by nonprofits and by Park Service colleagues.
Success will require partnership-friendly leadership skills. It
requires collaborative planning. Success will depend upon a broad
vision to ensure the long-term health of the parks. It will require
flexibility in recognizing valuable matches to program implementation,
such as donations of lands and establishment of endowments. It will
require increased training, not only in philanthropy but also in
project management, continuing unabated over the next decade. It
requires hosts of donors satisfied with results. It will require
visionary leadership, a strong commitment to accountability, and sheer
persistence to be successful.
Question 3. Do you believe you can secure significant, sustained
contributions over ten years?
Answer. If Congress and the National Park Service foster and
encourage philanthropy, donor interest and contributions are guaranteed
to increase. If Congress, working together with the National Park
Service and its nonprofit partners, creates a challenge grant program
working in tandem with the philanthropic world, America's national
parks will be better places, improved beyond our imaginations by 2016.
At the same time, we will have perfected the process of building
productive partnerships, guaranteed to foster park stewardship far into
the future.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Derrick A. Crandall, President, American
Recreation Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members, the American Recreation
Coalition (ARC) appreciates the opportunity to applaud the interest of
Members of this committee and others in assuring a bright future for
the National Park Service and its role as manager of one of the
nation's truly spectacular legacies--the nearly 400 units of the
national park system.
I am Derrick Crandall and I am delighted to offer testimony on
behalf of the members of the American Recreation Coalition--more than
100 national organizations, representing virtually every segment of the
nation's $400+ billion outdoor recreation industry, and tens of
millions of outdoor recreation enthusiasts. A listing of our members is
attached to this testimony. Our organization has played an active role
in federal recreation policy since its creation in 1979.
Outdoor recreation is a vital and positive force in our nation
today. Nine in 10 Americans participate in outdoor recreation today,
and a major catalyst for this involvement is the marvelous shared
legacy of our Great Outdoors--one in three acres of the surface of the
nation managed by federal agencies and hosting well in excess of a
billion recreation visits annually. ARC monitors participation in
outdoor recreation closely through national surveys. A summary sheet on
participation is attached.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Summary sheet has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits accruing from recreation participation are
significant, and the appreciation for these benefits is growing. The
economic significance of outdoor recreation is obvious in communities
across the nation, and especially those communities proximate to
federally managed lands and waters. From boat dealers to campground
operators, from RV manufacturers to ski rental shops, from retailers
selling outdoors goods to guides and outfitters, tens of thousands of
businesses and millions of Americans are supported by the expenditures
on recreation by American families. And increasingly, America's
recreational opportunities are a key factor in luring international
visitors to enjoy the world's best systems of parks and forests,
refuges and other public sites.
The role of recreation in addressing serious concerns about the
increasing inactivity-related obesity of the American people,
especially our young people, is also significant. According to the
Department of Health and Human Services, seven in 10 deaths are
attributable to preventable, chronic diseases--like diabetes, heart
disease and some forms of cancer--associated with obesity and
inactivity. In addition, a national study has shown that nearly 20,000
children and adolescents in the U.S. are diagnosed with diabetes every
year. A critical cause is the tripling in the rate of obesity among
young people since the 1970's, due, we believe, in no small part to the
six and a half hours they now spend indoors every day watching TV and
using computers. We believe that an important antidote to this alarming
picture is outdoor recreation. We also believe that recreation
opportunities on our nation's public lands, including our national
parks, are an essential asset in the effort to encourage people to
change their behavior and start enjoying the outdoors.
Mr. Chairman, the recreation community is ready to join with many
other organizations as partners with the National Park Service to
prepare the national parks for the agency's second century, beginning
in 2016. We applauded the announcement one year ago by the Secretary of
the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, that the President was using the 90th
anniversary of the National Park Service as an opportunity to look
ahead 10 years, to develop a consensus on how to restore and enhance
park units and to add to the system's quality. We continued to applaud
when the President's FY 2008 budget proposal incorporated a genuine and
major commitment to this goal--a boost in spending of some $4 billion
over 10 years, and a bold and exciting initiative to invite public
participation in enhancing our parks. We continued to applaud when
Members of Congress embraced this initiative, adopting FY 2008 spending
levels that reflect major increases in spending on operations and
maintenance and long-neglected elements like interpretation. And we now
applaud those who have introduced legislation to create a Centennial
Fund that would fund the signature projects needed to ensure a bright
future for the National Park Service as it enters its second century.
We associate ourselves with the recommendations made by Gary
Kiedaisch, President and CEO of The Coleman Company, regarding
opportunities to improve the legislation, including adoption of a Fund
modeled after the fund created by the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act--a fund that has demonstrated an ability to use and
leverage nearly $3 billion in federal funds since 1998 for important
conservation, recreation and environmental goals.
We are delighted in the broad definition of signature projects
contained in S. 1253 and the flexibility it provides the Secretary to
prepare the parks for another century of conservation, preservation,
and enjoyment. We especially urge the Congress to recognize the vital
importance of needed recreation infrastructure in our parks. Americans
need better trails, better campsites and better boat launches in our
parks. In recent years, the national parks have benefitted from
significant increases in park road funding through allotments from the
Highway Trust Fund. We have also seen significant reductions in the
backlog of maintenance needs in our parks. Yet very little investment
has been made in expanding and improving recreation opportunities. We
need readily accessible, front-country trails equipped with
interpretation--whether traditional means such as display panels or new
technology ranging from podcasts to cell phone-accessible recorded
information. We can and should find ways to expand trail riding
opportunities for cyclists--on trails designed to minimize
environmental impacts and conflicts with other trail users. These
projects should be high priority for the Centennial effort, and we
applaud the emphasis put on recreation experiences in parks in the
Secretary's May 31 report to the President. We also strongly support
the Secretary's suggestion that a campaign to get Americans outdoors
and active should be mounted.
Finally, we urge adoption of a strategy for funding the Centennial
Challenge Fund. We ask this committee to allow Interior to generate a
supplementary revenue stream from reduced energy expenditures at
Interior facilities. Energy costs are a significant and growing expense
for Interior bureaus like the National Park Service. Capital
investments can reduce those costs. Substitution of co-generation and
geo-thermal processes is a proven solution for increasing efficiency,
for example, but requires investments often not reflected in near-year
budgets. Interior could be given a target of reducing energy costs
department-wide by $50 million by 2009 and for every year thereafter,
and be empowered to allow suitable companies to invest in advanced
heating and cooling, lighting and vehicle programs that will help
achieve those targets. Under a shared savings program, the reduced
energy expenditures could be divided evenly to repay the investors in
efficiency and to generate $25 million annually for the Challenge Fund.
A second suggestion is that Interior be charged with identifying
locations on lands it administers where tree planting could occur to
offset greenhouse gas emissions, and then to allow companies and
organizations to plant approved trees paid for by individuals and
companies, either under voluntary ``carbon footprint reduction''
initiatives or to generate emissions reductions credits. Twenty-five
percent of the funds for the plantings would be paid to Interior: half
of that amount would be used to administer the program and deter fraud
and the other half would be deposited into the Challenge Fund.
We believe these would be valuable, win/win components in providing
an offset to the expenditures proposed for the Challenge Fund.
Thank you for your interest and your actions to assist America's
national parks and America's Great Outdoors. We urge rapid action on
legislation to stimulate the partnerships needed to allow our national
parks to enter and continue a second century of world-wide leadership
and of providing benefits to the American public.
Outdoor Recreation Activities Participated In Past Year: Trend Data
% who have participated in during past year; ranked by 2003 data 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 % % % % % % % % %
Walking for fitness/recreation NA 45 39 42 47 42 57 49 46
Driving for pleasure 40 36 33 34 39 35 41 36 43
Swimming 35 31 28 31 33 40 39 40 41
Picnicking 33 29 24 26 30 32 36 36 38
Fishing 26 24 22 20 22 28 26 28 28
Bicycling 21 20 16 19 19 22 23 23 22
Running/jogging 19 16 13 12 16 16 18 21 19
Campground camping 16 16 12 12 15 21 17 18 18
Hiking 18 18 12 15 17 15 19 22 18
Outdoor photography 15 15 10 13 15 12 17 17 17
Bird watching 14 11 8 11 10 11 16 18 16
Wildlife viewing 18 15 10 14 16 15 16 20 16
Visiting cultural sites NA NA 12 14 18 16 16 17 15
Golf 11 12 11 11 12 12 13 12 13
Motor boating 10 9 5 8 9 11 9 12 10
Back packing 13 12 8 7 10 10 9 10 9
Canoeing/kayaking 6 5 4 5 5 7 5 7 8
Hunting 8 7 7 5 7 8 8 8 8
RV camping 8 8 6 7 7 9 9 9 8
Wilderness camping NA NA NA NA NA NA 8 8 7
Horseback riding 6 5 5 4 4 6 5 6 6
Motorcycling 7 5 6 4 4 6 5 6 6
Off road vehicle driving 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 6
Target shooting 8 6 5 4 5 7 6 6 6
Tennis 9 9 7 8 5 6 8 8 6
Mountain biking 5 5 4 4 4 6 5 5 5
Personal water craft (e.g. jet skis) NA NA NA 3 5 5 5 6 5
Downhill skiing 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 5 4
Water-skiing 6 6 3 4 4 6 4 6 4
In-line skating NA 4 4 5 6 5 5 6 3
Rock climbing 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3
Rowing 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3
Sailing 4 3 3 3 2 3 2 4 3
Snorkeling/Scuba diving 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3
Cross-country skiing 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
Snowboarding NA NA NA NA 1 3 2 3 2
Snowmobiling 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
(NA) denotes not asked
AMERICAN RECREATION COALITION
sustaining members
America Outdoors
American Association for Nude Recreation
American Council of Snowmobile Associations
The Coleman Company
Family Motor Coach Association
Good Sam Club
International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association
Kampgrounds of America
National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds
National Forest Recreation Association
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Park Hospitality Association
Pennsylvania Recreation Vehicle and Camping Association
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association
Recreation Vehicle Industry Association
ReserveAmerica
SGMA International
The Walt Disney Company
contributing members
Academy of Model Aeronautics
American Horse Council
American Motorcyclist Association
American Sportfishing Association
American Trails
Americans for Responsible Recreational Access
APN Media, LLC
Association of Marina Industries
BoatU.S.
Bombardier Recreational Products
Coachman Industries, Inc.
Domestic Sales Corporation
Family Campers and RVers
Florida RV Trade Association
International Association of Snowmobile Administrators
Jayco, Inc.
Leisure Systems, Inc.
Marine Retailers Association of America
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Motorcycle Industry Council
National Alliance of Gateway Communities
National Ski Areas Association
National Sporting Goods Association
National Tour Association
Personal Watercraft Industry Association
Recreational Park Trailer Industry Association
SAMPO, Inc.
Seaway Trail, Inc.
Specialty Equipment Market Association
Specialty Vehicle Institute of America
States Organization for Boating Access
Thor Industries, Inc.
Warren Jones
Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA
general members
American Association for Leisure and Recreation
American Bus Association
American Forests
American Hotel and Lodging Association
American Power Boat Association
American Resort and Residential Development Association
Bicycle Manufacturers Association of America
Boating Trades Association of Texas
Champion Fleet Owners Association
Clean Beaches Council
Colorado Agency for Campgrounds, Cabins & Lodges
Cross Country Ski Areas Association
Employee Services Management Association
Experimental Aircraft Association
International Association for Amusement Parks and
Attractions
International Family Recreation Association
International Jet Sports Boating Association
International Kart Foundation
Kampground Owners Association
Maryland Association of Campgrounds
Michigan Association of Recreational Vehicles and
Campgrounds
Michigan Boating Industries Association
Mountain Outdoor Recreation Alliance of Western North
Carolina
National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics
National Association of Trailer Manufacturers
National Boating Federation
National Club Association
National Hot Rod Association
National Off-Road Bicycle Association
Outdoor Industry Association
Professional Paddlesports Association
Recreation Vehicle Indiana Council
Recreational Vehicle Aftermarket Association
Resort and Commercial Recreation Association
Southern California Marine Association
Special Recreation for disABLED International
Texas Recreational Vehicle Association
Western States Tourism Policy Council
______
Statement of Joe Fassler, Chairman, National Park Hospitality
Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Joe Fassler.
I serve as Chairman of the National Park Hospitality Association
(NPHA), a volunteer position. NPHA represents businesses working as
partners with the National Park Service in providing treasured memories
for visitors to our parks. Our organization is delighted to extend our
support for action by the Congress to help our national parks serve the
nation well long into the future and applaud both the Administration
and the Congress for recognizing that 2016 is an opportunity to unify
and strengthen the efforts of all those who care about national parks.
Companies--large and small--have long been partners in meeting the
needs of visitors to America's national parks. Today, the National Park
Service has 600 contracts in place under which appropriate lodging,
transportation, food, guide services, retail operations and more are
provided to 280 million customers annually. In total, concessioners
serve some 50% of all park visitors and the 25,000 employees of the
concessioners constitute a vital source of information and guidance to
those visiting park units. The total value of goods and services
purchased by park visitors now approaches $900 million annually, and
the franchise fees and other payments to special accounts by
concessioners generate $50 million annually in resources which remain
available to the agency. In addition, concessioners provide even more
than that annually in maintenance to federal structures and facilities,
and in voluntary contributions of goods, labor and services. In many
parks, concessioners lead major volunteer efforts to maintain trails
and remove trash from roadsides, trailheads, shorelines and other
areas. And concessioners are increasingly playing a key role in
informing visitors about opportunities to contribute to park needs and
collecting contributions under guest donations programs.
NPHA is proud to represent leading national park concessioners and
to focus on fostering active partnerships with the public and the
government for the joint purpose of (i) preserving and protecting park
resources, and (ii) accommodating visitor access to and enjoyment in
our National Parks. As an association, our specific goals are to:
Build cooperation with the Department of the Interior and
the NPS at all levels;
Secure the active support of park visitors for protection of
park resources, for adequate visitor accommodations and
service, and for continued park access for all people;
Serve as a resource to Congress regarding relevant park
legislation; and
Assist the NPS with educational and interpretive programs
for visitors, teaching about the wonders and history of the
park and about stewardship responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to be among the growing list of
organizations that have endorsed the National Park Service Centennial
Initiative and are committed to contributing to its goals. Beginning
more than 100 years ago, park concessionaires have regarded themselves
as a partner with NPS in a goal that became codified in the agency's
organic act in 1916: enhancing the visitor experience and preserving
and protecting the resources of the parks unimpaired for future
visitors. NPHA is particularly excited about the opportunity to add a
new tool for the next century--a ``Challenge Fund'' which invites and
supports partnerships and leverages available federal funds.
In a letter to the Secretary of the Interior in May of this year,
our association and the executives of top park concessioners pledged
active support to the Centennial Initiative in three ways. First, we
will utilize our direct contact and communications with park visitors
to alert them to the Centennial and to invite their personal
involvement in supporting and enhancing our parks. Second, as
individual companies, we will work with local friends organizations and
park managers to provide support for Centennial signature projects. And
third, we are working together to identify programs which will provide
national support to nationally-significant Centennial projects.
NPHA is especially excited by the Challenge aspects of S 1253 and
the potential to double--or more--federal funding. We believe that
there is a willingness on the part of businesses and non-profit
organizations to step up to this challenge.
Mr. Chairman, our park concessionaire association has long believed
that more can be done to reverse the decline in the park visitor
numbers--and the loss of benefits to the public that are derived
through those visits. The Centennial Initiative is the forum for action
on this and other important needs. Yet our ability to participate
through NPHA and as individual companies will be hampered unless the
Congress also helps address an impediment to partnerships. Under
Directors Order 21 and other policies, concessioners are greatly
constrained from assisting the National Park Service. We are generally
``prohibited sources''--not allowed to contribute directly to important
park projects and programs. Working around this prohibition is often
costly in dollars and time and undercuts opportunities for close
alliances. It is time to address this issue and untie our hands.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, NPHA is grateful to this
committee and its Members for the enthusiasm you have shown to making
national parks an integral part of the American lifestyle for the next
100 years. We urge you to incorporate our suggestions and those of
other leading recreation leaders and to move ahead swiftly to create a
National Park Centennial Challenge Fund.
______
Statement of Gary A. Kiedaisch, President and CEO, The Coleman
Company, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to add my voice in support of the goals and key elements of
S. 1253, a bill that would establish funding for the National Parks
Service Centennial. I am here as an advocate for using the Centennial
as a catalyst for new partnerships between corporate America and
America's parks, partnerships which can be key forces in park
revitalization and re-engaging the public with the outdoors.
I'm a fortunate American because, as President and CEO of The
Coleman Company, my passion for the outdoors coincides with my
vocation. I frequently suggest to audiences, ``If you're never awakened
on a crisp fall morning inside the warmth of a sleeping bag under the
protection of a tent next to a babbling brook, you have missed one of
life's greatest experiences. And if you have never shared this
experience with a child, you have missed one of life's greatest
opportunities.'' But this experience I describe in reality depends upon
foot soldiers with the right skill sets, working cooperatively. We at
The Coleman Company, in concert with an army of partners in the outdoor
industry, in the retail trade and with organizations like the Boy
Scouts and public park agencies, have been cultivating that skill set
for more than a century.
Beginning in 1900, the role of The Coleman Company has been to lead
the charge in getting people outdoors. When you expose people to the
great outdoors, our founder said, you're introducing them to the
wonder, the healing powers and the joy of being close to nature. So
many others have echoed that sentiment, most notably President Theodore
Roosevelt. I am proud that The Coleman Company has championed this
message throughout its 100+ years. One of my predecessors, Sheldon
Coleman, came before Congressional panels in the 1960's--as well as
other bodies, including the platform committees of both political
parties--to urge creation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. He
also championed the expansion of the Dingell-Johnson Fund and creation
of the National Trails System and the National Scenic Byways Program,
and served in a leading capacity on the President's Commission on
Americans Outdoors side by side with Senators Bennett Johnson and
Malcolm Wallop. Yet today the messages of Teddy Roosevelt, and Sheldon
Coleman, and of many of you, are falling on deaf ears--or at least
distracted ears.
Today, the average youth spends six and one-half hours every day
tied to television and computer screens. Today, nearly 20,000
additional American children are being diagnosed with diabetes
annually. Today, we face an obesity epidemic for all age groups,
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
especially among urban and suburban youth. Today we have millions of
youth diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder and medicated to
control disruptions in classrooms. Today, we see unrelieved stress
leading to drug abuse, roadway rage and abuse of loved ones. Today, we
are grappling with the long-term healthcare costs of growing numbers of
inactive senior Americans.
And today, we know that regular doses of healthy active fun in the
outdoors are a remedy--a cost effective and medically effective
remedy--to these challenges that now jeopardize the quality of life for
millions, render many U.S. businesses uncompetitive and pose daunting
economic hardships for government agencies at the local, state and
national levels.
a great opportunity for partnerships
The National Park Service and other government entities should not
be the only foot soldiers in this campaign to re-engage the public with
the outdoors and harvest the physical, the mental and the spiritual
benefits. That has been increasingly the pattern over fifty years,
under Democratic and Republican leadership alike. And it has left us
with an underfunded system of parks and other public places and
declining visitations. It is time to be as bold as we were as a nation
one hundred years ago, as bold as we were fifty years ago. It is time
to invite the business community in as a partner to help provide the
places and the programs that serve societal needs.
The corporate world is a huge, untapped resource for both funding
the outdoor places and the message about the benefits of these places.
And it is at its best in getting messages out. In addition, business
has the power to make getting outdoors into a national priority. That
is a marketing challenge, the very skill set that business has in great
supply.
Engaging corporate America in this campaign will, without question,
broaden public support. It will also help tap into a national structure
for communicating the message from the local, to the regional, to the
national parks level using the same tried and true business practices
that have made this country's economy the strongest in the world.
At The Coleman Company, our business is making the outdoors more
accessible and more appealing to an ever more sedentary population. We
provide the tools and the information for people to get to the fun of
the outdoors faster and make the experience one that they'll want to
repeat over and over again. The mandate of our company is to get people
outdoors, having fun and reaping the physical and emotional benefits of
an outdoor lifestyle. We're not alone. Corporate America has gotten the
outdoor message, has been preaching it in its marketing messages and is
ready to answer your call.
In partnership with the National Park Service, key corporations can
help make our National Parks relevant to today's Americans. Businesses
know the consumer pretty well. Knowing the customer is the difference
between success and failure. And it is important to remember that
consumer spending on recreation in America today is some $400 billion
annually and growing.
At Coleman, our insights into America's leisure wants are delivered
through the marketplace, and the success of our efforts is reflected in
the fact that most families visiting national parks arrive with one or
more of our products: a cooler or a lantern, a stove or a sleeping bag,
a tent or one of our fishing rods, a Coleman canoe or an inflatable
water tube or kayak.
But our parks are largely disconnected from feedback from the
marketplace.
Case in point--visits to Shenandoah National Park have been
declining significantly in recent years. One of several reasons--the
park hasn't added the infrastructure that people seek. Mountain biking,
one of the fastest growing categories in family outdoor activity, for
example, has been ignored despite available administrative roads and
underused trails. Corporate American knows how to fix a disconnect like
that by linking park offerings with consumer demand.
Forging this coalition is an opportunity for government to bring
together a broad cross-section of American business resources,
including representatives from a wide array of different sectors, each
with a vested interest and each with unique contributions.
Imagine recruiting executives from the country's most successful
entertainment companies, healthcare companies, travel companies,
outdoor companies and auto companies, as well as countless others, and
setting them to the task of repositioning the National Parks as
destinations, not just places to visit. I ran a four season Ski and
Golf resort and know, all too well, the painful difference. Marketing
is what drives business and marketing, along with park revitalization,
will be the driving force behind this campaign's success.
I recently learned that the average length of stay at many of our
national parks is equal to the time it takes to drive across them.
Think of if, visiting the natural wonders of Death Valley National
Park, an area roughly the size of the state of Connecticut, for only
three hours. What a waste. Want the solution? Ask business.
One of the critical missions of this initiative is to remind the
American public of their responsibility to be stewards of the land by
using and not abusing it. Business applauds this and, through effective
marketing, will make it possible for the parks to include stewardship
education. Coupled with the right park offerings, visits and length of
stay will increase. By identifying and funding new activities that will
attract today's consumer to the parks, participation rises and everyone
wins.
I am not simply touting real effective partnerships as an academic
exercise. The Coleman Company relies heavily on partners--partners like
the Continental Divide Trail Alliance and the Appalachian Mountain
Club, Wal*Mart and specialty sporting goods retailers. We combine
dollars and manpower and other assets to serve seamlessly those people
who seek positive memories of time in the Great Outdoors. And this is
the template that the National Park Service should pursue as it
approaches its Centennial and enters its second century.
Partnerships will help us focus on and overcome the barriers that
exist to connecting Americans with their lands--barriers like onerous
insurance requirements placed on non-profits and profits seeking to
help youth discover the fun of the outdoors at parks. In my discussions
on Capitol Hill and with Administration executives over the last year,
I have often referenced the model of the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC)
as a way to meld public and private forces into a force for the public
good--in that case, equipping American youth to achieve greatness and
stand on podiums to receive medals in international competition. And
the USOC succeeds without commercializing sports, just as we need to
succeed without commercializing parks.
This Congress and this Administration are engaged in a dialogue
that demands a win/win. We need to transcend divisions, including
political divisions. And we need to open the doors to innovation. It is
time to look closely at innovative efforts underway within many state
park systems, including partnerships that replace investments of public
funds with private capital. It is for us to adopt lessons learned from
partnerships at Wolf Trap Center for the Performing Arts--a National
Park Service unit--and the Smithsonian. We need to learn and adopt the
best practices from partnerships like the Claude Moore Colonial Farm--a
unit of the National Park Service that serves the public without a NPS
staff.
recommendations on legislation
I opened my testimony by applauding the legislation subject to
today's hearing. It is easy to find elements of the bill to support.
Yet I urge the committee to look for a derivative of this bill complete
with some new elements as its work product.
First, we applaud this truly exciting opportunity for individuals,
non-profits and businesses to be invited to the table to help define
the programs that deliver this revitalized outdoor experience and share
the tab. This bill provide up matching funds that could boost annual
funding to $200 million or more annually through 2016.
Let me also express strong support for a change to the legislative
proposals before you to capitalize on recent lessons. S. 1253 envisions
a Centennial Fund with matching donations Far more preferable would be
a fund from which matching grants could also be made. A model for this
would be the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, which, since
2000, has received nearly $3 billion from the auction of surplus
federal lands in Southern Nevada. It is used to award grants for annual
projects in land acquisition, capital projects and environmental
restoration. Typically, the projects it funds are leveraged, but these
matching funds do not need to be deposited into a federal account and
the projects can be achieved faster and often more efficiently than
through traditional federal procurement efforts. We urge adoption of a
similar model for the Centennial Fund, with project selection vested in
the Secretary of the Interior and with oversight from a board created
in the Centennial legislation.
I am also told that the goals we share must be resolved in
compliance with federal budgeting and appropriations guidelines. I live
well outside the Beltway and don't profess to understand PAYGO and
offsets. However, the support of America's business leaders for the
Centennial Initiative will be strong if the Fund is truly a mandatory
program through 2016, with a definite commitment of federal funds.
Finally, I need to comment on the language in H.R. 3094 regarding
project categories and categorical percentages. While some guidance is
needed, I strongly urge the Congress to avoid highly prescriptive
formulas that may force the National Park Service to ignore the public
and partner input into the Centennial initiative. Far better would be
regular Congressional oversight and consultation with the agency. My
concern is increased by a reliance on categories and formulas in a
similar house bill, H.R. 3094. In addition to these weaknesses, H.R.
3094 also fails to include a category of vital interest to The Coleman
Company and all recreation interests: needed investments in recreation
infrastructure. We vastly prefer provisions now in S. 1253.
A visit to a national park should not be defined by time spent
looking through the windows of your personal vehicle or a park tram,
and it should not be focused on time spent in a visitor center.
America's parks need more and better trails, better campsites--
developed and backcountry--and better fishing piers and boat launches.
The Coleman Company's interest and support of the Centennial
initiative, and that of our partners, is focused on the recreation
infrastructure of the parks.
For the record, I strongly support use of the Centennial Fund to go
beyond the physical aspects of parks. Attention to and investment in is
needed to such non-physical needs of the parks as marketing,
interpretation, events and outdoors activity training programs.
summary
As a lifelong outdoor advocate working in a company whose name is
synonymous with the outdoor lifestyle, I can think of nothing that
would affect positive change faster in the use of these national
treasures than to increase the number and diversity of interests
engaged in their revitalization.
The goals for this effort are clear. The benefits to the public are
also clear. All that remains, as we say in business, is to get the
right people on the bus, put them in the right seats, and decide where
the bus should go.
Today I thank you for including corporate America on the National
Park Service Centennial Celebration bus as a partner in this important
initiative. Its contributions will be many, its financial support will
be significant and the result will be a healthier, happier and more
outdoors oriented public. Together, we will make the National Park
Service Centennial Celebration into a lifestyle changing reality for
everyone.
______
Statement of The National Trust for Historic Preservation
Chairman Bingaman and members of the Committee, for more than 50
years, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has been helping to
protect the nation's historic resources since 1949. As a private
nonprofit organization with more than a quarter million members, the
National Trust is the leader of a vigorous preservation movement that
is saving the best of our past for the future. The Trust applauds your
leadership in this and many other areas under your panel's
jurisdiction.
For years the Trust has been calling attention to the National
Parks and the need to support the National Park Service's (NPS) vast
historic and cultural inventory. The preservation community is grateful
for your leadership in considering ambitious legislation that includes
mandatory new spending on our national parks with priorities for
allocating these funds. This, along with partnerships that would foster
philanthropic contributions, will provide long-needed resources for the
parks as they enter their second century in 2016.
Funding shortfalls over many years have been and continue to be the
most serious problem affecting the national parks. According to the
National Parks Conservation Association, every year the NPS is under-
funded by $800 million. This has resulted in deferred maintenance and a
backlog of preservation needs that now exceeds $7.8 billion dollars. As
a result, national park staff and managers can barely keep up with
their charge to ``engage and inspire visitors, and protect natural and
cultural resources.'' This magnificent network of public assets that is
the envy of the world is in jeopardy and in immediate need of repair.
Under these circumstances, the Trust urges Congress to create a
protected, dedicated fund--separate from the amounts included in the
regular appropriations account for the national parks--to address the
many needs of the System. This would include monies to address deferred
projects and programs, park priorities, and the work needed to ready
the units prior to being in the national spotlight during their
centennial. The dedicated fund should be established along with the
necessary increases in national park funding that--as part of an
ongoing, multi-year effort--would eventually make the System whole
again and empower the Park Service to be the best stewards of America's
natural and cultural resources for future generations.
A creative component of the centennial initiative is a program to
undertake centennial projects that are high-profile and signatory in
nature. The Trust likes this concept as long as it is consistent with
our position that it not take away from the basic funding Congress
provides for fundamental park priorities. The Trust strongly urges the
Senate to make it clear that this should be new money and not money
that would offset existing appropriations or come from other national
park programs. It should also direct that the Park Service maintain
permanent staffing levels, and not substitute permanent employees with
temporary workers for these types of projects.
The Trust would also like to see this dedicated fund for centennial
projects guided by a clear selection process with objective standards
and prioritization criteria that also provides flexibility in the types
of projects approved. These should fit into a holistic and
comprehensive planning framework that takes into account a project's
benefit to the entire System--this includes projects that would benefit
the System's manifold historic and cultural resources along with its
natural resources.
Equally as important as protecting our natural treasures is the
need to safeguard the nation's cultural heritage. Every one of the 391
units in the System contains major cultural resources that the Park
Service is charged with protecting and preserving for all Americans. In
addition to historic structures, cultural resources also include
culturally significant landscapes, archeological and ethnographic
resources, and museum collections. Once these invaluable resources are
lost, they are lost forever and cannot be replaced or interpreted for
future generations if they disappear through neglect. Congress and the
Administration could not make the System whole again in time for the
centennial if the Park Service's historic and cultural resources are
not provided for in this initiative.
To place the urgency of the Trust's request into perspective, the
Park Service has responsibility for the stewardship of America's most
significant historic sites and museum collections. Sixty-two percent of
the 391 park units managed by the NPS were designated as historic or
cultural in nature by the Congress and every one of those contains
important prehistoric and historic places or collections. When it comes
to archeological sites, the Park Service has relatively little data on
the number of archeological sites within their purview. And for those
archeological sites for which they do have information, less than half
are in good condition. In calendar year 2003, approximately 370
incidents of vandalism or looting related to archeological or
paleontological sites were reported.
The Park Service's museum collections rival those of the
Smithsonian, in size (105 million objects, specimens, documents, and
images), scope, and significance, yet the Service has catalogued only
approximately 48 percent of their collections. The collections include
a wide variety of personal objects from our past, including Abraham
Lincoln's cane--given to Frederick Douglass by Mary Todd Lincoln,
General Robert E. Lee's mess kit and field desk, important American art
like Thomas Moran's painting of the Yellowstone Valley, and even
historic furniture. The picnic table used by President Johnson when he
signed the Education Bill is just one example.
Of the historic landscapes identified by the Park Service, nearly
70 percent is in poor or fair condition. One example in that category
is the farm, recreation buildings, and landscape at Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore in Michigan. This site represents the history of the
area as it grew from farming and lumbering to a tourist destination in
the 1920's and thus to designation as a National Seashore.
The Park Service simply does not have the financial resources to
collect the most basic data, to repair and maintain our nation's most
important historic structures, archeological sites, historic
landscapes, or museum collections in the System. All are irreplaceable
elements of our shared American heritage and worthy of public support.
S. 1253 would leverage additional philanthropic support though a
required non-federal match program. Under this proposal, federal funds
would be available in equivalent amounts contributed by non-federal
sources up to $100 million per year. While the Trust strongly endorses
any initiative that encourages partnerships between the Park Service
and its partners to attract substantial levels of additional
philanthropic support, it should be optional and not mandatory. Nearly
half of the units in the System have ``friends groups'' that supplement
federal budget resources with private giving. A mandatory match could
place national parks with the most active friends groups at a distinct
advantage over units with less active or inactive friends groups. The
former would have a greater chance of being funded and could adversely
affect the level of federal support needed by some of the more
disadvantaged units. The initiative should also foster a more creative
method of assessing in-kind contributions that would not exclusively
relegate philanthropy to sending a check right to the Treasury alone.
The Trust routinely helps raise non-federal matching dollars for
national park projects as the leading private-sector partner in the
Save America's Treasures (SAT) program. This is an area in which we
have a great deal of expertise. We have secured over $55 million in
preservation dollars for 100 federal grantees and other significant
preservation projects and help find private funds to meet SAT's own
federal challenge criteria. A very substantial part of this effort has
benefited National Park Service projects such as Ellis Island, Valley
Forge, Edison's Invention Factory, Mesa Verde, and George Washington's
Tents at Yorktown. More than 19 percent (almost $11.4 million) of the
SAT private funding has been designated for NPS sites and more than $12
million in federal SAT challenge grants has been awarded to national
parks.
Mr. Chairman, in 2016, just under a decade from now, the Park
Service will be 100 years old. In setting aside places of history and
natural beauty, Congress expressed, in a very tangible way, its belief
in the nation's future. It appointed the NPS as the steward of those
391 parks and entrusted their care to its men and women. Yet the
national parks and the Park Service's cultural programs have remained
under-funded for the task. As we approach the centennial of the
national parks, Congress and the Administration have the opportunity to
remedy the situation by appropriating the funds necessary to maintain
our cultural and natural heritage for America's public and the nation's
posterity.
The Trust applauds you and this Committee for working to make this
country's national parks the best that they can be as they we prepare
them for their next century. These nine years are a defining moment in
meeting the challenges the System faces to accomplish this task. The
Trust stands ready--along with the preservation community, park
friends, and philanthropic organizations--to assist Congress and the
Administration in any way possible to regain lost ground and make these
units a global model for protecting America's cultural and natural
treasures.