[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 145 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9083-H9097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1630
                NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REFORM ACT OF 1995

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 260), to provide for the development of a plan and a 
management review of the National Park System and to reform the process 
by which areas are considered for addition to the National Park System, 
and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 260

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Park System Reform 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       (2) The term ``Plan'' means the National Park System Plan 
     developed under section 101.
       (3) The term ``Commission'' means the National Park System 
     Review Commission established pursuant to section 103.
       (4) The term ``Congressional resources committees'' means 
     the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate.
                   TITLE I--NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM PLAN

     SEC. 101. PREPARATION OF NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM PLAN.

       (a) Preparation of Plan.--The Secretary of the Interior, 
     acting through the Director of the National Park Service, 
     shall prepare a National Park System Plan to guide the 
     direction of the National Park System into the next century. 
     The Plan shall include each of the following:
       (1) Identification of goals and objectives for use in 
     defining the mission and role of the National Park Service 
     and the National Park System in preserving our Nation's 
     heritage, relative to other efforts at the Federal, State, 
     local, and private levels. This statement shall include a 
     refinement for the definition of ``nationally significant'' 
     for purposes of inclusion in the National Park System.
       (2) Criteria to be used in determining which themes and 
     types of resources are appropriate for representation in the 
     National Park System, as well as criteria for judging 
     individual sites, areas, and themes that are appropriate for 
     inclusion as units of the National Park System.
       (3) Identification of what constitutes adequate 
     representation of a particular resource type or theme in the 
     National Park System.
       (4) Identification of which aspects of the Nation's 
     heritage are adequately represented in the existing National 
     Park System.
       (5) Identification of appropriate aspects of the Nation's 
     heritage not currently or adequately represented in the 
     National Park System.
       (6) Priorities of the themes and types of resources which 
     should be added to the National Park System in order to 
     provide more complete representation of our Nation's 
     heritage.
       (7) A thorough analysis of the role of the National Park 
     System and the National Park Service with respect to (but not 
     limited to) conservation of natural areas and ecosystems; 
     preservation of industrial America; preservation of 
     intangible cultural heritage such as arts, music, and 
     folklife; presidential sites; open space protection; and 
     provision of outdoor recreation opportunities.

[[Page H 9084]]

       (8) A comprehensive financial management plan for the 
     National Park System which identifies all funding available 
     to the agency, how funds will be allocated to support various 
     programs, and the level of service to be provided.
       (b) Public Participation and Consultation.--During the 
     preparation of the Plan under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall ensure broad public participation in a manner which, at 
     a minimum, consists of the following two elements:
       (1) Solicitation of the views of the American public with 
     regard to the future of the National Park System. 
     Opportunities for public participation shall be made 
     available throughout the planning process and shall include 
     specific regional public meetings.
       (2) Consultation with other Federal land management 
     agencies, State and local officials, resource management, 
     recreation and scholarly organizations, and other interested 
     parties as the Secretary deems advisable.
       (c) Transmittal of Report.--Prior to the end of the second 
     complete fiscal year commencing after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit the Plan developed 
     under this section to the Congressional resources committees.
       (d) Congressional Approval.--Unless Congress enacts a joint 
     resolution rejecting all or modifying part of the Plan within 
     180 calendar days after the date of its transmittal to 
     Congress, the Plan shall be deemed approved.
       (e) Identification of Units of the National Park System.--
     The Secretary shall submit to the Congressional resources 
     committees an official list of areas or units of the National 
     Park System within 180 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act. The Secretary shall establish a set of criteria 
     for the purpose of developing such list and shall transmit 
     those criteria to the Congressional resources committees.
       (f) Authority To Establish Units of the National Park 
     System.--After the enactment of this Act, units or areas of 
     the National Park System may only be established pursuant to 
     an Act of Congress or by Presidential action in accordance 
     with the Act entitled ``An Act for the preservation of 
     American antiquities'' (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.).

     SEC. 102. MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM.

       (a) Selection Criteria.--(1) The Secretary shall, not later 
     than 45 days after transmittal of the Plan under section 
     101(c), publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the 
     Congressional resources committees the criteria proposed to 
     be used by the Department of the Interior in reviewing 
     existing units of the National Park System under this 
     section. The Secretary shall provide an opportunity for 
     public comment on the proposed criteria for a period of at 
     least 30 days.
       (2)(A) The Secretary shall, within 60 days of the 
     transmittal of proposed criteria under paragraph (1), publish 
     in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congressional 
     resources committees the final criteria to be used in 
     carrying out this section. Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B), such criteria shall be the final criteria to be used 
     unless disapproved by a joint resolution of Congress enacted 
     not more than 30 legislative days after receipt of the final 
     criteria. For the purpose of the preceding sentence, the term 
     ``legislative day'' means a day on which both Houses of 
     Congress are in session.
       (B) The Secretary may amend such criteria, but such 
     amendments may not become effective until they have been 
     published in the Federal Register, opened to public comment 
     for at least 30 days, and transmitted to the Congressional 
     resources committees in final form.
       (b) Review.--(1)(A) Using the Plan deemed to be approved 
     pursuant to section 101(d) and the criteria developed 
     pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall review the 
     existing National Park System to determine whether any 
     existing units or significant portions of such units do not 
     conform to the Plan. For any such areas, the Secretary shall 
     determine whether there are more appropriate alternatives for 
     managing all or a portion of such units, including through 
     partnerships or direct management by States, local 
     governments, other agencies and the private sector.
       (B) The Secretary shall develop a report which contains a 
     list of any unit of the National Park System where National 
     Park Service management should be terminated and a list of 
     any portion of units where National Park Service management 
     should be modified as a result of nonconformance with the 
     Plan. No area or portion of an area which Congress has 
     designated as a national park may be included in the report.
       (2) Should any such unit or portion of such unit not be 
     recommended for continued National Park Service management, 
     the Secretary shall make recommendations regarding management 
     by an entity or entities other than the National Park 
     Service.
       (3) For any such unit or portion of such unit determined to 
     have national significance, prior to including such unit or 
     portion of such unit on a list under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall identify feasible alternatives to National 
     Park Service management which will protect the resources of 
     and assure continued public access to the unit.
       (c) Consultation.--In developing the report referred to in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall consult with other 
     Federal land management agencies, State and local officials, 
     resource management, recreation and scholarly organizations, 
     and other interested parties as the Secretary deems 
     advisable.
       (d) Transmittal.--Not later than 18 months after the Plan 
     has been deemed approved, the Secretary shall transmit the 
     report developed under this section simultaneously to the 
     Congressional resources committees and the Commission. The 
     report shall contain the recommendations of the Secretary for 
     termination of National Park Service management for any unit 
     of the National Park System that is determined not to conform 
     with the Plan, a list of portions of units where National 
     Park Service management should be modified, and the 
     recommendations for alternative management by an entity or 
     entities other than the National Park Service for such unit.

     SEC. 103. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REVIEW COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment of Commission; Duties.--(1) Following 
     completion of the Plan as specified in section 101, a 
     National Park System Review Commission shall be established.
       (2) The Commission shall either review the report developed 
     under section 102 or, if the Secretary fails to develop and 
     transmit such report, develop the report itself. In 
     conducting its review (or developing the report, if 
     necessary), the Commission shall be subject to the provisions 
     of sections 102 (b) and (c) in the same manner as such 
     provisions apply to the Secretary. If the Secretary develops 
     and transmits the report, the review of the Commission shall 
     be limited to the manner in which the criteria have been 
     applied to the existing National Park System. In addition the 
     Commission shall seek broad public input and ensure the 
     opportunity for input from persons who would be directly 
     affected by recommendations regarding National Park System 
     units identified in its report.
       (3) Within 2 years after the date of its establishment, the 
     Commission shall prepare and transmit to the Congressional 
     resources committees a report of its work under paragraph (2) 
     in which the Commission recommends a list of National Park 
     System units where National Park Service management should 
     be terminated and a list of portions of units where 
     National Park Service management should be modified.
       (b) Membership and Appointment.--The Commission shall 
     consist of 11 members, each of whom shall have substantial 
     familiarity with, and understanding of, the National Park 
     System and related fields. In addition, the Commission 
     members shall have expertise in natural sciences, history, 
     archaeology, and outdoor recreation. Five members of the 
     Commission, one of whom shall be the Director of the National 
     Park Service, shall be appointed by the Secretary. Two 
     members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the United 
     States House of Representatives in consultation with the 
     chairman of the Committee on Resources, and one member shall 
     be appointed by the Minority Leader of the House or 
     Representatives in consultation with the ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Resources. Two members shall be 
     appointed by the President pro tempore of the United States 
     Senate, in consultation with the chairman of the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources and one member shall be 
     appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate in 
     consultation with the ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Each member shall 
     be appointed within three months after the completion of the 
     Plan as specified in section 101.
       (c) Chair.--The Commission shall elect a chair from among 
     its members.
       (d) Vacancies.--Vacancies occurring on the Commission shall 
     not affect the authority of the remaining members of the 
     Commission to carry out the functions of the Commission. Any 
     vacancy in the Commission shall be promptly filled in the 
     same manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (e) Quorum.--A simple majority of Commission members shall 
     constitute a quorum.
       (f) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at least quarterly 
     or upon the call of the chair or a majority of the members of 
     the Commission.
       (g) Compensation.--Members of the Commission shall serve 
     without compensation as such. Members of the Commission, when 
     engaged in official Commission business, shall be entitled to 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in 
     government service under section 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (h) Termination.--The Commission established pursuant to 
     this section shall terminate 90 days after the transmittal of 
     the report to Congress as provided in subsection (a).
       (i) Limitation on National Park Service Staff.--The 
     Commission may hire staff to carry out its assigned 
     responsibilities. Not more than one-half of the professional 
     staff of the Commission shall be made up of current employees 
     of the National Park Service.
       (j) Staff of Other Agencies.--Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of any Federal agency may detail, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to 
     the Commission to assist the Commission.
       (k) Experts and Consultants.--Subject to such rules as may 
     be adopted by the Commission, the Commission may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services to the same extent as 
     authorized by section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, 
     but at rates determined by the Commission to be advisable.
       (l) Powers of the Commission.--(1) The Commission shall for 
     the purpose of carrying out this title hold such public 
     hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such 
     testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commission deems 
     advisable.
       (2) The Commission may make such bylaws, rules, and 
     regulations, consistent with this title, as it considers 
     necessary to carry out its functions under this title.
       (3) When so authorized by the Commission, any member or 
     agent of the Commission may take any action which the 
     Commission is authorized to take by this section.
       (4) The Commission may use the United States mails in the 
     same manner and upon the same conditions as other departments 
     and agencies of the United States.
       (5) The Secretary shall provide to the Commission any 
     information available to the Secretary 

[[Page H 9085]]
     and requested by the Commission regarding the Plan and any other 
     information requested by the Commission which is relevant to 
     the duties of the Commission and available to the Secretary.

     SEC. 104. SUBSEQUENT ACT OF CONGRESS REQUIRED TO MODIFY OR 
                   TERMINATE A PARK.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as modifying or 
     terminating any unit of the National Park System without a 
     subsequent Act of Congress. This limitation shall not limit 
     any existing authority of the Secretary.

     SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are hereby authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 
     to carry out the purposes of this title.

     SEC. 106. COMMENDATION AND PROTECTION OF NATIONAL PARK 
                   RANGERS.

       (a) Finding.--The Congress recognizes the dedication, 
     expertise and courage of the men and women who serve as 
     rangers and other employees of the National Park Service and 
     finds their service to the protection of our park resources 
     and the safety of the hundreds of millions of Americans who 
     visit our national parks each year to be indispensable.
       (b) Protection of National Park Service Employees.--As soon 
     as possible as part of the report developed under section 
     101, the Secretary shall report on the procedures that have 
     been instituted to report to the United States Attorney or 
     other appropriate law enforcement official any intimidation, 
     threats, or acts of violence against employees of the 
     National Park Service related to their duties.
                    TITLE II--NEW AREA ESTABLISHMENT

     SEC. 201. STUDY OF NEW PARK SYSTEM AREAS.

       Section 8 of the Act of August 18, 1970, entitled ``An Act 
     to improve the Administration of the National Park System by 
     the Secretary of the Interior, and to clarify the authorities 
     applicable to the system, and for other purposes'' (16 U.S.C. 
     1a-1 and following) is amended as follows:
       (1) By inserting ``General Authority.--'' after ``(a)''.
       (2) By striking the second through the sixth sentences of 
     subsection (a).
       (3) By redesignating the last two sentences of subsection 
     (a) as subsection (f) and inserting in the first of such 
     sentences before the words ``For the purposes of carrying'' 
     the following: ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--''.
       (4) By striking subsection (b).
       (5) By inserting the following after subsection (a):
       ``(b) Studies of Areas for Potential Addition.--(1) At the 
     beginning of each calendar year, along with the annual budget 
     submission, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United 
     States Senate a list of areas recommended for study for 
     potential inclusion in the National Park System.
       ``(2) In developing the list to be submitted under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall give consideration to those 
     areas that have the greatest potential to meet the 
     established criteria of national significance, suitability, 
     and feasibility. The Secretary shall give special 
     consideration to themes, sites, and resources not already 
     adequately represented in the National Park System as 
     identified in the National Park System Plan to be developed 
     under section 101 of the National Park System Reform Act of 
     1995.
       ``(3) No study of the potential of an area for inclusion in 
     the National Park System may be initiated after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, except as provided by specific 
     authorization of an Act of Congress.
       ``(4) Nothing in this Act shall limit the authority of the 
     National Park Service to conduct preliminary resource 
     assessments, gather data on potential study areas, provide 
     technical and planning assistance, prepare or process 
     nominations for administrative designations, update previous 
     studies, or complete reconnaissance surveys of individual 
     areas requiring a total expenditure of less than $25,000.
       ``(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply 
     to or to affect or alter the study of any river segment for 
     potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers 
     system or to apply to or to affect or alter the study of any 
     trail for potential addition to the national trails system.
       ``(c) Report.--(1) The Secretary shall complete the study 
     for each area for potential inclusion in the National Park 
     System within 3 complete fiscal years following the date of 
     enactment of specific legislation providing for the study of 
     such area. Each study under this section shall be prepared 
     with appropriate opportunity for public involvement, 
     including at least one public meeting in the vicinity of the 
     area under study, and after reasonable efforts to notify 
     potentially affected landowners and State and local 
     governments.
       ``(2) In conducting the study, the Secretary shall consider 
     whether the area under study--
       ``(A) possesses nationally significant natural or cultural 
     resources, or outstanding recreational opportunities, and 
     that the area represents one of the most important examples 
     of a particular resource type in the country; and
       ``(B) is a suitable and feasible addition to the system.
       ``(3) Each study--
       ``(A) shall consider the following factors with regard to 
     the area being studied--
       (i) the rarity and integrity of the resources;
       (ii) the threats to those resources;
       (iii) whether similar resources are already protected in 
     the National Park System or in other public or private 
     ownership;
       (iv) the public use potential;
       (v) the interpretive and educational potential;
       (vi) costs associated with acquisition, development and 
     operation;
       (vii) the socioeconomic impacts of any designation;
       (viii) the level of local and general public support, and
       (ix) whether the area is of appropriate configuration to 
     ensure long-term resource protection and visitor use;
       ``(B) shall consider whether direct National Park Service 
     management or alternative protection by other public agencies 
     or the private sector is appropriate for the area;
       ``(C) shall identify what alternative or combination of 
     alternatives would in the professional judgment of the 
     Director of the National Park Service be most effective and 
     efficient in protecting significant resources and providing 
     for public enjoyment; and
       ``(D) may include any other information which the Secretary 
     deems to be relevant.
       ``(4) Each study shall be completed in compliance with the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
       ``(5) The letter transmitting each completed study to 
     Congress shall contain a recommendation regarding the 
     Secretary's preferred management option for the area.
       ``(d) New Area Study Office.--The Secretary shall establish 
     a single office to be assigned to prepare all new area 
     studies and to implement other functions of this section.
       ``(e) List of Areas.--At the beginning of each calendar 
     year, along with the annual budget submission, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the United States Senate a list of areas which 
     have been previously studied which contain primarily 
     historical resources, and a list of areas which have been 
     previously studied which contain primarily natural resources, 
     in numerical order of priority for addition to the National 
     Park System. In developing the lists, the Secretary should 
     consider threats to resource values, cost escalation factors, 
     and other factors listed in subsection (c) of this section. 
     The Secretary should only include on the lists areas for 
     which the supporting data is current and accurate.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will be recognized for 20 minutes and 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] will be recognized for 
20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 260, the 
bipartisan National Park System Reform Act of 1995 introduced by Mr. 
Hefley. This bill is very similar to a bipartisan measure which passed 
the House last session by a vote of 421-0. As was testified to in our 
hearing on the bill, it is one of the most important measures on the 
National Park Service to come before the committee since the 1916 Act 
establishing the National Park Service. I am pleased to note that the 
bipartisan nature which characterized this bill last session continues 
this session, despite the extensive effort of those who seek to 
misrepresent this legislation.
  This bill reflects the concern of a number of Members on both sides 
of the aisle and in both Houses that over the years since its 
establishment, the Park Service mission seems to have expanded far 
beyond what was originally envisioned, and far beyond what can be 
afforded. In the words of GAO at our joint hearing with the Senate last 
spring, the ``NPS is at a crossroads.''
  We can either continue down the path of designating questionable 
areas we cannot afford, or we can choose another course. This bill by 
Mr. Hefley helps us to choose another course.
  First, and most importantly, the bill requires the NPS to develop a 
plan for where it should go. Should we include urban beaches in the 
National Park System. What about outdoor performing arts amphitheaters? 
What about historic re-creations? All these questions need to be asked 
and answered. Through this bill, those answers will be forthcoming.
  Second, we must have a process to ensure that only the best areas get 
added to the park system in the future. We cannot go forward adding 
every new proposal in sight, just because a Member or interest group 
has a particular desire. We must have better screening criteria and a 
prioritization of areas to be added to the park system.
  Finally, we must look at where we have been, and what is included in 
the existing park system. Anyone who has looked at the park system for 
very long has a list of questionable sites in his/her pocket. Two weeks 
after the administration testified against this bill, Secretary Babbitt 
stated his intention to transfer three NPS areas to the States of 
Virginia and Maryland. Congress has no way to know what other areas are 
on Secretary Babbitt's park 

[[Page H 9086]]
closure list, but we cannot go around arbitrarily listing parks to be 
closed. Rather, there should be an objective, public process to review 
our existing park system. That is precisely what this bill provides.
  I point out that this bill does not close a single park, either 
directly or indirectly. It will lead to a possible list of park areas 
where future Federal involvement should be re-examined in the minds of 
objective observers. From there, Congress would be free to act, just as 
we have deauthorized parks 24 times in the last 100 years. However, 
actions taken would be on the basis of solid information.
  While it is true that parks could be reviewed on a piecemeal basis, 
such an approach would be subject to the same political pressures which 
have resulted in the addition of the questionable areas to the park 
system in the first place.
  The most enlightening and disturbing aspect of the debate over this 
bill has been how the interest groups have lined up. The bill is 
supported on a bipartisan basis by members from the Resources Committee 
who routinely receive a ``0'' from the League of Conservation Voters 
and by Members who score in the 90's. It is supported by both 
Republican and Democratically-appointed Directors of the NPS. It is 
supported by employees of the agency, as represented by the largest 
employee organization, the Association of National Park Rangers. 
Finally, it is supported by the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation.
  It is opposed only by the extreme environmental groups and those who 
carry their banner. It is ironic to me that those who claim to be such 
friends of the parks have put their personal political and financial 
gain ahead of the well-being of the parks.
  I have no grand illusions that we will solve the financial woes of 
the National Park Service through this bill, but we will help protect 
the integrity of the park system. After all, the agency as a whole will 
be judged by its most questionable area, which is the only standard 
against which any new potential addition to the park system must be 
judged.
  I commend this bill to my colleagues and I know that those who 
support our park system, will support this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this is a 
parks-closure bill. And this is why I am going to read a series of 
national environmental groups that are opposing this bill: The 
Defenders of Wildlife; the American Hiking Society; the Sierra Club 
Legal Defense Fund; the Friends of the Earth; the Izaak Walton League 
of America; the Wilderness Society; the National Parks and Conservation 
Association.
  Let me also state, Secretary Babbitt's name has been invoked, the 
Clinton administration strongly opposes H.R. 260, unless amended to 
delete provisions that deal with a closure commission.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, but what is worse, it is here under 
suspension. Why is there a railroading of this bill? Why in 
subcommittee, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National 
Parks, Forests and Lands, was I not allowed to proceed with an 
amendment, an alternative, that said basically there are other ways to 
finance the national parks? Let us look at a trust, let us look at 
concessions or let us look at fees. Let us look at better ways to 
manage the parks.
  But what we are doing here is a parks closure commission. My good 
friend, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, has been quoted that he would like to see 150 parks 
closed in his own newspaper.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, that was a quote that came out of the Elko 
paper, and the Elko paper wrote a retraction of that saying that they 
never heard that before and they were sorry they brought that up. So, 
that retraction was in there and any Member would be a fool to make a 
statement like that, and I hope I do not fall in that category.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I accept what the 
gentleman just said.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to submit it for the 
Record.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, again, reclaiming my time, I am quoting 
many publications and I am simply stating that what we are doing in 
this bill is we are setting up a process that is similar to a military 
base closing commission.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is, along with the cuts on the 
national parks, and the cuts are substantial in the national parks 
budget, 36 percent cut by the year 2002, would be achieved by closing 
200 smallest and least-visited national parks, or by cutting the budget 
of all parks by amounts which render them less safe, the Congress will 
have indirectly and quietly achieved what some are attempting to do 
with a parks closing commission. Mr. Speaker, this is by the Department 
of the Interior.
  Mr. Speaker, no one is calling us or saying that we have too many 
parks. On the contrary, the American people love and support our 
national parks. That is why many of us are deeply troubled by this 
bill. This is a parks closure bill, basically, with some viewing it as 
means to close parks they believe are nonessential.
  Contrary to what some might believe, it is not easy to get an area 
designated as a unit of the National Park System and should not be easy 
to remove them from the system as well. Those who think the 
authorization is a panacea for whatever ails the National Park System 
are wrong.
  We could deauthorize all the 30-plus units designated since 1980, yet 
we would save less than 2 percent of the national parks budget, annual 
operation and maintenance budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this legislation relies too heavily 
on a park closure commission which would have the authority to 
recommend the closure of any unit in the National Park System, with the 
exception of the 54 national parks. The Statue of Liberty, Independence 
Hall, the Washington Monument are all national monuments and would be 
subject to consideration for closure or privatization under the 
provisions of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, what makes these sites any less worthy than Yellowstone 
or Grand Canyon National Park? National park units are not at all like 
military bases. We do not need a closure commission that could only 
justify its existence by recommending park closures.
  If there is any question as to the marching orders of the commission, 
one only needs to look at the Republican budget resolution that was 
adopted: A 10-percent cut in NPS operating funds, a 5-year land 
acquisition moratorium, and a 50-percent cut in NPS construction. Is 
there any doubt what this commission is supposed to produce?
  Mr. Speaker, there are not quick fixes to find out how we improve the 
management of the parks. All I am saying is let us send this bill back 
to the Committee on Rules where there would be an opportunity to debate 
an alternative that I have. I only want one amendment, 10 minutes, 3 
minutes, that says there is a better way than a closure commission; 
that this is far too drastic.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the author of the legislation.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are able to bring this 
bipartisan measure, the National Park System Reform Act, to the floor 
of the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past few months I have heard this bill called 
many things and blamed for many others. Most of these, as well as what 
we have just heard on the floor, simply are not accurate.
  This is not a park-closing bill. This is not a base-closing 
commission. In fact, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], I 
think, is arguing against the bill which is simply not before us on the 
floor of the House today. Maybe it was a concept somewhere 

[[Page H 9087]]
back in the history of this legislation, but it simply is not something 
that is before us, after many months of working with the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] in 
trying to massage this bill and make it be something that we could all 
be very proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, it is simply not the bill that the gentleman from New 
Mexico describes. H.R. 260 is a balanced policy initiative that will 
set the stage for future, reasoned debate on park reform.
  The bill directs the Park Service to take 1 year to develop both a 
mission statement and a set of criteria for inclusion within the Park 
System.
  Following Congress' approval, the Park Service would then take that 
criteria, remember that, following Congress' approval, the Park Service 
would take that criteria, hold it up against the existing Park System, 
see what is there, what is not there, and possibly on some rare cases 
what does not belong there.
  Mr. Speaker, if those rare cases occur, the Park Service would study 
alternative forms of management which would range from transfer to 
other government agencies or levels of government or to other 
interested parties.
  Only if those prospective managers could guarantee preservation of 
the resource which made the site significant in the first place, could 
any transfer take place.
  So, we are not closing parks with this bill. In fact, we are not 
making it easy to close parks with this bill. After 3 years of study, 
the Park Service will turn its findings over to an independent review 
commission. During the next 18 months, the review commission would look 
over the Park Service's recommendations and receive additional public 
comment on them, before passing those recommendations along to 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Park Service does the kind of job we expect it 
to, then the commission will serve as little more than a rubber stamp 
to its findings. But, if it becomes clear after 1 year that the Park 
Service has no intention of carrying out the review outlined in this 
act, then the review commission may undertake to review on its own.
  In this way, the commission may serve as a hammer over the Park 
Service, or its peer reviewer. The choice is up to the Park Service.
  Mr. Speaker, whatever the findings of this review, it is up to 
Congress to act upon them in whole or in part or not at all. This is no 
base-closing bill. There is nothing in it that says, ``Take it or leave 
it all,'' about the review in H.R. 260.
  Title II of the bill tightens the criteria for admission of new units 
into the Park System.

                              {time}  1645

  It directs the Interior Secretary to develop a priority system for 
new units, then submit these priorities to Congress with the annual 
budget request until action is taken.
  Further, the bill centralizes planning for new units at Park Service 
headquarters. If this is to be a system of nationally significant 
places, then there should be a coordinated effort to identify such 
places.
  Let me tell you what H.R. 260 does not do. H.R. 260 does not mandate 
the closure of any parks. Indeed, the Nation's 54 national parks were 
exempted. There were those who were saying we were going to close 
Yellowstone, close Grand Canyon. Of course, not. Those are going to 
stand up to any scrutiny, as I think most units of the Park System 
will. We just took those out. That will not even be a question. H.R. 
260 does not create an independent commission selling off parks to the 
highest bidder. The commission can act alone only if Interior ignores 
the will of Congress. Even then it would be assisted in its review by 
the Park Service and even then any action on its findings would be left 
to Congress, which created the parks in the first place.
  It would not mean the end of urban or Alaskan parks, as has been 
charged. It is not an outgrowth of the wise-use movement in the West. 
It has nothing to do with the cutbacks in budget or appropriations, 
real or imagined.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and I have worked on this 
bill now for almost 2 years. Last year we passed its 1994 counterpart 
by a record vote of 421 to zero. This, I think, is a better bill. We 
have sat down with more people since then. We have 42 or so 
environmental groups we sat down with and tried to take their concerns 
into account as we tried to develop this bill. I think it is a better 
bill now.
  Yet, H.R. 260 appears to have become a lightning rod for every fear 
about Park Service matters voiced against this Congress. I hope the 
membership will push aside the perceptions that have been advanced by a 
number of special interest groups and, instead, support the reality 
embodied in H.R. 260. It is a good bill. It is one which will keep our 
national parks the envy of the world.
  I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me disabuse the gentleman and everyone that is 
listening of one fact. This is not the same bill that passed last year 
which contained all of our votes. There is a huge difference.
  This is a bill that has as the primary source the park closure 
commission. The past bill had a backup. First, the Park Service made 
their determinations. Then you had the park closure commission. That is 
the difference. There is a huge difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Pallone], a member of the committee.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 260. I also 
rise in opposition to the manner in which this controversial measure is 
being brought before the House.
  H.R. 260 would set up a mechanism for restructuring portions of the 
National Park System and includes provisions that would allow an 
Interior Secretary or an unelected commission to recommend the closure 
of units of the Park System.
  I oppose H.R. 260 for a number of reasons, but primarily because I 
disagree with a fundamental premise of the bill. H.R. 260 rests upon 
the presumption that the Park System is overextended and that the only 
way to help the system is to restructure and strategically downsize it.
  Restructuring and downsizing are terms we often hear these days in 
Congress, but we are not talking about military bases here.
  What we are debating is the fate of one of our Nation's greatest 
treasures. This is cultural, historical, and natural resource 
preservation we are talking about.
  As Mr. Richardson said in his dissenting views on H.R. 260, no one 
outside the beltway is calling or writing to say we have too many 
parks. In fact, the contrary is true in my State. I have constituents 
and elected officials writing me all the time to try to get new areas 
designated as parks or refuges or to get existing parks expanded. And 
despite the rhetoric we hear in this body, it is not easy to get that 
done; it takes years of work.
  Of course, even if we except the premise that we need to trim the 
Park System, the deck has already been stacked in favor of some units 
and against others. The legislation exempts from consideration for 
termination 54--mainly Western--national parks. And what was the 
scientific policy basis for leaving these parks out? I do not know. If 
this is a fair process this bill is establishing, and these parks are 
so superior, would those parks not be protected anyway?
  Why aren't important parks like the Statue of Liberty, Independence 
Hall, and the Washington Monument protected from scrutiny? Why aren't 
Gateway and Sandy Hook--which is in my district--protected? Perhaps it 
is because these are urban units which, in addition to being 
significant cultural, historical, and natural areas, provide education 
and recreation to lower income people who cannot afford to travel to 
Colorado or California to take advantage of the Park System their tax 
dollars support. Or maybe it is merely because some in this body have a 
very narrow and elitist view of the Park System.
  Now, I know that supporters of this bill will say it is not a closure 
bill; that it is not a BRAC for the parks. But I would just like to 
draw my colleagues' attention to a bill that those same people 
supported last Congress, H.R. 1508. Section 105 of that bill, sponsored 
by Mr. Hefley, was entitled ``Termination of National Park Service 
management at nonessential National Park 

[[Page H 9088]]
System areas.'' Now today's bill may be a so-called compromise bill, 
but it is clear what the intent is behind it. I am now a member of the 
Resources Committee--and I have watched some of my colleagues on that 
committee oppose parkland acquisition even though it was proposed by a 
Republican member. I have even seen ``Dear Colleague'' letters and a 
newspaper op-ed entitled ``Do We Need All These Parks?'' where a park 
in my district is singled out. But those same people seem to be saying 
``trust us, we really don't want to get rid of the park system.'' I am 
sorry, but I just cannot take that on faith.
  I could go on about my objections to this legislation, but I want to 
talk a bit about the way in which this bill is being considered. On 
June 12, Bill Richardson, the ranking Democrat on the National Parks 
Subcommittee--which has jurisdiction over this legislation--sent a 
``Dear Colleague'' letter to each and every Member of the House. In 
that letter he said that he opposed H.R. 260. But more importantly he 
said the following: ``When the House considers H.R. 260, I will offer 
amendments * * * .'' I told the ranking subcommittee member that I 
supported him and that I, too, might want to offer amendments. Other 
Members did the same.
  Then, on Friday of last week, I found out that the National Park 
System Reform Act was coming before the House under suspension of the 
rules--a format that would prohibit all of us from offering the 
amendments we said we wanted considered. I did not believe it. I 
actually asked my staff to call the Democratic Cloakroom to make sure 
this was actually H.R. 260 we were bringing up. You see, I was under 
the impression that the Suspension Calendar is only for 
noncontroversial items, not legislation that is opposed by the National 
Parks and Conservation Association. It is not for legislation that is 
so controversial that the Secretary of the Interior came all the way to 
my district to tell me and my constituents that he opposed it. And it 
is certainly not meant for legislation that is opposed by the ranking 
member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction.
  Yet here we are. We have not suspended the rules, what we have 
suspended is the right of my constituents and others to dissent.
  Maybe you do not agree with my point of view on the bill's substance. 
Or maybe you do. However, I hope that you support the rights of myself, 
my friend from New Mexico, and others who want to offer amendments to 
this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Park System and for the 
Democratic system by voting ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support to H.R. 260, and I 
want to commend the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of 
the subcommittee, and the principal sponsor, the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], for their work on this.
  Actually, this product is a product of the 103d Congress in many 
respects.
  As was indicated, we hammered this proposal out last year. It passed 
on Suspension Calendar. It was considered on suspension. It was 
basically a measure that is noncontroversial. It is not identical to 
the bill, but most of the major elements are the same, and the proposal 
and the agreement that was made then really holds true in terms of my 
work on this measure.
  This is a necessary piece of legislation. This really provides a 
formal process for the establishment of a criteria, criteria which do 
not exist today with regard to the national parks. We need the Park 
Service to establish that type of criteria.
  Furthermore, it establishes, in order to be certain that the Park 
Service itself will go through the process of this establishment of 
criteria, and once submitted, Congress then has to ratify it. Beyond 
that, it suggests the Park Service then take the criteria that it 
develops and review almost all the parks.
  Obviously, there are 50 of the outstanding parks not included. In 
essence, I do not think anyone questions the review of that would 
probably not be a good use of resources. That is the basis to me of the 
workload here, somewhat more realistic here in terms of how we march 
forward.
  Once that has been accomplished, they go through review of the 300 or 
so parks. They report back to the Congress and report of the 
commission.
  We establish commissions in the Congress often, often, I think, 
without careful thought. But in this case, the commission has been very 
carefully constructed. It is a commission that has a certain amount of 
independence, but they have no independent authority to act on removing 
designation from any park. In fact, the power to designate parks 
resides in the Congress today, and once this legislation were to be 
passed in the form it is before us today, that authority to designate 
or remove designation would continue to reside in the Congress.
  I find, obviously, some of the hyperbole and paranoia that has crept 
into this debate very curious. There has been a tendency for the 
advocates and opponents of this bill to overstate the case. There 
should be no mistake about mistaking this bill. This bill is the same 
bill supported by the administration in the 103d Congress. It was 
supported by the Park Service, which helped craft and write this 
legislation in the 103d Congress. It was supported by the conservation 
groups. It was supported by Democrats and Republicans.
  That is why it passed on the floor on suspension by 421 votes in 
favor, with none against it.
  It, in essence, is the same bill. What has changed this year 
obviously, there is a change in the Congress. I am here because I do 
not have a horse in the race. It is not one of my parks that is 
affected. I am here because I think this is good policy. I think the 
Members of this body ought to vote for it. I am here because I just 
think this is good policy. This is where we ought to go.
  What are we afraid of in this bill? We do not want the Park Service 
to study the park units? Can we not trust the Park Service? If we can 
trust it to run these units, should we not be trusting them to do the 
study?
  We are asking the professionals first and foremost to do it and 
report back to us. We are asking the commission to be there to make 
certain and somehow have an independent voice to also report to us. You 
have got to trust the Congress.
  I think Members of this body and the Senate can be trusted to 
designate and take responsible actions with regard to this. That is 
really where it is at. If we do not want to today, that action could 
take place without any commission, without any study, without any 
consideration. Is that what the opponents of this bill would like to 
see, no review, no consideration in process? I do not think so.
  I think this bill provides good process, good review. It is a 
rational, reasoned way to reinvent and deal with the problems facing 
the National Park Service in this year and which I have worked on for 
20 years that I have been in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 260, the National Park System 
Reform Act of 1995. This legislation, which I have cosponsored, is 
similar to a proposal considered and approved by the House of 
Representatives during the 103d Congress under the Suspension Calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, for a decade, I had the privilege and the pleasure to 
chair the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over national park 
policy. I am very concerned about the state of our national parks and 
well understand the need to move forward, this Congress, important park 
reform, review, and reinvention policy. Park review and reform 
legislation is reasoned, rational, and in the public interest. This 
measure is an effective policy not random, arbitrary action; it is a 
good public policy.
  The National Park Service [NPS] is charged with the management of the 
Nation's most important natural, cultural, and historical resources. 
These areas are known throughout the world for their natural qualities, 
scenic beauty, and historical significance. Each year, the areas which 
make up the National Park System are visited by over 260 million 
people, and this number continues to grow.
  It is our obligation to ensure that only outstanding resources are 
included in our National Park System and that parks currently in the 
system are managed effectively. This concern, shared by my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle, the administration, and the American 
people, enabled the House to unanimously pass, on the Suspension 
Calendar and without dissent, the National Park Service Reform Act in 
the past Congress.
  This legislation was a product of compromise involving the current 
administration, 

[[Page H 9089]]
the National Park Service, environmental groups, and Members of 
Congress, both Democrats and Republicans.
  It was with this spirit and support that I joined my colleagues Mr. 
Hefley and Mr. Hansen, in re-introducing a National Park Service reform 
bill in the 104th Congress. That is the legislation pending before us.
  Unfortunately, we now have a perception problem that has injected 
controversy anew. What was once a unanimously supported reform bill has 
now been dubbed by some as a ``Park Closure'' bill. In my judgment, 
both the advocates and opponents have been guilty of fanning the flames 
and generating misunderstanding and controversy where none need exist. 
Perception for some has been conjured up as reality. When all else 
fails, the admonition should be to read the legislation.

  A close review and literal reading of the proposed law shows that the 
apprehension that was raised is not justified. H.R. 260 remains very 
consistent with the legislation considered in the last Congress. The 
NPS sets criteria, Congress approves the criteria, the NPS studies a 
reduced number of parks, conveys this to the Congress and an appointed 
commission within 3 years. The commission reviews and reports to 
Congress. Congress and only Congress has the responsibility to remove 
parks from the National Park System. The responsibility comes back to 
Congress under this proposal and under current law.
  There are many issues before this Congress where significant 
differences in philosophy have made for some heated debates and will 
continue to do so. I suggest that we hold back on our desire to draw 
the lines in the sand over this park review and reform issue and that 
we save our passion for those debates in which there is true 
disagreement on issues of which there seems to be no shortage.
  Certainly, National Park Service reform is especially needed in an 
era of fiscal constraint and large demands on the existing Park System. 
We still have the opportunity to enact a forward looking bill. I do not 
agree with those who think that our National Park System is complete 
and that nothing else should be added, or worse still, that we should 
begin closing parks just to save money. However, I hope that all of us 
can agree that effective management of our National Park System will 
benefit us all. While today the National Park Service is judged by the 
crown jewels, there is an increasing tendency to highlight only the 
rhinestones in the system--some of which are as costly or even more 
costly than the crown jewels of our national parks.
  The issue of effective park management is not a simple one and 
narrow-minded solutions are inappropriate when considering the reform 
of our precious natural, cultural, and historic resources.
  The National Park System needs the ability to expand in order to 
reflect the progression of history and to respond to a rapidly growing 
population. At the same time, efficient management and strategic 
planning will achieve savings as will the consideration of alternative 
management plans for parks that do not meet the criteria guidelines 
outlined in the bill. This bill can accomplish such goals.
  As for the commission enacted in this measure, the NPS has had 
numerous standing and shorter term commissions and while we should 
proceed carefully and curtail the profusion of commissions this 
initiative is hardly some unusual precedent and in reality will serve 
as leverage on the NPS and Congress to take this task more seriously.
  Finally, this is not and should not be a base realignment and closure 
commission as was established within the Department of Defense. The 
responsibilities are defined; the authority limited and the sunset of 
the commission is certain. Its policy path is clear--to report its 
recommendations to the Congress for our consideration.
  This measure is a good bill and responds to the reasoned criticisms 
and questions raised beyond the version the House acted upon last year. 
As for the hyperbole and paranoia that have dogged H.R. 260, I would 
hope that Members will deal with the tangible today not the surreal.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, in spite of the great respect and 
admiration I have for the sponsors of this bill, I find that, 
nevertheless, I feel strong opposition to it.
  I think that there are aspects of the bill which do make a 
constructive contribution. First of all, a comprehensive review by the 
Secretary of the Department of Interior, I think, is constructive, and 
would be helpful.
  But the underlying philosophy of this bill is what I find so 
troubling about it. It seems to suggest that we have too many parks and 
that we ought to deauthorize units of the National Park System and, 
furthermore, I believe the sentiments in this bill, as they are 
expressed in the language here, would tend to focus attention on those 
parks and national resources which tend to be in the urban areas, which 
tend to be in those parts of the country where they get the most use 
and the most attention, which tend to be used by those people who are 
least likely to travel to some of the national parks in the western 
part of our country.

                              {time}  1700

  Why are we doing this? Are we spending too much money on our National 
Park System? I do not think so. The National Park System, which is one 
of the most treasured possessions of this country, takes up less than 
one-tenth of 1 percent of the national budget. It is a very small 
portion of what we spend nationally.
  Is it true that the National Park Service does not get enough 
funding? Yes, unquestionably, it is. But that is a failure of 
ourselves, it is a failure of this Congress. The Congress ought to 
realize the value of the National Park Service and apportion to it a 
greater portion of the Federal budget. The National Park Service has 
been starved for funds, and this particular budget that is before us 
this year goes on to do that in an even greater degree than has been 
done in the past.
  Construction is cut by 50 percent. Operating funds are cut by 10 
percent. That is wrong. It is the wrong direction in which we should be 
going, and it mitigates toward the kind of philosophy which is 
expressed in this bill which indicates that we have too many parks and 
we ought to be closing them down.
  We need more recreational opportunity in this country, if anything. 
We need greater recognition of our national heritage, if anything. We 
need a better understanding on the part of our citizenry, particularly 
our younger people, with regard to our national and ecological 
heritage, which is enshrined in the system of our national parks.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill, in spite of the fact that it 
does some things that are good, takes us inevitably in the wrong 
direction. The idea that we have too many parks is wrong; the idea that 
we should be closing some of them down, in my opinion, is misguided. 
What we ought to be doing is spending more, not less, on our National 
Park System, raising it up, making it be what it ought be in the minds 
of the American people, the greatest expression in many ways of our 
national and historical heritage.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Members 
would focus on this legislation. This is not a park closing bill, and 
this is not the bill that passed last year. What this is, is a very, 
very good piece of legislation to allow us to deal with some of the 
problem that exist within the national parks of this country. Let us 
not pretend that the process by which all of the units and all of the 
obligations and all of the duties were given to the National Park 
Service was a pure process that nobody can question or raise issue 
with, because the fact is, we know that this Park Service and its 
resources have been assaulted from time to time by this Congress in the 
middle of the night in a conference committee without hearings, without 
jurisdiction, but based upon the individual power of a Senator here or 
a Congressman here, or what have you. We ought to now reexamine the 
operations of this most valuable, valuable agency of the Federal 
Government.
  This is not to pass judgment whether there should be more or less 
parks. This is about making sure that we are using the resources to the 
best extent that we can, that we can assure the people of this country 
that we are doing all that we can to maintain and improve the parks 
that we have, and to maintain the standards for the creation of those 
parks, and that we are making the best utilization we can out of the 
resources of the National Park Service. Nobody in this body can stand 
before the American public and say that is the situation today, and if 
we 

[[Page H 9090]]
cannot say that, then we ought to put into motion a process by which we 
can review that.
  Because of the contributions of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], and even the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson], this legislation in fact does that. It lets us look at the 
system.
  This is the rational way to go about reforming or reorganizing or 
reinventing, whichever term you are comfortable with, because it lets 
the front-line agencies, the Secretary of the Interior and the Park 
Service, make some determinations, and we all know that privately they 
come to us. Whether they are rangers in the West or they are in the 
seashores in the East or in the Gulf, they come to us privately and 
tell us, this is not working terribly well, Mr. Speaker.
  There is another way to do this. We ought to know that. They ought to 
be able to bring that forward and then have the citizens commission 
screen that process, screen that process so that there is input from 
affected parties, from localities, because all of us know that all of 
these parks have different importance to different communities and 
States and local jurisdictions. Some of them are huge engines of 
economic activity. Some of them are huge engines of activity, but you 
do not have the economics to take care of it. Some of them, quite 
simply, nobody knows why they are there, except that somebody got it 
done in the legislative process.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a process that is reasoned out, that has 
protections in it, that is very thoughtful, and does not mandate that 
any action take place, but it puts us in a position that at one point 
we can stand before our constituents and say that this is the best run 
agency, the best use of resources of the National Park Service.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I may have missed some of the debate 
earlier that went on on this legislation, and I was watching this in my 
office, and I came over because I happen to agree with a lot of what 
has been said by the proponents of this legislation.
  I guess the only question I had is, with respect to all of the review 
that would go on on all of the parks, I guess all of the monuments, all 
of the various facilities that are run and operated by the Park 
Service, why are not all of them on the list? Is there a reason that we 
left some of them off?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, originally we looked at 
all of them and then we figured that possibly it would be smart to 
alleviate the fears of a lot of people, because we tried to convince 
them that this was not the park closing bill, that they would have the 
opportunity to take 54 spectacular parks, and I agree with the 
gentleman from New Jersey, it is kind of in the eye of the beholder, 
but I do not think that people have found what we are looking at.
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] said, ``What bills are in 
front of us?'' It is like Chairman Seiberling when he was with us used 
to say, ``When all else fails, read the legislation.''
  The only place that refers to the fears that have been brought up by 
our friends is on page 13, starting on line 12 that says: ``Nothing in 
this act shall be construed as modifying or terminating any unit of the 
National Park System without a subsequent act of Congress.''
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would just ask the gentleman, I mean I agree, I read that. I saw that. 
But again, I am surprised as to why we did not put Yosemite on that 
list. I mean, I guess that is what you suggested.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], a sponsor of the bill, who 
possibly has a better answer on that.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman answered the question very 
well. They were all on the list when we first started out. But there 
were many groups out there that were trying to pick this as some kind 
of a closure bill and were saying, well, they are going to close 
Yellowstone or Yosemite or Grand Canyon, and in order to alleviate 
those fears, those are national parks. They are the highest level of 
recognition that you can have in our parks system. They have undergone 
the scrutiny of the ages. They are not going to be closed, there is no 
question about that. So we thought in order to alleviate that fear and 
concern, we just took them off.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
guess what the gentleman from Colorado just said hits right home in the 
Southwestern part of the United States. I mean I think that what you 
are doing is creating the same kind of fear. A lot of this is in my 
district, but a lot in the Southwest think exactly the same of the 
national monument in the same context as we do of Yosemite that 
somebody else may think looks prettier. Like you said, it is in the eye 
of the beholder.
  Mr. Speaker, we should have listed all of them, if this is a true 
process, one that is going to be fair and open, and I think it is a 
mistake for us to pass legislation that is not fair.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the distinction here is one you ought to pay 
attention to. These are national parks. We are talking about those that 
are designated national parks in law, by the Congress; we designated 
them national parks. So the issue is in terms of 368 units. In other 
words, there are different designations and you have to pay attention 
when they are talking about using resources wisely. If in fact 
something is meritorious and should be designated a national park, then 
you should do it. It is not a unit of the National Park System, these 
are actually designated. So there is a difference in designation, a 
difference in where you want to concentrate your resources. That is why 
pulling them out makes sense in terms of dollars and in terms of what 
is going out.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would please answer me, 
why not allow an alternative to finance the parks that involves 
concessions fees, and please address the point that this is not the 
same bill as we passed last year. This is a much stronger parks bill.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me quickly respond. 
The gentleman realizes and knows that the park committee has in front 
of it a park fee bill right now. We love our parks. We want to take 
care of our parks. We have to get more money in our parks, and we have 
a bill that we think would take care of it. It is not included in this 
bill, but we have one that I would hope we would have the support of 
the House and the Senate when we are able to bring it forth.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this is a parks closure bill and we 
should vote ``no'' so that it can go back to rules and there can be 
proper debate. The League of Conservation Voters has just issued a 
statement opposing this bill signed by the major environmental 
organizations. I want my colleagues in the Congressional Record 
tomorrow to read the national park units, the smaller ones, that might 
be at risk in their congressional districts if this bill passes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, it creates a Parks Closure 
Commission, it weakens our authority, it says to the National Park 
System, the park rangers, your views are not important, and it puts a 
lot of national monuments like Mount Rushmore, Lincoln, Jefferson, at 
risk. This is a railroad process. Let us go back to committee, allow 
for alternatives.
  This is why the Clinton administration is against this bill. Every 
major 

[[Page H 9091]]
environmental organization is against this bill, and hopefully, the 
House of Representatives tomorrow will vote a resounding ``no'' that we 
should do this bill right.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record.

               [From the Salt Lake Tribune, May 6, 1995]

                         Don't Close the Parks

       Generally, people want to enter a national park; they want 
     to leave a military base. Indeed, there is little that the 
     two have in common, other than that they are both federally 
     owned. Yet there is inexplicable sentiment in Congress for 
     providing a common element to both--a closure commission.
       A bill known as HR 260, which has already passed Utah Rep. 
     Jim Hansen's subcommittee and is due up before the full House 
     Resources Committee this month. Proposes the formation of a 
     Park System Review Commission. It would do for national park 
     units what the Base Realignment and Closure Commission has 
     done for military bases: It would close them.
       Closure is appropriate for some unneeded military bases, 
     but not so for national park units, which presumably have an 
     unchanging value. After all, national parks were created for 
     purposes of preservation and posterity, not for the every-
     shifting requirements of national defense. Existing park 
     units simply should not be exposed to the whims of an 
     independent commission.
       The issue has surfaced because the National Park Service 
     has been having problems adequately funding all 368 units in 
     its system. One complaint is that the system is overloaded 
     with units that don't belong, units that were designated at 
     the behest of some congressman trying to bring home the pork 
     for his district.
       This problem can be addressed without the creation of a 
     park closure commission. For starters, Congress can support 
     the portion of HR 260 that calls for the Interior secretary 
     to devise tighter criteria for additions to the NPS, thereby 
     safeguarding the system from selfish lawmakers.
       Then, if Congress still feels that undeserving units have 
     crept into the system, it can simply deauthorize them itself, 
     as it did last year with the John F. Kennedy Center for the 
     Performing Arts. It does not need some new level of 
     bureaucracy to do this.
       The rationale behind a park closure commission is that it 
     would save money for the NPS. Well, as the BRAC members can 
     testify, it would cost a lot of upfront money to close these 
     units. And once closed, who would operate them--the states, 
     or some other division of the federal government? How do the 
     taxpayers save on that?
       If the goal is to improve NPS finances, then start with 
     passage of park concessions reform or entrance fee reform. 
     Start funneling such fees back into the parks, instead of the 
     national treasury. It makes little sense to set up a 
     mechanism to close parks when proposed methods to increase 
     park revenues have not been implemented first.
       National parks are not at all like military bases. They 
     were created to establish a natural or historical legacy for 
     future generations. They don't need a closure commission; 
     they need more creative ways to stay open.
                                                                    ____


           [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 17, 1995]

                            America for Sale

       Americans can be justifiably proud of their national park 
     system. This treasure preserves areas of awesome natural 
     beauty, monuments of historical significance, indigenous 
     wildlife and an appreciation of this country's remarkably 
     diverse landscape. But that record apparently isn't good 
     enough to save the national parks from the GOP budget ax.
       The Republican budget resolution would make excessive 
     cutbacks in the National Park Service. This year's budget of 
     $1.42 billion, already drastically insufficient to maintain 
     the system properly, would be sliced to $1.12 billion in 
     1996, a 21 percent reduction. By the magic date of 2002, the 
     year of the balanced budget, the Park Service would be down 
     36 percent from today. At the same time, visits to national 
     parks are expected to grow from an estimated 270 million this 
     year to 300 million in the next five years. It doesn't take 
     much of imagination to figure out that something has to give.
       The victim could be the parks themselves. A bill in 
     Congress, H.R. 260, would dismantle the national park system. 
     It would set up a commission, along the lines of the 
     commission on base closures, to determine which parks should 
     be closed--and presumably sold off to the highest bidder. 
     Supposedly, the process would exclude the so-called crown 
     jewels of the system, such as the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone 
     or Yosemite. But less popular parks, or parks that cater 
     mostly to locals could be dumped.
       For too long, the National Park Service has been grossly 
     underfunded. The result has been deferred maintenance, repair 
     and construction, especially in parks like Yellowstone or the 
     Grand Canyon, which are deluged with visitors. After years of 
     starving the parks, the answer isn't to kill them outright. 
     It's to give the National Park Service the money to do its 
     job right.
       In a time of belt tightening, how can that be done? 
     Entrance fees can be raised, although care must be taken not 
     to deprive Americans of modest means of their ability to 
     enjoy the parks. Another solution is to increase the paltry 
     sum paid by private concessions to the National Park Service 
     for the privilege of operating hotels, restaurants and other 
     services--and to introduce competitive bidding in the process 
     of awarding concessions. According to The New York Times, 
     concessions in national parks made $653 million in 1993, but 
     the parks got back only $18.7 million, or 2.8 percent.
       The national parks are too precious to lose. They can and 
     should be saved, without destroying the whole system.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Wichita Eagle, Aug. 25, 1995]

        National Parks Deserve Help To Protect Nation's Heritage

       The lines of cars, trailers and campers pile up at 
     Yellowstone National Park, at Yosemite, all across the land. 
     Americans love their national parks.
       You'd think the passion for parks would spur more and 
     better maintenance and improvements at these national 
     treasures. But the reverse seems to be true. Sadly, the more 
     Americans use the national parks, the more run-down they 
     become.
       The National Park Service has an annual budget of $972 
     million, of which users fund about $100 million. The budget 
     falls short of the need; the result is a backlog of 
     maintenance and construction projects that has now reached to 
     more than $4 billion.
       In recent years, Congress has been in no mood to come up 
     with a big infusion of cash. Now, in fact, some members are 
     talking about closing some parks to make the system more 
     ``cost-efficient.''
       Certainly, a hard look at the National Park System is a 
     good idea. Yes, the system's spending priorities haven't 
     always been on target. The new $80 million Steamtown National 
     Historic Park in Pennsylvania is one example; critics rightly 
     say it has little to do with railroad history, or any other 
     kind. And the park system has some questionable elements: the 
     Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is a city 
     park and Wolf Trap in Virginia is really a venue for 
     concerts.
       But this country needs more national park space, not less, 
     and it needs to do a much better job of maintaining and 
     improving what it has. That, of course, creates a sizzling 
     conflict between two American values: a love for parks and a 
     passion for cutting federal spending.
       There's a bottom line here that is not totally about the 
     bottom line. Yes, the national parks should be run 
     efficiently. Yes, users should pay more. But the parks are 
     priceless public places--for preservation, education and 
     recreation for all Americans. If it costs more money to 
     protect and expand them, it's a worthy investment in 
     America's spectacular natural and historical heritage.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Las Vegas Sun, Aug. 27, 1995]

                   GOP Readies Land Grab of Our Parks

       When the Republican House prepares to decimate the nation's 
     parks next month get ready for the bull-dozers. Our national 
     heritage will never be the same.
       Several conservative congressmen, who like to throw out 
     government babies with the bath water, have taken aim at the 
     National Park Service to cull out parks they don't like.
       One plan would create a commission, much like the panel to 
     close military bases, to select parks to be turned over to 
     the States or private interests.
       And which parks would suffer? Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah, 
     offers a clue. He says Great Basin Park, the only national 
     park in Nevada, ``does not have the true definition of park 
     criteria.'' Great Basin was created in 1986 and protects 
     77,000 acres of pristine woodland northeast of Ely. About 
     90,000 people a year visit the park.
       The park was the result of hard-fought efforts by Sen. 
     Harry Reid, D-Nev., who wanted to preserve a small piece of 
     Nevada for future generations. Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., 
     says parks provide recreation for families.
       He doesn't understand how closing national parks squares 
     with ``family values'' oriented GOP.
       But this isn't a family value issue. It has more to do with 
     GOP's links to big business and land exploiters and a growing 
     disdain for the public interest.
       Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, a proponent of littering 
     Southern Nevada with nuclear waste, wants alternative 
     solutions for parks, like private operations.
       Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., has fought the California 
     Desert Protection Act tooth-and-nail to benefit land 
     exploiters.
       Critics point to inefficient park management and a growing 
     backlog of maintenance projects.
       But it was Congress that expanded the park system without 
     providing additional funding. Park personnel are spread more 
     thinly than before.
       Critics insist, under their plan, parks like Steam National 
     Historical Park in Pennsylvania wouldn't have been created.
       But that $80 million park was the brainstorm of 
     Pennsylvania congressmen, not the Park Service.
       We think there's more afoot here than Park Service 
     efficiency. A massive land sell-off is more likely. Arizona 
     may be a good example.
       Republican Gov. Fife Symington has lobbied for his state to 
     take over Park Service properties, while his agents sold off 
     a portion of a historic landmark. 

[[Page H 9092]]

       These same congressmen have conveniently forgotten that the 
     public lands and parks systems were the legacy of their 
     party.
       President Theodore Roosevelt, never a liberal big-spender, 
     nevertheless set aside thousands of acres of dwindling 
     wilderness lands to benefit future generations.
       He was afraid an important heritage might be lost.
       Lucky for Teddy he isn't around to see the latest crop of 
     House Republicans.
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, July 4, 1995]

                             Parks in Peril

       This is the time of year when Americans begin flocking to 
     their national parks. Some will find what they were looking 
     for: vistas of spectacular beauty, hours of restorative 
     silence. But others may find themselves wondering whether 
     they have traded one rat race for another. The national parks 
     contain most of America's greatest scenic wonders. They also 
     suffer from the urban nuisances vacationers had hoped to 
     leave behind: traffic jams, noise, dirty air and garbage.
       There is, as Representative Bill Richardson of New Mexico 
     notes, ``trouble in paradise.'' If past experience is any 
     guide, for example, there will be gridlock today in Yosemite. 
     By one estimate, the Grand Canyon alone needs $350 million to 
     repair roads, sewers and water systems. Many of the park 
     system's 22,000 historic buildings, as any visitor to Ellis 
     Island can confirm, are simply falling apart.
       Human overload is the most visible culprit. Nationwide 
     attendance at the Park Service's 368 separate units is 
     expected to reach 270 million this year, 300 million by the 
     turn of the century. But the real culprit is Congress. In the 
     past 20 years, it has established more than 80 new parks 
     while refusing to give the Interior Department's Park Service 
     enough money to do its job. The service's $1.5 billion annual 
     budget barely covers operating costs. The result is an 
     estimated $6 billion repair and construction backlog.
       Congress is responsible for cleaning up the mess it 
     created. The question is how. Not surprisingly, given 
     Washington's anti-environmental, budget-conscious mood, the 
     most popular option is to trim back the system itself. A bill 
     before the House would direct the Interior Department to 
     review all parks and determine which ones are ``nationally 
     significant.'' At that point, a special commission would 
     decide which parks should get the ax and then present its 
     list to Congress.
       The proposal excludes 54 ``major'' national parks but 
     leaves open for review more than 300 monuments, historic 
     sites, scenic trails, urban parks and assorted recreation 
     areas.
       On its surface, this bill, co-sponsored by Joel Hefley, 
     Republican of Colorado, and Bruce Vento, Democrat of 
     Minnesota, has an appealing simplicity. The park system 
     definitely includes substandard sites--what Mr. Hefley calls 
     ``pork parks,'' shoe-horned into the system to enhance local 
     economies and the careers of the politicians who sponsored 
     them. Get rid of these, Mr. Hefley argues, and we will have 
     more money to spend on the ``crown jewels'' like Yellowstone 
     and the Grand Canyon.
       In the end, though, this is an unnecessarily messy and 
     potentially dangerous approach to the problem. Mr. Vento says 
     that Congress will vote on each recommendation ``on its 
     merits.'' But a more likely scenario is that the proposed 
     closings will be lumped together in one omnibus ``closings'' 
     bill, threatening valuable wilderness along with mediocre 
     sites that do not belong in the system.
       A more positive approach to rescuing the parks is contained 
     in two other bills confronting the Senate and House. One 
     would overhaul entrance fees, which are ridiculously low. The 
     average entrance fee is $3, less than half the cost of a 
     ticket to ``Batman Forever.'' A carload of people can explore 
     Yellowstone for a whole week for only $10--the same price 
     they would have paid in 1916. Doubling entrance fees, a not 
     unreasonable proposition, could generate an extra $100 
     million for the parks.
       The second bill would end the sweetheart contracts awarded 
     years ago to the companies that run the lodges, souvenir 
     shops and other facilities inside the parks. In 1993, 
     concessions generated gross revenues of $657 million but 
     returned only $18.7 million--2.8 per cent--to the Federal 
     Treasury. The bill would mandate competitive bidding for 
     these lucrative enterprises, giving the Park Service a bigger 
     cut of the proceeds and generating $60 million more for long-
     neglected repairs.
       Both measures were well on their way to approval when time 
     ran out on the 103d Congress last December. There is now in 
     place a vastly different Congress, more inclined to budgetary 
     parsimony than environmental stewardship. Its basic 
     philosophy is that to save the patient we have to cut off an 
     arm here, a leg there.
       That is the wrong way to go. The right way is to provide 
     the park system with enough resources not just to survive but 
     to renew itself. The language in the original mandate 
     establishing the Park Service was unambiguous. The national 
     parks should be left ``unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
     generations.'' Congress wrote that language, and Congress 
     needs to honor it now.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Miami Herald, June 27, 1995]

                        For Sale: National Parks


   congressional budget cuts and anti-government attitudes threaten 
                           America's heritage

       ``Pssst, want to buy a national park? No, not Yellowstone, 
     not Yosemite, not Grand Canyon (or at least not yet). How 
     `bout Gateway overlooking Manhattan, Cuyahoga Valley outside 
     Cleveland, San Francisco's Golden Gate and Presidio? Miami's 
     Biscayne on the Atlantic Coast? Now, there's a deal. Right on 
     the highway to the Keys, perfect for development * * *''
       Haven't you heard? Congress's Republicans want to sell the 
     nation's urban parks. They cost too much, you know? Got to 
     cut taxes, balance the budget. Government shouldn't own 
     land--this whole idea of public lands, public parks * * * 
     passe * * * not something government should be doing.
       Did American voters knowingly seat a Congress that shows 
     such antipathy to the environment, natural resources, public 
     parks, even recreation? Bill after bill keeps coming--mostly 
     from the House: a Clean Water Act that dismantles pollution 
     controls; a regulatory reform act that encourages junk 
     science and invites lawsuits; a property-rights bill intended 
     to spike protection for endangered species; and now HR 260, 
     setting up a park-closure commission, and a 1996 budget 
     resolution too skimpy to keep the 368 national parks and 
     historic sites open.
       The National Park Service will spend $1.42 billion this 
     year. The Republican budget resolution scheduled for House 
     debate this week cuts that by 21 percent to $1.12 billion for 
     1996. By 2002, spending for parks is to be 36 percent less. 
     There will be no choice but to close some parks, recreation 
     areas, monuments, battlefields, and riverways, while reducing 
     hours, programs, and maintenance at others.
       Targeted are the 200 ``smallest'' units including Biscayne, 
     but also Tennessee's Obed Wild and Scenic River (adjacent to 
     the site of next year's Olympic whitewater competition), 
     historic homes of Abraham Lincoln and Booker T. Washington, 
     the Civil War battlefields of Antietam and Petersburg, 
     California's channel Islands, and Utah's great red sandstone 
     Arches. At Philadelphia's Independence National Historical 
     Park, nine of the 14 buildings now open would be closed. At 
     Great Smoky Mountains, the nature walks and talks would be 
     eliminated. At Everglades, the Long Pine Key and Flamingo 
     campgrounds would close. The Clinton administration has 
     recommended alternatives, but the GOP isn't interested.
       That's because the budget resolution effectually implements 
     a program laid out by the House Resources Committee to sell 
     parks. Although not yet voted on by the House, HR 260 gives 
     Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt two years to come up with a 
     list of parks to close and establishes a National Park 
     Service Review Commission to do the job if the secretary 
     doesn't. The list would be sent to Congress for the final 
     say.
       How does one countenance selling these national treasures? 
     Ask the Republicans in Congress.
                                                                    ____


           [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 14, 1995]

                        Preserve America's Past

       Everyone seems to agree that the national park system is in 
     trouble. Its budget has not kept pace with the parks' ever-
     increasing popularity. The result is obvious and predictable: 
     deferred maintenance and the deterioration of facilities and 
     resources, both natural and historic.
       When Americans think of their national parks, they think 
     mostly of their natural beauty and of their plants, animals 
     and spectacular landscapes. But these parks also include 
     archaeological and historic structures. As The New York Times 
     has reported, far too many of these structures under the care 
     of the National Park Service--the system's ``parkitecture''--
     are in a state of serious, perhaps irreparable decay. The 
     price tag to preserve these historic buildings could reach 
     $1.5 billion, considerably more than the $1.12 billion the 
     Republicans want for the entire 1996 National Park Service 
     budget.
       Public-private partnerships have been formed to rescue some 
     prominent structures, such as the Sperry and Granite Park 
     Chalets in Montana's Glacier National Park, and such projects 
     should be encouraged wherever possible. Yet the condition of 
     the parks and its ``parkitecture'' argues for a far more 
     comprehensive approach to their care.
       That approach can be found in H.R. 2181, the Common Sense 
     National Park System Reform Act, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Bill 
     Richardson, a Democrat from New Mexico. This reform bill, 
     which has bipartisan support, stands in distinct contrast to 
     a more Draconian bill, H.R. 260, that would establish a park 
     closure commission. Mr. Richardson's intent is to save the 
     system, not gut it. It is an especially helpful approach at a 
     time when the park service's budget, which should be 
     increasing to meet the public's demand, is actually 
     decreasing.
       Mr. Richardson's bill would raise more money for the parks 
     from concessionaires operating in the parks and from visitors 
     and users. Right now businesses operating in the parks, 
     including hotels and restaurants, pay next to nothing for the 
     privilege of making gigantic profits. Introducing a system of 
     competitive bidding for concessions would provide more money, 
     part of which would go into a park improvements fund. This 
     bill would also raise entrance and user fees, though not 
     outrageously, and divert part of the proceeds into a park 
     renewal fund.
       The national parks are among the most precious and most 
     cherished resources in 

[[Page H 9093]]
     this country. This bill would help restore them to their past glory.
                                                                    ____


            [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 27, 1995]

                            Park Benchmarks


Winnow impostors from the nation's park system? Sure, but don't reduce 
                    it to just a few, select jewels

       Anyone who has paid a lick of attention knows that 
     America's national parks aren't without their problems--a 
     chief one being, interestingly, that many are too darn 
     popular for their own good. You've seen the pictures of 
     Yellowstone traffic jams. Maybe you got stuck in one in the 
     Great Smoky Mountains. And it's not exactly a secret in 
     Philadelphia that a jewel of our nation's history--
     Independence Hall--had to wait far too long for its ongoing 
     overhaul.
       Fewer people know that there are a couple of ringers in the 
     system, too. Steamtown National Historical Park in Scranton, 
     for instance, poses as a site of significance in the 
     development of the U.S. rail system, but is really more of a 
     monument to the pork-winning talents of a Scranton 
     congressman.
       And it seems like only a more handful of folks are tuned in 
     to the fact that come fall, Congress has teed up a bill that 
     would set up a park-closure commission, and as is fashionable 
     these days, consider foisting management of some of them off 
     onto the states. (Not that the cash-strapped states are 
     clamoring for the honor.)
       At first glance, the bill seems harmless--and it taps all 
     the voguish budget-cutting buttons. One of its prime movers, 
     Rep. James V. Hansen, a Utah Republican, says he's just 
     looking for ``a better return from our parks,'' and a way to 
     raise money for the bigger parks' backlogged maintenance 
     budgets.
       But there are flies in the ointment. One is that Congress 
     can already decommission any part it wants to--without a new 
     commission. (Last year, in fact, the Kennedy Center for the 
     Performing Arts in Washington was congressionally removed 
     from Park Service jurisdiction.)
       Opponents of the bill ask whether the new commission--which 
     itself would cost upward of $2 million--would be biased at 
     the outset against urban and historical parks.
       Another problem is that once the system is balkanized by 
     farming out operations to state park systems and such, 
     Americans may find themselves facing--instead of uniformly 
     run parks--a checkered quilt of good, bad and ugly 
     operations. (How long would it be, indeed, until an outcry 
     went up to turn over more federal funding to states hard-
     pressed to keep certain parks up to standard?)
       Third, though the West's treasured parklands are 
     technically off the table, aspects of the ``park-reform'' 
     agenda would make it more difficult to donate land to parks 
     such as Virginia's Shenandoah National Park, thus making 
     their periphery ripe for commercial developments.
       But the largest flaw in the legislation--and the one that 
     subverts its pretense of going to bat for the taxpayer--is 
     that its sponsors have actively blocked action on concession 
     reform that would give the Park Service more of each dollar 
     spent at privately run eateries and lodgings at national 
     parks.
       By some estimates, if concessionaires such as Philadelphia-
     based ARA services had to pay the same cut of their gross 
     from park business that they do at stadiums and other public 
     facilities, the parks could pocket $50 million or more 
     annually.
       If Congress wants to tighten up on the requirements to 
     become part of the park system, no problem. (See Steamtown 
     above.) If it wants raise some user fees that don't 
     overburden families, no problem. But we're skeptical of those 
     who argue that Americans deserve better value from their 
     parklands, while failing to argue that they deserve a better 
     return from the businesses that make a bundle from park 
     concessions.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Deseret News, Dec. 17, 1994]

                  Plan for Park-Closure Panel Assailed


     association says the agenda should include more than shutdowns

       The National Parks and Conservation Association, an 
     advocacy group with 475,000 members, has opposed the idea of 
     establishing a commission to decide which national parks 
     should be closed.
       Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, is among conservatives advancing 
     the idea of cutting back the nation's park system.
       The parks association ``cannot support a commission whose 
     predetermined goal is solely park closures,'' said Paul C. 
     Pritchard in a three-page letter to Hansen. ``If a commission 
     is formed, it should be a body dedicated to reviewing the 
     existing system and identifying additions and potential 
     closures based on the standards of national significance.''
       Allen Freemyer, an attorney for the House Natural Resources 
     Committee, said, ``The basic policy direction is to stop the 
     growth of the national-park system for a little while . . . 
     It's not a matter of whether we're going to close some parks. 
     It's a matter of how we're going to close them.''
       Hansen, the second-ranking Republican on the Natural 
     Resources Committee, suggested during the last election 
     campaign that Great Basin National Park on the Utah-Nevada 
     border should be reviewed by a closure commission.
       ``If you have been there once, you don't need to go 
     again,'' he told the Ogden-Weber Chamber of Commerce.
       Hansen last week issued a two-page letter the need for a 
     closure commission. Pritchard responded to that letter.
       ``Our national-park system currently faces a crisis which 
     stems from too many parks and insufficient funding,'' Hansen 
     wrote. ``In the first 50 years of the national-park system, 
     Congress designated only about 60 park areas. However, in the 
     last six years alone, Congress established 30 new park areas 
     across the country. While Congress is busy creating new 
     parks, our crown jewels are falling into disrepair.''
       Hansen said the Park Service has a construction backlog of 
     $6 billion and needs $400 million to $800 million from 
     Congress each year to subsidize its budget.
       Pritchard said that last year Hansen opposed a bill that 
     would have generated an extra $45 million to $60 million by 
     increasing the fees paid by park concessionaires. Hansen said 
     higher fees would have driven concessionaires out of business 
     and cost the government more in the long run.
                                                                    ____


            [From the Elko Daily Free Press, July 31, 1995]

              ESA Rewrite Dominated Western States Summit

                            (By Don Bowman)

       Rewriting the Endangered Species Act was the focus of the 
     Western States Summit IV, which concluded in Albuquerque, 
     N.M., July 15. The meeting was strongly supported by state 
     legislators of Utah and Arizona, as well as county 
     commissioners and congressmen from many western states.
       Shaken by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on Sweet 
     Home, there was consistent call for Congress to make the act 
     more sensitive to the people or repeal it. Rep. Jim Hansen, 
     R-Utah, said, ``The Endangered Species Act degenerated from a 
     protective law into something Congress never anticipated, nor 
     intended to foist on the people. The agencies went far beyond 
     the intentions of the act.'' He advocated a new ESA that 
     protected private property, changed the listing process, 
     required sound social and economic concerns, allowed local 
     voice and made people who filed for a listing of species post 
     a bond and show credentials.
       Continuing on, Hansen said the National Park Service needed 
     serious reform. ``One hundred and fifty parks of the some 368 
     need to be dropped,'' Hansen said, giving an example of one 
     park that had a budget of $300,000 per year and only 50 
     visitors per year. ``When a bureaucracy reaches a certain 
     critical mass, its only goal is to insure its own 
     propagation. It begins to serve the monster rather than the 
     people.'' Hansen said.
       The state rights issues also was a hot topic and most 
     attendees agreed the highlight of the meeting was the talk 
     given by Lana Marcussen, a New Mexico attorney working with 
     lands issues. Speaking on states' rights and sovereignty with 
     an extraordinary amount of case reference recalled at will, 
     the attorney was surrounded by people wherever she stopped. 
     Her federalism argument was used in the New Mexico vs. 
     Watkins case that went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the 
     federal government had to apply to the State of New Mexico 
     for low level nuclear waste permits. Her talks focused on the 
     rights of the people to hold the state and federal 
     governments accountable.
       Marcussen said there had been a tremendous shift by the 
     courts in favor of state sovereignty. The court has limited 
     the federal government's power to compel states to do their 
     bidding in the case of New York vs. U.S., another nuclear 
     waste case. In addition, the Brady bill has been declared 
     unconstitutional in at least three district courts.
       Federal control seems to be crumbling under the challenges 
     of the people time after time, she said.
       During the conference, the Supreme Court ruled a governor 
     could not make a special pact for Indian gambling. This is 
     the first time a court has ruled against a governor after the 
     Interior Department has approved the compact. ``With recent 
     court decisions such as Adarand (affirmative action) and 
     Lucas (federal powers under the Commerce Clause), Indian 
     sovereignty is no more,'' Marcussen said. ``This is the 
     beginning of the end of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. How can 
     a racially oriented agency continue?''
       Perry Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, who 
     argued the Adarand case in the Supreme Court, told attendees 
     ``The environmentalists want it all--even the two thirds of 
     this country that is private land.--The very basis of this 
     government was built on property rights. If you have no 
     property right you have no freedom.''
       The summit was sponsored by the Western States Coalition, 
     founded by Met Johnson and Rob Bishop. the organization has 
     been instrumental in establishing state constitutional 
     defense councils, involved in legislative protection of 
     property rights and a major voice in Congress on rural 
     issues. The next Western States Summit is expected to be held 
     in California.
                                                                    ____


 Congressman Bill Richardson--Talking Points in Opposition to H.R. 260


                         who opposes h.r. 260?

       The Clinton Administration.
       The Department of Interior.
       The National Park Service.
       The League of Conservation Voters.
       National Parks and Conservation Association.
       The Wilderness Society. 

[[Page H 9094]]

       Sierra Club.
       Izaak Walton League of America.
       Friends of Earth.
       Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.
       American Hiking Society.
       Defenders of Wildlife.


        what newspapers have issued editorials against h.r. 260?

       The Salt Lake Tribune.
       The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
       The New York Times.
       The Miami Herald.
       The Philadelphia Herald.
       The Wichita Eagle.
       The Las Vegas Sun.


                         what does h.r. 260 do?

       Creates a park closure commission to recommend specific 
     units of the National Park System for closure, privatization 
     or sale to the highest bidder.
       Weaken Congress' statutory authority to make decisions on 
     park management by granting broad powers to a politically 
     appointed commission;
       Send a strong signal to the American people that Congress 
     does not have the political will to carry out its 
     responsibilities of oversight over the National Park Service;
       Exempt the 54 National Park units from closure, leaving 
     less visited, smaller budgeted parks and important national 
     monuments like Independence Hall, the Statue of Liberty, Mt. 
     Rushmore, the Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson Monuments and 
     the Martin Luther King Jr. Historic Site on the chopping 
     block.
       Require the National Park Service (NPS) to prepare a 
     financial management plan for Congress to ensure 
     accountability within the system;
       Require the NPS (not a politically-appointed park closure 
     commission) to prepare a description of types of resources 
     not currently in the system, refine the definitions for 
     current units of the system and submit a report to Congress 
     identifying which units of the System do not conform with the 
     revised park criteria from the new plan;
       Reform the current NPS concessions policy to mandate open 
     competition for large concessions contracts while shielding 
     high-performance ``mom and pop'' or small businesses with 
     revenues under $500,000 per year from preserving the right to 
     match competing bids on contract renewals AND require that a 
     portion of the concession fees paid remain in the park unit 
     in which they are generated to fund necessary improvements on 
     site, etc.
       Reform the current NPS entrance fee policy to increase the 
     amount of money coming into the park from visitors AND 
     require that a portion of these fees remain in the park unit 
     in which they are generated for site specific needs.
                                                                    ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 1995.

     Re oppose H.R. 260, the National Park System Reform Act.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters is 
     the bipartisan, political arm of the national environmental 
     movement. Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental 
     Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of 
     Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is 
     distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide and 
     the press.
       This Tuesday, the House of Representatives is expected to 
     vote on a motion to suspend the rules and consider H.R. 260, 
     the National Park System Reform Act. Under the guise of 
     reforming and improving the National Park System H.R. 260 
     creates a politically appointed commission, whose sole 
     responsibility would be to determine which park units should 
     be closed. While there may be units in the National Park 
     System that deserve scrutiny, LCV opposes the creation of a 
     politically appointed parks closure commission and urges you 
     to vote against passage of H.R. 260.
       H.R. 260, and the parks closure commission it creates, 
     threatens 315 units of the National Park System including: 
     urban parks, historic sites, national monuments, national 
     seashores, national recreation areas, and Civil War 
     Battlefields. Instead of considering ways to improve the 
     National Park System H.R. 260 unnecessarily creates a new 
     layer of government and an expensive bureaucratic process, 
     when in fact Congress already has the authority to remove 
     units from the National Park System.
       LCV views H.R. 260 as an assault on the protection of our 
     cultural and natural heritage. By bringing H.R. 260 to the 
     House floor on the suspensions calendar Members are prevented 
     from offering amendments which could significantly improve 
     this flawed legislation. LCV beleves that the full House of 
     Representatives, like the House Resources Committee, should 
     have an opportunity to vote on an amendment to delete the 
     park closure commission. LCV urges you to oppose H.R. 260 so 
     that this and other amendments can be offered under regular 
     House procedures. LCV's Political Advisory Committee will 
     consider including a vote on passage of H.R. 260 in compiling 
     its 1995 Scorecard.
       Thank you for your consideration of this issue. For further 
     information, please call Betsy Loyless in my office at 202/
     785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Frank Loy,
     Acting President.
                                                                    ____

         American Hiking Society, Defenders of Wildlife, 
           Environmental Action Foundation, Friends of the Earth, 
           Izaak Walton League, National Parks and Conservation 
           Association, Sierra Club, Sierra Club Legal Defense 
           Fund, the Wilderness Society,
                                               September 18, 1995.
       Dear Representative: We are writing to urge you to vote 
     against H.R. 260, the National Park System Reform Act, when 
     the House considers this ill-advised legislation. The bill 
     will be debated on the suspension calendar on Monday, 
     September 18 and a vote is expected to occur the following 
     day.
       Unlike the version of this legislation which passed the 
     House of Representatives last year, H.R. 260 would formally 
     establish a politically appointed park closure commission as 
     part of a review of the National Park System. This would set 
     in motion a process to close parks, or portions of parks.
       This is controversial legislation that has no place on the 
     suspension calendar. Evidence of its contentiousness has been 
     demonstrated by the dozens of newspapers across America that 
     have editorialized against H.R. 260. By limiting debate and 
     prohibiting Members of Congress from offering amendments, the 
     legislation cannot be improved by the whole House of 
     Representatives. The precedent for how this bill is being 
     considered, and the process it sets in motion are ominous. If 
     the Resources Committee gags the House of Representatives, 
     what will the park closure commission do to the American 
     people?
       This legislation also creates another unnecessary layer of 
     government and an elaborate bureaucratic process. It requires 
     the National Park Service to conduct a review of the National 
     Park System and recommend sites to be deleted from the 
     system; then, it creates a politically appointed commission 
     to conduct the same process. The National Park Service 
     already has the authority to recommend the removal of a unit 
     from the National Park System, and Congress has the authority 
     to remove units from the National Park System. It has 
     exercised this authority throughout the history of the 
     National Park System, as demonstrated when Congress removed 
     the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts last year.
       The consideration of H.R. 260 on the suspension calendar is 
     tantamount to a closed process to close parks. By voting 
     against H.R. 260, you will be voting for a fair and open 
     process on important decisions with respect to the management 
     of our nation's cultural and natural heritage.
           Sincerely,
         David Lillard, President, American Hiking Society; James 
           K. Wyerman, V.P. for Programs, Defenders of Wildlife; 
           Margaret Morgan-Hubbard, Executive Director, 
           Environmental Action Foundation; Brent Blackwelder, 
           V.P. for Policy, Friends of the Earth; Paul Hansen, 
           Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of America; 
           William J. Chandler, V.P. for Conservation Policy, 
           National Parks & Conservation Association; Melanie 
           Griffin, Director of Public Lands, Sierra Club; Marty 
           Hayden, Senior Policy Analyst, Sierra Club Legal 
           Defense Fund; Rindy O'Brien, V.P. for Public Policy, 
           The Wilderness Society.
                                                                    ____


                      THE 200 SMALLEST BUDGET PARKS                     
                             [Fiscal years]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cumulative 
          National Park Service park units       1995 park    1995 park 
                                                   base         base    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..  Cane River Creole NHP....................           0             0
2..  New Orleans Jazz NHP.....................           0             0
3..  Salt River Bay NHP and Ecological                                  
      Preserve................................           0             0
4..  Natchez Trace NST........................      25,000        25,000
5..  Saint Croix Island IHS...................      54,000        79,000
6..  Bluestone NSR............................      61,000       140,000
7..  Devils Postpile NM.......................      92,000       232,000
8..  Rainbow Bridge NM........................      99,000       331,000
9..  Hovenweep NM and Yucca House NM..........     107,000       438,000
10.  Thaddeus Kosciuszko NMem.................     128,000       566,000
11.  Ebey's Landing Nat'l Historical Reserve..     135,000       701,000
12.  Hamilton Grange NMem.....................     139,000       840,000
13.  Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural NHS.........     155,000       995,000
14.  Aniakchak NM and Preserve................     160,000     1,155,000
15.  Thomas Stone NHS.........................     172,000     1,327,000
16.  National Park of American Samoa..........     192,000     1,519,000
17.  Obed Wild and Scenic River...............     199,000     1,718,000
18.  Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace NHS........     200,000     1,918,000
19.  Russell Cave NM..........................     202,000     2,120,000
20.  Gila Cliff Dwellings NM..................     205,000     2,325,000
21.  Maggie L. Walker NHS.....................     210,000     2,535,000
22.  City of Rocks National Reserve...........     211,000     2,746,000
23.  Keweenaw NHP.............................     212,000     2,958,000
24.  Gauley NRA...............................     217,000     3,175,000
25.  Ninety Six NHS...........................     221,000     3,396,000
26.  John F. Kennedy NHS......................     225,000     3,621,000
27.  Dayton Aviation NHP......................     228,000     3,849,000
28.  Manzanar NHS.............................     232,000     4,081,000
29.  Moores Creek NB..........................     238,000     4,319,000
30.  Coronado NMem............................     251,000     4,570,000
31.  Hagerman Fossil Beds NM..................     257,000     4,827,000
32.  Eugene O'Neill NHS.......................     260,000     5,087,000
33.  Cedar Breaks NM..........................     263,000     5,350,000
34.  Muir Woods NM............................     273,000     5,623,000
35.  Big Hole NB..............................     274,000     5,897,000
36.  Saint Paul's Church NHS..................     280,000     6,177,000
37.  William Howard Taft NHS..................     283,000     6,460,000
38.  Cowpens NB...............................     285,000     6,745,000
39.  Edgar Allan Poe NHS......................     286,000     7,031,000
40.  Palo Alto Battlefield NHS................     297,000     7,328,000
41.  Pipe Spring NM...........................     297,000     7,625,000
42.  Roger William NMem.......................     299,000     7,924,000
43.  De Soto NMem.............................     302,000     8,226,000
44.  Puukohola Heiau NHS......................     302,000     8,528,000
45.  Brown v. Board of Education NHS..........     303,000     8,831,000
46.  Mary McLeod Bethune Council House NHS....     305,000     9,136,000
47.  Fort Point NHS...........................     311,000     9,447,000
48.  Mojave NP................................     312,000     9,759,000
49.  Klondike Gold Rush NHP (Seattle).........     313,000    10,072,000
50.  Monocacy NB..............................     314,000    10,386,000
51.  Horseshoe Bend NMP.......................     321,000    10,707,000
52.  Knife River Indian Village NHS...........     322,000    11,029,000
53.  Tonto NM.................................     322,000    11,351,000

[[Page H 9095]]
                                                                        
54.  Natural Bridges NM.......................     327,000    11,678,000
55.  Congaree Swamp NM........................     328,000    12,006,000
56.  Fort Caroline NMem.......................     336,000    12,342,000
57.  Fort Union Trading Post NHS..............     336,000    12,678,000
58.  Friendship Hill NHS......................     338,000    13,016,000
59.  Charles Pickney NHS......................     339,000    13,355,000
60.  El Morro NM..............................     342,000    13,697,000
61.  Aztec Ruins NM...........................     343,000    14,040,000
62.  Casa Grande Ruins NM and Hohokam Pima NM.     348,000    14,388,000
63.  Tumacacori NHP...........................     353,000    14,741,000
64.  Fossil Butte NM..........................     357,000    15,098,000
65.  Andrew Johnson NHS.......................     359,000    15,457,000
66.  Piscataway Park..........................     361,000    15,818,000
67.  Weir Farm NHS............................     367,000    16,185,000
68.  Boston African American NHS..............     376,000    16,561,000
69.  Federal Hall NMem........................     380,000    16,941,000
70.  Stones River NB..........................     380,000    17,321,000
71.  Homestead NM of America..................     382,000    17,703,000
72.  Niobrara/Missouri NR.....................     387,000    18,090,000
73.  Whitman Mission NHS......................     388,000    18,478,000
74.  Longfellow NHS...........................     389,000    18,867,000
75.  Hampton NHS..............................     391,000    19,258,000
76.  John Muir NHS............................     393,000    19,651,000
77.  Agate Fossil Beds NM.....................     394,000    20,045,000
78.  Oregon Caves NM..........................     396,000    20,441,000
79.  Capulin Volcano NM.......................     398,000    20,839,000
80.  John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Mem Parkway....     400,000    21,239,000
81.  Jimmy Carter NHS.........................     404,000    21,643,000
82.  Arkansas Post NMem.......................     417,000    22,060,000
83.  Guilford Courthouse NMP..................     422,000    22,482,000
84.  Florissant Fossil Beds NM................     423,000    22,905,000
85.  San Juan Island NHP......................     431,000    23,336,000
86.  Abraham Lincoln Birthplace NHS...........     450,000    23,786,000
87.  Fort Union NM............................     452,000    24,238,000
88.  Effigy Mounds NM.........................     456,000    24,694,000
89.  Fort Frederica NM........................     466,000    25,160,000
90.  Pipestone NM.............................     467,000    25,627,000
91.  Fort Smith NHS...........................     472,000    26,099,000
92.  Booker T. Washington NM..................     477,000    26,576,000
93.  Kings Mountain NMP.......................     478,000    27,054,000
94.  Tuskegee Institute NHS...................     478,000    27,532,000
95.  Timpanogos Cave NM.......................     482,000    28,014,000
96.  Hopewell Culture NHP.....................     495,000    28,509,000
97.  Eleanor Roosevelt NHS....................     497,000    29,006,000
98.  Ocmulgee NM..............................     498,000    29,504,000
99.  George Washington Carver NM..............     499,000    30,003,000
100  Hubbell Trading Post NHS.................     501,000    30,504,000
101  Ulysses S. Grant NHS.....................     502,000    31,006,000
102  Castle Clinton NM........................     503,000    31,509,000
103  Dry Tortugas NP..........................     506,000    32,015,000
104  Fort Clatsop NMem........................     510,000    32,525,000
105  Pea Ridge NMP............................     511,000    33,036,000
106  Perry's Victory and Intnl Peace Memorial.     511,000    33,547,000
107  Scotts Bluff NM..........................     516,000    34,063,000
108  Timucuan Ecological and Hist Preserve....     517,000    34,580,000
109  Devils Tower NM..........................     535,000    35,115,000
110  Ford's Theatre NHS.......................     537,000    35,652,000
111  Navajo NM................................     539,000    36,191,000
112  George Rogers Clark NHP..................     547,000    36,738,000
113  Christiansted NHS and Buck Island Reef NM     550,000    37,288,000
114  Golden Spike NHS.........................     552,000    37,840,000
115  Jewel Cave NM............................     556,000    38,396,000
116  Fort Stanwix NM..........................     558,000    38,954,000
117  Saint-Gaudens NHS........................     559,000    39,513,000
118  Carl Sandburg Home NHS...................     563,000    40,076,000
119  General Grant NMem.......................     572,000    40,648,000
120  Kaloko-Honokohau NHP.....................     572,000    41,220,000
121  Grand Portage NM.........................     573,000    41,793,000
122  War in the Pacific NHP...................     575,000    42,368,000
123  El Malpais NM............................     579,000    42,947,000
124  Little Bighorn NM........................     581,000    43,528,000
125  Fort Scott NHS...........................     586,000    44,114,000
126  Fort Larned NHS..........................     597,000    44,711,000
127  Appalachian NST..........................     598,000    45,309,000
128  Fort Pulaski NM..........................     601,000    45,910,000
129  Springfield Armory NHS...................     613,000    46,523,000
130  Saugus Iron Works NHS....................     614,000    47,137,000
131  Johnstown Flood NMem.....................     622,000    47,759,000
132  Lincoln Boyhood NMem.....................     622,000    48,381,000
133  Black Canyon of the Gunnison NM..........     624,000    49,005,000
134  Bent's Old Fort NHS......................     648,000    49,653,000
135  Fort Donelson NB.........................     655,000    50,308,000
136  Andersonville NHS........................     661,000    50,969,000
137  Craters of the Moon NM...................     661,000    51,630,000
138  Fort Davis NHS...........................     679,000    52,309,000
139  Martin Van Buren NHS.....................     687,000    52,996,000
140  Salinas Pueblo Missions NM...............     693,000    53,689,000
141  John Day Fossil Beds NM..................     695,000    54,384,000
142  Hopewell Furnace NHS.....................     699,000    55,083,000
143  Great Sand Dunes NM......................     704,000    55,787,000
144  Little River Canyon Nat'l Preserve.......     716,000    56,503,000
145  Pu'uhonua O'Honaunau NHP.................     726,000    57,229,000
146  Appomattox Court House NHP...............     728,000    57,957,000
147  Greenbelt Park...........................     733,000    58,690,000
148  Montezuma Castle NM and Tuzigoot NM......     736,000    59,426,000
149  Wilson's Creek NB........................     741,000    60,167,000
150  Sagamore Hill NHS........................     744,000    60,911,000
151  Fort Laramie NHS.........................     746,000    61,657,000
152  Kennesaw Mountain NBP....................     746,000    62,403,000
153  Petroglyph NM............................     756,000    63,159,000
154  Herbert Hoover NHS.......................     760,000    63,919,000
155  Colorado NM..............................     765,000    64,684,000
156  Lava Beds NM.............................     776,000    65,460,000
157  Mississippi NR and RA....................     784,000    66,244,000
158  Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS....................     786,000    67,030,000
159  Women's Rights NHP.......................     796,000    67,826,000
160  Arches NP................................     798,000    68,624,000
161  Yukon-Charley Rivers Nat'l Preserve......     802,000    69,426,000
162  Shiloh NMP...............................     806,000    70,232,000
163  Bering Land Bridge National Preserve.....     816,000    71,048,000
164  George Washington Birthplace NM..........     839,000    71,887,000
165  Fort Vancouver NHS.......................     850,000    72,737,000
166  Chiricahua NM and Ft. Bowie NHS..........     878,000    73,615,000
167  Sitka NHP................................     888,000    74,503,000
168  Cabrillo NM..............................     899,000    75,400,000
169  Harry S. Truman NHS......................     902,000    76,302,000
170  Natchez NHP..............................     912,000    77,214,000
171  Eisenhower NHS...........................     919,000    78,133,000
172  Fort Sumter NM...........................     929,000    79,062,000
173  Vanderbilt Mansion NHS...................     933,000    79,995,000
174  White Sands NM...........................     947,000    80,942,000
175  Kenai Fjords NP..........................     949,000    81,891,000
176  Canyon de Chelly NM......................     953,000    82,844,000
177  Saratoga NHP.............................     955,000    83,799,000
178  Salem Maritime NHS.......................   1,028,000    84,827,000
179  Manassas NBP.............................   1,038,000    85,865,000
180  Lake Clark NP and Preserve...............   1,055,000    86,920,000
181  Fort Necessity NB........................   1,077,000    87,997,000
182  Cape Lookout NS..........................   1,081,000    89,078,000
183  Pecos NHP................................   1,081,000    90,159,000
184  Kalaupapa NHP............................   1,091,000    91,250,000
185  Castillo de San Marcos NM and Ft.                                  
      Matanzas NM.............................   1,092,000    92,342,000
186  Richmond NBP.............................   1,120,000    93,462,000
187  Organ Pipe Cactus NM.....................   1,129,000    94,591,000
188  Nez Perce NHP............................   1,141,000    95,732,000
189  Cumberland Island NS.....................   1,156,000    96,888,000
190  Fort McHenry NM and Historic Shrine......   1,162,000    98,050,000
191  Baltimore-Washington Parkway.............   1,163,000    99,213,000
192  Mount Rushmore NMem......................   1,198,000   100,411,000
193  Pictured Rocks NL........................   1,209,000   101,620,000
194  Wind Cave NP.............................   1,214,000   102,834,000
195  Chaco Culture NHP........................   1,273,000   104,107,000
196  Gates of the Arctic NP and Preserve......   1,285,000   105,392,000
197  Cumberland Gap NHP.......................   1,292,000   106,684,000
198  Pinnacles NM.............................   1,294,000   107,978,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson] realizes that the amendment of the gentleman failed 30 to 9 
in committee.
  Let me again point out, this is not a park closing bill. Nothing in 
this act shall be construed as modifying or terminating any unit of the 
National Park System without an act of Congress. That is clear. That is 
the law we are trying to pass. The GAO came before the committee. They 
said, it is a mess right now; we urge you to do something. This same 
piece of legislation, with only one difference, and that was this 
commission, passed unanimously in this House.
  The GAO said, you have three options. Eliminate parks, reduce 
service, or raise the fees. We are going to come before the American 
people and ask to raise the fees. In 1960, if you drove your car up to 
Yellowstone, it cost you $10 to get in. In 1995, if you drive to 
Yellowstone, it is $10 to get in.
  The parks are the best deal in America. We want to keep the parks, we 
want to enhance the parks, we want to make the parks better. We are not 
like this thing that points out here in the Washington Times of the 
park giveaway. We do not agree with that idea from the Clinton 
administration or Mr. Babbitt.
  Please join us in supporting this bill. Let us do something good for 
the national parks and pass this legislation and move on to other 
legislation which is very important for the parks of America.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest a most 
contentious piece of legislation that threatens the security of our 
National Park System [NPS]. H.R. 260, the National Park System Reform 
Act, puts in jeopardy more than 300 NPS units--some of our smallest and 
lowest-budget parks, but units that nonetheless capture the essence of 
our Nation's history, culture, and natural beauty.
  The bill would call for a ``death list'' for parks in the development 
of a National Park System Plan--a recommendation of units among 
national recreation areas, monuments, preserves, historic sites, and 
heritage areas--which may be proposed for termination under the bill. 
This represents an outright denial of our responsibility to protect the 
American legacy embodied in our national parks.
  This bill would repudiate the expertise and discernment of the 
National Park Service [Service] by instituting a review commission 
similar to the commission overseeing closure of our military bases. 
Additionally, Congressional distrust of the Department of Interior 
[DOI] is evident by a stipulation that should DOI fail to produce the 
National Park System Plan, this commission would be required to do so. 
H.R. 260 would introduce a mechanism of excessive congressional 
oversight in the termination or modification of NPS units by requiring 
6 members of this 11-member commission to be appointed by congressional 
leadership. Through passage of this bill, we would serve the park 
system a tremendous disservice by allowing it to be highly politicized.
  H.R. 260 would strip DOI--the administrative arm overseeing the NPS--
of its freedom to work with willing landowners, State governments or 
municipalities in the creation of new park units. Without the ability 
to enter into cooperative agreements, DOI will be compromised by an 
additional level of bureaucracy. The Department will be forced to go 
through the congressional process to establish new units, which in 
several cases would mean unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars and a 
waste of effort.
  The State of Hawaii under H.R. 260 would be threatened with the loss 
of five valuable parks. Kalaupapa National Historical Park is a 
monument to those with crippling Hansen's Disease. Closure of this park 
would be most tragic at this time when the figurehead of Kalaupapa, 
Father Damien deVeuster, is undergoing the process of sainthood.
  Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is unique within the NPS as 
the former site of a thriving settlement of one of our country's native 
peoples--Native Hawaiians. Within the park's boundaries remain 
plentiful evidence of the ancient Hawaiian culture that can be found in 
no other place in the world other than the Hawaiian Islands.
  Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park also holds very special 
meaning for Native Hawaiians as the place of refuge--a sacred place 
upholding basic rules of the Hawaiian society.
  Pu'ukohola Heiau National Historical Park preserves a sense of the 
deep spirituality of the Native Hawaiian people.
  H.R. 260 also jeopardizes the future of USS Arizona Memorial which 
sits at Pearl Harbor as the final resting place for many of the ship's 
1,177 crewmen who lost their lives there in 1941. 

[[Page H 9096]]

  H.R. 260 would cheat current and future generations of a significant 
part of American heritage and culture. The National Park System should 
be reformed through an honest and effective review of park service 
management and operations, not through the rash elimination of valuable 
parks benefiting communities in every State.
  I emphatically urge my colleagues to defeat this egregious 
legislation.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I attach a great deal of importance to 
our system of national parks. It includes many sites that reveal our 
history and our respect of nature.
  Just this past weekend, I had occasion to visit the national military 
park at Gettysburg, PA. Who could question the wisdom of preserving our 
country's heritage by providing such a park. That park and many others, 
including one of the crown jewels, Yosemite National Park, located in 
my own congressional district, are examples of what national parks are 
supposed to be. It is out of a concern for the future of our national 
parks that I support H.R. 260, the National Park Service Reform Act.
  This legislation will help solve many of the problems currently 
facing the National Park Service [NPS] so that it can better meet its 
objectives of serving visitors and protecting the natural and cultural 
resources entrusted to it. H.R. 260 does not close a single park or 
unit. It does require the NPS to further develop a plan and mission for 
the agency. It then requires that the NPS review the existing 368 areas 
managed by the agency to determine whether all of them should continue 
to be managed by the NPS. Any NPS recommendation for the closure of an 
NPS unit would be subject to review by an independent commission and 
would require the passage of a separate act of Congress.
  As a member of the National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee, I 
commend Chairman James Hansen's able leadership for prompting the 
General Accounting Office's [GAO] telling August 1995 report entitled, 
``National Parks: Difficult Choices Need To Be Made About the Future of 
the Parks.'' The GAO report sights what I, too, view as a ``further 
deterioration in--national--park conditions.'' I want to acknowledge my 
acceptance of one of the remedial routes offered in the GAO report, 
namely, cutting back on the number of units in the system. We do not 
want to clutter the system with Steamtowns and Suitland Parkways 
without considering budgetary factors. Though as I said recently in the 
Fresno Bee, this process ``won't be easy and I'm not saying there won't 
be problems.''
  It is true that some national park entities might eventually be 
transferred out of the National Park System. Some such transfers may 
well be warranted, and they would not be new. Just last year the 
Kennedy Center in Washington, DC., was transferred out of the National 
Park System. The Kennedy Center still operates, and people still enjoy 
attending concerts there, but it is simply under new management. 
Similarly, commuter highways serving Washington, DC, like the Suitland 
and Baltimore-Washington Parkways should be considered for new 
management outside of NPS.
  It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that H.R. 260 has the support 
of both Republican and Democrat members of the Resources Committee, 
which has jurisdiction over this legislation. It is a good bill, and I 
am convinced that it will help bring fiscal sanity to the operation of 
the NPS.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 260. I am 
especially troubled that a controversial bill, with bipartisan 
opposition, would be considered under the Suspension Calendar.
  There are some much needed reforms proposed in this bill, including 
the establishment of a National Park System plan and the requirement 
for suitability studies of future potential parks.
  However, this bill would also seek to sell off much of our Nation's 
natural, cultural, and recreational heritage: our National Parks.
  This bill would create a politically appointed commission whose sole 
purpose would be to close National Parks for alleged budgetary 
concerns, not to achieve Park Service reform.
  Mr. Speaker, look no further than the recently passed Republican 
budget for the rationale behind this closure-commission: a 10 percent 
cut in National Park Service funds, a 5-year land acquisition 
moratorium, and a 50 percent cut in NPS construction.
  This legislation could have a dramatic impact on my Congressional 
District. My constituency is proud to have three scenic and 
historically significant park units located within its borders. The 
pristine environment and preserved historical viewshed of Mount Vernon 
is captured within the nearly 4,500 acres of Piscataway Park.
  This park is just one of the nearly 370 National Parks frequented 
last year alone by more than 260 million people from the world over.
  Greenbelt Park is one of the last truly development-free plots of 
land left in the Washington Metropolitan Area. This park serves to 
remind Marylanders of the importance of our environment and our 
resources.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition, I was very proud to have the home of Thomas 
Stone, an original signer of the Declaration of Independence, located 
in Charles County designated as a national historic site in 1993.
  If we would have lost that historical plot of land, we would almost 
never have the opportunity to get it back again. All three of these 
parks, which benefit not only the citizens of the Fifth Congressional 
District, but also all Americans, would be eligible for closure under 
this legislation.
  However, this House ought not be fooled about the intent of this 
bill. Members on the other side insist that a park-closure commission 
is necessary to prioritize for the National Park Service.
  What we are in essence telling the Park Service is that you do not 
know how to do your job--that after years of management and oversight 
we are now going to go over your heads and let a politically appointed 
commission decide what to keep open and what to close.
  We just create another level of bureaucracy at a time when people are 
claiming to reduce bureaucracy.
  Mr. Speaker, what we need is financial management reform, and 
enhancement of resource protection efforts. This will enable us to deal 
with needed Park Service reform without selling off our Nation's most 
valuable lands and resources.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this short-sighted and very damaging 
bill so that we can consider commonsense reform that will also protect 
our Nation's most prized lands.
  H.R. 2181, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Representatives Richardson, 
Boehlert, and Morella does just that while not abandoning our efforts 
to preserve our Nation's history and beauty.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
bringing HR 260 to the floor under Suspension of the Rules. This 
procedure should be reserved for non-controversial legislation which 
has widespread bi-partisan support. I do not believe that HR 260 fits 
this description. By placing this measure on the Suspension Calendar, 
the majority is denying Members the ability to offer amendments to this 
potentially far-reaching bill. By closing off debate, Members on both 
sides of the aisle will be denied the opportunity to vote on an 
alternative which the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Richardson, my 
colleagues from New York, Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Boehlert, and I have 
introduced. Members of this body should have the opportunity to vote on 
our alternative which will improve management of the Park System 
without creating a special commission to close our parks. If Members 
want to keep our parks open, especially smaller and urban parks, then 
they should vote against HR 260.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that HR 260 is designed to close some of our 
parks, national monuments, urban recreation areas and historic sites. 
This bill establishes a BRAC-style commission charged with developing a 
list of park units which should be removed from Federal management and 
ownership. Make no mistake about it, this bill would not create a 
special commission unless it had closure in mind. I do not support 
closing any of our parks and I do not believe the American people 
support such action. Contrary to what the advocates of HR 260 will 
argue, we have not created parks ``willy nilly.'' I believe that each 
unit of the Park System is nationally significant and represents an 
important part of our history, culture and heritage. We have set aside 
spectacular natural treasures, homes of Presidents and recreation areas 
for the benefit of future generations. The Federal Government has a 
responsibility to protect these resources, interpret and communicate 
their significance, and make them available to every American. I do not 
believe any other entity can adequately safeguard these assets while 
making them widely available to every citizen.
  I am also concerned that HR 260 is merely one in a long line of 
proposals put forth by some of our Republican colleagues to transfer 
large tracts of Federal land to States or private interests. For 
example, legislation have been introduced to transfer more than 260 
million acres of Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) to a handful of western States. With the 
enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Congress 
and the American people made a commitment to preserve Federal ownership 
of public lands. These lands contain billions of dollars worth of 
minerals, timber and other natural resources and provide hundreds of 
millions of Americans with recreational opportunities. These proposals 
will benefit narrow special interests at the expense of the 
vast majority of the American people.

  The bill that Mr. Richardson has developed will improve management of 
our National Park System, generate important revenue to assist the 
National Park Service [NPS] in addressing a multibillion dollar 
maintenance backlog, and 

[[Page H 9097]]
ensure that our national treasures are protected for generations to 
come. It requires the Service to develop a master plan for the system 
which includes an inventory of existing resources and prioritizes which 
cultural, natural, and historical resources should be added to the 
system. It streamlines the process of designating new units by 
requiring the Service to annually provide the Congress with a list of 
areas to be studied and those areas of sufficient national significance 
to warrant inclusion in the system. Finally, our bill requires Congress 
to authorize studies and designate new park units to ensure that this 
body retains final authority to determine the scope of the system.
  Our bill will also reform out-dated parks concession policy. The 
current framework was put in place when our parks were remote, 
visitorship was low and companies had to be enticed to offer visitor 
services. Today, more than 270 million people visit our parks yearly, 
easy access is provided via highways and airports, and operating a 
business in our parks is extremely lucrative. While business is great 
for concessioners, the American people have failed to receive a fair 
return for the privilege of operating in their national parks. In 1994, 
while concessioners earned more than $640 million from park operations, 
the American people received only $19 million in franchise fees, or 
about 3 percent of gross receipts. To make matters worse, there is no 
competition in the awarding of concession contracts and companies 
receive possessory interest in structures in the public's parks. 
Possessory interest forces the American people to pay concessioners for 
the privilege of doing business in their parks. Moveover, possessory 
interest is not enjoyed by concessioners in sports stadiums or 
airports.
  Our bill contains the text of legislation passed by the House in the 
103d Congress which would completely overhaul concession policy. It 
requires contracts to be awarded on a competitive basis and provide a 
fair return to the American taxpayers. It eliminates possessory 
interest and allocates franchise fees to our parks to support a wide 
range of activities. At the same time, it protects the interests of 
river guides, outfitters, and other small businesses who provide 
specialized services and are overwhelmingly family-run operations. 
These provisions will ensure that the American people continue to 
receive high-quality services and begin to enjoy a fair return on the 
use of their resources.
  Finally, this legislation will also generate additional revenue to 
support park operations by authorizing moderate fee increases at parks 
which are currently authorized to charge fees. By allowing fees to 
increase slightly at certain park units, we can generate badly needed 
revenue to improve park roads and trails and to safeguard increasingly 
threatened natural resources. It is estimated that this measure will 
generate $30 million in revenue to maintain our parks. Importantly, 
these fees will go into a special fund in the Treasury which will be 
directly available to the Secretary of Interior for park-related 
purposes. This provision guarantees that fees paid by visitors will go 
to the parks and not be used to offset the deficit or to fund other 
programs. The American people are willing to pay a little more as long 
as they know that their entrance fees will be reinvested in the parks.

  Mr. Speaker, by bringing H.R. 260 to the floor under Suspension of 
the Rules, the Republican leadership is denying Members on both sides 
of the aisle the opportunity to vote for a reasonable alternative. Once 
again, we see that talk about openness and giving Members of this body 
the opportunity to work their will is hollow. As a result, the American 
people are going to see their parks close or be sold to the highest 
bidder. These treasures are too important to be a pawn in a game of 
legislative chess. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 260.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, it is with both surprise and concern that 
a piece of legislation as far reaching, complex, and, yes, 
controversial, would be offered on the Suspension Calendar. This bill, 
H.R. 260, passed through the Resources Committee by a 34 to 8 vote 
which does, superficially, indicate there may be the \2/3\ support that 
is necessary for a suspension bill to pass. However, there are serious 
dissenting views that should be considered and debated by Members of 
Congress.
  In addition, another bill was introduced by beginning of August by 
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 
Lands, Representative Bill Richardson, that has bipartisan support. Two 
Republicans, Mr. Boehlert and myself, and two Democrats are original 
cosponsors. I feel very strongly that Members should be allowed to 
consider this thoughtful and comprehensive substitute bill, H.R. 2181, 
inasmuch as H.R. 260 is not the only choice we have to manage effective 
reform of our National Park System.
  H.R. 2181 was introduced primarily in response to the more 
contentious sections of H.R. 260, including Section 103, National Park 
System Review Commission, which includes the establishment of what has 
been characterized as a Park Closing Commission. This section is very 
troublesome to me because I believe that it is unnecessary--a system 
already exists to close any park that does not meet specified 
standards. And it is overly threatening to the smaller, less glamorous 
parks in our system that lack a voice of advocacy, but represent an 
idea, a culture, or an area that is significant to our national 
heritage. I have two parks in my district that could come under this 
classification: Glen Echo Park and the C & O Canal Historical Park. I 
suspect that almost every Member of Congress has similar unheralded 
park in their district.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are entitled to a full 
discussion of H.R. 260 on the floor of the House.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 260, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule 
I, and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this 
motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________