[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9137-H9138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  OPEN DEBATE ON NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of my colleagues to 
the votes today on the Suspension Calendar. On the Committee on 
Resources, as the ranking member of Public Lands, Shenandoah Valley 
National Battlefields partnership Act, a good bill that deserves 
support, the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act, the same, a good 
bill that deserves support, and the Presidio bill, a good piece of 
legislation, all of these are bipartisan. But I have to call attention 
to my colleagues to one bill that deserves rejection, H.R. 260, and 
that is the park closure bill, a bill that would threaten 198 of the 
smallest parks in the National Park System, and I will be inserting in 
the Congressional Record a list of those parks and many are in many of 
my colleagues' districts.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pay close attention to this list 
because it represents the potential first draft of the new park closure 
list which will undoubtedly result from the recommendations of the Park 
Closure Commission created by H.R. 260, a bill that is opposed by every 
environmental organization and is opposed by the 
Clinton administration, the Department of the Interior, and many 
others.

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 260's Parks Closure Commission would have the 
authority to recommend to Congress specific units of the park system 
for closure, privatization, or sale to the highest bidder. Many of the 
proponents of this bill claim that it is the same one that we passed 
unanimously last year. H.R. 260 is not the same bill we passed last 
year. This is how.
  First, H.R. 260 puts the decision of a Park Closure Commission at the 
front of the train. It takes the statutory authority Congress currently 
has and places it in the hands of a politically appointed commission.
  Second, H.R. 260 sends 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, and H.R. 
260 exempts the 54 national park units from closure, leaving the less 
visited, smaller budgeted parks at the mercy of the Park Closure 
Commission.
  Unfortunately, national treasures, such as Valley Forge, Mount 
Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty, the Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson 
Memorials, and the Martin Luther King National Historic Site could find 
themselves on the chopping block.
  As my colleagues, Mr. Coleman and Mr. Pallone, stated so eloquently 
yesterday on the House floor, why does the bill only exempt the 
national park units from the Park Closure Commission? Are supporters of 
H.R. 260 making some sort of value judgment on the different units of 
the park system? Are we thinking that some units of the system are more 
deserving of protection and enjoyment than others?
  Mr. Speaker, if the bill exempts national park units, shouldn't it 
also exempt national monuments, historic battlefields, historic sites, 
and national battlefield parks? If the bill sponsors are so concerned 
about an honest, objective review of the entire system, why did they 
not leave every unit on the chopping block and subject to the 
recommendations of the Park Closure Commission?
  I had planned to offer amendments to H.R. 260 and had made note of my 
intention to--in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to everyone in this body 
this summer. Despite my stated intentions and the distinct impression I 
had from the committee leadership that I would be able to offer these 
amendments as I did in subcommittee, H.R. 260 is being rammed through 
the House without the opportunity for full discussion and debate. There 
has been a lot of talk recently about accountability, yet it appears 
that business as usual continues here in the House.
   H.R. 260 is opposed by the League of Conservation Voters. In fact, 
they have issued a letter declaring that this organization is going to 
consider this vote when considering its 1995 environmental voting 
scoring rating.

[[Page H9138]]

  Environmental groups oppose this bill. The National Parks and 
Conservation Association, the Wilderness Society, the American Hiking 
Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Action Foundation, Sierra 
Club, Friends of the Earth and the Izaak Walton League of America. 
Editorials against H.R. 260 have appeared in newspapers around the 
country, the New York Times, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Miami Herald, 
the Philadelphia Enquirer, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Las Vegas 
Sun, and the Wichita Eagle.
  The administration has issued a strongly worded condemnation of this 
bill. National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy has been direct and 
straightforward with Congress in enumerating the reasons to oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, all I am asking is that this bill be returned to the 
Rules Committee. Let it come up next week under a closed rule where 
amendments offering alternatives, which I would offer with several 
other colleagues on a bipartisan basis that would deal with financing 
the parks through a changed fee system, a trust fund, and a change in 
the concessions policy is a far more Democratic way to deal with this 
issue.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 260 today.

                          ____________________