[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 127 (Monday, September 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10570-S10571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are going to move, later today and 
tomorrow, to the Department of Interior appropriations bill which is 
very important to me and to my State of Wyoming. I wanted to talk just 
a couple of moments about something that is very important to me and 
very close to my heart. That is the National Park System.
  Wyoming, of course, has two of what I think are the crown jewels of 
the Park System, the Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park, 
as well as several others in our State. Selfishly, they are very 
important. But more than that, national parks are, I think, a part of 
our heritage. They are part of our past, they are part of our future, 
they are part of our economy, and something that I feel very strongly 
about. Of course, they are funded in the appropriations bill for the 
Department of Interior.
  I spent a considerable amount of time in August in the parks, both 
Yellowstone and Teton. Part of the problem we talked about while I was 
there is a financial one. It is big business. Yellowstone National Park 
has an operating budget of somewhere over $20 million, and with other 
income, more than a $40 million budget. It is a large activity.
  We will be talking in this appropriations bill about priorities. Mr. 
President, over time, the idea of priorities, the idea of funding, will 
become even more difficult. We will have to set those priorities. We 
will have to set priorities among land management agencies, Yellowstone 
Park and the Park System, the forest and the wilderness, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the BLM. All of these competed, frankly, for 
funding. So we have to talk about priorities.
  Certainly my highest priority in that process is the National Park 
System. Part of it is my own personal history. I grew up just outside 
of Yellowstone Park between Cody and Yellowstone. So it has been part 
of my life.
  The question, of course, is how we manage these parks. Frankly, we 
have some problems.
  We have some problems short term and we have some problems, in my 
judgment, long term. A part of the short-term problem, of course, we 
will be facing today and tomorrow. But part of the longer term issues, 
I think, will be discussed over a period of time, and properly so, 
because there needs to be some fairly significant changes. 
Specifically, there is funding for Park Service operations, and in the 
Senate bill is $1.1 billion. The House is somewhat less than that. This 
will be about a $75 million increase over last year for the operations 
of the park. I support that. I hope that we maintain, when the bill is 
finally passed, the additional funds that the Senate has put in. This 
is a good first step to deal with some of the problems that we have. 
But it is a short term solution.
  What are some of the other solutions? One of them is what was done 
last year in this appropriations bill, and done again this year, in 
terms of extending a pilot fee program. One of the ways that, 
obviously, we can deal with funding for parks is to do something about 
the fees. Yellowstone Park, I believe, is $10 per car per week. 
Compared to other recreational activities in this country, that is a 
very low price, one that has not been changed for a very long time, and 
one that we ought to take a look at.
  We have an opportunity to do that now in the pilot fee program that 
was passed by the Congress, which allows the parks to take a look at 
their fees, to temporarily extend and increase these fees, if they want 
to, on a pilot basis, and to keep in the park some 80 percent of the 
increase. This has been one of the problems for parks like Yellowstone. 
Much of the revenue that comes in there doesn't stay there. It goes 
into the pot and is redistributed among all of the parks. So this gives 
an opportunity, on a pilot basis, to raise the fees, if that seems 
appropriate, and then to maintain these fees where they are collected--
80 percent of them--in that particular park.
  I think it is an excellent opportunity to do this as a pilot program. 
The problem is, they have had an opportunity--the Park Service--to do 
this now since early last winter and haven't done it yet. They haven't 
moved on this program yet. I am disappointed in that. It is not a 
function of the local parks. First of all, originally, 50 of them were 
designated to participate in this pilot program. Now the Senate has 
increased it to a hundred. None has been designated by the Park 
Service. On the other hand, the Forest Service and, I think, BLM both 
have already moved on this program and are making some progress with 
it. When we go to Yellowstone and talk about their needs, the park 
superintendent there is for it. I called the Director of the Park 
Service. He is for it, too, but it hasn't happened; it hasn't happened 
because the Secretary of the Interior hasn't authorized it. That is too 
bad because that is part of a demonstration, a short-term solution to 
this issue.
  Now, I don't think that it's the long-term solution. There needs to 
be some other things done, some fairly major things. We have talked 
about them for some time. One of the problems, as you can imagine, is 
the continuing authorization of more and more Federal parks. Without a 
definition of what a Federal park really is, I have to suggest that I 
think a number of the parks that have been authorized in recent times 
have been parks that, under most circumstances, could just as well be 
State parks or local parks or community parks, but Members of this body 
and others want them to be national parks so they are paid for by the 
Federal Government. So now we have a $4 billion backlog in the service 
of taking care of facilities that need to be brought up current, but we 
continue to authorize more and more parks, without being able to fund 
the parks we have.

  So that is one of the things that needs to be done, it seems to me--
at least to develop a criterion as to what really qualifies as a 
national park, what characteristics ought to be involved to qualify as 
a national park.
  Another is concession reform. For a long time, we have been seeking 
to do something about concessions. Now, the concessions are not there 
to fund the parks, necessarily; they are there to provide services for 
visitors. But it is true, I think, that we need to revise that. First 
of all, the concession contracts cannot be removed because we haven't 
passed a bill that does it. They are operating on a short-term basis. 
Second, there are instances in which the park should be receiving more 
money than they are from the concessions. Third, those concession funds 
probably ought to stay in those parks. That is another thing that we 
need to talk about and need to change.
  Many of these changes are acceptable to the people who manage the 
park, but the Department hasn't moved, and indeed the Congress hasn't 
moved. There also, of course, needs to be some management changes, as 
well. GAO has done a study. One of the notable things was that the 
money that has gone to parks has not gone to the resources that the 
parks themselves say are the highest priority. That is one of the 
management problems that needs to be changed. When you set priorities 
in planning, then it seems to me the funding ought to coincide with 
those priorities. So there needs to be a lot of things done.
  I am here to support national parks. I think they are a very, very 
important thing. I think they have a great future.

[[Page S10571]]

 I think we, as citizens, are willing to pay some more, particularly if 
we are certain that the fees we pay in the particular park stay in that 
park to enhance the resources of the park that we like to see.
  The other is that management, of course, is expected to be good. I 
think they should implement programs that give it the opportunity to do 
it, like the pilot program. We are going to need, over time, to 
continue to set priorities. I have argued from time to time that there 
is a difference in the public lands. Some of them, like parks and 
forests, have been withdrawn by the Federal Government for a purpose. 
There were unique characteristics, and they were withdrawn from the 
public domain because they are and were unique. Lands managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management were simply residual lands. Wyoming is 50 
percent owned by the Federal Government. The State of the Senator from 
Idaho is more than that. Nevada is 87 percent owned by the Federal 
Government. Many of those lands were never withdrawn for a particular 
purpose. The parks were, the forests were, the wildernesses were. So we 
will have to set some priorities, over time, on that.
  So, Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to talk just a little 
bit about something I think is very important, and to encourage that 
the funding for operations of parks, which is in this bill we will be 
considering, ought to be maintained, despite the fact that the House is 
somewhat lower. I think that is a move toward the short-term 
resolution, and then I hope that my associates and I can work toward 
resolving some of the longer-term solutions over the next 2, 3 years, 
so that we can make these national parks, cultural institutions, 
fiscally sound.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the business of the Senate at this 
moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are currently in morning business, under 
the control of Senator Daschle until 1 o'clock, and under the control 
of the Republicans until 2 o'clock.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________