[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3233-S3235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SYSTEM: A PLAN FOR LEADERSHIP

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk about a subject that is 
very important and close to my heart, and that is national parks, for 
at least two reasons. One is I grew up right outside of Yellowstone 
Park in Wyoming. We have Teton Park in Wyoming as well.
  I am also chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks. We have had 
a series of two hearings on the future of the National Park System, 
and, as chairman, I am committed to the formulation of a proparks 
agenda which will allow us to enrich parks well into the next century.
  Before speaking on the issue of the future, however, let me briefly 
discuss the current status of the system and some of the real problems 
that do confront us. Today's National Park System is comprised of 375 
park units and is visited each year by millions of visitors. The parks 
are immensely popular destinations, of course, intended to protect and 
commemorate this country's most significant natural, historical, and 
culture resources.
  According to recent testimony from our hearings, this diverse 
collection of units stimulates over $10 billion annually in revenue to 
local economies and supports 230,000 tourism-related jobs. Each year, 
12 million foreign visitors are drawn to our parks, contributing 
significantly to a $22 billion international travel trade surplus. So, 
in addition to protecting our most precious resources, they are also an 
economic stimulus, of course.
  The Park Service is currently authorized to employ 20,342 full-time 
workers. This system includes approximately 80.2 million acres. The 
1997 budget is authorized at roughly $1.4 billion.
  This relatively small agency, managing a large land base enjoying 
unparalleled popularity and generating significant tax and business 
revenues, faces a pressing dilemma. At a time when the American 
taxpayers are serious about smaller Government and lower taxes, 
Americans have also demonstrated an equally serious interest in their 
parks.

[[Page S3234]]

 Unfortunately, their interest has not, as yet, been translated into a 
serious and long-range plan nor commitment for the care of parks. The 
result is a legacy of critical problems plaguing the National Park 
Service.
  Today, we face an overwhelming inventory of unfunded National Park 
Service programs. Over the years, the National Park Service has been 
pulled in a wide variety of directions. Each change, each new 
direction, each new responsibility has caused an adverse effect in the 
system.
  The Park Service has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you can do 
more with less. But, in adding new areas and new responsibilities, the 
agency is forced into a scenario of doing less with less in terms of 
service and protection. As a result of decisions made by the Congress 
and the administration, we face an unbelievable backlog of unfunded 
Park Service programs. The budget shortfall is staggering. Let me touch 
briefly on some of the problems.
  Within the 375 units of the Park Service we have approximately $1.4 
billion of authorized land acquisitions. These are private lands that 
are authorized within authorized park boundaries, but these lands have 
never been acquired. There are 823 billion dollars worth of national 
resource management projects which have gone unfunded. It is almost 
impossible to make a sound management decision based on scientific 
evidence if we are lacking the basic information on the extent and the 
condition and the inventory of these valuable natural resources.
  It is more than difficult to protect something if you do not have a 
clue as to what you are protecting.
  In the area of cultural resource management projects, the unfunded 
backlog is $331 million. Again, these valuable cultural resources are 
not protected or stabilized.
  There are 1.5 billion dollars worth of building-related projects for 
which there is no budget provision. For the benefit of my colleagues, I 
would like to point out that if Congress decided to fully fund this 
item, we would only provide needed repairs to existing deteriorating 
facilities. No new facilities would be constructed under this scenario.
  There are $304 million of utility systems that are in advance states 
of disrepair throughout the system. Potable water and sewage systems 
that meet specifications are an absolute necessity if we want visitors 
to continue to come to our parks.
  In the identified resource protection work that needs to be 
accomplished, $1.8 billion would begin to arrest the digression of 
natural resources of our parks before we lose those resources that we 
are committed to protect.
  Mr. President, $2.2 billion is required for road and bridge repair 
and transportation systems. In my own State of Wyoming, the cost of 
road repair in Yellowstone Park exceeds $300 million. This cost will 
automatically increase if the road repairs are ignored.
  I might add, in the last few years, something like $8 million has 
been committed to this $300 million deficit.
  In many cases, employee housing is substandard. There are parks where 
the occupants of the National Park Service need not look outside to see 
if it is snowing. They only have to check the snow level in their 
living room. The pricetag to get employee housing to an acceptable 
standard is $442 million. If we cannot afford to take care of the 
caretakers, then there is something radically wrong.
  The total unfunded backlog in maintenance, resource stabilization, 
infrastructure repair and employee housing is $8.7 billion. This price 
tag does not include the concessions which also need, of course, to 
keep pace.
  Mr. President, $8.7 billion is a major problem. We need to take 
positive steps to correct this deficiency. Forward-thinking, new, 
innovative approaches will be required. It is a problem that cannot be 
resolved in the short term.
  I am happy to report, however, that there is, I think, reason for 
optimism and a favorable prognosis. It is going to be difficult, but I 
think we can do it.
  As a result of our hearings on the future of the parks, there are 
many ideas to be discussed and evaluated, but now is the time to 
address the long-term solutions and to reinvigorate the National Park 
Service so that our park system will stand as an example to the world 
well into the next century.
  Most importantly, we need to ensure that we are conserving and 
protecting the resources, protecting the natural and historic objects 
and the wildlife, while at the same time ensuring that the parks will 
be visited and will be an enjoyable experience.
  Within the next few weeks, we plan to circulate a strategic plan to 
our colleagues and to the administration which will chart a course to 
deal with this serious dilemma, a plan to serve as a foundation for a 
program to reinvigorate the parks by the year 2010.
  The Thomas plan--we have not thought of a better name--will contain 
some proposals for legislative initiatives, as well as some concepts 
that the administration can implement. As a result of our hearings on 
the future, it became very apparent that we need to incorporate some of 
the best ideas.
  Several financial concepts will, out of necessity, be discussed. As a 
start, the plan will include a bonding initiative. Many of our parks 
are essentially small villages or towns. In essence, they are towns 
that are required to have roads and utility systems and infrastructure. 
It seems to me we cannot expect to bring those up to operating 
condition out of annual operating funds. So the municipalities can show 
us the way. They have over the years bonded to do that. We do not have 
the money.
  The process is relatively simple. We can establish a Federal 
corporate entity within the Department to administer the bonds. We need 
to establish a dependable system to pay off the bonds, and we can do 
that. There are additional options that ought to be considered.
  I anticipate our plan would be built on the fine work of Senator 
Gorton in the last session making the fee demonstration permit and 
extending it to all units of the national parks, a proposal where the 
revenues collected in those parks stay where they are collected.
  A number of our witnesses spoke about establishing a strict criteria 
for the establishment of new additions. When we are $8.7 billion 
behind, we need to be careful about the additional authorizations we 
make. This is not suggesting we should delete any of the units, but we 
ought to be careful about the new ones and, frankly, not make a 
political decision that a State park or local park be converted to a 
Federal park so the Feds will take over. The Park Service was never 
intended to be a redevelopment agency.

  There are other programs, of course, that need help. Our plan will 
include a concession reform which turns away from the failed practice 
of trying to repair and refurbish the existing and inadequate law. We 
will take an innovative approach and, hopefully, there will be some 
higher fees paid to maintain the parks.
  We should turn to the private sector for expertise in the management 
and operations of concessions. These are multimillion-dollar programs.
  As a result, we ought to have an asset manager in the Park Service--
it is a huge financial operation--someone who is experienced and who 
has a background and training in assets. We can do that.
  On a different issue, our hearings revealed the need for better 
employee training. We can do that, largely with the use of universities 
and schools that are there.
  We need to continue progress made in more cost-effective management, 
insisting on efficiency-oriented management goals, linked with the 
reduction of the size of the Washington office and put the folks in the 
parks where they really need to be. I am not suggesting a personnel 
reduction, but I am suggesting a reallocation.
  Many of our parks are funding maintenance departments that would be 
the envy of small towns. There are ways to streamline this. There is no 
reason why the private sector cannot be contracted to do many of these 
things and do them more efficiently and save money.
  Mr. President, the Park Service identifies backlogs and other 
problems. It is fine to do park planning, but the process and the 
content needs to be timely and realistic. Park general management plans 
have been sitting on the shelves for years. It is time to update, 
implement and really go forward.
  This is an ambitious agenda, but, in my opinion, there are concepts 
that

[[Page S3235]]

can be enacted. We can collectively achieve a great victory in the 
preservation of something that we all support.
  My home State of Wyoming is now famous for its parks--Yellowstone, 
Tetons, Devils Tower. Like most Americans, I take great pride in those. 
So we want to set a standard for national parks for the 21st century. 
We have invited, of course, the administration to join with us. Among 
other things, I have sent a letter to the President asking that he 
appoint a park director. There is not one now. In order to have some 
plans and work together, we do need some leadership there.
  I am suggesting and want my colleagues to know I am prepared to 
undertake this issue, and together we can cause something constructive 
to happen. We have a great opportunity. The time is now, the time is 
right, and I am willing to work any time with anyone to bring the 
National Park Service into the 21st century alive, vibrant, efficient, 
effective, and lasting, more importantly, an agency that would provide 
excellent service to visitors and provide excellent service to the 
resource. We can do that.
  Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Wyoming for 
his statement and his sincere commitment to our National Park System. 
As chairman of the Parks Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, he offers this country tremendous leadership in 
the area of parks and park management. I am sure his statement this 
morning is well received and clearly demonstrates some of the 
difficulties our Park Service now experiences that this Congress ought 
to be actively and responsibly dealing with.
  (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of 
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________