[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 102 (Thursday, July 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7650-S7652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  DETERIORATION OF U.S. NATIONAL PARKS

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, one of the truly great ideas that 
somebody came up with back in 1872 was to establish the first national 
park. Ulysses Grant was President. Unhappily, that same year Ulysses 
Grant signed a bill called the mining law of 1872. But back to the 
point. President Grant established the first national park in this 
Nation. It has been a source of pride and usage and a great deal of 
euphoria for America's people ever since. We in the Senate and in the 
House profess our undying commitment to a National Park System second 
to none while we have routinely starved the park system to death.

[[Page S7651]]

  Now, US News and World Report, on top of report after report that has 
been issued over the past 10 to 15 years, in the current July 21 
edition, has an article which I recommend to every Member of the Senate 
called ``Parks in Peril''. ``The national parks have been called the 
best America had. But their wild beauty and historical treasures are 
rapidly deteriorating''--repeat, rapidly deteriorating--``from lack of 
funds, pollution, encroaching development, overcrowding and 
congressional indifference.''
  Mr. President, these parks are being encroached on by development; 
they are being stifled by pollution. On any given day in the winter, 
the pollution at Yellowstone National Park from snowmobiles alone is 
equal to the smog in Washington, DC. And the infrastructure is falling 
down. Buildings are rotting, buildings are decaying, and some of the 
treasures such as Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, some of those ancient 
ruins, are falling down for lack of money to restore them.
  All this time, Mr. President, we allow the mining companies, the 
biggest mining companies in the world, to buy Federal lands for $2.50 
an acre, take billions of dollars of gold off those lands and not pay 
the taxpayers of America one red cent. That is money that alone could 
reverse the deterioration of our National Park Service. We have grazing 
laws in this country which are just short of scandalous, in which we 
allow some of the biggest corporations in America to lease grazing 
lands from BLM for a song. And one of the worst tragedies of all is 
that we have a concessions policy where we allow the concession stands 
at national parks to be handed down from generation to generation. You 
cannot take one away from a concessionaire under existing law.
  Mr. President, the return now to the Park Service on concessions is 
about 6 percent. About the only park we have in our system with a 
concession, which was let 3 years ago on a competitive basis, is 
Yosemite, and last year Yosemite, the only park that has a concession 
policy that was competitively let, produced 37 percent. That one park 
produced 37 percent of all the return the Park Service got for all its 
concessions.
  We had a bill here that I sponsored that passed the Senate 99 to zip, 
went over to the House and died. If you were to pass another one today 
99 to zip, it would probably go to the House and die, because this 
suits the policy of too many Members of Congress while our Park System 
deteriorates.
  I strongly recommend everybody read this. The polls consistently show 
that the people of this country are upset because we tolerate some of 
the kinds of corporate welfare I just described--rich people, the 
biggest corporations in the world, not paying their way. And 
oftentimes, because of the way we finance campaigns in this country, we 
can't stop it or do anything about it. Our priorities are terribly 
skewed when we allow some of these things to continue while the 
national parks, the greatest treasury we possess in this country, 
decline. We just passed a defense bill, $268 billion, and not an enemy 
in sight. There is not an enemy in sight; $268 billion, and we had one 
rollcall vote. I can remember when that bill would take 2 weeks to 
pass.
  So, Mr. President, I speak with a great deal of passion this morning 
because I chaired the National Parks Subcommittee for many years, and I 
did everything I could to reverse the policy that was so patently 
obvious to me back then, years ago, that we were neglecting our 
national parks and we were going to pay a price for it. One thing we 
have done is, while we added a lot of parks, we have never added any 
funding. We are either going to have to fish or cut bait. We either 
have to get rid of parks, which I don't think anybody in this body 
favors, or we are going to have to fund them. And finally, the last 
alternative is watch them fall apart before our eyes to the chagrin, 
dismay, disappointment, and outright animosity of the American people 
for our indifference and negligence to our National Park System.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? I was hoping to have a little 
discussion with the Senator. What is the time situation, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time there is no limitation on debate.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know there is a Senator waiting here, 
but I would just like to ask my friend about the national parks, if he 
would respond. I can remember so well, I helped, worked with, President 
Eisenhower for what we called Mission 66, a 10-year period to improve 
the parks. I think, if the Senator would look at that period, at the 
end of 1966 the parks were in the best condition they have been since 
the turn of the century. Since that time, the vision of the Park 
Service has been to add acreage to the parks. Today we see the parks in 
the worst condition they have been in in my lifetime. Maintenance of 
the parks, the accumulated maintenance that has been deferred, is just 
overwhelming. I think it would take the total annual appropriation of 
the Park Service to catch up just on deferred maintenance at the 
historic park sites, Yosemite, Yellowstone, and all of those that are 
in the south 48.
  But my question to the Senator is, we have now almost 80 percent of 
the land that is in the Park Service in my State and we have about 1 
percent of the Park Service money. I don't think anyone has looked at 
what has happened to the parks, in terms of this rush to add acreage to 
the parks instead of maintaining discrete park areas that are 
absolutely beautiful and need to be preserved.
  One of my predecessors, Senator Gruening, introduced a bill to 
establish parks in the State of Alaska. I did, too. Those parks that we 
sought were ignored and, instead, we have vast areas of parks that are 
out there. All they have in them is Park Service employees, 
accommodation for Park Service employees, no roads into them, no 
airports in them, but they are listed as national parks.
  I ask you, if there is to be a rational park system in the country, 
don't you think we ought to have accessibility to areas that are set 
aside as national parks? Don't you think we ought to be concentrating 
now on maintaining the parks that are there so visitors can use them?
  The answer now to people who are in charge of the parks is to close 
the parks, to limit the number of people that go into the parks because 
the maintenance is so bad that they think the people coming in the 
parks will now destroy them. I agree, maintenance is very bad. But 
parks are for people, I thought.
  I would like to have the Senator speak up. I do hope one of these 
days we can have a long discussion about the National Park System and 
how it has changed. It has changed to people who want to control land 
from people who want to preserve the very best and most beautiful 
portions of our country, and that disturbs me greatly.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say, I could not agree with the Senator more, and 
I also say some of the damage that is occurring in the National Park 
System is not just to the infrastructure; that is, the buildings, which 
can be replaced and repaired. Some of the irreversible damage is being 
done to the natural beauty of the national parks, which cannot be 
undone. I could not agree more with the Senator that we have added a 
lot of land. I am not saying we did it wrongly. I am not saying we were 
in error when we did it. I am saying we can do both. We can have an 
expanded park system and we can fund it. If the American people 
understand anything, in my opinion, it is our skewed priorities here, 
what we spend money for.

  If you were to take a poll--not ask for an extemporaneous response, 
but say, ``Which of the following do you consider the most important?'' 
I daresay the National Park System and the maintenance of it for the 
enjoyment of all the American people would rank very near the top. We 
simply have not made a commitment.
  You recall under President George Bush we did a very extensive study 
on the National Park System, and they came back and said it would 
take--that has been 8 years ago, a little over, about 8 years ago--they 
said it would take $2 billion just to start doing the infrastructure. 
That had nothing to do with adding lands or anything else. They said, 
in order to bring our parks up to par right now--that was 8 years ago 
with 8 years of inflation added to it now--it would take $2 billion.
  As I say, everybody loves the parks. Everybody in the Senate, 
everybody in

[[Page S7652]]

the House, would profess their undying love for the National Park 
System, but we simply are not putting the money where our mouth is.
  That is the only point I want to make this morning, and that is the 
point this article makes in U.S. News & World Report. I see the 
distinguished Senator who is now the chairman of the same committee I 
mentioned I chaired for many years. I will be happy to yield to him.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he is aware that the 
subcommittee is now in the process of seeking to put together a plan, a 
long-term plan? All of us who understand that parks and their resources 
are one of the most valuable resources that we have, that there are 
troublesome things happening and frankly there is no plan in place and 
we need to have one--we need to talk about finances. There needs to be 
some additional resources for finances in addition to the 
appropriations. We need to talk about how we do some bonding, how we do 
some private investment, how we do some other kinds of things. In 
addition, we need to talk about the concessionaires. We need to get 
that straightened out so it moves. We need to talk, frankly, about the 
management of the parks so we have a plan that has measurable results 
so the plans that are set for the Nation will also be applied in the 
parks. And we have invited the administration to participate.
  Fortunately, this morning we have a nominee for the Park Service. We 
have not had a Park Service Director. So I want to assure the Senator 
that there is underway an effort to basically reform and move forward 
and, also, I forgot to say, to have something that defines more clearly 
what kind of a park is appropriate to be part of the National System so 
we are not taking in what is more appropriately local recreation areas 
to be managed by the National Park Service.
  So I couldn't share more the concerns that people have, but I wanted 
to tell my colleague that we are moving forward with that and intend to 
have a plan before this Congress by the end of the year.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator very much. I do not want to take any 
more time of the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask, colleagues 
have been involved in an important discussion. I think they probably 
would want to go on more, but I know Senator DeWine and I want to 
introduce a bill. We thought we might have a little more time. I ask 
unanimous consent that morning business be extended for an additional 
15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Would the Senator repeat his request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I asked unanimous consent that morning business--we 
were hoping we would be able to introduce a bill and talk about it a 
little while. Given the important discussion that took place, I asked 
whether or not we could extend 10 minutes beyond what we had originally 
planned for morning business.
  Mr. DeWINE. That would be 11:40.
  Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire, how many Senators are involved?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator DeWine and I wanted to introduce a bill. This 
would give us altogether maybe 15 minutes between two people.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will not object if it's just 10 minutes past the half-
hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. DeWine and Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1029 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator yield back any time he might have?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I do.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed with the regular 
order.

                          ____________________