[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 18, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             PARKS IN PERIL

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 18, 1998

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, March 18, 1998 into the Congressional Record.

                             Parks In Peril

       As families throughout the nation plan their summer 
     vacations, millions will include a visit to a national park 
     on their itinerary. National parks offer an unsurpassed 
     opportunity to enjoy America's natural beauty and learn more 
     about her history. But many national parks are increasingly 
     showing the strain of their popularity, possibly jeopardizing 
     future generations' enjoyment of these national treasures. 
     Congress is now examining proposals to address the needs of 
     the park system.


                        scope of the park system

       The National Park System comprises 376 units covering 
     roughly 83 million acres. These units include national parks, 
     monuments, battlefields, historic sites, recreation areas, 
     lakeshores, and other types of sites. Every state but 
     Delaware is home to at least one national park facility. 
     Indiana has three: the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, 
     located in Spencer County in the Ninth District; the George 
     Rogers Clark National Historical Park in Vincennes; and the 
     Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, along Lake Michigan in 
     northwest Indiana. The National Park Service (NPS), part of 
     the U.S. Department of the Interior, operates the park 
     system, employing about 20,000 and benefiting from the 
     efforts of its 90,000 volunteers.


                         strains on the system

       In recent years, the park system has faced unprecedented 
     strains from the increasing popularity of the system, 
     declining funding, and development near the park's borders.
       Funding: Though Congress has provided modest increases in 
     funding for the NPS in the last few years, the NPS's budget 
     has sustained substantial cuts over the last decade and a 
     half. From 1983 to 1996, funding for the NPS dropped by 13%, 
     adjusted for inflation. At the same time, Congress continued 
     to add new parks to the system, placing even more demand on 
     these limited funds. As a result, the NPS had to cut back on 
     maintenance and repair of park facilities and infrastructure 
     and has been hindered in trying to improve services to park 
     visitors. According to the NPS, there is now a multibillion-
     dollar backlog of repairs, which the NPS is unable to 
     accommodate in its $1.8 billion 1998 budget.
       Visitor growth: As the NPS has struggled to maintain more 
     parks with fewer dollars, the number of visitors to national 
     parks has continued to grow. In 1996, national parks received 
     nearly 266 million visits, an increase of almost 30 million 
     over 1986. The resulting wear and tear on park facilities and 
     traffic congestion on park roads is troublesome, but more 
     alarming is the degradation of the natural resources the 
     parks aim to protect. For example, in Colorado's Mesa Verde 
     National Park, heavy visitor traffic has caused the walls of 
     some ancient cliff dwellings to deteriorate so much that 
     visitors may no longer tour the famous Cliff Palace dwelling 
     on their own.
       In addition, the purposeful destruction of park resources, 
     ranging from the cutting of live trees to the theft of Native 
     American pottery, has increased by 123% over five years. At 
     Petrified Forest National Park, for example, the NPS 
     estimates that approximately 12 tons of petrified wood have 
     been removed by park visitors yearly.
       Development: Because of the parks' popularity, the 
     surrounding areas have attracted hotels, restaurants, 
     entertainment complexes, and other types of development. Near 
     the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, for example, a large 
     theme park lies just outside the north entrance and a new 
     casino recently opened at the south entrance. Unfortunately, 
     this development sometimes has adverse effects on the parks--
     visibility at the top of the Smokies has been reduced by 80% 
     due to air pollution and air tours of the Grand Canyon 
     produce noise pollution.


                               solutions

       In recent years, a number of proposals have been developed 
     to create new sources of revenue for the NPS. First, private 
     foundations are stepping up efforts to solicit large 
     corporate contributions for the park system. Three large 
     companies were recently honored for donating millions of 
     dollars to refurbish the Washington Monument. While I am 
     pleased to see support from the private sector, I do think 
     that corporate alliances should be limited in order to 
     preserve the parks from commercialism. Second, some have 
     proposed letting certain national parks sell revenue bonds to 
     finance infrastructure improvements. Third, some favor 
     reforming concessions contracts to allow the NPS to get 
     more of the revenue generated by food, lodging, and 
     souvenir sales within the parks. Fourth, in 1996, Congress 
     approved an experimental program which allowed about 100 
     parks to increase entrance fees and keep the additional 
     money instead of funneling it to the federal treasury. 
     Fifth, some have suggested more restrictive criteria for 
     the creation of new national parks, as well as 
     alternatives to placing important resources in the 
     National Park System. Congress has in recent years, for 
     example, designated several ``heritage areas,'' where the 
     NPS supports state and community conservation efforts 
     through start-up funds and technical assistance for a set 
     number of years. The local communities would have the 
     ongoing responsibility for these areas. However, 
     legislation to expand the heritage areas program has been 
     controversial because of concerns about private property 
     rights.


                                Outlook

       The challenge for Congress and other policy makers is to 
     balance the need to preserve our nation's tremendous natural 
     and cultural resources while making them as accessible as 
     possible to the public. In my view, this will entail putting 
     more money into the park system to ensure adequate upkeep as 
     well as some restrictions on access to particularly fragile 
     resources. Congress should work with the NPS to explore 
     alternative financing methods for park improvements. No one 
     wants the parks to become overly commercial, but carefully 
     crafted agreements with private organizations seem to me to 
     be a promising source of future funding, though not a 
     substitute for federal funding. In addition, Congress must 
     use more discretion in creating new national parks, and not 
     use the park system as an opportunity for pork barrel 
     politics. The NPS must also further its efforts to work with 
     the parks' ``gateway communities'' to ensure that development 
     near the parks is done with an eye toward its effects.
       Many Americans remember fondly family trips to the Grand 
     Canyon, Yosemite, or the Statue of Liberty. We have an 
     obligation to ensure that these and the many other natural 
     wonders and historical treasures our country has to offer are 
     preserved for Americans in the 21st century and beyond.

     

                          ____________________