[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 48 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3601-S3603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               PRIORITIES


                              Vision 20-20

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is a morning with a little bit of 
break between issues. It is an opportunity, it seems to me, to share 
some of the thoughts some of us have as priorities. Obviously, when we 
get involved in a particular bill, as we did last week, it took the 
whole week. Some of the things we care a lot about we tend to sort of 
set aside.
  I speak this morning briefly on a couple of issues that I think are 
very important, and are particularly important to me. One is the bill 
called Vision 20-20. It is the product of a great deal of effort that 
we put in in the Parks Subcommittee with respect to revitalizing our 
national parks. We have had one hearing in the subcommittee. We have 
another planned for this week. Finally, we will have four hearings and 
then, hopefully, bring it to the floor sometime in May or early June.
  National parks, of course, are increasingly well thought of in this 
country. They are increasingly popular. Visitations go up. We have more 
and more people taking advantage of the parks, parks that preserve 
either natural resources or cultural resources that have been a 
tradition.
  We celebrated last year the 125th anniversary of the first park, 
Yellowstone Park in Wyoming, as a matter of fact. Unfortunately, at the 
same time that we have increased our caring about parks, we find 
ourselves, according to the park agency, in addition to being $5 
billion behind in the infrastructure, taking care of those parks and 
preserving those parks. The purpose, of course, of a park is to 
preserve those resources, whether they be natural or cultural. But 
equally as important, and the second issue, certainly is to provide a

[[Page S3602]]

pleasant visit to the owners of the park who are the people of the 
United States. That, of course, becomes more difficult as this 
infrastructure needs repair.
  We are seeking to do a number of things. We are seeking to increase 
the resources that are available that will be supplemental to the 
budget money, to the tax money that all taxpayers pay, by doing things 
like extending the fee period where additional trial fees have been 
added to the parks, and to extend that for some time to see that people 
who enter the park can actually share more of the responsibility of 
paying for it. We are also talking about a stamp, collectible stamps, 
such as a duck stamp, in which the resources would go to the park. We 
are talking about those people who come on international tours to be 
able as part of their tour to buy a 30-day entry to parks with some of 
those funds going to national parks.
  We are talking about bonding many of the larger parks. Have things 
like streets and sewers, and it is very difficult to keep those up on 
annual budgets. So we are seeking to do that which is difficult since 
there is no real capital budget in the Federal establishment at work in 
doing that.
  In addition, we hope to give an opportunity for taxpayers to deduct a 
portion of their return--the money that comes back to them--and 
dedicate it to the parks, if they choose to. We think that is an 
opportunity to support the parks and those people who care a great deal 
about it.
  In addition, we are talking about the management. I think that is 
fair because they have more resources. There is evidence, of course, 
that management is not always what it might be. The most recent one, of 
course, is the cost of some of the construction there that has been 
extremely, unusually, inappropriately high. We are asking that there be 
a strategic plan, that is a national strategic plan also revisited on 
down to each unit, and that each unit have a strategic plan that 
complies with the flat plan. That has a measurable goal in it. This is 
a large business; there needs to be planning for it.

  We are talking about the concessions--the way that the concessions 
can contribute more financially to the parks. They are a commercial 
function within the park. We would like to see more private expertise 
in the management of these kinds of commercial activities within the 
Park Service. We also would like to have it more competitive so that 
people who want to get into the business can do that. We deal with the 
preferential right. In addition to that, of course, in order to invest 
millions of dollars, there needs to be some proprietary interest 
protecting that as well.
  These are some of the things we are doing. We are talking about 
education of the park employees, which I think is an advantage for 
them. Park employees are some of the most committed people I know of in 
the Federal Government to their role in the parks.
  We are excited about that, and hope that can be one of the things 
that this Congress accomplishes as they strengthen in making sure that 
the parks are going to be there for us in the next century and, 
therefore, our kids and our grandkids.


                           The Budget Process

  Mr. President, we are also working, I think, as we move on into the 
allocation of funds through the budget and through the appropriations. 
I think we ought to take another look at a 2-year budget. We are going 
to find ourselves spending at least half of this year talking about 
budgeting and appropriations. Many State legislatures have shown that 
it is successful to do it on a biannual basis. What we ought to do, in 
my opinion--and we are also joined by the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, as well as the majority and minority whip--is that we ought 
to do this on a 2-year basis so that we can do it 1 year, set up the 
budgets the next year, and have oversight, which is something we need 
to do more of in Congress. I think it is good for agencies. They would 
have a longer period of time to know what resources are available to 
them. Somehow we don't seem to be able to get to it. It is a reasonable 
procedural thing that we ought to do. But, as is often the case and too 
often the case in Government and in this Congress, we have always done 
it that way. That is not a good enough reason. That is not a good 
enough reason. If there are ways we can do things more efficiently, if 
there are ways we can do things that will produce better results, that 
is what we ought to be doing. I am persuaded that is one of them.
  We are also in the process of trying to set up a system that provides 
for more entrepreneurial private involvement in some of the things that 
Government does. Basically, we have a bill that will probably be heard 
in the House this week that simply says to OMB to define those things 
that are basically commercial in nature, that are done by the Federal 
Government, and then require under the so-called 876 process that each 
of those kinds of things be made available for private contracting if 
you can show that it can be done more efficiently that way.
  The private contractor should get to bid on those things that are 
basically commercial in nature and be more efficient. We reduce the 
size of Government, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Of course, 
some of the labor unions in the Government agencies are not excited 
about that. The fact is that many of those people would be also doing 
the same thing in the private sector, and probably would be at least as 
well off.
  These are some of the things that we are doing.


                   Elementary and Secondary Education

  Mr. President, I guess as an expression of some frustration, I have 
been hearing reports of last week's talk about education. I am 
surprised, frankly, that the national media has promoted some of the 
kinds of things that simply, it seems to me, are not the basis of the 
discussion. Yesterday, on TV, I heard them sitting around for 20 
minutes talking about the idea that this bill was simply to define 
private school funding. It is not what it is about at all. It provides 
an opportunity for people to have a savings to use for their own 
children during kindergarten through college, an expansion of the $500 
credit that is now $2,000 set aside. It is your money. It is not tax 
money. It is money that you are allowed to set aside after taxes but 
the income has not been taxed.
  But the real issue, and what seems to be missed by most people, is 
what should the involvement of the Federal Government be in elementary 
and secondary education. What we are really debating is whether or not 
there ought to be a set of Federal entitlements set up that would go on 
forever by the Federal Government and would eventually, of course, 
impede or infringe upon local control of elementary and secondary 
schools. That is what the debate was about.
  I am surprised sometimes that does not seem to permeate through the 
national media. Part of that is, of course, because the administration 
and our friends on the other side of the aisle tried to make that 
point. I guess when we govern and people are involved in self-
government, as we all should be doing, that there has to be some 
semblance of factual information going out to people so that they can 
be involved.
  I spoke this morning with a group of kids. There is one from each 
State here to talk about Government. The point that I try to make and 
that all of us try to make is that this is a government of the people, 
by the people, and for the people, and that all of us should try to 
make that democracy work, to make the Constitution work, to make the 
system work, and that we have to participate. To participate, you have 
to have some facts, not media hype, and not show business, but facts.
  It seems to me, increasingly prompted some by politicians, to be 
sure, that we find ourselves more and more being faced with the 
political process becoming something of show business. That is not what 
it is. It is government deciding based on facts what is best for 
freedom, freedom for democracy, and for the American people. It is 
frustrating from time to time that those issues that are really basic 
to the decisions get lost somewhere. They get lost somewhere. I find 
them frustrating.
  It is interesting, Mr. President, that in your home State,--as it is 
in Wyoming, where yesterday I had conversations--you hear things that 
are totally different than with some you talk with here. It is really 
interesting that folks at home are thinking about those things that are 
really important to them, and here we are talking about

[[Page S3603]]

the gossip. But that is the way it works. So we all will continue to 
make it work that way.
  Mr. President, as you can tell, I have used this opportunity to share 
some of the concerns and interests that I have having to do with 
national parks, having to do with allowing the private sector to 
participate in many of the things that are commercial in nature in the 
Government; talking about what I think is a more efficient manner of 
handling our budget on a 2-year budget cycle, and using the other year 
to have oversight to ensure those dollars are being spent in the best 
way they can.
  They complain a little bit, I guess, which is OK, all of us do it, 
about the lack of ability to really portray and get out into the public 
the real issues and the real controversies. That is what we are really 
about here--is talking about different views and different 
directions. And to the extent that all of us can participate in making 
those decisions through the political process, which is how we govern 
ourselves, then it's important, I think--vital--to have that 
information available.

                          ____________________