[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.
____________________