[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 21, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1134-H1136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SENSE OF HOUSE THAT NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SHOULD USE DEPARTMENT OF 
                        DEFENSE SUPPORT SERVICES

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 182) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the National Park Service should take full 
advantage of support services offered by the Department of Defense.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 182

       Whereas the National Park Service was established to 
     promote and regulate units of superlative natural, historic, 
     and recreation areas known as national parks, monuments, and 
     other reservations;
       Whereas the purpose of the National Park Service is to 
     conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and 
     the wildlife therein and to provide for the public enjoyment 
     of the same;
       Whereas, in order to accomplish and provide for this 
     purpose, units of the National Park System contain 
     structures, roads, and other related infrastructure;
       Whereas the National Park Service has repeatedly reported a 
     backlog of projects necessary to maintain these structures, 
     roads, and infrastructure and has asserted that approximately 
     $6,000,000,000 is required to eliminate this backlog;
       Whereas the Department of Defense has the authority under 
     section 2012 of title 10, United States Code, to provide 
     support and services to Federal entities, including the 
     National Park Service;
       Whereas the Civil-Military Department of Defense Innovative 
     Readiness Training Program is designed to improve military 
     readiness while helping to rebuild the United States through 
     realistic, hands-on training opportunities for military 
     personnel which simultaneously assists with meeting domestic 
     priorities;
       Whereas the Civil-Military Department of Defense Innovative 
     Readiness Training Program is in keeping with a long military 
     tradition by leveraging real world training opportunities to 
     meet the readiness requirements of military units and 
     individuals while benefitting local communities;
       Whereas this support and service provided by the Department 
     of Defense includes equipment and other assistance which 
     would aid in reducing the backlog of maintenance and other 
     like projects identified by the National Park Service; and
       Whereas a partnership between the Civil-Military Department 
     of Defense Innovative Readiness Training Program and the 
     National Park Service can provide the American taxpayer with 
     added benefits: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that the National Park Service should 
     immediately take full advantage of the support and services 
     offered by the Department of Defense pursuant to section 2012 
     of title 10, United States Code, in addressing the backlog of 
     maintenance and other like projects within units of the 
     National Park System.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-
Barcelo) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the American public 
likes the very most is our national parks. We have about 375 units of 
the Park Service. These are the areas that if we ask the American 
public what do they like the very most in the world, they will say the 
parks. They go to all the parks. From sea to shining sea, they see 
these parks and they love them. In fact, they love them to death. 
Because of that, we have a tremendous backlog of infrastructure in the 
parks.
  For those folks out West, they fully realize that Yellowstone had 
impassable roads for a long time. These roads were put there in 1915 by 
the cavalry. There was not even any base for them. Go down to the Grand 
Canyon and they

[[Page H1135]]

had a culinary water system problem that they had to rely upon the 
people in Arizona. Keep looking around and a few years ago we had a 
backlog of infrastructure that was probably around $15 billion.

                              {time}  1445

  We did not know how to take care of this problem. Well, here are the 
people demanding that they go into these parks, and they want them to 
be beautiful. They want the roads to be right, they want the restrooms 
to work, they want the ranger to stand there and explain things to them 
that they want to hear. They want to go home and they want to have 
their pictures developed and they want to see these beautiful, gorgeous 
parks where they enjoyed the 3 weeks that they got off, or whatever it 
was.
  Well, the question always comes up to this committee, and has as long 
as I have been on the committee, which is 10 terms, of how do we take 
care of these parks and the infrastructure?
  A couple of terms ago we started the Demonstration Program, really a 
good idea, which meant that now people going in the parks would spend a 
little more than that $10. In Yellowstone you could go in in 1915 for 
$10. In 1996 you could go in for $10. Where is the best deal in the 
world? It is right there. Take the wife and the kids and go out to 
dinner and a show and you will spend $100, you get to see these 
gorgeous parks for $10.
  So we started this Demonstration Program which in effect said to the 
superintendent, up the ante a little bit. Let us pay a little more for 
it. The criticism of that has been infinitesimal, it has been minimal, 
almost nonexistent, because people have said that is the best deal in 
America, is our national parks.
  Still, Mr. Speaker, we go back to the issue, how do we take care of 
the infrastructure of the parks? Admittedly the Demonstration Program 
worked pretty well.
  Well, we had an interesting thing happen about 1993. A colonel that 
was the head of the Corps of Engineers came over to my office and he 
said, ``Congressman, I would like to answer a question for you of how 
we could take care of the national parks.''
  I said, Yes, sir, boy, we want to hear that.
  He said, Well, the Corps of Engineers go all over the world, and they 
build roads, and they build bridges, and they build hospitals, and they 
are doing things in Indonesia, Somalia, South Africa, you name it. So 
we take this Corps of Engineers and we put them in C-141s and we take 
the patrols, we take their bulldozers and we take their engineers and 
we go over and build a road for them.
  Well, that is a good humanitarian thing to do, and I guess we all 
feel good about it.
  He said, But, Congressman, our guys would rather stay in the United 
States. They would rather go up and build that road in Yellowstone, 
because mom and the kids can come up for those 3 weeks and they can 
enjoy it. So at one time the engineers from the State of Utah are there 
and a month later the people from Arizona are there and a month later 
the people from Minnesota are there and they do the road.
  What do they do? We are paying for it anyway because we are training 
these youngsters, we are training these officers and enlisted men to 
understand this. So they do the engineering. They are going to do it 
anyway, whether it is Somalia or it is Yellowstone. They are going to 
do the work, whether it is there. The money will come out for it. But 
the difference is the American taxpayer now is the beneficiary of their 
good work.
  So we thought that was a great idea. I talked to the Director of the 
National Park System. He said it is a wonderful idea. Then it kind of 
got bogged down in a few things, and we determined we could not do a 
bill that straight.
  So this bill that we have before us today kind of encourages that, 
and says to the Department of Defense, look, folks, come on and help us 
out in some of these parks.
  Look at the advantage of this, Mr. Speaker. For one thing, the Corps 
of Engineers does the engineering, they bring their tools in; they do 
the work. And what does the Park Service pay for? The Park Service pays 
for the material, the road base, the cement, the things like that. So 
you cut your costs rather substantially.
  Another thing, Mr. Speaker, look at this. Where are our parks? They 
are not in the middle of areas like Washington, D.C. or Salt Lake City. 
They are way out there somewhere. People have to drive to them. So how 
do you get people to come in and say yes, we will bid on this. They bid 
all right, but they really bid high prices and you will pay four or 
five times more than you will in a metropolitan area.
  Then you have that Davis-Bacon Act staring you in the face, and I 
will not get into that, even though I have strong feelings on it, that 
also comes back and hits us right between the eyeballs. So this costs a 
lot of money.
  But what about the American taxpayer? He wants a nice park. They want 
to enjoy it. They want to go in there, and they want someone to revel 
in it. And they do go do our national parks in America. The best liked 
thing which is done in the U.S. Government is the National Park System.
  Mr. Speaker, this is kind of an easy little bill, but it encourages 
the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Defense, to work with the 
Park Service, save us some money, make our parks better, so that the 
American people can enjoy these parks.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, House Resolution 182 is a good idea. This 
resolution expresses the sense of Congress that would help solve a big 
problem the National Park Service has in trying to maintain our 
national parks while also taking advantage of an assistance program 
already established in the Department of Defense. This would be 
especially effective in national parks that are isolated and do not 
have commercial contractors reasonably available.
  As we all know, one of the primary purposes of the National Park 
Service is to provide for the public enjoyment of our national parks. 
In order to accomplish this, units of the National Park Service have 
understandably constructed buildings, roads, and other related 
infrastructure and facilities. However, for many years now the National 
Park Service has repeatedly reported a backlog of projects necessary to 
maintain facilities, structures, roads, and other infrastructure within 
our parks. In fact, the Park Service has asserted that upwards of $8 
billion is required to correct this backlog.
  Separately, the Department of Defense has the statutory authority to 
provide support and services to other Federal agencies and entities, 
including the National Park Service. This support comes in the form of 
the Civil-Military Department of Defense Innovative Readiness Training 
Program which is designed to improve military readiness while providing 
hands-on training opportunities for military personnel. This support 
service includes equipment and other assistance which could 
substantially aid in reducing the backlog of maintenance and other like 
projects identified by the National Park Service. Furthermore, the men 
and women in the Army involved in these projects and who need the 
training would do it here in this country, and would not have to travel 
half way across the world. They also would be much closer to their 
families. In fact, many families might want to travel to parks where 
their loved ones are working.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 182 uses assistance from the Army to 
help solve the maintenance problem in our national parks thereby, 
benefiting the American taxpayer in this country instead of deployed 
overseas somewhere.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 182. This is a good 
idea and good for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 182 expresses the 
sense of the House that the National Park Service should immediately 
take full advantage of a Department of Defense readiness training 
program in addressing the backlog of maintenance within units of the 
National Park System.
  House Resolution 182 is being brought to the House under unusual 
circumstances. The resolution was discharged from the Subcommittee on 
National Parks and Public Lands and marked up by the Committee on 
Resources just last week. We had no hearings on the measure in the 
committee, despite the fact that this proposal has been pending before 
the committee

[[Page H1136]]

since May 1999. We did not receive the views of the administration or 
other interested parties on this measure. As a result, we do not know 
what this defense program does or could do, nor to what extent this 
program has been previously used by the National Park Service or other 
land management agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) has described 
this as a non-controversial measure to encourage the use of an existing 
defense program in making needed repair to the infrastructure of our 
national park units. We have no objection to this nonbinding 
resolution, but we would like to have it understood that such 
assistance is to be carried out in conformance with the applicable laws 
and regulations and with the recognition of the high value placed on 
preserving and protecting national park resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) that the House suspend the rules and 
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 182.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gekas). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX 
and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________