[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4661-S4662]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              PUBLIC LANDS

  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, we have been very involved in relatively 
few issues over the past 6 weeks. We were on energy, and for about 3 
weeks we have been on trade. Obviously, our attention has been very 
strongly on terrorism and doing the things that are necessary both 
overseas and internally. At the same time, we have talked among 
ourselves, of course, and one of the elements is to do normal business.
  Today, I want to talk about an issue that is quite often normal 
business, particularly for those of us in the West, and that is public 
lands. Of course, there are a lot of aspects to public lands.
  In States such as Wyoming, about 50 percent of the State belongs to 
the Federal Government, and therefore what is done with public lands 
has a great deal to do with our economy and our activities. We feel 
very strongly about it, of course. It is a big issue for us. The idea 
of multiple use is one that is always debatable and is being discussed. 
There are different kinds of public lands. There are those set aside 
for wilderness, for a special use, for a special reason, and there are 
those with various restrictions, set aside for parks or U.S. forests. 
So there are constant issues that relate to the use of that land.
  Of course, much of our domestic energy is produced on public lands. 
So we need to make sure we can work on the extraction of energy and 
domestic production and, at the same time, maintain the quality of the 
environment. That is a debatable issue. I think we can do that, and we 
have demonstrated in Wyoming that you can have multiple use and 
production of resources, and you can have grazing and, at the same 
time, protect the land and the environment. So energy has become very 
much an issue.
  As you know, the whole question over ANWR was the idea that we now 
look overseas for about 60 percent of our energy. We need to increase 
our domestic production so we become less dependent upon others. That 
continues to be an issue. But it is not only ANWR. That was simply the 
poster child. The fact is, in the West it is a very continuing and 
important issue. We are involved in doing EISs right now, and EPA and 
endangered species issues, which go together to make decisions.
  Access is also very important. People like to visit public lands with 
multiple use. The question of roads comes up. Most people agree that 
outside of the wilderness, limited roads are the answer. Again, we have 
to protect the environment.
  One of the things we have pushed for and continue to do so--and this 
administration has promised to do and I think is doing--is to allow for 
more flexibility and more local input. It is true the locals cannot 
make the decisions regarding public lands, but they can have very 
helpful input into how they are managed.
  We are also talking about the use of snow machines in Yellowstone 
Park. Of course, there is some controversy about that. Some people 
don't think there ought to be anybody in the park in the wintertime. 
Millions of cars are there in the summer, but there are only a few 
thousand in the winter and that seems to upset them. Nobody is 
suggesting we continue to do it as we have in the past. But there are 
now reliable sources that can make quieter machines so that they can be 
managed better and separated from cross-country skiers. You can do a 
number of things to allow the owners to participate in public lands.

  Another issue that has been discussed is the matter of fires. We are 
into that season now and we have already had forest and grass fires in 
some places. Certainly, we are better prepared for that now, partly 
because we have had three dry years. The Forest Service has invested a 
great deal more in personnel and equipment to deal with that problem.
  One of the other issues that sometimes is controversial is the idea 
of trying to prevent forest fires by the removal of excess forage and 
fuel. It is something that has been done and can be done, and we have 
not done enough of it perhaps. We ought to be able to do some thinning 
in various places that will make fires less likely to occur, rather 
than putting all of our emphasis on fighting a fire after it has begun.
  So public lands has a lot of interesting issues and always will, of 
course. There are people on both sides that sort of take extreme 
positions. Some say we should not touch those lands; they should be set 
aside totally. Others are not concerned about damage to the 
environment. So we need to find a reasonable middle ground so we can 
have access, so we can have multiple use and, at the same time, we can 
preserve the resource.
  I want to talk briefly today about one aspect of it and that is our 
national parks. National parks are different, at least for one reason, 
in that they were set aside as national parks for a specific reason. 
The reason that is so different is the BLM lands--Bureau of Land 
Management. Most of the lands in Wyoming were not set aside, they were 
residual, what was left after the Homestead Act had been completed. So 
they may or may not have any particular significant character to them. 
Parks, on the other hand, do have significant character or they would 
not be designated as parks. So we have been working on that.
  In 1998, I was successful in passing Vision 2014 in which we dealt 
for the first time in a number of years with ways to help strengthen 
parks, in terms of management and their concessions, and in terms of 
dealing with the natural resource needs, and dealing with financing of 
national parks. It provides for improved management, increased 
accountability. As in any other issue, there has to be accountability 
when you are talking about millions of dollars. Of course, it has to be 
management when you are talking about millions of people going there. 
So we were very pleased with that law. I think it is doing some things 
that are very useful.
  Part of the funding in the past has been what has been called the 
demonstration fee project, which created park passes. That has been in 
place now for 3 years. The National Park Foundation has been 
instrumental in its success. Now there is a very attractive portfolio 
and picture and so on, and persons can buy this pass, which does two 
things. One, it gives accessibility to all 385 national parks and also 
helps to contribute to the sustenance of those parks. We certainly want 
to continue that program, but we are now going to be working on 
something that does expire. It is called the Demonstration Fee 
Program. It expires at the end of this year. It has been in existence 
for about 5 years. It was an opportunity for some small additional fee 
on certain parks and allowed for income and the opportunity to make 
expenditures on what is good for visitors in the parks. It extended not 
only to the Park Service but also the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service.

  It turns out the collection of the fee in many places is very 
difficult. In fact, with the BLM it is almost impossible. If there is a 
public land forest, and in some instances there are facilities, they 
can probably do that, but it is very difficult. On the other hand, 
parks almost always have an admission site, a gate for entry.

[[Page S4662]]

  So the idea is the principal support for parks and public lands is 
provided through taxes from everyone, and then some small contribution 
made by those visitors. We are trying to avoid the idea of each park 
having various charges.
  Eighty percent of the funds that come from the fees are used in the 
park where they are collected. Some parks cannot collect, so 20 percent 
is reallocated generally. But a major part of the fee goes to the park 
where the fee is collected.
  We modified it some. We are making a permanent fee, rather than the 
demonstration fee which expires. We made provisions and criteria for 
the charging of the fee. We have a business management plan on the park 
and determine the feasibility of this program. Not all parks will be 
involved. We will do away with the nickel-and-dime fees where you pay 
for every little thing.
  This provides a great opportunity. We talk a lot about the lack of 
funding for parks. Particularly in the infrastructure, that is probably 
true. This administration has made it clear they intend to increase the 
funding for the infrastructure, particularly of larger parks such as 
Yellowstone or Yosemite where there are millions of people visiting, 
where we have highway problems, sewer problems, facility problems. We 
have introduced a bill that makes this permanent. It helps fund our 
parks and keep them strong.
  We have over 385 national parks in America. In addition, there are 
heritage sites and other parks administered by the Park Service. That 
is one of the real treasures of the United States, our national parks--
whether they be in Florida, in the Everglades or elsewhere.
  We are working on a fee demonstration program for national parks. The 
purpose is to keep them the valuable asset they are. They have to be 
preserved. We changed some concessions so they contribute more, yet 
make them competitive. We are seeking to get business management in the 
larger parks. They are big business, operating in millions of dollars 
each year. Times change. We are seeking to change with it. The purpose 
is to effectively manage the resources so they are available to their 
owners to visit.
  We look forward to the passage of the fee demonstration project.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________