[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 57 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H2255-H2256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     KEEP YOSEMITE TOURIST-FRIENDLY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I rise today in strong opposition to a proposal by 
the National Park Service to remove longstanding tourist facilities 
from Yosemite National Park, including bicycle and raft rentals, snack 
facilities, gift shops, horseback riding, the ice skating rink at Curry 
Village, tennis courts and swimming pools, the art center, and the 
historic stone Sugar Pine Bridge.
  These facilities date back generations and provide visitors with a 
wide range of amenities to enhance their stay at and their enjoyment of 
this world-renowned national park. To add insult to insanity, all of 
this comes with a quarter-billion-dollar price tag to American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, Yosemite belongs to the American people, and the Park 
Service's job is to welcome them and accommodate them when they visit 
their park, not to restrict and harass them. Indeed, Yosemite was set 
aside nearly 150 years ago by legislation signed by Abraham Lincoln 
specifically for ``the public use, resort and recreation for all 
time.'' This proposal fundamentally changes the entire purpose for 
which Yosemite was set aside in the first place.
  Tourists don't go where they're not welcomed. Yosemite competes with 
thousands of vacation destinations; and the more inconvenient and 
unpleasant Park managers make it for Yosemite visitors, the fewer 
visitors they're going to have. Now, that might be convenient to them, 
but it will devastate the economy of all of the surrounding communities 
whose economies depend upon tourism.
  The Park Service is attempting to justify this as a court-ordered 
response to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This is disingenuous. The 
settlement agreement they refer to simply requires that a plan be 
adopted consistent with current law. It does not mandate such radical 
changes in longstanding visitor services and amenities.
  Former Congressman Tony Coelho, who authored the act that designated 
the Merced under provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, has just 
released a strong letter condemning the proposal, saying in no 
uncertain terms:

       The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was never intended to apply 
     to the Merced River within

[[Page H2256]]

     Yosemite National Park at all. The Merced River within 
     Yosemite National Park is protected and regulated by the 
     National Park Service and has never needed an overlay of 
     inconsistent and confusing regulation. The Merced River in 
     Yosemite Valley has been recreational for almost 150 years. 
     Yosemite Valley has never been wilderness. Any plan which 
     proceeds should not change any infrastructure or ban any 
     activities traditionally carried on in Yosemite Valley.

  Indeed, when Mr. Coelho authored the legislation designating the 
Merced as ``wild and scenic,'' these tourist facilities already 
existed, and nowhere in the bill's findings is there any mention of an 
intention to force their closure or to override Park policies. In fact, 
many of the facilities slated for removal are not even on the Merced 
River and do not in any way impede or affect its flow.
  The officials of the National Park Service are clearly not required 
to take these actions. It's becoming increasingly apparent that they 
want to take them and that they intend to take them despite widespread 
public opposition from all but the most radical elements of the 
environmental left. Indeed, when 13 members of the California 
congressional delegation, including liberal Democrats and conservative 
Republicans alike, asked for an extension of the public comment period, 
the Park Service grudgingly extended it by only 12 days.
  It is obvious that Park officials have already made up their minds 
and are merely walking through the formalities. I believe that this 
matter and related issues of public access cry out for a congressional 
investigation.
  In the meantime, if members of the public want to protest the 
elimination of many of Yosemite Valley's tourist amenities and iconic 
landmarks, their time is running out. My Web site, at 
mcclintock.house.gov, provides guidance on how people can protest this 
action, and I strongly urge them to do so.

                          ____________________