[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 19060]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION FEES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schrock). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5 
minutes.


                             Capital Gains

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, first before I discuss what I intend to 
discuss here for a few minutes, a matter of importance, the National 
Park System, let me make a brief comment on capital gains.
  Depending on when the effective date of the capital gains cut came 
in, it is unlikely that a whole lot of people in the stock market have 
capital gains. But we are also looking at real estate questions, at 
companies expanding. And the idea that somehow we will spend our way 
out of a recession, rather than grow our way out, is backwards. If we 
do not have real substantive incentives to get people back to work in 
all sectors of our economy, we are in deep trouble in this economy.


                           Demonstration Fees

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about demonstration fees. This was 
supposedly a test to see whether it would relieve the financial 
pressures on our national parks. At some point, either this 
demonstration has worked or it has not. It is time to either make them 
permanent or remove them. In fact, we have had very few complaints, 
almost none at most parks. The fees range from $10 to $30 to enter the 
park, negligible compared to most entertainment in America. Fees for 
special services for those related costs, camping, back country 
expenses, are logical because the money goes directly to pay for those 
expenses.
  These fee dollars have helped supplement the park's complete projects 
efforts. For example, 6 percent in 1999 of Yellowstone Park's revenue 
were from the demonstrations fee. The less attended park, Theodore 
Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota, netted about $300,000 a year 
for projects. In the year 2000 that included projects such as boundary 
fence repair, overlook trails, radio-collar elk monitoring, trailhead 
and interior trail signs throughout the park, new laser slide programs 
for a visitor center and an archeological exhibit at the Medora Visitor 
Center.
  Fee uses are diverse, visitor service usage intensive with these fees 
and all, help fund unmet park needs. The long-range source problem is 
that Congress and/or the President keep adding additional units to the 
National Park Service. This has been especially true or has actually 
been true since the foundation of the Park System and will always be 
true. It is only a question of degree. So the park service gets more 
units and their budget does not increase at the rate of 
responsibilities.
  So we have developed associations like the Rocky Mountain National 
Nature Association at the Rocky Mountain National Park or the Yosemite 
Fund at Yosemite National Park, plus concession fees to help meet these 
needs.
  The demonstration fees have also helped supplement these budgets. 
This has, in fact, led to an unofficial ``crown jewel'' approach. 
Former Park Director James Ridenhour argued that Congressional ``park-
barreling'' was diluting the national vision and uniqueness of the 
National Park System. In fact, the major natural parks plus the major 
cultural parks have the strongest financial support groups and the most 
demo fees. People are voting with their own dollars by giving it 
through the funds, associations, and their park fees.
  These demonstration fees should be made permanent because they have 
become an essential part of preserving our most popular and beloved 
parks. But, ironically, the National Park pass is beginning to threaten 
the success story. This was further complicated by our so-called 
technical corrections to the National Parks' Omnibus Management Act.
  Each park has historically kept most of the demonstration fee 
collected at the gate. Because most projects require planning of 
multiple years, they plan ahead. Parks also get to keep a significant 
percentage of the national parks pass fees sold at that park. But as 
more parks put in demo fees and as demo fees have risen, those who 
visit multiple parks or visit one park frequently obviously purchase a 
pass. The more passes sold disadvantage the more remote parks. 
Demonstration fees not collected or passes not sold at those parks 
dramatically reduce the revenue at those parks which was, after all, 
the original purpose.
  Furthermore, the Technical Corrections Act set aside 15 percent of 
sales for administration and promotion of the National Parks Pass. 
Obviously we have administration costs, and that is a whole other 
subject. But why are we promoting the national parks pass? National 
sales and Internet take dollars from specific parks, draining the 
original intent. There is no data to suggest that promoting the pass in 
general increases usage of the parks. It just goes to the Washington 
office rather than the individual park. And even if it did increase 
usage, that is the wrong goal.
  Parks with demonstration fees which need a pass are generally nearly 
overcrowded in peak seasons already. Why would we want to have more 
people go to them? Every person who purchases a day pass at a park is 
given the option of purchasing a national parks pass, so no one is 
getting shortchanged. Furthermore, the cost of the national parks pass 
has become too low. As some parks go up to $30, we need to reevaluate 
the system.
  We need to look at making it $100 and there are two problems with 
that: Low-income families and local residents. A ZIP code criteria for 
a lower fee is a possibility. Although there is no philosophical 
defense for that, it may need to be a practical consideration. A 
refundable tax credit for low-income families would address the income 
problem. It would cost the government nothing because the people who 
laid out the $100 are just getting it back, likely would cost the parks 
little, but would eliminate the complaint that poor families could not 
afford the $100. If we do not address this problem, our park revenue is 
going to decline. It is something we must address for the sake of our 
national parks.

                          ____________________