[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16895-16896]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 THE PARK PROFESSIONALS PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2003

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker today I am introducing legislation to protect 
the park professionals who ``dedicate their careers to preserving our 
system of National Parks from the Bush Administration's privatization 
plan.
  According to the Bush Administration, the rush to replace National 
Park Service employees with private-sector subcontractors is a harmless 
experiment to see if the services provided by thousands of dedicated 
public servants could be had more cheaply. The Administration claims it 
is considering only a small number of positions and asserts that 
taxpayers will see cost savings from this plan.
  Unfortunately, this is just not the case. The Administration's 
privatization scheme is so vast, so unwarranted and so clumsy that it 
threatens to undermine both the National Park Service and the resources 
it was created to protect. To avoid this, I am introducing legislation 
to stop the Bush plan.
  The Administration proposes to privatize approximately 1,700 full-
time National Park Service employees by the end of next year. While 
this number alone is troubling, it is only the beginning. According to 
The Washington Post, the Administration has identified approximately 
70% of the current NPS workforce it feels should be eligible for 
replacement by private workers.
  And who are the people the Administration is seeking to replace? 
According to the Director of the National Park Service, nearly 90% of 
the men and women potentially eligible for privatization in the 
Washington, D.C. area are minorities and the numbers in areas such as 
Santa Fe and San Francisco are similarly lopsided.
  Making matters worse, the alleged cost savings created by replacing 
these workers is unproven and unlikely. Despite paying private 
consultants more than $5 million, or about three thousand dollars per 
position being considered, not a single study has been produced 
demonstrating even a nickel in savings. Meanwhile, that $5 million came 
from funds intended to pay for the operation and maintenance of our 
National Parks.

[[Page 16896]]

  Of course, the reason no savings can be demonstrated is that there 
are no savings to be had. This entire scheme is based on the premise 
that you can build a workforce of dedicated professionals, with the 
experience, institutional memory and expertise of the National Park 
Service, for less money. You can't.
  The description on paper of an NPS employee's job doesn't begin to 
include all of the services that employee performs on the ground. 
Visitors don't direct their questions about plants and animals only to 
NPS biologists nor do they wait to ask questions regarding historic 
preservation until an NPS historian is available. Wildfires and heart 
attacks don't happen only when full-time fire fighters or EMTs are on 
duty.
  The National Park Service challenges all of its employees, regardless 
of their actual job titles, to respond to all kinds of visitor needs, 
and the employees work hard to meet this challenge. This kind of all-
out commitment and willingness to pitch in comes from a passionate 
commitment to your job, a commitment which cannot be bought from the 
lowest bidder or adequately described in a want ad.
  What's more, each unit of our National Park System is unique, both in 
the resources it offers and the challenges it faces. Such richness and 
diversity defy a ``one-cheapest-size-fits-all'' approach. The best 
scientific mind to further stabilize the Anasazi ruins at Mesa Verde is 
not the best person to protect endangered species in the Dry Tortugas. 
A private corporation, offering the lowest possible salaries, probably 
can't provide either of these people, much less both of them.
  The fact is, NPS employees' salaries are scandalously low, their 
housing is dilapidated and they are frequently asked to pack up their 
families and move to a park thousands of miles away. These men and 
women work in the National Park Service because they love National 
Parks, and the people who visit them, and there is no excess to be 
wrung from their paychecks. While it is appropriate to seek the lowest 
bidder for the uniforms they wear or the equipment they use, allowing 
the lowest bidder to replace their expertise and experience will only 
cheapen our National Parks.
  The mission of the National Park Service is resource protection and 
visitor enjoyment, not profit. To accomplish that mission, the National 
Park Service needs employees motivated by a love of people and of 
parks, not of money. The natural, cultural and historic resources 
contained within our National Parks are too valuable to allow the job 
of protecting them to be traded on the open market.
  My legislation will stop this privatization scheme in its tracks and 
I urge my colleagues to support it.

                          ____________________