[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3593-3594]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         NATIONAL PARKS FUNDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. I wanted to take a few minutes tonight to congratulate 
the President on the initiative to boost funding for our national 
parks. Of all the news stories and the ruckus about Iraq and global 
warming and our borders and the death of Anna Nicole Smith, whatever 
bumps it out of the news, it has kind of been lost about a major new 
initiative for the upcoming centennial of the national parks.
  I say ``upcoming'' because it is actually in 2016, but a number of us 
in the House several years ago introduced a National Park Centennial 
Act. Congressman Brian Baird and I, we formed the National Parks Caucus 
and in the House led the effort where we had, I believe, 67 Members. 
We, quite frankly, would have had more, but we systematically were 
trying to make sure that we had both Republicans and Democrats in 
relatively even numbers to show it was a bipartisan effort. And in the 
Senate, Senator McCain and Senator Feinstein were the leaders, along 
with Senator Alexander. They had strong support over in the Senate.
  The goal was to try to get rid of not only the backlog in the 
national parks, but trying to address where our parks were going to 
head in the next 100 years; that in the national parks one of our 
challenges has been that we have added homeland security challenges to 
the national parks because many of the sites that would have the most 
impact if they were attacked and destroyed are actually in our national 
parks. Whether it be Independence Hall or the Gateway Arch, for that 
matter, the Golden Gate Bridge, in addition to the monuments here in 
Washington, all come under the national parks. That came out of the 
budget. It didn't come out of the Homeland Security budget, much like 
roads come out of the Transportation budget. They had to absorb that, 
they have had to move rangers in and absorb the Homeland Security 
costs.
  Of course every agency is struggling with labor costs, health care 
costs, pension costs. And the net result of all this pressure on the 
national parks is, even though we have been steadily increasing funding 
here, with the additional costs in homeland security, the additional 
costs on employees and the additional land that we have added to the 
national parks system, the additional sites we have added, the 
additional conservation areas under a whole range of heritage areas, 
national roads and different things that go into their responsibility.
  The net impact is that many of our national parks, we have seen as 
much as a 67 percent reduction in actual rangers at the parks. While we 
have put money on the backlog, a backlog doesn't mean that you have 
eliminated the problem. For example, if you fix the restroom at a park 
and you fix a visitors center or you fix a sewer system, because of 
amortization and declining facility and road use, you are constantly, 
by fixing the backlog, if you divert your money from your current 
operating to fix the backlog, it merely means now you are in effect 
getting a front-log. In other words, you are adding new expenses that 
then get added to the backlog. So even as we have increased funds here, 
we have fallen further behind.
  And the question is what was our national parks system going to look 
like for our kids and for our grandkids. It is something that can 
easily get lost in whatever the crush of the day is. If it is 
immunization, if it is Medicaid, if it is prescription drugs for 
seniors, if it is

[[Page 3594]]

border security, it gets lost in the system.
  For the 50th anniversary that Congress passed sufficiently ahead of 
time, which is what we are trying to do here, what was called Mission 
66, there was a commitment over a number of years to fund adequate 
funding for the national parks so for the 50th birthday, in 1966, we 
could see the roads, the visitation facilities and other things set for 
the 50th anniversary. That is why we require forward funding at this 
time.
  This proposal by the administration is not exactly like the 
Centennial Act, but very similar. It commits dollars from the 
government, both directly for funding, roughly it looks like around 100 
to $200 million a year in direct funding, plus it creates a challenge 
grant. Now, the fundamental part of our bill was a challenge grant that 
people could take a deduction, and then whatever the shortfall was from 
the 270 million we needed annually, the Federal Government would make 
up the difference.
  The total here is the same in the President's bill, but it has a 
direct one-for-one match. Right now, if people give 20 million to the 
national parks, it will give up to a hundred million with a hundred 
million dollar match, plus additional to get to that 270 figure. We 
hopefully can do that up to now to 2016. And I hope this doesn't just 
put more rangers in the parks, as the President said, and meet the 
needs that we have in homeland security and infrastructure, but that we 
realize that our national park System isn't only wilderness, isn't only 
visitation, it isn't only going to the parks to see what are the 
classic mountain peaks or the great and wonderful deserts or the 
volcanoes, or whatever the particular natural park you think of, it is 
our number one place for historic preservation of buildings, of 
artifacts. It is the number one, arguably, place that we even have art 
in America because of all the parks and certain sites devoted to art. 
But it is more than just that. It is our number one laboratory in 
America where you still have wildlife, where you have trees and plants 
and frogs and things that you can scientifically study.
  And I would also challenge, as we develop this, to look at creative 
ways that the National Park Service can use the Internet, can use the 
education to bring this to schools all over America, to families all 
over America, and not just if you visit the park, a ranger talk that 
now can draw a few people at the campfire. If we look ahead to the year 
2016, that ought to be available on the Internet where in your home, by 
your own campfire, you can join in with the people that are actually at 
the campfire.
  I hope that this passes Congress and that we are creatively looking 
at where the National Park Service will head in the year 2016.

                            [From USA Today]

          President Pushes Boost in Funding for National Parks

                           (By Richard Wolf)

       Washington.--National parks would be a big winner under 
     President Bush's 2008 budget, and a plan to match up to $100 
     million annually in private donations could guarantee 
     increases for a decade.
       Bush's budget, being unveiled today, would give the 
     National Park Service $2.4 billion next year, administration 
     officials told USA TODAY. That includes a $258 million 
     increase for daily operations, up 14.5%. Since 2002, those 
     funds have risen 1.5% above inflation.
       The president proposes adding at least $100 million a year 
     for the next 10 years. The funds would be used to hire 3,000 
     seasonal park rangers, guides and maintenance workers each 
     summer, an increase of more than 50%. In addition, more than 
     1 million children could be enrolled in youth programs.
       On top of that, Bush wants Congress to guarantee that the 
     federal government would match philanthropic donations each 
     year, up to another $100 million. Currently, about $20 
     million is contributed each year by supporters of national 
     parks, such as family foundations.
       Taken together, the proposals could provide $3 billion in 
     new parks funding over the coming decade. In 2016, the parks 
     will celebrate their 100th anniversary; Bush wants them to be 
     in better shape than they are today.
       ``I think it can be a source of healing for Americans,'' 
     Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said. ``This one is not 
     partisan. This one is American.''
       The proposal is being welcomed by groups that advocate on 
     behalf of the nearly 400 sites managed by the National Park 
     Service and have been a thorn in the Bush administration's 
     side during lean years. The National Parks Conservation 
     Association was seeking an increase of $250 million in 
     operating funds for the parks.
       ``This is a renewed commitment that national parks should 
     be a national priority,'' said Tom Kiernan, the group's 
     president. ``It's a catalyzing initiative at a wonderful time 
     for the national parks.''
       The proposals would have to be approved separately by 
     Congress. The $2.4 billion parks budget, with its record 
     increase in operating funds, would become final if Congress 
     allocates the funding. The matching-funds proposal would have 
     to be approved by committees with jurisdiction over the 
     Interior Department.
       Taken together, they would add thousands of new park 
     workers to guide visitors with programs such as interpretive 
     walks and campfire talks. Volunteer coordinators would be 
     added in 44 sites.
       Seasonal workers have been cut during lean budget years, 
     resulting in a 10-year decline.
       ``We simply have lost contact people who meet the American 
     public,'' said Stephen Whitesell, superintendent of the San 
     Antonio Missions National Historical Park in Texas. ``What 
     they're not seeing are rangers in flat hats.''
       Since 9/11, most of the money added to the National Park 
     Service budget has gone for added security in such places as 
     New York City, Washington, D.C., and along the U.S. borders 
     with Canada and Mexico.
       Some of the new funds will be used to attract young people 
     to the parks through Internet programs and podcasts. 
     Kempthorne and others see it as mutually beneficial: The 
     parks would avoid a loss of visitors in future generations, 
     and children would reap the health benefits of the great 
     outdoors.
       ``We're competing with an electronic world,'' Kempthorne 
     said.

     

                          ____________________