[House Report 104-133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-133
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REFORM ACT OF 1995

                                _______


  June 7, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 260]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 260) to provide for the development of a plan and a 
management review of the National Park System and to reform the 
process by which areas are considered for addition to the 
National Park System, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 260 is to provide for the development 
of a plan for a management review of the National Park System 
and to reform the process by which areas are considered for 
addition to the National Park System.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The National Park Service is charged with the stewardship 
of many of the nation's precious natural and historical 
resources. The 368 areas which make up the National Park System 
are a diverse collection of parks, historic sites, memorials, 
monuments, seashores, battlefields, parkways and trails. These 
areas are known throughout the world for their scenic beauty 
and historical significance. H.R. 260 is aimed toward 
maintaining the integrity of the National Park System through 
various improvements to the process of planning and 
establishing units of the National Park System.
    The National Park Service has been directed by Congress (16 
U.S.C. 1a-5) to study and monitor areas to determine if they 
are nationally significant and whether they have potential for 
inclusion in the National Park System. To be eligible for 
favorable consideration as a unit of the National Park System, 
an area must: (1) possess nationally significant natural or 
historical resources; (2) be a suitable and feasible addition 
to the system; and (3) require direct National Park Service 
management instead of alternative protection by other agencies 
or the private sector. These criteria are designed to ensure 
that the National Park System includes only the most 
outstanding examples of the nation's heritage. After the 
National Park Service studies a potential new area, their study 
is forwarded to Congress.
    The Committee believes that the lack of an overall plan to 
guide the future of the National Park System is a serious 
deficiency. Section 8 of the Act of August 18, 1970 (commonly 
known as the General Authorities Act) requires the Secretary of 
the Interior to prepare a comprehensive ``National Park System 
Plan'' which identifies natural and historic themes of the 
United States, from which areas can be identified and selected 
to be units of the National Park System. While the National 
Park Service has prepared natural and historical Thematic 
Frameworks, these documents cannot really be considered 
``plans.'' Instead, these documents list major natural and 
historical themes of the United States and then describe how 
the themes are represented by existing National Park Service 
units and historic landmarks. These documents do not contain 
direction about what the National Park System should include, 
what areas are priorities for addition to the system, or what 
themes are currently overrepresented in the National Park 
System. The lack of an overall plan to guide the direction and 
expansion of the system is problematic for both the National 
Park Service and Congress when it comes to making decisions 
about adding new units to the National Park System.
    Another area where reforms are needed is the process by 
which areas for addition to the Park System are studied and 
recommended for Congressional consideration. Congress relies 
heavily on National Park Service studies to make evaluations 
about the significance of an area and its suitability for 
designation as a National Park Service unit. Between 1976 and 
1981 the National Park Service had a program of identifying 
high priority candidates for study. This program was terminated 
in 1981, and until very recently, the National Park Service has 
not had a legislative program to recommend potential new parks. 
In the absence of any initiatives coming from the National Park 
Service, Congress directed numerous studies of specific areas 
both in authorizing legislation and in appropriation earmarks.
    Several problems with the current new area study process 
exist. First, there are three separate sources for new area 
studies: the National Park Service itself, the authorizing 
committees and the appropriations committees. There is no 
agreed upon process for ranking the priority of these studies, 
nor is there adequate funding to complete all of them. Because 
studies usually require two to three years, some studies are 
delayed indefinitely or are started then stopped in midstream 
because all available funding in a particular fiscal year is 
earmarked for other studies. The quality of the studies also 
ranges widely, as does the level of review and scrutiny by the 
Washington Office of the National Park Service. It has been too 
easy for political considerations to be injected into the study 
process, and recommendations of professional planners are 
sometimes changed for political reasons. Another serious 
problem is that studies come to Congress without any preferred 
action, which can lead to confusion regarding the 
Administration's position on a particular area. New area 
legislation may be introduced on the basis of an ambiguous 
study, when in fact the resource involved might not meet the 
criteria for designation.
    Finally, Members of Congress, the Administration and the 
public have all expressed the desire to maintain a high level 
of integrity for units of the National Park System. Views have 
been expressed that some of the 368 units of the National Park 
System may not now meet the criteria of national significance, 
suitability and feasibility and do not belong in the National 
Park System. In fact, the Administration recently recommended 
that portions of several units be turned over to the States. 
The lack of consensus regarding the future of areas currently 
managed by the National Park Service could be due to inaccurate 
information about the significance of an area at the time of 
designation, degradation of a resource after its designation or 
a realization that another agency or level of government would 
be a more appropriate entity to manage a particular area. While 
there have been about two dozen park deauthorizations in the 
past, there has never been a systematic evaluation of the 
entire National Park System to determine if certain areas would 
be more appropriately managed outside the National Park System.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 260 was introduced on January 4, 1995, by Congressman 
Hefley. The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, 
and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Forests and Lands. On February 23, 1995, the Subcommittee held 
a hearing on H.R. 260, where a broad spectrum of witnesses 
testified in support of the entire bill and the Administration 
testified in support of a portion of it. On March 29, 1995, the 
Subcommittee met to mark up H.R. 260. An amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was offered by Congressman Hefley. 
Congressman Vento offered an en bloc amendment to the Hefley 
amendment which was adopted by voice vote. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was also adopted by voice vote, and the 
bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the Full 
Committee in the presence of a quorum.
    On May 17, 1995, the Full Resources Committee met to 
consider H.R. 260. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
was offered by Congressman Hefley. Congressman Richardson 
offered an amendment to expand the list of areas not subject to 
review by the Commission; the amendment failed on a voice vote. 
Congressman Richardson offered an amendment to require 
additional public meetings for the report prepared under 
Section 102 of the bill; this amendment also failed on voice 
vote. Congressman Richardson offered an amendment to strike the 
Commission established under Section 103 of the bill; this 
amendment failed on a roll call vote of 9-30, as follows:

      BILL NO. H.R. 260--RICHARDSON AMENDMENT NO. 9--PARK COMMSSION     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Yeas      Nays  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young (Chairman)................................  ........        X 
Mr. Hansen..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Saxton..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Gallegly........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Duncan..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Hefley..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Doolittle.......................................  ........  ........
Mr. Allard..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Gilchrest.......................................  ........        X 
Mr. Calvert.........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Pombo...........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Torkildsen......................................  ........        X 
Mr. Hayworth........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Cremeans........................................  ........        X 
Mrs. Cubin..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Cooley..........................................  ........        X 
Mrs. Chenoweth......................................  ........        X 
Mrs. Smith..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Radanovich......................................  ........        X 
Mr. Jones...........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Thornberry......................................  ........        X 
Mr. Hastings........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Metcalf.........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Longley.........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Shadegg.........................................  ........  ........
Mr. Miller..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Rahall..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Vento...........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Kildee..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Williams........................................  ........  ........
Mr. Gejdenson.......................................        X   ........
Mr. Richardson......................................        X   ........
Mr. DeFazio.........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Faleomavaega....................................        X   ........
Mr. Johnson.........................................        X   ........
Mr. Abercrombie.....................................        X   ........
Mr. Studds..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Tauzin..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Ortiz...........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Dooley..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Romero-Barcelo..................................  ........  ........
Mr. Hinchey.........................................  ........  ........
Mr. Underwood.......................................  ........        X 
Mr. Farr............................................        X   ........
                                                     -------------------
    Total...........................................        9        30 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ranking Minority Member George Miller offered an amendment 
to include, as part of the plan required under Section 101 of 
the bill, a list of procedures required for reporting threats 
to National Park Service employees to law enforcement 
officials. Congressman Vento, by unanimous consent, amended the 
Miller amendment to require the submission of this portion of 
the plan ``as soon as possible''. Congressman Allard requested 
unanimous consent to amend the Miller amendment by requiring 
the plan to also include procedures for reporting threats by 
National Park Service employees, but the request was denied. 
The Miller amendment, as amended by Congressman Vento, was 
adopted on a roll call vote of 34-6-2, as follows:

       BILL NO. H.R. 260--MILLER AMENDMENT--PROTECTING NPS RANGERS      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Yeas      Nays     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young (Chairman)......................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Hansen................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Saxton................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Gallegly..............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Duncan................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Hefley................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Doolittle.............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Allard................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Gilchrest.............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Calvert...............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Pombo.................................  ........  ........        X 
Mr. Torkildsen............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Hayworth..............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Cremeans..............................        X   ........  ........
Mrs. Cubin................................  ........  ........        X 
Mr. Cooley................................  ........        X   ........
Mrs. Chenoweth............................  ........        X   ........
Mrs. Smith................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Radanovich............................  ........        X   ........
Mr. Jones.................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Thornberry............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Hastings..............................  ........        X   ........
Mr. Metcalf...............................  ........        X   ........
Mr. Longley...............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Shadegg...............................  ........        X   ........
Mr. Miller................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Rahall................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Vento.................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Kildee................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Williams..............................  ........  ........  ........
Mr. Gejdenson.............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Richardson............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. DeFazio...............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Faleomavaega..........................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Johnson...............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Ambercrombie..........................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Studds................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Tauzin................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Ortiz.................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Dooley................................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Romero-Barcelo........................  ........  ........  ........
Mr. Hinchey...............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Underwood.............................        X   ........  ........
Mr. Farr..................................        X   ........  ........
                                           -----------------------------
        Total.............................       34         6         2 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Hefley amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
adopted by voice vote, and the bill as amended was then ordered 
favorably reported by a 34-8 vote to the House of 
Representatives, in the presence of a quorum, as follows:

          BILL NO. HR. 260--H.R. 260 AS AMENDED--FINAL PASSAGE          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Yeas      Nays  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young (Chairman)................................        X   ........
Mr. Hansen..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Saxton..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Gallegly........................................        X   ........
Mr. Duncan..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Hefley..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Doolittle.......................................        X   ........
Mr. Allard..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Gilchrest.......................................        X   ........
Mr. Calvert.........................................        X   ........
Mr. Pombo...........................................        X   ........
Mr. Torkildsen......................................        X   ........
Mr. Hayworth........................................        X   ........
Mr. Cremeans........................................        X   ........
Mrs. Cubin..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Cooley..........................................  ........        X 
Mrs. Chenoweth......................................        X   ........
Mrs. Smith..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Radanovich......................................        X   ........
Mr. Jones...........................................        X   ........
Mr. Thornberry......................................        X   ........
Mr. Hastings........................................        X   ........
Mr. Metcalf.........................................        X   ........
Mr. Longley.........................................        X   ........
Mr. Shadegg.........................................        X   ........
Mr. Miller..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Rahall..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Vento...........................................        X   ........
Mr. Kildee..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Williams........................................  ........  ........
Mr. Gejdenson.......................................  ........        X 
Mr. Richardson......................................  ........        X 
Mr. DeFazio.........................................        X   ........
Mr. Faleomavaega....................................        X   ........
Mr. Johnson.........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Abercrombie.....................................        X   ........
Mr. Studds..........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Tauzin..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Ortiz...........................................        X   ........
Mr. Dooley..........................................        X   ........
Mr. Romero-Barcelo..................................  ........  ........
Mr. Hinchey.........................................  ........        X 
Mr. Underwood.......................................        X   ........
Mr. Farr............................................        X   ........
                                                     -------------------
        Total.......................................       34         8 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

                         section 1. short title

    Section 1 provides that this Act may be cited as the 
``National Park System Reform Act of 1995.''

                         section 2. definitions

    Section 2 defines terms used in the bill.

         section 101. preparation of national park system plan

    Section 101 of the bill directs the Secretary of the 
Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park 
Service, to prepare a plan to guide the direction of the 
National Park System into the next century. The plan would be 
submitted to Congress and would: define the role of the 
National Park Service in preserving America's heritage relative 
to other efforts at the Federal, State, local, and private 
levels; include detailed criteria to be used to determine which 
resources are appropriate for inclusion in the National Park 
System; identify aspects of American heritage which are 
adequately and inadequately represented in the existing 
National Park System; and list priorities of the types of 
resources which should be added to the National Park System. 
Additionally, the plan would include an analysis of the role of 
the National Park Service with respect to such topics as the 
conservation of natural areas and ecosystems, the preservation 
of industrial America, the preservation of intangible cultural 
resources, open space protection, and the provision of outdoor 
recreation opportunities. These five topics need particular 
attention due to the increasing frequency of legislative 
initiatives relating to them and the park planning and 
management questions they pose.
    While human history continues to evolve, leading to a 
virtual unending supply of historical sites for potential 
inclusion in the National Park System, the variety of natural 
systems is finite and generally well known. Further, while all 
Federal agencies are required to preserve historic resources in 
accord with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, for 
Federal agencies, other than the National Park Service, this 
responsibility is incidental to the basic agency mission. 
However, there are three other Federal land management agencies 
who have conservation of natural communities as a primary 
agency mission. In the past, a number of new park units have 
been established by transferring lands from the jurisdiction of 
other Federal land management agencies to the National Park 
Service. The respective roles of these agencies must be 
clarified in order to reduce duplication and cost, and ensure a 
more integrated land use planning approach.
    The Committee notes the growing number of legislative 
initiatives dealing with America's industrial and technological 
history, ranging from mining to manufacturing. The Committee 
believes there is an important role for the National Park 
Service in preserving and interpreting our industrial heritage 
and notes that a number of such units already exist. The 
Committee is concerned, however, about the proliferation of 
such proposals and the lack of context and criteria to guide 
the consideration of these proposals, and their potential cost. 
The history of industry is full of advances and innovations and 
there are numerous sites which may have some historic value. 
The National Park Service needs to develop a framework to help 
decide how to best use its limited resources to assist in the 
preservation of industrial history.
    The Committee also notes a trend of new area proposals 
dealing with art, music and other nontangible cultural 
resources. The National Park Service needs to develop a clear 
policy direction with regard to these types of resources.
    Protection of undeveloped open space is argued by some as 
important to the overall quality of life. This is particularly 
true in urban areas, where open space is often more limited. In 
recent years, there have been an increasing number of proposals 
for the Federal Government, through the National Park Service, 
to devote considerable effort to urban open space protection. 
Often times, these areas do not have any nationally significant 
natural resource values. The National Park Service needs to 
evaluate the extent to which the agency should make commitments 
to open space preservation.
    The provision of outdoor recreation opportunities has 
always been a function of the National Park Service, yet there 
is little Congressional policy direction about how this 
function fits in with the more fundamental agency role of 
protecting natural and historical resources. Outdoor recreation 
is essential to the quality of our lives, and outdoor 
recreation opportunities are provided by nearly every land 
managing agency at the Federal, State and local level. The plan 
should address the National Park Service's particular role in 
providing outdoor recreation opportunities relative to these 
other agencies, and whether outdoor recreation is a reason in 
and of itself to establish a unit of the National Park System.
    Section 101(a)(8) directs the National Park Service to 
prepare a comprehensive financial plan for its future. The 
Committee is very concerned about adequacy of funding for the 
National Park Service. National Park Service general management 
plans, new area studies and other plans often propose actions 
which are not financially achievable. Therefore, the Committee 
wants to insure that: (1) the National Park Service develops a 
program which will meet the basic financial needs of the agency 
to provide for resource conservation and essential visitor 
services; and (2) that any plan for the future of the agency be 
financially realistic.
    Section 101(b) requires the Secretary to undertake a broad 
program of public involvement in the development of the plan. 
The consultations will include appropriate opportunities for 
public review and comment.
    Section 101(c) directs the National Park Service to submit 
the plan to relevant Congressional committees no later than two 
complete fiscal years after the date of enactment of this Act.
    Section 101(d) provides for an opportunity for Congress to 
provide input into the plan. Since any plan developed for the 
future of the National Park System will only be viable to the 
extent it is agreed to by both the Administration and Congress, 
it is critical that Congress be provided an opportunity for 
input on this plan. Congress may elect to adopt the plan 
entirely, agree with some portions of the plan and reject other 
portions, or reject the plan entirely.
    Section 101(e) provides for the official identification of 
existing areas or units of the Park System. This is important, 
since existing law requires that all existing laws, policies 
and regulations of the Park System apply to all areas 
administered by the agency. Without an accurate list of areas 
or units administered by the National Park Service, the agency 
would be required to apply this regulatory framework to areas 
unintended by Congress. For example, a general management plan 
would have to be prepared for every area and National Park 
Service policies on fishing and hunting could have unknown 
intentions.
    Section 101(f) clarifies the manner in which units may be 
added to the National Park System. Specifically excluded under 
this language is the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 
to establish new units pursuant to a cooperative agreement.

         section 102. management review of national park system

    Section 102 of the bill directs the Secretary to conduct a 
management review of the existing National Park System to 
determine whether there are more appropriate alternatives for 
managing specific units or portions of units, including 
partnerships or direct management by States, local governments, 
other agencies or the private sector. This review would be 
conducted using the direction provided by the plan required in 
Section 101 and by the criteria developed pursuant to Section 
102(a).
    H.R. 260, as introduced, listed the specific criteria to be 
used by the National Park Service in their review of existing 
areas managed by the agency. The reported version of the bill 
deletes those criteria and provides an open public process for 
the development of the criteria.
    In conducting this review, the Committee does not intend 
for the National Park Service to conduct a boundary study of 
every park area. Rather, the term ``significant portion'' 
refers to a discrete portion of a park which would typically 
constitute a district or subdistrict. While the Secretary may 
recommend discontinuation of National Park Service management 
for any entire unit of the Park System (except a National 
Park), which is inconsistent with the National Park System 
plan, the Secretary may only recommend modification of the 
management at a portion of a park which does not conform to the 
plan. The legislation prohibits the Secretary from reviewing 
any portion of the 54 areas currently classified as ``national 
parks.''
    In developing the list of areas where National Park Service 
management should be modified or terminated, Section 102 also 
requires the National Park Service to consult with other 
Federal agencies, State and local officials, resource managers, 
recreation and scholarly organizations and other interested 
parties. This list would be transmitted to Congress within 18 
months after the completion of the National Park System plan 
and would require the Secretary to recommend alternative 
entities to manage sites proposed to be terminated. For any 
area determined to have national significance, the Secretary 
shall identify feasible alternatives to National Park Service 
management which will protect the resources and assure 
continued public access.
    This bill does not provide for the automatic closing of any 
unit of the National Park System. Instead, the Committee 
believes that Congress should retain this authority. National 
Park System units, in the overwhelming majority of cases, have 
been established by Congressional action and any de-
authorization, should be by Act of Congress as well. While 
legislation would be required to deauthorize any existing park 
units, the bill is not intended to limit the Secretary's 
current authority to make modifications in the management of 
National Park System units, including developing partnerships 
or other arrangements to the extent that such modifications are 
already authorized by law. The Committee notes the sensitive 
nature of the National Park Service's task in developing this 
list. The Committee expects the National Park Service to make 
an intensive effort to research, develop and cultivate 
alternative entities to manage areas proposed for 
deauthorization. The likelihood of deauthorizing legislation 
passing Congress would be increased if there is sustained and 
thorough effort to develop a ``soft landing'' for areas 
proposed for deauthorization.

          section 103. national park system review commission

    Section 103 provides for the establishment of an 11-member 
National Park System Review Commission. This Commission would 
be charged with reviewing the report of the National Park 
Service prepared pursuant to Section 102 of the Act, or, if the 
Secretary does not complete such a report, the National Park 
System Review Commission is charged with preparing the report 
in the same manner as if prepared by the Secretary. The 
National Park System Review Commission shall complete its work 
no later than two years after the completion of the National 
Park Service plan, and shall terminate 90 days after submission 
of its report to Congress.
    The Committee believes that establishment of an independent 
commission is the best way to ensure the completion of a 
thorough, independent and professional review of the National 
Park System. The Committee has provided for a balanced 
Commission by ensuring the involvement of the Administration 
and House and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders in the 
selection process for Commission members. Further, the 
legislation requires that Commission members be knowledgeable 
regarding the National Park Service and have special expertise 
with respect to the mission of the agency. With respect to the 
requirement that Commission members have expertise in natural 
resources, the Committee intends that the Commission include 
expertise in both marine resources and terrestrial ecology.

section 104. subsequent act of congress required to modify or terminate 
                                 a park

    Section 104 clarifies that Congressional action is required 
to modify or terminate a National Park System unit.
              Section 105. Authorization of appropriations

    Section 105 provides for the authorization of necessary 
funding to implement the Act.

   Section 106. Commendation and protection of National Park rangers

    Section 106 requires that the Secretary of the Interior 
report to Congress on procedures in place to report threats or 
acts of violence against National Park Service employees.

              Section 201. Study of new Park System areas

    Section 201 amends the Act of August 18, 1970 (commonly 
known as the General Authorities Act) to make a number of 
reforms to the new areas study process.
    The new subsection (b) provides that at the beginning of 
each calendar year, along with the annual budget submission. 
The Secretary will submit to Congress a list of any areas 
recommended for study with potential to meet the established 
criteria of national significance, suitability, and 
feasibility. The Secretary shall give special consideration to 
themes, sites, and resources not already adequately represented 
in the National Park System as identified in the National Park 
System Plan.
    This Section would require all new area studies to be 
specially authorized by Congress. The Committee notes that this 
prohibition does not apply to the authority of the National 
Park Service to conduct preliminary resources assessments, 
gather data on potential study sites, provide technical and 
planning assistance, process nomination for administrative 
designations, update previous studies, or complete 
reconnaissance surveys of individual sites requiring a total 
expenditure of less than $25,000. The Committee also notes that 
this provision does not effect the study authority contained in 
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Trails System Act 
or the Wilderness Act. Upon authorization, studies would have 
to be completed in three years and would have to contain the 
management alternative preferred by the National Park Service. 
This Section also specifies the national significance, 
suitability, and feasibility criteria and other factors which 
the study must consider.
    Each study shall identify what alternative or combination 
of alternatives would, in the professional judgment of the 
National Park Service, be most effective and efficient in 
protecting significant resources and providing for public 
enjoyment. The letter transmitting each study to Congress, 
shall contain a recommendation regarding the Administration's 
preferred management option for the area. The Committee expects 
these studies to reflect the highest possible professional 
standards and provide a clear recommendation to Congress. If an 
area fails to meet established criteria, the study should 
clearly state this finding. The purpose of these reforms is to 
provide Congress with professional opinion of the National Park 
Service earlier in the process of considering areas for 
addition to the Park System.
    This Section also requires the Secretary to annually submit 
a prioritized list of areas previously studied for addition to 
the National Park System. The National Park Service will submit 
two priority rankings, one for areas which contain primarily 
historical resources and one for areas which contain primarily 
natural resources.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the 
enactment of H.R. 260 will have no significant inflationary 
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national 
economy.
                     Compliance With House Rule XI

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R. 
260 does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues of tax expenditures.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations form the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 260.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 260 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 23, 1995.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 260, the National Park System Reform Act of 1995, 
as ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on May 
17, 1995. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that the federal government would spend $2 million 
over the next four fiscal years to implement this bill. H.R. 
260 would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, 
pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
    H.R. 260 would require the National Park Service (NPS) to 
prepare a National Park System Plan over the two fiscal years 
following enactment of the legislation. In addition to making 
statements regarding federal objectives, priorities, and roles, 
the plan would specify criteria to be used in determining what 
sites should be included in the National Park System. The bill 
also would require the NPS to submit to Congress other 
documents including an official list of areas and units of the 
Park Service and a report identifying criteria to be used by 
the agency in reviewing existing park units. Using the 
standards and criteria developed through this process, the NPS 
would then conduct an 18-month review of the existing park 
system to identify units that could be managed more 
appropriately by some other entity.
    The bill would provide for the creation of a National Park 
System Review Commission, to be established after the NPS 
completes the NPS Plan. The 11-member commission would be 
charged with reviewing the agency's report on existing park 
units (or developing the report itself if the NPS fails to do 
so). The commission would report the results of its work to the 
Congress within two years of establishment. Commission members 
would receive no pay but would be compensated for expenses.
    CBO estimates that preparing the plans and reports mandated 
by this bill would cost the Park Service $2 million over the 
next four years, assuming appropriation of the entire amount 
authorized for these purposes. Other provisions, including 
those which would amend existing laws that govern NPS studies 
of potential new park sites, would not significantly affect 
federal spending.
    Enactment of this legislation would have no impact on the 
budgets of state or local governments.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                           June E. O'Neill,
                                                          Director.

                          Departmental Reports

    The Committee has received no departmental reports on H.R. 
260.
         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

                SECTION 8 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 18, 1970

AN ACT To improve the administration of the national park system by the 
Secretary of the Interior, and to clarify the authorities applicable to 
                  the system, and for other purposes.

  Sec. 8. (a) General Authority.--The Secretary of the Interior 
is directed to investigate, study, and continually monitor the 
welfare of areas whose resources exhibit qualities of national 
significance and which may have potential for inclusion in the 
National Park System. [At the beginning of each fiscal year, 
the Secretary shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and to the President of the Senate, 
comprehensive reports on each of those areas upon which studies 
have been completed. Each such report shall indicate and 
elaborate on the theme(s) which the area represents as 
indicated in the National Park System Plan. On this same date, 
and accompanying such reports, the Secretary shall transmit a 
listing, in generally descending order of importance or merit, 
of not less than twelve such areas which appear to be of 
national significance and which may have potential for 
inclusion in the National Park System. Threats to resource 
values, and cost escalation factors shall be considered in 
listing the order of importance or merit. Such listing may be 
comprised of any areas heretofore submitted under terms of this 
section, and which at the time of listing are not included in 
the National Park System.] Accompanying the annual listing of 
areas shall be a synopsis, for each report previously 
submitted, of the current and changed condition of the resource 
integrity of the area and other relevant factors, compiled as a 
result of continual periodic monitoring and embracing the 
period since the previous such submission or initial report 
submission one year earlier. The Secretary is also directed to 
transmit annually to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and to the President of the Senate, at the 
beginning of each fiscal year, a complete and current list of 
all areas included on the Registry of Natural Landmarks and 
those areas of national significance listed on the National 
Register of Historic places which areas exhibit known or 
anticipated damage or threats to the integrity of their 
resources, along with notations as to the nature and severity 
of such damage or threats. Each report and annual listing shall 
be printed as a House document: Provided, That should adequate 
supplies of previously printed identical reports remain 
available, newly submitted identical reports shall be omitted 
from printing upon the receipt by the Speaker of the United 
States House of Representatives of a joint letter from the 
chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources of the United 
States House of Representatives and the chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States 
Senate indicating such to be the case.
  [(b) The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural 
Resources of the United States House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States 
Senate, a comprehensive, ``National Park System Plan'', which 
document shall constitute a professional guide for the 
identification of natural and historic themes of the United 
States, and from which candidate areas can be identified and 
selected to constitute units of the National Park System. Such 
plan shall be revised and updated annually.]
  (b) Studies of Areas for Potential Addition.--(1) At the 
beginning of each calendar year, along with the annual budget 
submission, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
Resources of the House of Representatives and to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate a 
list of areas recommended for study for potential inclusion in 
the National Park System.
  (2) In developing the list to be submitted under this 
subsection, the Secretary shall give consideration to those 
areas that have the greatest potential to meet the established 
criteria of national significance, suitability, and 
feasibility. The Secretary shall give special consideration to 
themes, sites, and resources not already adequately represented 
in the National Park System as identified in the National Park 
System Plan to be developed under section 101 of the National 
Park System Reform Act of 1995.
  (3) No study of the potential of an area for inclusion in the 
National Park System may be initiated after the date of 
enactment of this subsection, except as provided by specific 
authorization of an Act of Congress.
  (4) Nothing in this Act shall limit the authority of the 
National Park Service to conduct preliminary resource 
assessments, gather data on potential study areas, provide 
technical and planning assistance, prepare or process 
nominations for administrative designations, update previous 
studies, or complete reconnaissance surveys of individual areas 
requiring a total expenditure of less than $25,000.
  (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to or 
to affect or alter the study of any river segment for potential 
addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system or to 
apply to or to affect or alter the study of any trail for 
potential addition to the national trails system.
  (c) Report.--(1) The Secretary shall complete the study for 
each area for potential inclusion in the National Park System 
within three complete fiscal years following the date of 
enactment of specific legislation providing for the study of 
such area. Each study under this section shall be prepared with 
appropriate opportunity for public involvement, including at 
least one public meeting in the vicinity of the area under 
study, and after reasonable efforts to notify potentially 
affected landowners and State and local governments.
  (2) In conducting the study, the Secretary shall consider 
whether the area under study--
          (A) possesses nationally significant natural or 
        cultural resources, or outstanding recreational 
        opportunities, and that the area represents one of the 
        most important examples of a particular resource type 
        in the country; and
          (B) is a suitable and feasible addition to the 
        system.
  (3) Each study--
          (A) shall consider the following factors with regard 
        to the area being studied: (i) the rarity and integrity 
        of the resources, (ii) the threats to those resources, 
        (iii) whether similar resources are already protected 
        in the National Park System or in other public or 
        private ownership, (iv) the public use potential, (v) 
        the interpretive and educational potential, (vi) costs 
        associated with acquisition, development and operation, 
        (vii) the socioeconomic impacts of any designation, 
        (viii) the level of local and general public support, 
        and (ix) whether the area is of appropriate 
        configuration to ensure long-term resource protection 
        and visitor use;
          (B) shall consider whether direct National Park 
        Service management or alternative protection by other 
        public agencies or the private sector is appropriate 
        for the area;
          (C) shall identify what alternative or combination of 
        alternatives would in the professional judgment of the 
        Director of the National Park Service be most effective 
        and efficient in protecting significant resources and 
        providing for public enjoyment; and
          (D) may include any other information which the 
        Secretary deems to be relevant.
  (4) Each study shall be completed in compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
  (5) The letter transmitting each completed study to Congress 
shall contain a recommendation regarding the Secretary's 
preferred management option for the area.
  (d) New Area Study Office.--The Secretary shall establish a 
single office to be assigned to prepare all new area studies 
and to implement other functions of this section.
  (e) List of Areas.--At the beginning of each calendar year, 
along with the annual budget submission, the Secretary shall 
submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources of the United States Senate a list of areas which 
have been previously studied which contain primarily historical 
resources, and a list of areas which have been previously 
studied which contain primarily natural resources, in numerical 
order of priority for addition to the National Park System. In 
developing the lists, the Secretary should consider threats to 
resource values, cost escalation factors, and other factors 
listed in subsection (c) of this section. The Secretary should 
only include on the lists areas for which the supporting data 
is current and accurate.
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purposes of 
carrying out the studies for potential new Park System units 
and for monitoring the welfare of those resources, there are 
authorized to be appropriated annually not to exceed 
$1,000,000. For the purposes of monitoring the welfare and 
integrity of the national landmarks, there are authorized to be 
appropriated annually not to exceed $1,500,000.
             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER

    The Committee's passage of my amendment to H.R. 260 
strongly disavows the recurrent threats and violence directed 
toward our National Park Service rangers while they are 
engaging in official duties. These federal employees are not 
only responsible for the protection of our nation's natural 
resources, but for ensuring the safety of the millions of 
people who annually visit our national parks.
    With escalating frequency, violent crime and criminal 
behavior is transcending urban boundaries and occurring in our 
federal parks, making the park ranger's job of law enforcement 
more difficult and dangerous. Rangers and even their families 
have become victims of personal threats and acts of violence by 
fringe parties expressing anti-government sentiments and toward 
the first federal uniform they encounter.
    So far in the 1990's, as many as 7,000 serious crimes a 
year have been committed within the National Park system. In 
1994 alone, 207 park service employees were assaulted. Guns and 
other weapons have been drawn on park rangers, and numerous 
direct threats of bloodshed against these officers and their 
families have taken place.
    With the support and passage of my amendment, necessary 
procedures will be developed and implemented for the prompt 
reporting of any intimidation, threats or acts of violence made 
against employees of the National Park Service while carrying 
out their official duties on our federal lands. The Secretary 
of the Interior will be required to report to the United States 
Attorney or other appropriate law enforcement official of these 
occurrences of violence for appropriate action. It is vital 
that these misdirected incidents be identified and stopped--and 
the perpetrators brought to justice.
    The overwhelming Committee vote of 34-6 with 2 Members 
voting ``present,'' sends a clear message to the American 
public that their elected officials recognize the important 
role of the National Park Service employees in protecting park 
resources and public safety. We appreciate these federal 
officers who often risk their lives but continue to carry out 
their duties. This Committee has voted, in no uncertain terms, 
to reject such behavior and prosecute violators to the fullest 
extent practicable.

                                                       Geo. Miller.
     ADDITIONAL VIEWS TO H.R. 260 BY REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE F. VENTO

    It is our obligation to ensure that only outstanding 
resources are included in our National Park System and that 
parks currently in the system are managed effectively. As 
former Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests 
and Public Lands I successfully worked with my colleagues Mr. 
Hefley and Mr. Hansen to accomplish the goals embraced in this 
measure. We developed a National Park Service Reform measure in 
the 103rd Congress, supported by the Clinton Administration, 
the Department of Interior, the National Park Service and most 
of the conservation groups. This measure passed the House 
overwhelmingly. I cosponsored H.R. 260 in the 104th Congress 
because I remain committed to enacting an effective, meaningful 
review and reform bill as was attempted in 1994.
    I am therefore confused and discouraged by the controversy 
surrounding this bill. There are many issues before this 
Congress where significant differences in philosophy have made 
for some heated debates and will continue to do so in this 
Congress. H.R. 260 remains much as it was written in the last 
Congress. I am hoping that we can hold back on our desire to 
draw the lines in the sand over this issue and that we save our 
passion for those debates in which there is true disagreement 
on the issues. The proponents and opponents in the debate over 
H.R. 260 seem to be talking past one another.
    As in the unanimously supported bill last year, H.R. 260 
provides that the NPS set specific criteria, Congress approve 
the criteria, the NPS study a reduced number of parks over a 
three year period, then convey this to the Congress and the 
Commission within three years. Frankly, I presume the National 
Park Service can be trusted to study, report and recommend as 
to the status, designation, inclusion and exclusion of National 
Park units to the Congress and to the Commission established in 
this measure, H.R. 260.
    The comparisons of the Commission established under H.R. 
260 to the Base Closing Commissions are unwarranted and wholly 
inaccurate. H.R. 260 explicitly states that the role of the 
Commission is to ``review'' the plan put forth by the NPS. The 
NPS itself, is even involved in the one year study and review 
conducted by the Commission. Unlike the Base Closing 
Commissions, which are independent, the Commission set up under 
this bill is comprised of eleven members--five members, one of 
whom shall be the Director of the National Park Service, are 
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. And perhaps most 
noteworthy, H.R. 260 distinctly states that Congress and only 
Congress has the responsibility to remove parks from the 
National Park System. National Park units become units of the 
system by action of Congress and can only be changed under the 
same provisions of law that exist today.
    The NPS has had numerous standing and shorter term 
commissions and while we should proceed carefully and curtail 
the profusion of commissions this initiative is hardly some 
unusual precedent. In reality the Commission will serve as a 
means to hold the NPS and Congress accountable and make this 
reform and review more credible.
    National Park Service reform is especially needed in an era 
of fiscal constraint and increasing demands on the existing 
park system. This issue of National Park reform and review is 
not simple. Narrow-minded solutions are inappropriate when 
considering the reform of our legacy of precious natural, 
cultural and historic resources. I do not agree with those who 
think that our National Park System is complete and that 
nothing else should be added, or worse still, that we should 
begin closing parks just to save money. However, I hope that 
this Congress will come to see that effective management of our 
National Park System will benefit us all. A National Park 
reform and review will reinforce support for the conservation 
of our parks and enhance the status of our National Parks.
    Beyond the review functions are the study and reforms which 
will set the stage for positive consideration of candidates for 
the National Park System. Consideration will build on the 
objective criteria and professional recommendations of the 
quality NPS personnel. I've little fear that almost all the NPS 
units can be held up to public and intense examination and be 
judged consistent with national significance, suitability and 
the necessary criteria to judge their inclusion in the National 
Park System. H.R. 260 is a good policy initiative that merits 
strong support from all who revere the National Park System.
    H.R. 260 responds to the reasoned criticisms and questions 
raised beyond the version the House acted upon last year. It is 
a good bill. As for the hyperbole and paranoia that have dogged 
H.R. 260, I would hope that members will deal with the tangible 
and work to pass this legislation.
                                                    Bruce F. Vento.
           DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE BILL RICHARDSON

    I am opposed to H.R. 260 as it is presently constituted. 
The legislation goes far beyond ``reform'' of our National Park 
System and is instead a backdoor attempt to close many units of 
the system which are valuable to this Nation's natural, 
cultural, and recreational heritage.
    No one is calling or writing to me to say that we have too 
many parks. On the contrary, the American public loves and 
supports our national parks. That's why I am deeply troubled by 
this bill. There seems to be more and more talk of this bill as 
a park closure bill, with some viewing it as a means to close 
parks they believe are ``non-essential.'' Contrary to what some 
might believe, it is not easy to get an area designated as a 
unit of the National Park System and it should not be easy to 
remove them from the system as well. Those who think 
deauthorization is a panacea for whatever ails the National 
Park System are wrong. We could deauthorize all of the 30-plus 
units designated since 1980, yet we would save less than 2 
percent of the NPS's annual operation and maintenance budget.
    Specifically, I am very concerned that the legislation 
relies far too heavily on a Park Closure Commission which would 
have the authority to recommend the closure of any unit of the 
National Park System with the exception of the 54 national 
parks. The Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall and the 
Washington Monument are all national monuments and would be 
subject to consideration for closure or privatization under the 
provisions of the bill. What makes these sites any less worthy 
than Yellowstone or Grand Canyon National Parks?
    National park units are not at all like military bases. We 
don't need a Closure Commission that can only justify its 
existence by recommending park closures. If there is any 
question as to the marching orders of this Commission, one only 
needs look at the Republican budget resolution that was 
recently adopted; a 10-percent cut in NPS operating funds, a 5-
year land acquisition moratorium, and a 50-percent cut in NPS 
construction. Is there any doubt what this Commission is 
supposed to produce?
    There are no quick fixes or easy outs to whatever problems 
the National Park System or the National Park Service may have. 
Only a balanced and fair reform process will achieve our goal 
of enhancing the National Park System. Unfortunately, I believe 
H.R. 260, as it is being proposed, fails that goal.
    Congress got it right, I believe, in 1970 when it declared 
in law regarding the National Park System that ``. . . these 
areas, though distinct in character, are united through there 
inter-related purposes and resources into one National Park 
System as cumulative expressions of a single national heritage; 
that individually and collectively, these areas derive 
increased national dignity and recognition of there superb 
environmental quality through there inclusion jointly with each 
other in one National Park System preserved and managed for the 
benefit and inspiration of all the people of the United 
States''.
    I cannot support the systematic second-guessing of our 
National Park System, as H.R. 260 does. I believe that sections 
102 and 103, dealing with the Commission and the management 
review, should be stricken from the bill. If Congress want to 
help the national parks, lets deal with concessions reform and 
entrance fee legislation. We should be looking for way to keep 
parks open, not for ways to close them.
                                                   Bill Richardson.