[Pages H9083-H9097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1630
NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REFORM ACT OF 1995

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 260

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``National Park System Reform
Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:
(1) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.
(2) The term ``Plan'' means the National Park System Plan
developed under section 101.
(3) The term ``Commission'' means the National Park System
Review Commission established pursuant to section 103.
(4) The term ``Congressional resources committees'' means
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate.
TITLE I--NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM PLAN

SEC. 101. PREPARATION OF NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM PLAN.

(a) Preparation of Plan.--The Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Director of the National Park Service,
shall prepare a National Park System Plan to guide the
direction of the National Park System into the next century.
The Plan shall include each of the following:
(1) Identification of goals and objectives for use in
defining the mission and role of the National Park Service
and the National Park System in preserving our Nation's
heritage, relative to other efforts at the Federal, State,
local, and private levels. This statement shall include a
refinement for the definition of ``nationally significant''
for purposes of inclusion in the National Park System.
(2) Criteria to be used in determining which themes and
types of resources are appropriate for representation in the
National Park System, as well as criteria for judging
individual sites, areas, and themes that are appropriate for
inclusion as units of the National Park System.
(3) Identification of what constitutes adequate
representation of a particular resource type or theme in the
National Park System.
(4) Identification of which aspects of the Nation's
heritage are adequately represented in the existing National
Park System.
(5) Identification of appropriate aspects of the Nation's
heritage not currently or adequately represented in the
National Park System.
(6) Priorities of the themes and types of resources which
should be added to the National Park System in order to
provide more complete representation of our Nation's
heritage.
(7) A thorough analysis of the role of the National Park
System and the National Park Service with respect to (but not
limited to) conservation of natural areas and ecosystems;
preservation of industrial America; preservation of
intangible cultural heritage such as arts, music, and
folklife; presidential sites; open space protection; and
provision of outdoor recreation opportunities.

[[Page H 9084]]

(8) A comprehensive financial management plan for the
National Park System which identifies all funding available
to the agency, how funds will be allocated to support various
programs, and the level of service to be provided.
(b) Public Participation and Consultation.--During the
preparation of the Plan under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall ensure broad public participation in a manner which, at
a minimum, consists of the following two elements:
(1) Solicitation of the views of the American public with
regard to the future of the National Park System.
Opportunities for public participation shall be made
available throughout the planning process and shall include
specific regional public meetings.
(2) Consultation with other Federal land management
agencies, State and local officials, resource management,
recreation and scholarly organizations, and other interested
parties as the Secretary deems advisable.
(c) Transmittal of Report.--Prior to the end of the second
complete fiscal year commencing after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit the Plan developed
under this section to the Congressional resources committees.
(d) Congressional Approval.--Unless Congress enacts a joint
resolution rejecting all or modifying part of the Plan within
180 calendar days after the date of its transmittal to
Congress, the Plan shall be deemed approved.
(e) Identification of Units of the National Park System.--
The Secretary shall submit to the Congressional resources
committees an official list of areas or units of the National
Park System within 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act. The Secretary shall establish a set of criteria
for the purpose of developing such list and shall transmit
those criteria to the Congressional resources committees.
(f) Authority To Establish Units of the National Park
System.--After the enactment of this Act, units or areas of
the National Park System may only be established pursuant to
an Act of Congress or by Presidential action in accordance
with the Act entitled ``An Act for the preservation of
American antiquities'' (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.).

SEC. 102. MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM.

(a) Selection Criteria.--(1) The Secretary shall, not later
than 45 days after transmittal of the Plan under section
101(c), publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the
Congressional resources committees the criteria proposed to
be used by the Department of the Interior in reviewing
existing units of the National Park System under this
section. The Secretary shall provide an opportunity for
public comment on the proposed criteria for a period of at
least 30 days.
(2)(A) The Secretary shall, within 60 days of the
transmittal of proposed criteria under paragraph (1), publish
in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congressional
resources committees the final criteria to be used in
carrying out this section. Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), such criteria shall be the final criteria to be used
unless disapproved by a joint resolution of Congress enacted
not more than 30 legislative days after receipt of the final
criteria. For the purpose of the preceding sentence, the term
``legislative day'' means a day on which both Houses of
Congress are in session.
(B) The Secretary may amend such criteria, but such
amendments may not become effective until they have been
published in the Federal Register, opened to public comment
for at least 30 days, and transmitted to the Congressional
resources committees in final form.
(b) Review.--(1)(A) Using the Plan deemed to be approved
pursuant to section 101(d) and the criteria developed
pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall review the
existing National Park System to determine whether any
existing units or significant portions of such units do not
conform to the Plan. For any such areas, the Secretary shall
determine whether there are more appropriate alternatives for
managing all or a portion of such units, including through
partnerships or direct management by States, local
governments, other agencies and the private sector.
(B) The Secretary shall develop a report which contains a
list of any unit of the National Park System where National
Park Service management should be terminated and a list of
any portion of units where National Park Service management
should be modified as a result of nonconformance with the
Plan. No area or portion of an area which Congress has
designated as a national park may be included in the report.
(2) Should any such unit or portion of such unit not be
recommended for continued National Park Service management,
the Secretary shall make recommendations regarding management
by an entity or entities other than the National Park
Service.
(3) For any such unit or portion of such unit determined to
have national significance, prior to including such unit or
portion of such unit on a list under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall identify feasible alternatives to National
Park Service management which will protect the resources of
and assure continued public access to the unit.
(c) Consultation.--In developing the report referred to in
subsection (b), the Secretary shall consult with other
Federal land management agencies, State and local officials,
resource management, recreation and scholarly organizations,
and other interested parties as the Secretary deems
advisable.
(d) Transmittal.--Not later than 18 months after the Plan
has been deemed approved, the Secretary shall transmit the
report developed under this section simultaneously to the
Congressional resources committees and the Commission. The
report shall contain the recommendations of the Secretary for
termination of National Park Service management for any unit
of the National Park System that is determined not to conform
with the Plan, a list of portions of units where National
Park Service management should be modified, and the
recommendations for alternative management by an entity or
entities other than the National Park Service for such unit.

SEC. 103. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REVIEW COMMISSION.

(a) Establishment of Commission; Duties.--(1) Following
completion of the Plan as specified in section 101, a
National Park System Review Commission shall be established.
(2) The Commission shall either review the report developed
under section 102 or, if the Secretary fails to develop and
transmit such report, develop the report itself. In
conducting its review (or developing the report, if
necessary), the Commission shall be subject to the provisions
of sections 102 (b) and (c) in the same manner as such
provisions apply to the Secretary. If the Secretary develops
and transmits the report, the review of the Commission shall
be limited to the manner in which the criteria have been
applied to the existing National Park System. In addition the
Commission shall seek broad public input and ensure the
opportunity for input from persons who would be directly
affected by recommendations regarding National Park System
units identified in its report.
(3) Within 2 years after the date of its establishment, the
Commission shall prepare and transmit to the Congressional
resources committees a report of its work under paragraph (2)
in which the Commission recommends a list of National Park
System units where National Park Service management should
be terminated and a list of portions of units where
National Park Service management should be modified.
(b) Membership and Appointment.--The Commission shall
consist of 11 members, each of whom shall have substantial
familiarity with, and understanding of, the National Park
System and related fields. In addition, the Commission
members shall have expertise in natural sciences, history,
archaeology, and outdoor recreation. Five members of the
Commission, one of whom shall be the Director of the National
Park Service, shall be appointed by the Secretary. Two
members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the United
States House of Representatives in consultation with the
chairman of the Committee on Resources, and one member shall
be appointed by the Minority Leader of the House or
Representatives in consultation with the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Resources. Two members shall be
appointed by the President pro tempore of the United States
Senate, in consultation with the chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources and one member shall be
appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate in
consultation with the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Each member shall
be appointed within three months after the completion of the
Plan as specified in section 101.
(c) Chair.--The Commission shall elect a chair from among
its members.
(d) Vacancies.--Vacancies occurring on the Commission shall
not affect the authority of the remaining members of the
Commission to carry out the functions of the Commission. Any
vacancy in the Commission shall be promptly filled in the
same manner in which the original appointment was made.
(e) Quorum.--A simple majority of Commission members shall
constitute a quorum.
(f) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at least quarterly
or upon the call of the chair or a majority of the members of
the Commission.
(g) Compensation.--Members of the Commission shall serve
without compensation as such. Members of the Commission, when
engaged in official Commission business, shall be entitled to
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in
government service under section 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(h) Termination.--The Commission established pursuant to
this section shall terminate 90 days after the transmittal of
the report to Congress as provided in subsection (a).
(i) Limitation on National Park Service Staff.--The
Commission may hire staff to carry out its assigned
responsibilities. Not more than one-half of the professional
staff of the Commission shall be made up of current employees
of the National Park Service.
(j) Staff of Other Agencies.--Upon the request of the
Commission, the head of any Federal agency may detail, on a
reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to
the Commission to assist the Commission.
(k) Experts and Consultants.--Subject to such rules as may
be adopted by the Commission, the Commission may procure
temporary and intermittent services to the same extent as
authorized by section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code,
but at rates determined by the Commission to be advisable.
(l) Powers of the Commission.--(1) The Commission shall for
the purpose of carrying out this title hold such public
hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such
testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commission deems
advisable.
(2) The Commission may make such bylaws, rules, and
regulations, consistent with this title, as it considers
necessary to carry out its functions under this title.
(3) When so authorized by the Commission, any member or
agent of the Commission may take any action which the
Commission is authorized to take by this section.
(4) The Commission may use the United States mails in the
same manner and upon the same conditions as other departments
and agencies of the United States.
(5) The Secretary shall provide to the Commission any
information available to the Secretary

[[Page H 9085]]
and requested by the Commission regarding the Plan and any other
information requested by the Commission which is relevant to
the duties of the Commission and available to the Secretary.

SEC. 104. SUBSEQUENT ACT OF CONGRESS REQUIRED TO MODIFY OR
TERMINATE A PARK.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as modifying or
terminating any unit of the National Park System without a
subsequent Act of Congress. This limitation shall not limit
any existing authority of the Secretary.

SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000
to carry out the purposes of this title.

SEC. 106. COMMENDATION AND PROTECTION OF NATIONAL PARK
RANGERS.

(a) Finding.--The Congress recognizes the dedication,
expertise and courage of the men and women who serve as
rangers and other employees of the National Park Service and
finds their service to the protection of our park resources
and the safety of the hundreds of millions of Americans who
visit our national parks each year to be indispensable.
(b) Protection of National Park Service Employees.--As soon
as possible as part of the report developed under section
101, the Secretary shall report on the procedures that have
been instituted to report to the United States Attorney or
other appropriate law enforcement official any intimidation,
threats, or acts of violence against employees of the
National Park Service related to their duties.
TITLE II--NEW AREA ESTABLISHMENT

SEC. 201. STUDY OF NEW PARK SYSTEM AREAS.

Section 8 of the Act of August 18, 1970, entitled ``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'' (16 U.S.C.
1a-1 and following) is amended as follows:
(1) By inserting ``General Authority.--'' after ``(a)''.
(2) By striking the second through the sixth sentences of
subsection (a).
(3) By redesignating the last two sentences of subsection
(a) as subsection (f) and inserting in the first of such
sentences before the words ``For the purposes of carrying''
the following: ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--''.
(4) By striking subsection (b).
(5) By inserting the following after subsection (a):
``(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 3 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.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will be recognized for 20 minutes and
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] will be recognized for
20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 260, the
bipartisan National Park System Reform Act of 1995 introduced by Mr.
Hefley. This bill is very similar to a bipartisan measure which passed
the House last session by a vote of 421-0. As was testified to in our
hearing on the bill, it is one of the most important measures on the
National Park Service to come before the committee since the 1916 Act
establishing the National Park Service. I am pleased to note that the
bipartisan nature which characterized this bill last session continues
this session, despite the extensive effort of those who seek to
misrepresent this legislation.
This bill reflects the concern of a number of Members on both sides
of the aisle and in both Houses that over the years since its
establishment, the Park Service mission seems to have expanded far
beyond what was originally envisioned, and far beyond what can be
afforded. In the words of GAO at our joint hearing with the Senate last
spring, the ``NPS is at a crossroads.''
We can either continue down the path of designating questionable
areas we cannot afford, or we can choose another course. This bill by
Mr. Hefley helps us to choose another course.
First, and most importantly, the bill requires the NPS to develop a
plan for where it should go. Should we include urban beaches in the
National Park System. What about outdoor performing arts amphitheaters?
What about historic re-creations? All these questions need to be asked
and answered. Through this bill, those answers will be forthcoming.
Second, we must have a process to ensure that only the best areas get
added to the park system in the future. We cannot go forward adding
every new proposal in sight, just because a Member or interest group
has a particular desire. We must have better screening criteria and a
prioritization of areas to be added to the park system.
Finally, we must look at where we have been, and what is included in
the existing park system. Anyone who has looked at the park system for
very long has a list of questionable sites in his/her pocket. Two weeks
after the administration testified against this bill, Secretary Babbitt
stated his intention to transfer three NPS areas to the States of
Virginia and Maryland. Congress has no way to know what other areas are
on Secretary Babbitt's park

[[Page H 9086]]
closure list, but we cannot go around arbitrarily listing parks to be
closed. Rather, there should be an objective, public process to review
our existing park system. That is precisely what this bill provides.
I point out that this bill does not close a single park, either
directly or indirectly. It will lead to a possible list of park areas
where future Federal involvement should be re-examined in the minds of
objective observers. From there, Congress would be free to act, just as
we have deauthorized parks 24 times in the last 100 years. However,
actions taken would be on the basis of solid information.
While it is true that parks could be reviewed on a piecemeal basis,
such an approach would be subject to the same political pressures which
have resulted in the addition of the questionable areas to the park
system in the first place.
The most enlightening and disturbing aspect of the debate over this
bill has been how the interest groups have lined up. The bill is
supported on a bipartisan basis by members from the Resources Committee
who routinely receive a ``0'' from the League of Conservation Voters
and by Members who score in the 90's. It is supported by both
Republican and Democratically-appointed Directors of the NPS. It is
supported by employees of the agency, as represented by the largest
employee organization, the Association of National Park Rangers.
Finally, it is supported by the National Trust for Historic
Preservation.
It is opposed only by the extreme environmental groups and those who
carry their banner. It is ironic to me that those who claim to be such
friends of the parks have put their personal political and financial
gain ahead of the well-being of the parks.
I have no grand illusions that we will solve the financial woes of
the National Park Service through this bill, but we will help protect
the integrity of the park system. After all, the agency as a whole will
be judged by its most questionable area, which is the only standard
against which any new potential addition to the park system must be
judged.
I commend this bill to my colleagues and I know that those who
support our park system, will support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this is a
parks-closure bill. And this is why I am going to read a series of
national environmental groups that are opposing this bill: The
Defenders of Wildlife; the American Hiking Society; the Sierra Club
Legal Defense Fund; the Friends of the Earth; the Izaak Walton League
of America; the Wilderness Society; the National Parks and Conservation
Association.
Let me also state, Secretary Babbitt's name has been invoked, the
Clinton administration strongly opposes H.R. 260, unless amended to
delete provisions that deal with a closure commission.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, but what is worse, it is here under
suspension. Why is there a railroading of this bill? Why in
subcommittee, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Lands, was I not allowed to proceed with an
amendment, an alternative, that said basically there are other ways to
finance the national parks? Let us look at a trust, let us look at
concessions or let us look at fees. Let us look at better ways to
manage the parks.
But what we are doing here is a parks closure commission. My good
friend, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the
subcommittee, has been quoted that he would like to see 150 parks
closed in his own newspaper.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, that was a quote that came out of the Elko
paper, and the Elko paper wrote a retraction of that saying that they
never heard that before and they were sorry they brought that up. So,
that retraction was in there and any Member would be a fool to make a
statement like that, and I hope I do not fall in that category.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I accept what the
gentleman just said.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to submit it for the
Record.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, again, reclaiming my time, I am quoting
many publications and I am simply stating that what we are doing in
this bill is we are setting up a process that is similar to a military
base closing commission.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is, along with the cuts on the
national parks, and the cuts are substantial in the national parks
budget, 36 percent cut by the year 2002, would be achieved by closing
200 smallest and least-visited national parks, or by cutting the budget
of all parks by amounts which render them less safe, the Congress will
have indirectly and quietly achieved what some are attempting to do
with a parks closing commission. Mr. Speaker, this is by the Department
of the Interior.
Mr. Speaker, no one is calling us or saying that we have too many
parks. On the contrary, the American people love and support our
national parks. That is why many of us are deeply troubled by this
bill. This is a parks closure bill, basically, with some viewing it as
means to close parks they believe are nonessential.
Contrary to what some might believe, it is not easy to get an area
designated as a unit of the National Park System and should not be easy
to remove them from the system as well. Those who think the
authorization is a panacea for whatever ails the National Park System
are wrong.
We could deauthorize all the 30-plus units designated since 1980, yet
we would save less than 2 percent of the national parks budget, annual
operation and maintenance budget.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this legislation relies too heavily
on a park closure commission which would have the authority to
recommend the closure of any unit in the National Park System, with the
exception of the 54 national parks. The Statue of Liberty, Independence
Hall, the Washington Monument are all national monuments and would be
subject to consideration for closure or privatization under the
provisions of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, what makes these sites any less worthy than Yellowstone
or Grand Canyon National Park? National park units are not at all like
military bases. We do not need a closure commission that could only
justify its existence by recommending park closures.
If there is any question as to the marching orders of the commission,
one only needs to look at the Republican budget resolution that was
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?
Mr. Speaker, there are not quick fixes to find out how we improve the
management of the parks. All I am saying is let us send this bill back
to the Committee on Rules where there would be an opportunity to debate
an alternative that I have. I only want one amendment, 10 minutes, 3
minutes, that says there is a better way than a closure commission;
that this is far too drastic.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the author of the legislation.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are able to bring this
bipartisan measure, the National Park System Reform Act, to the floor
of the House today.
Mr. Speaker, in the past few months I have heard this bill called
many things and blamed for many others. Most of these, as well as what
we have just heard on the floor, simply are not accurate.
This is not a park-closing bill. This is not a base-closing
commission. In fact, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], I
think, is arguing against the bill which is simply not before us on the
floor of the House today. Maybe it was a concept somewhere

[[Page H 9087]]
back in the history of this legislation, but it simply is not something
that is before us, after many months of working with the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] in
trying to massage this bill and make it be something that we could all
be very proud of.
Mr. Speaker, it is simply not the bill that the gentleman from New
Mexico describes. H.R. 260 is a balanced policy initiative that will
set the stage for future, reasoned debate on park reform.
The bill directs the Park Service to take 1 year to develop both a
mission statement and a set of criteria for inclusion within the Park
System.
Following Congress' approval, the Park Service would then take that
criteria, remember that, following Congress' approval, the Park Service
would take that criteria, hold it up against the existing Park System,
see what is there, what is not there, and possibly on some rare cases
what does not belong there.
Mr. Speaker, if those rare cases occur, the Park Service would study
alternative forms of management which would range from transfer to
other government agencies or levels of government or to other
interested parties.
Only if those prospective managers could guarantee preservation of
the resource which made the site significant in the first place, could
any transfer take place.
So, we are not closing parks with this bill. In fact, we are not
making it easy to close parks with this bill. After 3 years of study,
the Park Service will turn its findings over to an independent review
commission. During the next 18 months, the review commission would look
over the Park Service's recommendations and receive additional public
comment on them, before passing those recommendations along to
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, if the Park Service does the kind of job we expect it
to, then the commission will serve as little more than a rubber stamp
to its findings. But, if it becomes clear after 1 year that the Park
Service has no intention of carrying out the review outlined in this
act, then the review commission may undertake to review on its own.
In this way, the commission may serve as a hammer over the Park
Service, or its peer reviewer. The choice is up to the Park Service.
Mr. Speaker, whatever the findings of this review, it is up to
Congress to act upon them in whole or in part or not at all. This is no
base-closing bill. There is nothing in it that says, ``Take it or leave
it all,'' about the review in H.R. 260.
Title II of the bill tightens the criteria for admission of new units
into the Park System.

{time} 1645

It directs the Interior Secretary to develop a priority system for
new units, then submit these priorities to Congress with the annual
budget request until action is taken.
Further, the bill centralizes planning for new units at Park Service
headquarters. If this is to be a system of nationally significant
places, then there should be a coordinated effort to identify such
places.
Let me tell you what H.R. 260 does not do. H.R. 260 does not mandate
the closure of any parks. Indeed, the Nation's 54 national parks were
exempted. There were those who were saying we were going to close
Yellowstone, close Grand Canyon. Of course, not. Those are going to
stand up to any scrutiny, as I think most units of the Park System
will. We just took those out. That will not even be a question. H.R.
260 does not create an independent commission selling off parks to the
highest bidder. The commission can act alone only if Interior ignores
the will of Congress. Even then it would be assisted in its review by
the Park Service and even then any action on its findings would be left
to Congress, which created the parks in the first place.
It would not mean the end of urban or Alaskan parks, as has been
charged. It is not an outgrowth of the wise-use movement in the West.
It has nothing to do with the cutbacks in budget or appropriations,
real or imagined.
The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and I have worked on this
bill now for almost 2 years. Last year we passed its 1994 counterpart
by a record vote of 421 to zero. This, I think, is a better bill. We
have sat down with more people since then. We have 42 or so
environmental groups we sat down with and tried to take their concerns
into account as we tried to develop this bill. I think it is a better
bill now.
Yet, H.R. 260 appears to have become a lightning rod for every fear
about Park Service matters voiced against this Congress. I hope the
membership will push aside the perceptions that have been advanced by a
number of special interest groups and, instead, support the reality
embodied in H.R. 260. It is a good bill. It is one which will keep our
national parks the envy of the world.
I urge support for this bill.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me disabuse the gentleman and everyone that is
listening of one fact. This is not the same bill that passed last year
which contained all of our votes. There is a huge difference.
This is a bill that has as the primary source the park closure
commission. The past bill had a backup. First, the Park Service made
their determinations. Then you had the park closure commission. That is
the difference. There is a huge difference.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Pallone], a member of the committee.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 260. I also
rise in opposition to the manner in which this controversial measure is
being brought before the House.
H.R. 260 would set up a mechanism for restructuring portions of the
National Park System and includes provisions that would allow an
Interior Secretary or an unelected commission to recommend the closure
of units of the Park System.
I oppose H.R. 260 for a number of reasons, but primarily because I
disagree with a fundamental premise of the bill. H.R. 260 rests upon
the presumption that the Park System is overextended and that the only
way to help the system is to restructure and strategically downsize it.
Restructuring and downsizing are terms we often hear these days in
Congress, but we are not talking about military bases here.
What we are debating is the fate of one of our Nation's greatest
treasures. This is cultural, historical, and natural resource
preservation we are talking about.
As Mr. Richardson said in his dissenting views on H.R. 260, no one
outside the beltway is calling or writing to say we have too many
parks. In fact, the contrary is true in my State. I have constituents
and elected officials writing me all the time to try to get new areas
designated as parks or refuges or to get existing parks expanded. And
despite the rhetoric we hear in this body, it is not easy to get that
done; it takes years of work.
Of course, even if we except the premise that we need to trim the
Park System, the deck has already been stacked in favor of some units
and against others. The legislation exempts from consideration for
termination 54--mainly Western--national parks. And what was the
scientific policy basis for leaving these parks out? I do not know. If
this is a fair process this bill is establishing, and these parks are
so superior, would those parks not be protected anyway?
Why aren't important parks like the Statue of Liberty, Independence
Hall, and the Washington Monument protected from scrutiny? Why aren't
Gateway and Sandy Hook--which is in my district--protected? Perhaps it
is because these are urban units which, in addition to being
significant cultural, historical, and natural areas, provide education
and recreation to lower income people who cannot afford to travel to
Colorado or California to take advantage of the Park System their tax
dollars support. Or maybe it is merely because some in this body have a
very narrow and elitist view of the Park System.
Now, I know that supporters of this bill will say it is not a closure
bill; that it is not a BRAC for the parks. But I would just like to
draw my colleagues' attention to a bill that those same people
supported last Congress, H.R. 1508. Section 105 of that bill, sponsored
by Mr. Hefley, was entitled ``Termination of National Park Service
management at nonessential National Park

[[Page H 9088]]
System areas.'' Now today's bill may be a so-called compromise bill,
but it is clear what the intent is behind it. I am now a member of the
Resources Committee--and I have watched some of my colleagues on that
committee oppose parkland acquisition even though it was proposed by a
Republican member. I have even seen ``Dear Colleague'' letters and a
newspaper op-ed entitled ``Do We Need All These Parks?'' where a park
in my district is singled out. But those same people seem to be saying
``trust us, we really don't want to get rid of the park system.'' I am
sorry, but I just cannot take that on faith.
I could go on about my objections to this legislation, but I want to
talk a bit about the way in which this bill is being considered. On
June 12, Bill Richardson, the ranking Democrat on the National Parks
Subcommittee--which has jurisdiction over this legislation--sent a
``Dear Colleague'' letter to each and every Member of the House. In
that letter he said that he opposed H.R. 260. But more importantly he
said the following: ``When the House considers H.R. 260, I will offer
amendments * * * .'' I told the ranking subcommittee member that I
supported him and that I, too, might want to offer amendments. Other
Members did the same.
Then, on Friday of last week, I found out that the National Park
System Reform Act was coming before the House under suspension of the
rules--a format that would prohibit all of us from offering the
amendments we said we wanted considered. I did not believe it. I
actually asked my staff to call the Democratic Cloakroom to make sure
this was actually H.R. 260 we were bringing up. You see, I was under
the impression that the Suspension Calendar is only for
noncontroversial items, not legislation that is opposed by the National
Parks and Conservation Association. It is not for legislation that is
so controversial that the Secretary of the Interior came all the way to
my district to tell me and my constituents that he opposed it. And it
is certainly not meant for legislation that is opposed by the ranking
member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction.
Yet here we are. We have not suspended the rules, what we have
suspended is the right of my constituents and others to dissent.
Maybe you do not agree with my point of view on the bill's substance.
Or maybe you do. However, I hope that you support the rights of myself,
my friend from New Mexico, and others who want to offer amendments to
this bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Park System and for the
Democratic system by voting ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support to H.R. 260, and I
want to commend the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of
the subcommittee, and the principal sponsor, the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], for their work on this.
Actually, this product is a product of the 103d Congress in many
respects.
As was indicated, we hammered this proposal out last year. It passed
on Suspension Calendar. It was considered on suspension. It was
basically a measure that is noncontroversial. It is not identical to
the bill, but most of the major elements are the same, and the proposal
and the agreement that was made then really holds true in terms of my
work on this measure.
This is a necessary piece of legislation. This really provides a
formal process for the establishment of a criteria, criteria which do
not exist today with regard to the national parks. We need the Park
Service to establish that type of criteria.
Furthermore, it establishes, in order to be certain that the Park
Service itself will go through the process of this establishment of
criteria, and once submitted, Congress then has to ratify it. Beyond
that, it suggests the Park Service then take the criteria that it
develops and review almost all the parks.
Obviously, there are 50 of the outstanding parks not included. In
essence, I do not think anyone questions the review of that would
probably not be a good use of resources. That is the basis to me of the
workload here, somewhat more realistic here in terms of how we march
forward.
Once that has been accomplished, they go through review of the 300 or
so parks. They report back to the Congress and report of the
commission.
We establish commissions in the Congress often, often, I think,
without careful thought. But in this case, the commission has been very
carefully constructed. It is a commission that has a certain amount of
independence, but they have no independent authority to act on removing
designation from any park. In fact, the power to designate parks
resides in the Congress today, and once this legislation were to be
passed in the form it is before us today, that authority to designate
or remove designation would continue to reside in the Congress.
I find, obviously, some of the hyperbole and paranoia that has crept
into this debate very curious. There has been a tendency for the
advocates and opponents of this bill to overstate the case. There
should be no mistake about mistaking this bill. This bill is the same
bill supported by the administration in the 103d Congress. It was
supported by the Park Service, which helped craft and write this
legislation in the 103d Congress. It was supported by the conservation
groups. It was supported by Democrats and Republicans.
That is why it passed on the floor on suspension by 421 votes in
favor, with none against it.
It, in essence, is the same bill. What has changed this year
obviously, there is a change in the Congress. I am here because I do
not have a horse in the race. It is not one of my parks that is
affected. I am here because I think this is good policy. I think the
Members of this body ought to vote for it. I am here because I just
think this is good policy. This is where we ought to go.
What are we afraid of in this bill? We do not want the Park Service
to study the park units? Can we not trust the Park Service? If we can
trust it to run these units, should we not be trusting them to do the
study?
We are asking the professionals first and foremost to do it and
report back to us. We are asking the commission to be there to make
certain and somehow have an independent voice to also report to us. You
have got to trust the Congress.
I think Members of this body and the Senate can be trusted to
designate and take responsible actions with regard to this. That is
really where it is at. If we do not want to today, that action could
take place without any commission, without any study, without any
consideration. Is that what the opponents of this bill would like to
see, no review, no consideration in process? I do not think so.
I think this bill provides good process, good review. It is a
rational, reasoned way to reinvent and deal with the problems facing
the National Park Service in this year and which I have worked on for
20 years that I have been in this body.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 260, the National Park System
Reform Act of 1995. This legislation, which I have cosponsored, is
similar to a proposal considered and approved by the House of
Representatives during the 103d Congress under the Suspension Calendar.
Mr. Speaker, for a decade, I had the privilege and the pleasure to
chair the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over national park
policy. I am very concerned about the state of our national parks and
well understand the need to move forward, this Congress, important park
reform, review, and reinvention policy. Park review and reform
legislation is reasoned, rational, and in the public interest. This
measure is an effective policy not random, arbitrary action; it is a
good public policy.
The National Park Service [NPS] is charged with the management of the
Nation's most important natural, cultural, and historical resources.
These areas are known throughout the world for their natural qualities,
scenic beauty, and historical significance. Each year, the areas which
make up the National Park System are visited by over 260 million
people, and this number continues to grow.
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. This concern, shared by my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle, the administration, and the American
people, enabled the House to unanimously pass, on the Suspension
Calendar and without dissent, the National Park Service Reform Act in
the past Congress.
This legislation was a product of compromise involving the current
administration,

[[Page H 9089]]
the National Park Service, environmental groups, and Members of
Congress, both Democrats and Republicans.
It was with this spirit and support that I joined my colleagues Mr.
Hefley and Mr. Hansen, in re-introducing a National Park Service reform
bill in the 104th Congress. That is the legislation pending before us.
Unfortunately, we now have a perception problem that has injected
controversy anew. What was once a unanimously supported reform bill has
now been dubbed by some as a ``Park Closure'' bill. In my judgment,
both the advocates and opponents have been guilty of fanning the flames
and generating misunderstanding and controversy where none need exist.
Perception for some has been conjured up as reality. When all else
fails, the admonition should be to read the legislation.

A close review and literal reading of the proposed law shows that the
apprehension that was raised is not justified. H.R. 260 remains very
consistent with the legislation considered in the last Congress. The
NPS sets criteria, Congress approves the criteria, the NPS studies a
reduced number of parks, conveys this to the Congress and an appointed
commission within 3 years. The commission reviews and reports to
Congress. Congress and only Congress has the responsibility to remove
parks from the National Park System. The responsibility comes back to
Congress under this proposal and under current law.
There are many issues before this Congress where significant
differences in philosophy have made for some heated debates and will
continue to do so. I suggest that we hold back on our desire to draw
the lines in the sand over this park review and reform issue and that
we save our passion for those debates in which there is true
disagreement on issues of which there seems to be no shortage.
Certainly, National Park Service reform is especially needed in an
era of fiscal constraint and large demands on the existing Park System.
We still have the opportunity to enact a forward looking bill. 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 all of us
can agree that effective management of our National Park System will
benefit us all. While today the National Park Service is judged by the
crown jewels, there is an increasing tendency to highlight only the
rhinestones in the system--some of which are as costly or even more
costly than the crown jewels of our national parks.
The issue of effective park management is not a simple one and
narrow-minded solutions are inappropriate when considering the reform
of our precious natural, cultural, and historic resources.
The National Park System needs the ability to expand in order to
reflect the progression of history and to respond to a rapidly growing
population. At the same time, efficient management and strategic
planning will achieve savings as will the consideration of alternative
management plans for parks that do not meet the criteria guidelines
outlined in the bill. This bill can accomplish such goals.
As for the commission enacted in this measure, 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 and in reality will serve
as leverage on the NPS and Congress to take this task more seriously.
Finally, this is not and should not be a base realignment and closure
commission as was established within the Department of Defense. The
responsibilities are defined; the authority limited and the sunset of
the commission is certain. Its policy path is clear--to report its
recommendations to the Congress for our consideration.
This measure is a good bill and responds to the reasoned criticisms
and questions raised beyond the version the House acted upon last year.
As for the hyperbole and paranoia that have dogged H.R. 260, I would
hope that Members will deal with the tangible today not the surreal.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Hinchey].
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, in spite of the great respect and
admiration I have for the sponsors of this bill, I find that,
nevertheless, I feel strong opposition to it.
I think that there are aspects of the bill which do make a
constructive contribution. First of all, a comprehensive review by the
Secretary of the Department of Interior, I think, is constructive, and
would be helpful.
But the underlying philosophy of this bill is what I find so
troubling about it. It seems to suggest that we have too many parks and
that we ought to deauthorize units of the National Park System and,
furthermore, I believe the sentiments in this bill, as they are
expressed in the language here, would tend to focus attention on those
parks and national resources which tend to be in the urban areas, which
tend to be in those parts of the country where they get the most use
and the most attention, which tend to be used by those people who are
least likely to travel to some of the national parks in the western
part of our country.

{time} 1700

Why are we doing this? Are we spending too much money on our National
Park System? I do not think so. The National Park System, which is one
of the most treasured possessions of this country, takes up less than
one-tenth of 1 percent of the national budget. It is a very small
portion of what we spend nationally.
Is it true that the National Park Service does not get enough
funding? Yes, unquestionably, it is. But that is a failure of
ourselves, it is a failure of this Congress. The Congress ought to
realize the value of the National Park Service and apportion to it a
greater portion of the Federal budget. The National Park Service has
been starved for funds, and this particular budget that is before us
this year goes on to do that in an even greater degree than has been
done in the past.
Construction is cut by 50 percent. Operating funds are cut by 10
percent. That is wrong. It is the wrong direction in which we should be
going, and it mitigates toward the kind of philosophy which is
expressed in this bill which indicates that we have too many parks and
we ought to be closing them down.
We need more recreational opportunity in this country, if anything.
We need greater recognition of our national heritage, if anything. We
need a better understanding on the part of our citizenry, particularly
our younger people, with regard to our national and ecological
heritage, which is enshrined in the system of our national parks.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill, in spite of the fact that it
does some things that are good, takes us inevitably in the wrong
direction. The idea that we have too many parks is wrong; the idea that
we should be closing some of them down, in my opinion, is misguided.
What we ought to be doing is spending more, not less, on our National
Park System, raising it up, making it be what it ought be in the minds
of the American people, the greatest expression in many ways of our
national and historical heritage.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from California
[Mr. Miller] is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Members
would focus on this legislation. This is not a park closing bill, and
this is not the bill that passed last year. What this is, is a very,
very good piece of legislation to allow us to deal with some of the
problem that exist within the national parks of this country. Let us
not pretend that the process by which all of the units and all of the
obligations and all of the duties were given to the National Park
Service was a pure process that nobody can question or raise issue
with, because the fact is, we know that this Park Service and its
resources have been assaulted from time to time by this Congress in the
middle of the night in a conference committee without hearings, without
jurisdiction, but based upon the individual power of a Senator here or
a Congressman here, or what have you. We ought to now reexamine the
operations of this most valuable, valuable agency of the Federal
Government.
This is not to pass judgment whether there should be more or less
parks. This is about making sure that we are using the resources to the
best extent that we can, that we can assure the people of this country
that we are doing all that we can to maintain and improve the parks
that we have, and to maintain the standards for the creation of those
parks, and that we are making the best utilization we can out of the
resources of the National Park Service. Nobody in this body can stand
before the American public and say that is the situation today, and if
we

[[Page H 9090]]
cannot say that, then we ought to put into motion a process by which we
can review that.
Because of the contributions of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Hefley], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], and even the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Richardson], this legislation in fact does that. It lets us look at the
system.
This is the rational way to go about reforming or reorganizing or
reinventing, whichever term you are comfortable with, because it lets
the front-line agencies, the Secretary of the Interior and the Park
Service, make some determinations, and we all know that privately they
come to us. Whether they are rangers in the West or they are in the
seashores in the East or in the Gulf, they come to us privately and
tell us, this is not working terribly well, Mr. Speaker.
There is another way to do this. We ought to know that. They ought to
be able to bring that forward and then have the citizens commission
screen that process, screen that process so that there is input from
affected parties, from localities, because all of us know that all of
these parks have different importance to different communities and
States and local jurisdictions. Some of them are huge engines of
economic activity. Some of them are huge engines of activity, but you
do not have the economics to take care of it. Some of them, quite
simply, nobody knows why they are there, except that somebody got it
done in the legislative process.
Mr. Speaker, this is a process that is reasoned out, that has
protections in it, that is very thoughtful, and does not mandate that
any action take place, but it puts us in a position that at one point
we can stand before our constituents and say that this is the best run
agency, the best use of resources of the National Park Service.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I may have missed some of the debate
earlier that went on on this legislation, and I was watching this in my
office, and I came over because I happen to agree with a lot of what
has been said by the proponents of this legislation.
I guess the only question I had is, with respect to all of the review
that would go on on all of the parks, I guess all of the monuments, all
of the various facilities that are run and operated by the Park
Service, why are not all of them on the list? Is there a reason that we
left some of them off?
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, originally we looked at
all of them and then we figured that possibly it would be smart to
alleviate the fears of a lot of people, because we tried to convince
them that this was not the park closing bill, that they would have the
opportunity to take 54 spectacular parks, and I agree with the
gentleman from New Jersey, it is kind of in the eye of the beholder,
but I do not think that people have found what we are looking at.
The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] said, ``What bills are in
front of us?'' It is like Chairman Seiberling when he was with us used
to say, ``When all else fails, read the legislation.''
The only place that refers to the fears that have been brought up by
our friends is on page 13, starting on line 12 that says: ``Nothing in
this act shall be construed as modifying or terminating any unit of the
National Park System without a subsequent act of Congress.''
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would just ask the gentleman, I mean I agree, I read that. I saw that.
But again, I am surprised as to why we did not put Yosemite on that
list. I mean, I guess that is what you suggested.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], a sponsor of the bill, who
possibly has a better answer on that.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman answered the question very
well. They were all on the list when we first started out. But there
were many groups out there that were trying to pick this as some kind
of a closure bill and were saying, well, they are going to close
Yellowstone or Yosemite or Grand Canyon, and in order to alleviate
those fears, those are national parks. They are the highest level of
recognition that you can have in our parks system. They have undergone
the scrutiny of the ages. They are not going to be closed, there is no
question about that. So we thought in order to alleviate that fear and
concern, we just took them off.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
guess what the gentleman from Colorado just said hits right home in the
Southwestern part of the United States. I mean I think that what you
are doing is creating the same kind of fear. A lot of this is in my
district, but a lot in the Southwest think exactly the same of the
national monument in the same context as we do of Yosemite that
somebody else may think looks prettier. Like you said, it is in the eye
of the beholder.
Mr. Speaker, we should have listed all of them, if this is a true
process, one that is going to be fair and open, and I think it is a
mistake for us to pass legislation that is not fair.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think the distinction here is one you ought to pay
attention to. These are national parks. We are talking about those that
are designated national parks in law, by the Congress; we designated
them national parks. So the issue is in terms of 368 units. In other
words, there are different designations and you have to pay attention
when they are talking about using resources wisely. If in fact
something is meritorious and should be designated a national park, then
you should do it. It is not a unit of the National Park System, these
are actually designated. So there is a difference in designation, a
difference in where you want to concentrate your resources. That is why
pulling them out makes sense in terms of dollars and in terms of what
is going out.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would please answer me,
why not allow an alternative to finance the parks that involves
concessions fees, and please address the point that this is not the
same bill as we passed last year. This is a much stronger parks bill.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me quickly respond.
The gentleman realizes and knows that the park committee has in front
of it a park fee bill right now. We love our parks. We want to take
care of our parks. We have to get more money in our parks, and we have
a bill that we think would take care of it. It is not included in this
bill, but we have one that I would hope we would have the support of
the House and the Senate when we are able to bring it forth.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized
for 1 minute.
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this is a parks closure bill and we
should vote ``no'' so that it can go back to rules and there can be
proper debate. The League of Conservation Voters has just issued a
statement opposing this bill signed by the major environmental
organizations. I want my colleagues in the Congressional Record
tomorrow to read the national park units, the smaller ones, that might
be at risk in their congressional districts if this bill passes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, it creates a Parks Closure
Commission, it weakens our authority, it says to the National Park
System, the park rangers, your views are not important, and it puts a
lot of national monuments like Mount Rushmore, Lincoln, Jefferson, at
risk. This is a railroad process. Let us go back to committee, allow
for alternatives.
This is why the Clinton administration is against this bill. Every
major

[[Page H 9091]]
environmental organization is against this bill, and hopefully, the
House of Representatives tomorrow will vote a resounding ``no'' that we
should do this bill right.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record.

[From the Salt Lake Tribune, May 6, 1995]

Don't Close the Parks

Generally, people want to enter a national park; they want
to leave a military base. Indeed, there is little that the
two have in common, other than that they are both federally
owned. Yet there is inexplicable sentiment in Congress for
providing a common element to both--a closure commission.
A bill known as HR 260, which has already passed Utah Rep.
Jim Hansen's subcommittee and is due up before the full House
Resources Committee this month. Proposes the formation of a
Park System Review Commission. It would do for national park
units what the Base Realignment and Closure Commission has
done for military bases: It would close them.
Closure is appropriate for some unneeded military bases,
but not so for national park units, which presumably have an
unchanging value. After all, national parks were created for
purposes of preservation and posterity, not for the every-
shifting requirements of national defense. Existing park
units simply should not be exposed to the whims of an
independent commission.
The issue has surfaced because the National Park Service
has been having problems adequately funding all 368 units in
its system. One complaint is that the system is overloaded
with units that don't belong, units that were designated at
the behest of some congressman trying to bring home the pork
for his district.
This problem can be addressed without the creation of a
park closure commission. For starters, Congress can support
the portion of HR 260 that calls for the Interior secretary
to devise tighter criteria for additions to the NPS, thereby
safeguarding the system from selfish lawmakers.
Then, if Congress still feels that undeserving units have
crept into the system, it can simply deauthorize them itself,
as it did last year with the John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts. It does not need some new level of
bureaucracy to do this.
The rationale behind a park closure commission is that it
would save money for the NPS. Well, as the BRAC members can
testify, it would cost a lot of upfront money to close these
units. And once closed, who would operate them--the states,
or some other division of the federal government? How do the
taxpayers save on that?
If the goal is to improve NPS finances, then start with
passage of park concessions reform or entrance fee reform.
Start funneling such fees back into the parks, instead of the
national treasury. It makes little sense to set up a
mechanism to close parks when proposed methods to increase
park revenues have not been implemented first.
National parks are not at all like military bases. They
were created to establish a natural or historical legacy for
future generations. They don't need a closure commission;
they need more creative ways to stay open.
____

[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 17, 1995]

America for Sale

Americans can be justifiably proud of their national park
system. This treasure preserves areas of awesome natural
beauty, monuments of historical significance, indigenous
wildlife and an appreciation of this country's remarkably
diverse landscape. But that record apparently isn't good
enough to save the national parks from the GOP budget ax.
The Republican budget resolution would make excessive
cutbacks in the National Park Service. This year's budget of
$1.42 billion, already drastically insufficient to maintain
the system properly, would be sliced to $1.12 billion in
1996, a 21 percent reduction. By the magic date of 2002, the
year of the balanced budget, the Park Service would be down
36 percent from today. At the same time, visits to national
parks are expected to grow from an estimated 270 million this
year to 300 million in the next five years. It doesn't take
much of imagination to figure out that something has to give.
The victim could be the parks themselves. A bill in
Congress, H.R. 260, would dismantle the national park system.
It would set up a commission, along the lines of the
commission on base closures, to determine which parks should
be closed--and presumably sold off to the highest bidder.
Supposedly, the process would exclude the so-called crown
jewels of the system, such as the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone
or Yosemite. But less popular parks, or parks that cater
mostly to locals could be dumped.
For too long, the National Park Service has been grossly
underfunded. The result has been deferred maintenance, repair
and construction, especially in parks like Yellowstone or the
Grand Canyon, which are deluged with visitors. After years of
starving the parks, the answer isn't to kill them outright.
It's to give the National Park Service the money to do its
job right.
In a time of belt tightening, how can that be done?
Entrance fees can be raised, although care must be taken not
to deprive Americans of modest means of their ability to
enjoy the parks. Another solution is to increase the paltry
sum paid by private concessions to the National Park Service
for the privilege of operating hotels, restaurants and other
services--and to introduce competitive bidding in the process
of awarding concessions. According to The New York Times,
concessions in national parks made $653 million in 1993, but
the parks got back only $18.7 million, or 2.8 percent.
The national parks are too precious to lose. They can and
should be saved, without destroying the whole system.
____

[From the Wichita Eagle, Aug. 25, 1995]

National Parks Deserve Help To Protect Nation's Heritage

The lines of cars, trailers and campers pile up at
Yellowstone National Park, at Yosemite, all across the land.
Americans love their national parks.
You'd think the passion for parks would spur more and
better maintenance and improvements at these national
treasures. But the reverse seems to be true. Sadly, the more
Americans use the national parks, the more run-down they
become.
The National Park Service has an annual budget of $972
million, of which users fund about $100 million. The budget
falls short of the need; the result is a backlog of
maintenance and construction projects that has now reached to
more than $4 billion.
In recent years, Congress has been in no mood to come up
with a big infusion of cash. Now, in fact, some members are
talking about closing some parks to make the system more
``cost-efficient.''
Certainly, a hard look at the National Park System is a
good idea. Yes, the system's spending priorities haven't
always been on target. The new $80 million Steamtown National
Historic Park in Pennsylvania is one example; critics rightly
say it has little to do with railroad history, or any other
kind. And the park system has some questionable elements: the
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is a city
park and Wolf Trap in Virginia is really a venue for
concerts.
But this country needs more national park space, not less,
and it needs to do a much better job of maintaining and
improving what it has. That, of course, creates a sizzling
conflict between two American values: a love for parks and a
passion for cutting federal spending.
There's a bottom line here that is not totally about the
bottom line. Yes, the national parks should be run
efficiently. Yes, users should pay more. But the parks are
priceless public places--for preservation, education and
recreation for all Americans. If it costs more money to
protect and expand them, it's a worthy investment in
America's spectacular natural and historical heritage.
____

[From the Las Vegas Sun, Aug. 27, 1995]

GOP Readies Land Grab of Our Parks

When the Republican House prepares to decimate the nation's
parks next month get ready for the bull-dozers. Our national
heritage will never be the same.
Several conservative congressmen, who like to throw out
government babies with the bath water, have taken aim at the
National Park Service to cull out parks they don't like.
One plan would create a commission, much like the panel to
close military bases, to select parks to be turned over to
the States or private interests.
And which parks would suffer? Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah,
offers a clue. He says Great Basin Park, the only national
park in Nevada, ``does not have the true definition of park
criteria.'' Great Basin was created in 1986 and protects
77,000 acres of pristine woodland northeast of Ely. About
90,000 people a year visit the park.
The park was the result of hard-fought efforts by Sen.
Harry Reid, D-Nev., who wanted to preserve a small piece of
Nevada for future generations. Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev.,
says parks provide recreation for families.
He doesn't understand how closing national parks squares
with ``family values'' oriented GOP.
But this isn't a family value issue. It has more to do with
GOP's links to big business and land exploiters and a growing
disdain for the public interest.
Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, a proponent of littering
Southern Nevada with nuclear waste, wants alternative
solutions for parks, like private operations.
Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., has fought the California
Desert Protection Act tooth-and-nail to benefit land
exploiters.
Critics point to inefficient park management and a growing
backlog of maintenance projects.
But it was Congress that expanded the park system without
providing additional funding. Park personnel are spread more
thinly than before.
Critics insist, under their plan, parks like Steam National
Historical Park in Pennsylvania wouldn't have been created.
But that $80 million park was the brainstorm of
Pennsylvania congressmen, not the Park Service.
We think there's more afoot here than Park Service
efficiency. A massive land sell-off is more likely. Arizona
may be a good example.
Republican Gov. Fife Symington has lobbied for his state to
take over Park Service properties, while his agents sold off
a portion of a historic landmark.

[[Page H 9092]]

These same congressmen have conveniently forgotten that the
public lands and parks systems were the legacy of their
party.
President Theodore Roosevelt, never a liberal big-spender,
nevertheless set aside thousands of acres of dwindling
wilderness lands to benefit future generations.
He was afraid an important heritage might be lost.
Lucky for Teddy he isn't around to see the latest crop of
House Republicans.
____

[From the New York Times, July 4, 1995]

Parks in Peril

This is the time of year when Americans begin flocking to
their national parks. Some will find what they were looking
for: vistas of spectacular beauty, hours of restorative
silence. But others may find themselves wondering whether
they have traded one rat race for another. The national parks
contain most of America's greatest scenic wonders. They also
suffer from the urban nuisances vacationers had hoped to
leave behind: traffic jams, noise, dirty air and garbage.
There is, as Representative Bill Richardson of New Mexico
notes, ``trouble in paradise.'' If past experience is any
guide, for example, there will be gridlock today in Yosemite.
By one estimate, the Grand Canyon alone needs $350 million to
repair roads, sewers and water systems. Many of the park
system's 22,000 historic buildings, as any visitor to Ellis
Island can confirm, are simply falling apart.
Human overload is the most visible culprit. Nationwide
attendance at the Park Service's 368 separate units is
expected to reach 270 million this year, 300 million by the
turn of the century. But the real culprit is Congress. In the
past 20 years, it has established more than 80 new parks
while refusing to give the Interior Department's Park Service
enough money to do its job. The service's $1.5 billion annual
budget barely covers operating costs. The result is an
estimated $6 billion repair and construction backlog.
Congress is responsible for cleaning up the mess it
created. The question is how. Not surprisingly, given
Washington's anti-environmental, budget-conscious mood, the
most popular option is to trim back the system itself. A bill
before the House would direct the Interior Department to
review all parks and determine which ones are ``nationally
significant.'' At that point, a special commission would
decide which parks should get the ax and then present its
list to Congress.
The proposal excludes 54 ``major'' national parks but
leaves open for review more than 300 monuments, historic
sites, scenic trails, urban parks and assorted recreation
areas.
On its surface, this bill, co-sponsored by Joel Hefley,
Republican of Colorado, and Bruce Vento, Democrat of
Minnesota, has an appealing simplicity. The park system
definitely includes substandard sites--what Mr. Hefley calls
``pork parks,'' shoe-horned into the system to enhance local
economies and the careers of the politicians who sponsored
them. Get rid of these, Mr. Hefley argues, and we will have
more money to spend on the ``crown jewels'' like Yellowstone
and the Grand Canyon.
In the end, though, this is an unnecessarily messy and
potentially dangerous approach to the problem. Mr. Vento says
that Congress will vote on each recommendation ``on its
merits.'' But a more likely scenario is that the proposed
closings will be lumped together in one omnibus ``closings''
bill, threatening valuable wilderness along with mediocre
sites that do not belong in the system.
A more positive approach to rescuing the parks is contained
in two other bills confronting the Senate and House. One
would overhaul entrance fees, which are ridiculously low. The
average entrance fee is $3, less than half the cost of a
ticket to ``Batman Forever.'' A carload of people can explore
Yellowstone for a whole week for only $10--the same price
they would have paid in 1916. Doubling entrance fees, a not
unreasonable proposition, could generate an extra $100
million for the parks.
The second bill would end the sweetheart contracts awarded
years ago to the companies that run the lodges, souvenir
shops and other facilities inside the parks. In 1993,
concessions generated gross revenues of $657 million but
returned only $18.7 million--2.8 per cent--to the Federal
Treasury. The bill would mandate competitive bidding for
these lucrative enterprises, giving the Park Service a bigger
cut of the proceeds and generating $60 million more for long-
neglected repairs.
Both measures were well on their way to approval when time
ran out on the 103d Congress last December. There is now in
place a vastly different Congress, more inclined to budgetary
parsimony than environmental stewardship. Its basic
philosophy is that to save the patient we have to cut off an
arm here, a leg there.
That is the wrong way to go. The right way is to provide
the park system with enough resources not just to survive but
to renew itself. The language in the original mandate
establishing the Park Service was unambiguous. The national
parks should be left ``unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.'' Congress wrote that language, and Congress
needs to honor it now.
____

[From the Miami Herald, June 27, 1995]

For Sale: National Parks

congressional budget cuts and anti-government attitudes threaten
America's heritage

``Pssst, want to buy a national park? No, not Yellowstone,
not Yosemite, not Grand Canyon (or at least not yet). How
`bout Gateway overlooking Manhattan, Cuyahoga Valley outside
Cleveland, San Francisco's Golden Gate and Presidio? Miami's
Biscayne on the Atlantic Coast? Now, there's a deal. Right on
the highway to the Keys, perfect for development * * *''
Haven't you heard? Congress's Republicans want to sell the
nation's urban parks. They cost too much, you know? Got to
cut taxes, balance the budget. Government shouldn't own
land--this whole idea of public lands, public parks * * *
passe * * * not something government should be doing.
Did American voters knowingly seat a Congress that shows
such antipathy to the environment, natural resources, public
parks, even recreation? Bill after bill keeps coming--mostly
from the House: a Clean Water Act that dismantles pollution
controls; a regulatory reform act that encourages junk
science and invites lawsuits; a property-rights bill intended
to spike protection for endangered species; and now HR 260,
setting up a park-closure commission, and a 1996 budget
resolution too skimpy to keep the 368 national parks and
historic sites open.
The National Park Service will spend $1.42 billion this
year. The Republican budget resolution scheduled for House
debate this week cuts that by 21 percent to $1.12 billion for
1996. By 2002, spending for parks is to be 36 percent less.
There will be no choice but to close some parks, recreation
areas, monuments, battlefields, and riverways, while reducing
hours, programs, and maintenance at others.
Targeted are the 200 ``smallest'' units including Biscayne,
but also Tennessee's Obed Wild and Scenic River (adjacent to
the site of next year's Olympic whitewater competition),
historic homes of Abraham Lincoln and Booker T. Washington,
the Civil War battlefields of Antietam and Petersburg,
California's channel Islands, and Utah's great red sandstone
Arches. At Philadelphia's Independence National Historical
Park, nine of the 14 buildings now open would be closed. At
Great Smoky Mountains, the nature walks and talks would be
eliminated. At Everglades, the Long Pine Key and Flamingo
campgrounds would close. The Clinton administration has
recommended alternatives, but the GOP isn't interested.
That's because the budget resolution effectually implements
a program laid out by the House Resources Committee to sell
parks. Although not yet voted on by the House, HR 260 gives
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt two years to come up with a
list of parks to close and establishes a National Park
Service Review Commission to do the job if the secretary
doesn't. The list would be sent to Congress for the final
say.
How does one countenance selling these national treasures?
Ask the Republicans in Congress.
____

[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 14, 1995]

Preserve America's Past

Everyone seems to agree that the national park system is in
trouble. Its budget has not kept pace with the parks' ever-
increasing popularity. The result is obvious and predictable:
deferred maintenance and the deterioration of facilities and
resources, both natural and historic.
When Americans think of their national parks, they think
mostly of their natural beauty and of their plants, animals
and spectacular landscapes. But these parks also include
archaeological and historic structures. As The New York Times
has reported, far too many of these structures under the care
of the National Park Service--the system's ``parkitecture''--
are in a state of serious, perhaps irreparable decay. The
price tag to preserve these historic buildings could reach
$1.5 billion, considerably more than the $1.12 billion the
Republicans want for the entire 1996 National Park Service
budget.
Public-private partnerships have been formed to rescue some
prominent structures, such as the Sperry and Granite Park
Chalets in Montana's Glacier National Park, and such projects
should be encouraged wherever possible. Yet the condition of
the parks and its ``parkitecture'' argues for a far more
comprehensive approach to their care.
That approach can be found in H.R. 2181, the Common Sense
National Park System Reform Act, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Bill
Richardson, a Democrat from New Mexico. This reform bill,
which has bipartisan support, stands in distinct contrast to
a more Draconian bill, H.R. 260, that would establish a park
closure commission. Mr. Richardson's intent is to save the
system, not gut it. It is an especially helpful approach at a
time when the park service's budget, which should be
increasing to meet the public's demand, is actually
decreasing.
Mr. Richardson's bill would raise more money for the parks
from concessionaires operating in the parks and from visitors
and users. Right now businesses operating in the parks,
including hotels and restaurants, pay next to nothing for the
privilege of making gigantic profits. Introducing a system of
competitive bidding for concessions would provide more money,
part of which would go into a park improvements fund. This
bill would also raise entrance and user fees, though not
outrageously, and divert part of the proceeds into a park
renewal fund.
The national parks are among the most precious and most
cherished resources in

[[Page H 9093]]
this country. This bill would help restore them to their past glory.
____

[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 27, 1995]

Park Benchmarks

Winnow impostors from the nation's park system? Sure, but don't reduce
it to just a few, select jewels

Anyone who has paid a lick of attention knows that
America's national parks aren't without their problems--a
chief one being, interestingly, that many are too darn
popular for their own good. You've seen the pictures of
Yellowstone traffic jams. Maybe you got stuck in one in the
Great Smoky Mountains. And it's not exactly a secret in
Philadelphia that a jewel of our nation's history--
Independence Hall--had to wait far too long for its ongoing
overhaul.
Fewer people know that there are a couple of ringers in the
system, too. Steamtown National Historical Park in Scranton,
for instance, poses as a site of significance in the
development of the U.S. rail system, but is really more of a
monument to the pork-winning talents of a Scranton
congressman.
And it seems like only a more handful of folks are tuned in
to the fact that come fall, Congress has teed up a bill that
would set up a park-closure commission, and as is fashionable
these days, consider foisting management of some of them off
onto the states. (Not that the cash-strapped states are
clamoring for the honor.)
At first glance, the bill seems harmless--and it taps all
the voguish budget-cutting buttons. One of its prime movers,
Rep. James V. Hansen, a Utah Republican, says he's just
looking for ``a better return from our parks,'' and a way to
raise money for the bigger parks' backlogged maintenance
budgets.
But there are flies in the ointment. One is that Congress
can already decommission any part it wants to--without a new
commission. (Last year, in fact, the Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts in Washington was congressionally removed
from Park Service jurisdiction.)
Opponents of the bill ask whether the new commission--which
itself would cost upward of $2 million--would be biased at
the outset against urban and historical parks.
Another problem is that once the system is balkanized by
farming out operations to state park systems and such,
Americans may find themselves facing--instead of uniformly
run parks--a checkered quilt of good, bad and ugly
operations. (How long would it be, indeed, until an outcry
went up to turn over more federal funding to states hard-
pressed to keep certain parks up to standard?)
Third, though the West's treasured parklands are
technically off the table, aspects of the ``park-reform''
agenda would make it more difficult to donate land to parks
such as Virginia's Shenandoah National Park, thus making
their periphery ripe for commercial developments.
But the largest flaw in the legislation--and the one that
subverts its pretense of going to bat for the taxpayer--is
that its sponsors have actively blocked action on concession
reform that would give the Park Service more of each dollar
spent at privately run eateries and lodgings at national
parks.
By some estimates, if concessionaires such as Philadelphia-
based ARA services had to pay the same cut of their gross
from park business that they do at stadiums and other public
facilities, the parks could pocket $50 million or more
annually.
If Congress wants to tighten up on the requirements to
become part of the park system, no problem. (See Steamtown
above.) If it wants raise some user fees that don't
overburden families, no problem. But we're skeptical of those
who argue that Americans deserve better value from their
parklands, while failing to argue that they deserve a better
return from the businesses that make a bundle from park
concessions.
____

[From the Deseret News, Dec. 17, 1994]

Plan for Park-Closure Panel Assailed

association says the agenda should include more than shutdowns

The National Parks and Conservation Association, an
advocacy group with 475,000 members, has opposed the idea of
establishing a commission to decide which national parks
should be closed.
Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah, is among conservatives advancing
the idea of cutting back the nation's park system.
The parks association ``cannot support a commission whose
predetermined goal is solely park closures,'' said Paul C.
Pritchard in a three-page letter to Hansen. ``If a commission
is formed, it should be a body dedicated to reviewing the
existing system and identifying additions and potential
closures based on the standards of national significance.''
Allen Freemyer, an attorney for the House Natural Resources
Committee, said, ``The basic policy direction is to stop the
growth of the national-park system for a little while . . .
It's not a matter of whether we're going to close some parks.
It's a matter of how we're going to close them.''
Hansen, the second-ranking Republican on the Natural
Resources Committee, suggested during the last election
campaign that Great Basin National Park on the Utah-Nevada
border should be reviewed by a closure commission.
``If you have been there once, you don't need to go
again,'' he told the Ogden-Weber Chamber of Commerce.
Hansen last week issued a two-page letter the need for a
closure commission. Pritchard responded to that letter.
``Our national-park system currently faces a crisis which
stems from too many parks and insufficient funding,'' Hansen
wrote. ``In the first 50 years of the national-park system,
Congress designated only about 60 park areas. However, in the
last six years alone, Congress established 30 new park areas
across the country. While Congress is busy creating new
parks, our crown jewels are falling into disrepair.''
Hansen said the Park Service has a construction backlog of
$6 billion and needs $400 million to $800 million from
Congress each year to subsidize its budget.
Pritchard said that last year Hansen opposed a bill that
would have generated an extra $45 million to $60 million by
increasing the fees paid by park concessionaires. Hansen said
higher fees would have driven concessionaires out of business
and cost the government more in the long run.
____

[From the Elko Daily Free Press, July 31, 1995]

ESA Rewrite Dominated Western States Summit

(By Don Bowman)

Rewriting the Endangered Species Act was the focus of the
Western States Summit IV, which concluded in Albuquerque,
N.M., July 15. The meeting was strongly supported by state
legislators of Utah and Arizona, as well as county
commissioners and congressmen from many western states.
Shaken by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on Sweet
Home, there was consistent call for Congress to make the act
more sensitive to the people or repeal it. Rep. Jim Hansen,
R-Utah, said, ``The Endangered Species Act degenerated from a
protective law into something Congress never anticipated, nor
intended to foist on the people. The agencies went far beyond
the intentions of the act.'' He advocated a new ESA that
protected private property, changed the listing process,
required sound social and economic concerns, allowed local
voice and made people who filed for a listing of species post
a bond and show credentials.
Continuing on, Hansen said the National Park Service needed
serious reform. ``One hundred and fifty parks of the some 368
need to be dropped,'' Hansen said, giving an example of one
park that had a budget of $300,000 per year and only 50
visitors per year. ``When a bureaucracy reaches a certain
critical mass, its only goal is to insure its own
propagation. It begins to serve the monster rather than the
people.'' Hansen said.
The state rights issues also was a hot topic and most
attendees agreed the highlight of the meeting was the talk
given by Lana Marcussen, a New Mexico attorney working with
lands issues. Speaking on states' rights and sovereignty with
an extraordinary amount of case reference recalled at will,
the attorney was surrounded by people wherever she stopped.
Her federalism argument was used in the New Mexico vs.
Watkins case that went to the Supreme Court, which ruled the
federal government had to apply to the State of New Mexico
for low level nuclear waste permits. Her talks focused on the
rights of the people to hold the state and federal
governments accountable.
Marcussen said there had been a tremendous shift by the
courts in favor of state sovereignty. The court has limited
the federal government's power to compel states to do their
bidding in the case of New York vs. U.S., another nuclear
waste case. In addition, the Brady bill has been declared
unconstitutional in at least three district courts.
Federal control seems to be crumbling under the challenges
of the people time after time, she said.
During the conference, the Supreme Court ruled a governor
could not make a special pact for Indian gambling. This is
the first time a court has ruled against a governor after the
Interior Department has approved the compact. ``With recent
court decisions such as Adarand (affirmative action) and
Lucas (federal powers under the Commerce Clause), Indian
sovereignty is no more,'' Marcussen said. ``This is the
beginning of the end of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. How can
a racially oriented agency continue?''
Perry Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, who
argued the Adarand case in the Supreme Court, told attendees
``The environmentalists want it all--even the two thirds of
this country that is private land.--The very basis of this
government was built on property rights. If you have no
property right you have no freedom.''
The summit was sponsored by the Western States Coalition,
founded by Met Johnson and Rob Bishop. the organization has
been instrumental in establishing state constitutional
defense councils, involved in legislative protection of
property rights and a major voice in Congress on rural
issues. The next Western States Summit is expected to be held
in California.
____

Congressman Bill Richardson--Talking Points in Opposition to H.R. 260

who opposes h.r. 260?

The Clinton Administration.
The Department of Interior.
The National Park Service.
The League of Conservation Voters.
National Parks and Conservation Association.
The Wilderness Society.

[[Page H 9094]]

Sierra Club.
Izaak Walton League of America.
Friends of Earth.
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.
American Hiking Society.
Defenders of Wildlife.

what newspapers have issued editorials against h.r. 260?

The Salt Lake Tribune.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
The New York Times.
The Miami Herald.
The Philadelphia Herald.
The Wichita Eagle.
The Las Vegas Sun.

what does h.r. 260 do?

Creates a park closure commission to recommend specific
units of the National Park System for closure, privatization
or sale to the highest bidder.
Weaken Congress' statutory authority to make decisions on
park management by granting broad powers to a politically
appointed commission;
Send a strong signal to the American people that Congress
does not have the political will to carry out its
responsibilities of oversight over the National Park Service;
Exempt the 54 National Park units from closure, leaving
less visited, smaller budgeted parks and important national
monuments like Independence Hall, the Statue of Liberty, Mt.
Rushmore, the Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson Monuments and
the Martin Luther King Jr. Historic Site on the chopping
block.
Require the National Park Service (NPS) to prepare a
financial management plan for Congress to ensure
accountability within the system;
Require the NPS (not a politically-appointed park closure
commission) to prepare a description of types of resources
not currently in the system, refine the definitions for
current units of the system and submit a report to Congress
identifying which units of the System do not conform with the
revised park criteria from the new plan;
Reform the current NPS concessions policy to mandate open
competition for large concessions contracts while shielding
high-performance ``mom and pop'' or small businesses with
revenues under $500,000 per year from preserving the right to
match competing bids on contract renewals AND require that a
portion of the concession fees paid remain in the park unit
in which they are generated to fund necessary improvements on
site, etc.
Reform the current NPS entrance fee policy to increase the
amount of money coming into the park from visitors AND
require that a portion of these fees remain in the park unit
in which they are generated for site specific needs.
____

League of Conservation Voters,

Washington, DC, September 18, 1995.

Re oppose H.R. 260, the National Park System Reform Act.

House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters is
the bipartisan, political arm of the national environmental
movement. Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental
Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of
Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is
distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide and
the press.
This Tuesday, the House of Representatives is expected to
vote on a motion to suspend the rules and consider H.R. 260,
the National Park System Reform Act. Under the guise of
reforming and improving the National Park System H.R. 260
creates a politically appointed commission, whose sole
responsibility would be to determine which park units should
be closed. While there may be units in the National Park
System that deserve scrutiny, LCV opposes the creation of a
politically appointed parks closure commission and urges you
to vote against passage of H.R. 260.
H.R. 260, and the parks closure commission it creates,
threatens 315 units of the National Park System including:
urban parks, historic sites, national monuments, national
seashores, national recreation areas, and Civil War
Battlefields. Instead of considering ways to improve the
National Park System H.R. 260 unnecessarily creates a new
layer of government and an expensive bureaucratic process,
when in fact Congress already has the authority to remove
units from the National Park System.
LCV views H.R. 260 as an assault on the protection of our
cultural and natural heritage. By bringing H.R. 260 to the
House floor on the suspensions calendar Members are prevented
from offering amendments which could significantly improve
this flawed legislation. LCV beleves that the full House of
Representatives, like the House Resources Committee, should
have an opportunity to vote on an amendment to delete the
park closure commission. LCV urges you to oppose H.R. 260 so
that this and other amendments can be offered under regular
House procedures. LCV's Political Advisory Committee will
consider including a vote on passage of H.R. 260 in compiling
its 1995 Scorecard.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue. For further
information, please call Betsy Loyless in my office at 202/
785-8683.
Sincerely,
Frank Loy,
Acting President.
____

American Hiking Society, Defenders of Wildlife,
Environmental Action Foundation, Friends of the Earth,
Izaak Walton League, National Parks and Conservation
Association, Sierra Club, Sierra Club Legal Defense
Fund, the Wilderness Society,
September 18, 1995.
Dear Representative: We are writing to urge you to vote
against H.R. 260, the National Park System Reform Act, when
the House considers this ill-advised legislation. The bill
will be debated on the suspension calendar on Monday,
September 18 and a vote is expected to occur the following
day.
Unlike the version of this legislation which passed the
House of Representatives last year, H.R. 260 would formally
establish a politically appointed park closure commission as
part of a review of the National Park System. This would set
in motion a process to close parks, or portions of parks.
This is controversial legislation that has no place on the
suspension calendar. Evidence of its contentiousness has been
demonstrated by the dozens of newspapers across America that
have editorialized against H.R. 260. By limiting debate and
prohibiting Members of Congress from offering amendments, the
legislation cannot be improved by the whole House of
Representatives. The precedent for how this bill is being
considered, and the process it sets in motion are ominous. If
the Resources Committee gags the House of Representatives,
what will the park closure commission do to the American
people?
This legislation also creates another unnecessary layer of
government and an elaborate bureaucratic process. It requires
the National Park Service to conduct a review of the National
Park System and recommend sites to be deleted from the
system; then, it creates a politically appointed commission
to conduct the same process. The National Park Service
already has the authority to recommend the removal of a unit
from the National Park System, and Congress has the authority
to remove units from the National Park System. It has
exercised this authority throughout the history of the
National Park System, as demonstrated when Congress removed
the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts last year.
The consideration of H.R. 260 on the suspension calendar is
tantamount to a closed process to close parks. By voting
against H.R. 260, you will be voting for a fair and open
process on important decisions with respect to the management
of our nation's cultural and natural heritage.
Sincerely,
David Lillard, President, American Hiking Society; James
K. Wyerman, V.P. for Programs, Defenders of Wildlife;
Margaret Morgan-Hubbard, Executive Director,
Environmental Action Foundation; Brent Blackwelder,
V.P. for Policy, Friends of the Earth; Paul Hansen,
Executive Director, Izaak Walton League of America;
William J. Chandler, V.P. for Conservation Policy,
National Parks & Conservation Association; Melanie
Griffin, Director of Public Lands, Sierra Club; Marty
Hayden, Senior Policy Analyst, Sierra Club Legal
Defense Fund; Rindy O'Brien, V.P. for Public Policy,
The Wilderness Society.
____

THE 200 SMALLEST BUDGET PARKS
[Fiscal years]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative
National Park Service park units 1995 park 1995 park
base base
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.. Cane River Creole NHP.................... 0 0
2.. New Orleans Jazz NHP..................... 0 0
3.. Salt River Bay NHP and Ecological
Preserve................................ 0 0
4.. Natchez Trace NST........................ 25,000 25,000
5.. Saint Croix Island IHS................... 54,000 79,000
6.. Bluestone NSR............................ 61,000 140,000
7.. Devils Postpile NM....................... 92,000 232,000
8.. Rainbow Bridge NM........................ 99,000 331,000
9.. Hovenweep NM and Yucca House NM.......... 107,000 438,000
10. Thaddeus Kosciuszko NMem................. 128,000 566,000
11. Ebey's Landing Nat'l Historical Reserve.. 135,000 701,000
12. Hamilton Grange NMem..................... 139,000 840,000
13. Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural NHS......... 155,000 995,000
14. Aniakchak NM and Preserve................ 160,000 1,155,000
15. Thomas Stone NHS......................... 172,000 1,327,000
16. National Park of American Samoa.......... 192,000 1,519,000
17. Obed Wild and Scenic River............... 199,000 1,718,000
18. Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace NHS........ 200,000 1,918,000
19. Russell Cave NM.......................... 202,000 2,120,000
20. Gila Cliff Dwellings NM.................. 205,000 2,325,000
21. Maggie L. Walker NHS..................... 210,000 2,535,000
22. City of Rocks National Reserve........... 211,000 2,746,000
23. Keweenaw NHP............................. 212,000 2,958,000
24. Gauley NRA............................... 217,000 3,175,000
25. Ninety Six NHS........................... 221,000 3,396,000
26. John F. Kennedy NHS...................... 225,000 3,621,000
27. Dayton Aviation NHP...................... 228,000 3,849,000
28. Manzanar NHS............................. 232,000 4,081,000
29. Moores Creek NB.......................... 238,000 4,319,000
30. Coronado NMem............................ 251,000 4,570,000
31. Hagerman Fossil Beds NM.................. 257,000 4,827,000
32. Eugene O'Neill NHS....................... 260,000 5,087,000
33. Cedar Breaks NM.......................... 263,000 5,350,000
34. Muir Woods NM............................ 273,000 5,623,000
35. Big Hole NB.............................. 274,000 5,897,000
36. Saint Paul's Church NHS.................. 280,000 6,177,000
37. William Howard Taft NHS.................. 283,000 6,460,000
38. Cowpens NB............................... 285,000 6,745,000
39. Edgar Allan Poe NHS...................... 286,000 7,031,000
40. Palo Alto Battlefield NHS................ 297,000 7,328,000
41. Pipe Spring NM........................... 297,000 7,625,000
42. Roger William NMem....................... 299,000 7,924,000
43. De Soto NMem............................. 302,000 8,226,000
44. Puukohola Heiau NHS...................... 302,000 8,528,000
45. Brown v. Board of Education NHS.......... 303,000 8,831,000
46. Mary McLeod Bethune Council House NHS.... 305,000 9,136,000
47. Fort Point NHS........................... 311,000 9,447,000
48. Mojave NP................................ 312,000 9,759,000
49. Klondike Gold Rush NHP (Seattle)......... 313,000 10,072,000
50. Monocacy NB.............................. 314,000 10,386,000
51. Horseshoe Bend NMP....................... 321,000 10,707,000
52. Knife River Indian Village NHS........... 322,000 11,029,000
53. Tonto NM................................. 322,000 11,351,000

[[Page H 9095]]

54. Natural Bridges NM....................... 327,000 11,678,000
55. Congaree Swamp NM........................ 328,000 12,006,000
56. Fort Caroline NMem....................... 336,000 12,342,000
57. Fort Union Trading Post NHS.............. 336,000 12,678,000
58. Friendship Hill NHS...................... 338,000 13,016,000
59. Charles Pickney NHS...................... 339,000 13,355,000
60. El Morro NM.............................. 342,000 13,697,000
61. Aztec Ruins NM........................... 343,000 14,040,000
62. Casa Grande Ruins NM and Hohokam Pima NM. 348,000 14,388,000
63. Tumacacori NHP........................... 353,000 14,741,000
64. Fossil Butte NM.......................... 357,000 15,098,000
65. Andrew Johnson NHS....................... 359,000 15,457,000
66. Piscataway Park.......................... 361,000 15,818,000
67. Weir Farm NHS............................ 367,000 16,185,000
68. Boston African American NHS.............. 376,000 16,561,000
69. Federal Hall NMem........................ 380,000 16,941,000
70. Stones River NB.......................... 380,000 17,321,000
71. Homestead NM of America.................. 382,000 17,703,000
72. Niobrara/Missouri NR..................... 387,000 18,090,000
73. Whitman Mission NHS...................... 388,000 18,478,000
74. Longfellow NHS........................... 389,000 18,867,000
75. Hampton NHS.............................. 391,000 19,258,000
76. John Muir NHS............................ 393,000 19,651,000
77. Agate Fossil Beds NM..................... 394,000 20,045,000
78. Oregon Caves NM.......................... 396,000 20,441,000
79. Capulin Volcano NM....................... 398,000 20,839,000
80. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Mem Parkway.... 400,000 21,239,000
81. Jimmy Carter NHS......................... 404,000 21,643,000
82. Arkansas Post NMem....................... 417,000 22,060,000
83. Guilford Courthouse NMP.................. 422,000 22,482,000
84. Florissant Fossil Beds NM................ 423,000 22,905,000
85. San Juan Island NHP...................... 431,000 23,336,000
86. Abraham Lincoln Birthplace NHS........... 450,000 23,786,000
87. Fort Union NM............................ 452,000 24,238,000
88. Effigy Mounds NM......................... 456,000 24,694,000
89. Fort Frederica NM........................ 466,000 25,160,000
90. Pipestone NM............................. 467,000 25,627,000
91. Fort Smith NHS........................... 472,000 26,099,000
92. Booker T. Washington NM.................. 477,000 26,576,000
93. Kings Mountain NMP....................... 478,000 27,054,000
94. Tuskegee Institute NHS................... 478,000 27,532,000
95. Timpanogos Cave NM....................... 482,000 28,014,000
96. Hopewell Culture NHP..................... 495,000 28,509,000
97. Eleanor Roosevelt NHS.................... 497,000 29,006,000
98. Ocmulgee NM.............................. 498,000 29,504,000
99. George Washington Carver NM.............. 499,000 30,003,000
100 Hubbell Trading Post NHS................. 501,000 30,504,000
101 Ulysses S. Grant NHS..................... 502,000 31,006,000
102 Castle Clinton NM........................ 503,000 31,509,000
103 Dry Tortugas NP.......................... 506,000 32,015,000
104 Fort Clatsop NMem........................ 510,000 32,525,000
105 Pea Ridge NMP............................ 511,000 33,036,000
106 Perry's Victory and Intnl Peace Memorial. 511,000 33,547,000
107 Scotts Bluff NM.......................... 516,000 34,063,000
108 Timucuan Ecological and Hist Preserve.... 517,000 34,580,000
109 Devils Tower NM.......................... 535,000 35,115,000
110 Ford's Theatre NHS....................... 537,000 35,652,000
111 Navajo NM................................ 539,000 36,191,000
112 George Rogers Clark NHP.................. 547,000 36,738,000
113 Christiansted NHS and Buck Island Reef NM 550,000 37,288,000
114 Golden Spike NHS......................... 552,000 37,840,000
115 Jewel Cave NM............................ 556,000 38,396,000
116 Fort Stanwix NM.......................... 558,000 38,954,000
117 Saint-Gaudens NHS........................ 559,000 39,513,000
118 Carl Sandburg Home NHS................... 563,000 40,076,000
119 General Grant NMem....................... 572,000 40,648,000
120 Kaloko-Honokohau NHP..................... 572,000 41,220,000
121 Grand Portage NM......................... 573,000 41,793,000
122 War in the Pacific NHP................... 575,000 42,368,000
123 El Malpais NM............................ 579,000 42,947,000
124 Little Bighorn NM........................ 581,000 43,528,000
125 Fort Scott NHS........................... 586,000 44,114,000
126 Fort Larned NHS.......................... 597,000 44,711,000
127 Appalachian NST.......................... 598,000 45,309,000
128 Fort Pulaski NM.......................... 601,000 45,910,000
129 Springfield Armory NHS................... 613,000 46,523,000
130 Saugus Iron Works NHS.................... 614,000 47,137,000
131 Johnstown Flood NMem..................... 622,000 47,759,000
132 Lincoln Boyhood NMem..................... 622,000 48,381,000
133 Black Canyon of the Gunnison NM.......... 624,000 49,005,000
134 Bent's Old Fort NHS...................... 648,000 49,653,000
135 Fort Donelson NB......................... 655,000 50,308,000
136 Andersonville NHS........................ 661,000 50,969,000
137 Craters of the Moon NM................... 661,000 51,630,000
138 Fort Davis NHS........................... 679,000 52,309,000
139 Martin Van Buren NHS..................... 687,000 52,996,000
140 Salinas Pueblo Missions NM............... 693,000 53,689,000
141 John Day Fossil Beds NM.................. 695,000 54,384,000
142 Hopewell Furnace NHS..................... 699,000 55,083,000
143 Great Sand Dunes NM...................... 704,000 55,787,000
144 Little River Canyon Nat'l Preserve....... 716,000 56,503,000
145 Pu'uhonua O'Honaunau NHP................. 726,000 57,229,000
146 Appomattox Court House NHP............... 728,000 57,957,000
147 Greenbelt Park........................... 733,000 58,690,000
148 Montezuma Castle NM and Tuzigoot NM...... 736,000 59,426,000
149 Wilson's Creek NB........................ 741,000 60,167,000
150 Sagamore Hill NHS........................ 744,000 60,911,000
151 Fort Laramie NHS......................... 746,000 61,657,000
152 Kennesaw Mountain NBP.................... 746,000 62,403,000
153 Petroglyph NM............................ 756,000 63,159,000
154 Herbert Hoover NHS....................... 760,000 63,919,000
155 Colorado NM.............................. 765,000 64,684,000
156 Lava Beds NM............................. 776,000 65,460,000
157 Mississippi NR and RA.................... 784,000 66,244,000
158 Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS.................... 786,000 67,030,000
159 Women's Rights NHP....................... 796,000 67,826,000
160 Arches NP................................ 798,000 68,624,000
161 Yukon-Charley Rivers Nat'l Preserve...... 802,000 69,426,000
162 Shiloh NMP............................... 806,000 70,232,000
163 Bering Land Bridge National Preserve..... 816,000 71,048,000
164 George Washington Birthplace NM.......... 839,000 71,887,000
165 Fort Vancouver NHS....................... 850,000 72,737,000
166 Chiricahua NM and Ft. Bowie NHS.......... 878,000 73,615,000
167 Sitka NHP................................ 888,000 74,503,000
168 Cabrillo NM.............................. 899,000 75,400,000
169 Harry S. Truman NHS...................... 902,000 76,302,000
170 Natchez NHP.............................. 912,000 77,214,000
171 Eisenhower NHS........................... 919,000 78,133,000
172 Fort Sumter NM........................... 929,000 79,062,000
173 Vanderbilt Mansion NHS................... 933,000 79,995,000
174 White Sands NM........................... 947,000 80,942,000
175 Kenai Fjords NP.......................... 949,000 81,891,000
176 Canyon de Chelly NM...................... 953,000 82,844,000
177 Saratoga NHP............................. 955,000 83,799,000
178 Salem Maritime NHS....................... 1,028,000 84,827,000
179 Manassas NBP............................. 1,038,000 85,865,000
180 Lake Clark NP and Preserve............... 1,055,000 86,920,000
181 Fort Necessity NB........................ 1,077,000 87,997,000
182 Cape Lookout NS.......................... 1,081,000 89,078,000
183 Pecos NHP................................ 1,081,000 90,159,000
184 Kalaupapa NHP............................ 1,091,000 91,250,000
185 Castillo de San Marcos NM and Ft.
Matanzas NM............................. 1,092,000 92,342,000
186 Richmond NBP............................. 1,120,000 93,462,000
187 Organ Pipe Cactus NM..................... 1,129,000 94,591,000
188 Nez Perce NHP............................ 1,141,000 95,732,000
189 Cumberland Island NS..................... 1,156,000 96,888,000
190 Fort McHenry NM and Historic Shrine...... 1,162,000 98,050,000
191 Baltimore-Washington Parkway............. 1,163,000 99,213,000
192 Mount Rushmore NMem...................... 1,198,000 100,411,000
193 Pictured Rocks NL........................ 1,209,000 101,620,000
194 Wind Cave NP............................. 1,214,000 102,834,000
195 Chaco Culture NHP........................ 1,273,000 104,107,000
196 Gates of the Arctic NP and Preserve...... 1,285,000 105,392,000
197 Cumberland Gap NHP....................... 1,292,000 106,684,000
198 Pinnacles NM............................. 1,294,000 107,978,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Richardson] realizes that the amendment of the gentleman failed 30 to 9
in committee.
Let me again point out, this is not a park closing bill. Nothing in
this act shall be construed as modifying or terminating any unit of the
National Park System without an act of Congress. That is clear. That is
the law we are trying to pass. The GAO came before the committee. They
said, it is a mess right now; we urge you to do something. This same
piece of legislation, with only one difference, and that was this
commission, passed unanimously in this House.
The GAO said, you have three options. Eliminate parks, reduce
service, or raise the fees. We are going to come before the American
people and ask to raise the fees. In 1960, if you drove your car up to
Yellowstone, it cost you $10 to get in. In 1995, if you drive to
Yellowstone, it is $10 to get in.
The parks are the best deal in America. We want to keep the parks, we
want to enhance the parks, we want to make the parks better. We are not
like this thing that points out here in the Washington Times of the
park giveaway. We do not agree with that idea from the Clinton
administration or Mr. Babbitt.
Please join us in supporting this bill. Let us do something good for
the national parks and pass this legislation and move on to other
legislation which is very important for the parks of America.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest a most
contentious piece of legislation that threatens the security of our
National Park System [NPS]. H.R. 260, the National Park System Reform
Act, puts in jeopardy more than 300 NPS units--some of our smallest and
lowest-budget parks, but units that nonetheless capture the essence of
our Nation's history, culture, and natural beauty.
The bill would call for a ``death list'' for parks in the development
of a National Park System Plan--a recommendation of units among
national recreation areas, monuments, preserves, historic sites, and
heritage areas--which may be proposed for termination under the bill.
This represents an outright denial of our responsibility to protect the
American legacy embodied in our national parks.
This bill would repudiate the expertise and discernment of the
National Park Service [Service] by instituting a review commission
similar to the commission overseeing closure of our military bases.
Additionally, Congressional distrust of the Department of Interior
[DOI] is evident by a stipulation that should DOI fail to produce the
National Park System Plan, this commission would be required to do so.
H.R. 260 would introduce a mechanism of excessive congressional
oversight in the termination or modification of NPS units by requiring
6 members of this 11-member commission to be appointed by congressional
leadership. Through passage of this bill, we would serve the park
system a tremendous disservice by allowing it to be highly politicized.
H.R. 260 would strip DOI--the administrative arm overseeing the NPS--
of its freedom to work with willing landowners, State governments or
municipalities in the creation of new park units. Without the ability
to enter into cooperative agreements, DOI will be compromised by an
additional level of bureaucracy. The Department will be forced to go
through the congressional process to establish new units, which in
several cases would mean unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars and a
waste of effort.
The State of Hawaii under H.R. 260 would be threatened with the loss
of five valuable parks. Kalaupapa National Historical Park is a
monument to those with crippling Hansen's Disease. Closure of this park
would be most tragic at this time when the figurehead of Kalaupapa,
Father Damien deVeuster, is undergoing the process of sainthood.
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is unique within the NPS as
the former site of a thriving settlement of one of our country's native
peoples--Native Hawaiians. Within the park's boundaries remain
plentiful evidence of the ancient Hawaiian culture that can be found in
no other place in the world other than the Hawaiian Islands.
Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park also holds very special
meaning for Native Hawaiians as the place of refuge--a sacred place
upholding basic rules of the Hawaiian society.
Pu'ukohola Heiau National Historical Park preserves a sense of the
deep spirituality of the Native Hawaiian people.
H.R. 260 also jeopardizes the future of USS Arizona Memorial which
sits at Pearl Harbor as the final resting place for many of the ship's
1,177 crewmen who lost their lives there in 1941.

[[Page H 9096]]

H.R. 260 would cheat current and future generations of a significant
part of American heritage and culture. The National Park System should
be reformed through an honest and effective review of park service
management and operations, not through the rash elimination of valuable
parks benefiting communities in every State.
I emphatically urge my colleagues to defeat this egregious
legislation.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I attach a great deal of importance to
our system of national parks. It includes many sites that reveal our
history and our respect of nature.
Just this past weekend, I had occasion to visit the national military
park at Gettysburg, PA. Who could question the wisdom of preserving our
country's heritage by providing such a park. That park and many others,
including one of the crown jewels, Yosemite National Park, located in
my own congressional district, are examples of what national parks are
supposed to be. It is out of a concern for the future of our national
parks that I support H.R. 260, the National Park Service Reform Act.
This legislation will help solve many of the problems currently
facing the National Park Service [NPS] so that it can better meet its
objectives of serving visitors and protecting the natural and cultural
resources entrusted to it. H.R. 260 does not close a single park or
unit. It does require the NPS to further develop a plan and mission for
the agency. It then requires that the NPS review the existing 368 areas
managed by the agency to determine whether all of them should continue
to be managed by the NPS. Any NPS recommendation for the closure of an
NPS unit would be subject to review by an independent commission and
would require the passage of a separate act of Congress.
As a member of the National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee, I
commend Chairman James Hansen's able leadership for prompting the
General Accounting Office's [GAO] telling August 1995 report entitled,
``National Parks: Difficult Choices Need To Be Made About the Future of
the Parks.'' The GAO report sights what I, too, view as a ``further
deterioration in--national--park conditions.'' I want to acknowledge my
acceptance of one of the remedial routes offered in the GAO report,
namely, cutting back on the number of units in the system. We do not
want to clutter the system with Steamtowns and Suitland Parkways
without considering budgetary factors. Though as I said recently in the
Fresno Bee, this process ``won't be easy and I'm not saying there won't
be problems.''
It is true that some national park entities might eventually be
transferred out of the National Park System. Some such transfers may
well be warranted, and they would not be new. Just last year the
Kennedy Center in Washington, DC., was transferred out of the National
Park System. The Kennedy Center still operates, and people still enjoy
attending concerts there, but it is simply under new management.
Similarly, commuter highways serving Washington, DC, like the Suitland
and Baltimore-Washington Parkways should be considered for new
management outside of NPS.
It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that H.R. 260 has the support
of both Republican and Democrat members of the Resources Committee,
which has jurisdiction over this legislation. It is a good bill, and I
am convinced that it will help bring fiscal sanity to the operation of
the NPS.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 260. I am
especially troubled that a controversial bill, with bipartisan
opposition, would be considered under the Suspension Calendar.
There are some much needed reforms proposed in this bill, including
the establishment of a National Park System plan and the requirement
for suitability studies of future potential parks.
However, this bill would also seek to sell off much of our Nation's
natural, cultural, and recreational heritage: our National Parks.
This bill would create a politically appointed commission whose sole
purpose would be to close National Parks for alleged budgetary
concerns, not to achieve Park Service reform.
Mr. Speaker, look no further than the recently passed Republican
budget for the rationale behind this closure-commission: a 10 percent
cut in National Park Service funds, a 5-year land acquisition
moratorium, and a 50 percent cut in NPS construction.
This legislation could have a dramatic impact on my Congressional
District. My constituency is proud to have three scenic and
historically significant park units located within its borders. The
pristine environment and preserved historical viewshed of Mount Vernon
is captured within the nearly 4,500 acres of Piscataway Park.
This park is just one of the nearly 370 National Parks frequented
last year alone by more than 260 million people from the world over.
Greenbelt Park is one of the last truly development-free plots of
land left in the Washington Metropolitan Area. This park serves to
remind Marylanders of the importance of our environment and our
resources.
Mr. Speaker, in addition, I was very proud to have the home of Thomas
Stone, an original signer of the Declaration of Independence, located
in Charles County designated as a national historic site in 1993.
If we would have lost that historical plot of land, we would almost
never have the opportunity to get it back again. All three of these
parks, which benefit not only the citizens of the Fifth Congressional
District, but also all Americans, would be eligible for closure under
this legislation.
However, this House ought not be fooled about the intent of this
bill. Members on the other side insist that a park-closure commission
is necessary to prioritize for the National Park Service.
What we are in essence telling the Park Service is that you do not
know how to do your job--that after years of management and oversight
we are now going to go over your heads and let a politically appointed
commission decide what to keep open and what to close.
We just create another level of bureaucracy at a time when people are
claiming to reduce bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker, what we need is financial management reform, and
enhancement of resource protection efforts. This will enable us to deal
with needed Park Service reform without selling off our Nation's most
valuable lands and resources.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this short-sighted and very damaging
bill so that we can consider commonsense reform that will also protect
our Nation's most prized lands.
H.R. 2181, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Representatives Richardson,
Boehlert, and Morella does just that while not abandoning our efforts
to preserve our Nation's history and beauty.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
bringing HR 260 to the floor under Suspension of the Rules. This
procedure should be reserved for non-controversial legislation which
has widespread bi-partisan support. I do not believe that HR 260 fits
this description. By placing this measure on the Suspension Calendar,
the majority is denying Members the ability to offer amendments to this
potentially far-reaching bill. By closing off debate, Members on both
sides of the aisle will be denied the opportunity to vote on an
alternative which the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Richardson, my
colleagues from New York, Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Boehlert, and I have
introduced. Members of this body should have the opportunity to vote on
our alternative which will improve management of the Park System
without creating a special commission to close our parks. If Members
want to keep our parks open, especially smaller and urban parks, then
they should vote against HR 260.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that HR 260 is designed to close some of our
parks, national monuments, urban recreation areas and historic sites.
This bill establishes a BRAC-style commission charged with developing a
list of park units which should be removed from Federal management and
ownership. Make no mistake about it, this bill would not create a
special commission unless it had closure in mind. I do not support
closing any of our parks and I do not believe the American people
support such action. Contrary to what the advocates of HR 260 will
argue, we have not created parks ``willy nilly.'' I believe that each
unit of the Park System is nationally significant and represents an
important part of our history, culture and heritage. We have set aside
spectacular natural treasures, homes of Presidents and recreation areas
for the benefit of future generations. The Federal Government has a
responsibility to protect these resources, interpret and communicate
their significance, and make them available to every American. I do not
believe any other entity can adequately safeguard these assets while
making them widely available to every citizen.
I am also concerned that HR 260 is merely one in a long line of
proposals put forth by some of our Republican colleagues to transfer
large tracts of Federal land to States or private interests. For
example, legislation have been introduced to transfer more than 260
million acres of Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to a handful of western States. With the
enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Congress
and the American people made a commitment to preserve Federal ownership
of public lands. These lands contain billions of dollars worth of
minerals, timber and other natural resources and provide hundreds of
millions of Americans with recreational opportunities. These proposals
will benefit narrow special interests at the expense of the
vast majority of the American people.

The bill that Mr. Richardson has developed will improve management of
our National Park System, generate important revenue to assist the
National Park Service [NPS] in addressing a multibillion dollar
maintenance backlog, and

[[Page H 9097]]
ensure that our national treasures are protected for generations to
come. It requires the Service to develop a master plan for the system
which includes an inventory of existing resources and prioritizes which
cultural, natural, and historical resources should be added to the
system. It streamlines the process of designating new units by
requiring the Service to annually provide the Congress with a list of
areas to be studied and those areas of sufficient national significance
to warrant inclusion in the system. Finally, our bill requires Congress
to authorize studies and designate new park units to ensure that this
body retains final authority to determine the scope of the system.
Our bill will also reform out-dated parks concession policy. The
current framework was put in place when our parks were remote,
visitorship was low and companies had to be enticed to offer visitor
services. Today, more than 270 million people visit our parks yearly,
easy access is provided via highways and airports, and operating a
business in our parks is extremely lucrative. While business is great
for concessioners, the American people have failed to receive a fair
return for the privilege of operating in their national parks. In 1994,
while concessioners earned more than $640 million from park operations,
the American people received only $19 million in franchise fees, or
about 3 percent of gross receipts. To make matters worse, there is no
competition in the awarding of concession contracts and companies
receive possessory interest in structures in the public's parks.
Possessory interest forces the American people to pay concessioners for
the privilege of doing business in their parks. Moveover, possessory
interest is not enjoyed by concessioners in sports stadiums or
airports.
Our bill contains the text of legislation passed by the House in the
103d Congress which would completely overhaul concession policy. It
requires contracts to be awarded on a competitive basis and provide a
fair return to the American taxpayers. It eliminates possessory
interest and allocates franchise fees to our parks to support a wide
range of activities. At the same time, it protects the interests of
river guides, outfitters, and other small businesses who provide
specialized services and are overwhelmingly family-run operations.
These provisions will ensure that the American people continue to
receive high-quality services and begin to enjoy a fair return on the
use of their resources.
Finally, this legislation will also generate additional revenue to
support park operations by authorizing moderate fee increases at parks
which are currently authorized to charge fees. By allowing fees to
increase slightly at certain park units, we can generate badly needed
revenue to improve park roads and trails and to safeguard increasingly
threatened natural resources. It is estimated that this measure will
generate $30 million in revenue to maintain our parks. Importantly,
these fees will go into a special fund in the Treasury which will be
directly available to the Secretary of Interior for park-related
purposes. This provision guarantees that fees paid by visitors will go
to the parks and not be used to offset the deficit or to fund other
programs. The American people are willing to pay a little more as long
as they know that their entrance fees will be reinvested in the parks.

Mr. Speaker, by bringing H.R. 260 to the floor under Suspension of
the Rules, the Republican leadership is denying Members on both sides
of the aisle the opportunity to vote for a reasonable alternative. Once
again, we see that talk about openness and giving Members of this body
the opportunity to work their will is hollow. As a result, the American
people are going to see their parks close or be sold to the highest
bidder. These treasures are too important to be a pawn in a game of
legislative chess. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 260.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, it is with both surprise and concern that
a piece of legislation as far reaching, complex, and, yes,
controversial, would be offered on the Suspension Calendar. This bill,
H.R. 260, passed through the Resources Committee by a 34 to 8 vote
which does, superficially, indicate there may be the \2/3\ support that
is necessary for a suspension bill to pass. However, there are serious
dissenting views that should be considered and debated by Members of
Congress.
In addition, another bill was introduced by beginning of August by
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and
Lands, Representative Bill Richardson, that has bipartisan support. Two
Republicans, Mr. Boehlert and myself, and two Democrats are original
cosponsors. I feel very strongly that Members should be allowed to
consider this thoughtful and comprehensive substitute bill, H.R. 2181,
inasmuch as H.R. 260 is not the only choice we have to manage effective
reform of our National Park System.
H.R. 2181 was introduced primarily in response to the more
contentious sections of H.R. 260, including Section 103, National Park
System Review Commission, which includes the establishment of what has
been characterized as a Park Closing Commission. This section is very
troublesome to me because I believe that it is unnecessary--a system
already exists to close any park that does not meet specified
standards. And it is overly threatening to the smaller, less glamorous
parks in our system that lack a voice of advocacy, but represent an
idea, a culture, or an area that is significant to our national
heritage. I have two parks in my district that could come under this
classification: Glen Echo Park and the C & O Canal Historical Park. I
suspect that almost every Member of Congress has similar unheralded
park in their district.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are entitled to a full
discussion of H.R. 260 on the floor of the House.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 260, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule
I, and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this
motion will be postponed.

____________________