Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

ability. But the question is once the appointments are made, there should be some continuity in terms of the management of the National Park Service and land management issues. I do not think that they are severable in terms of their continuity like other issues. We go before the Appropriations Committee to fund them. You do not change the 1916 Organic Act with a 1978 law. I think there is a balance here trying to strike whether you live next to a park, generally I would make that argument.

So, trying to establish the proper autonomy-and I think that is what we are trying to do now—and not remove it completely from the political process. Indeed, it still would be a factor. They can weigh in with the issues.

I would like just to call your attention, Mr. Reed, and others, to the presentation I made before the Appropriations Committee which talks about the decline in appropriations for national resource agencies, and I have asked my staff to bring over copies of this if you are going to be here for a while.

I think you would find it very interesting, perhaps not surprising, to realize that we are talking about all of the natural resources agencies. The graph goes from 1.9 percent of the total Federal budget to 1.2 percent now. That is the decline in actual dollars, 1980-89.

Money can make up a lot of things. It makes a lot of difference. It has a big impact. So, when Mr. Reed was commenting that the problem isn't entirely structural, I wholly agree.

My problem is that I have to go to the Appropriations Committee and make this presentation. Nobody else especially the administration is doing it.

Mr. REED. That is a very good point, Mr. Chairman. I wish every member of the committee was right behind you on his way into the hearing room that day, and I wish every member from the environmental community remembered where that chamber was also.

Mr. VENTO. We are trying to rebuild that, but unfortunately I think too late there is recognition after things have declined to this state. As I look ahead, I do not want an appointment of Dukakis or Bush or whoever it is going to be to be the one that is going to be able to play the budget games that have gone on here.

I think that in order to deal with some of the problems, you have to deal with the structure of the way that this individual is confirmed and then we have to get behind it and support the efforts of that director.

I think that so many, many of our problems could be addressed in that particular concept. It is not a panacea, but at least it would give these people the person that is in that role or the board members in these various roles the freedom and the ability to advocate. I think environmental issues continue as a major concern throughout our society and certainly should have our best effort and have them represented at the national level so that we do not face this kind of phenomenon again, if at all possible, to avoid it.

The Garden Club, I was very impressed with your testimony, Ms. Kelly, and I regret that I in calling you to testify referred to you as Ms. Boulton, when your husband has two last names, I get in trouble.

The point was I was very impressed to note that first of all, my wife was a member of the Garden Club in our area, and I am sure it was affiliated. And No. 2, that in each one of the communities, each one of the parks, you have a garden club that has a contract to work with park issues, a specific park in the area. I was very impressed with that.

I think that builds the kind of relationship that helps foster the support for the parks, and that program is a program that is working well, I take it.

Ms. KELLY. Yes. It has been in greater force more recently, I think because we are beginning to worry about some of the inroads on the parks and the misuse of some of the resources. So, actually, in the last 2 years it has been reemphasized, which is extraordinary when you see your allocations, your budgetary allocations, go down. Our interest is more enthused, and we are always delighted to support anything that will strengthen the park system.

Mr. VENTO. We are obviously making a major effort on the budget. The chairman, Mr. Udall, has introduced legislation to create a heritage trust which we hope will deal with trying to provide protection of resources by purchase of those resources.

And a third major initiative that is planned this year is park protection, to recognize that park units, historic units, cultural resource units, are not alone in an ocean of tranquility but in an ocean of some storms that are going on around them, and if you do not deal with the waters coming over the side of the park borders, pretty soon you sink the park and turn it into something other than what it ever was intended.

We are going to try to address those three major issues-worked on by many members of this committee, I might add, not just this member, but also members of other committees. Hopefully, while we have some rough wind in committee here, I think eventually reason will prevail. These are not Democratic or Republican issues, they are resource issues, and hopefully we will get individuals to respond in that way, recognizing the advisability of a public policy path that is strengthened by these types of actions.

This panel has done a wonderful job in representing the conservation community and in terms of the professional community from past work that you have done. We appreciate your participation in this, and we look to work with you as we try to perfect my imperfect effort to achieve some autonomy for the Park Service.

Thank you very much.

AFTER RECESS

Mr. VENTO. The committee will resume its sitting.

PANEL CONSISTING OF GEORGE B. HARTZOG, JR. FORMER DI

RECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; AND HOWARD CHAPMAN, RETIRED, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Mr. VENTO. Did you have prepared testimony, George? Are you going to submit that at a later date?

Mr. HARTZOG. No, sir. I gave you 50 copies.
Mr. VENTO. OK. We have it somewhere there.

We have Mr. Chapman's statement. We don't have yours. But why don't you proceed. Without objection, it will be made part of the record, and you may proceed.

Mr. HARTZOG. I didn't read my horoscope this morning, but Mrs. Hartzog did, and when she dropped me off at the front door, she told me that it says that today I will be in the right place at the right time.

(Laughter.]

Mr. HARTZOG. So, I consider that to be true because it is a pleasure to be here to support the objectives of your bill H.R. 3964. I have summarized that statement in a brief 1-page summary on top of my statement.

Briefly, what it says is that I support a statutory term for the director, with appointment by the President and Senate confirmation. I think 5 years is too short. I recommend 10 years because the review board is permanent, full-time, duplicates the oversight functions of the Congress in important ways, overlaps investigative role for the General Accounting Office, the advisory functions of the advisory board on national parks, and contravenes budget authority of the Secretary. I have reservations as to the efficacy of that board.

H.R. 3964 significantly addresses management problems in our national parks. In your opening statement you identified many threats to the integrity of the national parks that lie outside the legislative boundaries. There are no villains here, only agencies, public and private, and individuals pursuing their own interests. However, the sum total of these interests frequently impact adversely on our national parks. To deal with this aspect of the crisis in our national parks, in my book, Battling for the national parks, which hopefully will be published Wednesday, I have suggested the need for a congressionally sanctioned register of natural places and a legislatively mandated President's council on nature preservation to advise, mediate, and propose solutions among these legitimate and ofttimes competing and conflicting public interest issues.

In this connection, I invite your attention to the record and the legislation enacted by the Congress when in the 1960's the preservation of our cultural heritage was at risk, as is our natural heritage today. Coupled with such a presidential advisory commission to deal with agency conflicts outside the national parks and a reexamination and strengthening of the Secretary's advisory board on national parks, I believe that the Director will have the outside support and advice that he needs in order to do the job effectively.

Thank you very much.

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Hartzog, for the summary of your testimony. We have also with us Mr. Howard Chapman.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hartzog follows:]

[ocr errors][merged small]

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Sub-Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear in support of the objectives of H.R. 3964. My full statement is attached. With your permission I request that it be included in the record. In the interest of your time, the statement is summarized, as follows:

1.

I support a fixed statutory term--with appointment by the

President and Senate confirmation--for the Director.

I suggest that a five (5)

year tenure is too short and propose a term of ten (10) years as in the case of

the FBI.

2.

Because its functions seem to duplicate the oversight of the

Congress, overlap the investigative role of the General Accounting office, the

advisory functions of the Advisory Board on National Parks and contravene the

budget authority of the Secretary, I have reservations as to the efficacy of a

permanent 3-Member Review Board as now proposed.

3.

H.R. 3964 significantly addresses the internal management crisis

of our national parks.

There are many threats to the integrity of the national

parks--described by former Director Newton B. Drury as America's Crown Jewels-

that lie outside their legislative boundaries.

There are no villans here--only

agencies (public and private) and individuals pursuing their own interests.

How

ever, the sum total of these interests (timber harvesting, mining, oil, gas, geo

thermal leasing, exploration and production)--frequently impact adversely on our

national parks.

To deal with this aspect of the crisis in our national parks, in my

book--Battling for the National Parks--I have suggested the need for a Congression

ally sanctioned Register of Natural Places and a legislatively mandated President's

Council on Nature Preservation to advise, mediate and propose solutions among these

legitimate, but oft-times competing and conflicting public interest issues.

In this

connection, I invite your attention to the record and legislation enacted by the

Congress (Historic Preservation Act of 1966) when in the nineteen-sixties the pre

servation of our cultural heritage was at risk.

Thank you very much.

Statement of

George B. Hartzog, Jr.
Former Director, National Park Service

Before the
SUB-COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

of the
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

May 10, 1988

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the oppor

tunity to appear in support of the objectives of H.R. 3964.

The national park idea first adopted by the Congress in the Yellow

stone National Park legislation of 1872 is a unique contribution of the United

States to world culture.

In the decades since then, the Congress has created a

National Park System consisting of more than three-hundred (300) parks represent

ing vignettes of our natural endowment, remnants of our historical and cultural

heritage and expansive landscapes for outdoor recreation for our increasingly

urban population.

The National Park Service

an elite cadre of career civil servants

admired the world over for their professional discipline and dedication to public

service

is charged with leadership in fulfilling the Congressional mandate to

manage these national parklands "in such manner and by such means as will leave

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." However, even as it

struggles against the mounting threats to the integrity of our national parks, the

National Park Service, itself has come under political assault.

Unwittingly, at best; intentionally, at worst, there has been a tend

ency in recent years for political bureaucrats to meddle in the management of our

parklands.

Instead of allowing the professionals charged with this difficult job

the latitude to do it, political appointees--and especially their staffs--who more

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »