2. often than not have neither background nor experience on their side--have taken it Battling for the National Parks as I point out in my soon to be published book, that politics have returned to the national parks where Mather and Albright found them in 1916. Only about five per cent (5%) of the employees in the Washington office of the Directorate have ever pulled a day of duty in a national park--a condition as absurd as operating a Navy with a corps that has never sailed a ship. We must not allow politics to ruin the National Park Service as we have known it. Having heard your keynote address at the Convocation of the National Parks and Conservation Association on March 15, 1988, Mr. Chairman, I know you understand the crisis confronting the Service and I applaud your willingness to try to find solutions so that it can do its job. Your leadership is appreciated by all those dedicated to the mission of the National Park Service. The task is not a simple one. H.R. 3964 focuses attention on this problem and offers a constructive opportunity to redirect responsibility for management of the National Park System back to the career professionals where it belongs. As I see it, your bill would do two things: 3. First, it establishes a three-member Review Board in an effort to bring reason and rationality back to the Second, it provides for the Presidential appointment This is the course I support a fixed statutory term for the Director. the Congress followed in restoring professional integrity and public confidence in the management of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In that case, the Congress established a statutory term of ten (10) years for the Director. I respectfully suggest that five (5) years for the Director of the National Park Service is too short a tenure although it is a marked improvement over our recent experience of five (5) Directors in fifteen (15) years. When the fixed term is combined with the Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, that should assure needed continuity and a greater degree of responsibility in the selection of a Director. If there is a suggestion to be made here, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the bill should state in broad terms the qualities and qualifications that a suitable Director should possess. Turning to the other element of the bill -- the Review Board: As I understand it, the Board would be a permanent full-time administrative entity with its own professional full-time staff. Its responsibilities would be relatively broad, including investigative, review and reporting activities as well as substantive management duties, i.e., budget recommendations to the Congress. As presently drafted, the first category of responsilitities appears to duplicate the oversight duties of the Congress, as well as to overlap the investigative responsibilities of the General Accounting Office and the review functions of the Advisory Board on the National Park System. 4. Under the terms of the bill, the second category of responsibilities seems to place the Board in a key management role over the Director and appears to infringe upon the overall management responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior particularly with respect to budget formulation. To function effectively, I believe that the Director and the Secretary must work directly together to foster and promote park values through common management objectives. It appears to me that there are some inherent inconsistencies in taking budget formulation from the Secretary of the Interior while keeping the National Park Service within the Department. I realize that in the recent past mutual cooperation in the management of the Service and its programs has been lacking, but the question which must be answered is: Will this Board restore this needed compatability? If your Subcommittee finds that it will, then I suggest some other questions should be addressed: (1) Is the Board large enough to be representative of the (2) (3) National Park System? Should Board members be full-time government employees Is it wise to require Board members to serve full-time individuals, such as for example Laurance S. Rockefeller 5. (4) To what extent would the activities of the Board and its employees duplicate or conflict with the responsibili ties of professional employees of the Service? Mr. Chairman, even though I have reservations about the efficacy of the Review Board as now proposed, I heartily agree that the Director should have the benefit of outside advice in the performance of that difficult position. We now have a National Parks Advisory Board. In years past, this organization provided invaluable professional and practical guidance to the National Park Service and was very helpful to the Congress. Unfortunately, the Advisory Board, too, has been politicized. Perhaps, it could regain its role as a constructive contributor to National Park policies and programs if its charter were reviewed and revised to make it more effective. H.R. 3964 significantly addresses internal aspects of the crisis in our National Park System, but there are other equally serious threats to the integrity of our National Park System. Major threats lie outside the boundaries of our parks. I have addressed this issue in the last chapter of my book. Το deal with this aspect of the crisis, I have suggested a Congressionally sanctioned Register of Natural Places and a legislatively mandated President's Council on Nature Preservation to advise, mediate and propose solutions to the competing and oft-times conflicting demands and programs that impact adversely on our national parks. I realize that this subject is not addressed by H.R. 3964, Mr. Chairman, but I felt it useful to bring it to your attention. In this regard, you and Members of the Subcommittee and your staff may find it useful and instructive to examine the record and legislation (Historic Preservation Act of 1966) enacted by the Congress when, in the nineteen-sixties, the preservation of our cultural heritage was at risk. Such a review may suggest some ideas to meet the external |