I think it is important that we proceed very cautiously before we make fundamental changes in the current organization or arrangements of the National Park Service, and I hope that my colleagues will think twice before we march off this cliff and decide that we need to return to the era of the 1930's and 1940's in terms of organization of the National Park Service and its relationship to the rest of the Government. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing. I think it is an important subject, and I look forward to hearing from our wit nesses. I yield back. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Lagomarsino, the gentleman from California? Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could say amen to what my friend from Wyoming has said, but I would like to make a few comments myself. While I understand what you are trying to do with this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I am not convinced at all that this is the best means to achieve the desired results. Clearly, we all on this committee are interested in what is best for the National Park Service, and while one can certainly come up with horror stories relating to the management of any agency or company, including the National Park Service, I do feel the system has worked quite well for the National Park Service over the years, and particularly in the last few years. The National Park System and its budget have grown considerably since its establishment in 1960, and I think that is another thing that we could comment on with regard to Congress and the National Park Service. We have loaded the National Park Service with all kinds of additional duties. We have created I don't know how many new national parks. I created one myself. We have also created many other units of the National Park Service that are not national parks. So obviously, with all of this, there will be strains, and you will find an increase in problems. In addition, the Federal budget reductions required by spiraling deficits have taken a toll on many Federal programs, including those on the National Park Service. However, I believe that we have a National Park System Director of whom we can all be proud. I don't know anybody in this whole country who is more qualified than Bill Mott to be the Director of the National Park Service, and I for one am not going to vote for any kind of a bill that would even impliedly criticize him, and I think this bill does that, although I know that is not your intention, Mr. Chairman. And while the current system may need some fine tuning, I feel that H.R. 3964 goes too far. It raises a number of questions, including Constitutional issues, which must be addressed, and before we attempt to fix something I believe we should make sure it is broken. I would point out, too, Mr. Chairman, that in just a few months now we are going to have a new administration. I don't know if it will be a Democratic administration or a Republican one. I hope it is the latter, but who knows at this point? In any event, I would think that such a major reorganization as is being proposed here should be one that the new administration, whoever it is, should be consulted on. So I would hope that we would go at this very carefully and very slowly, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CRAIG. I guess I get frustrated over these kinds of proposals. I recognize your sincerity, Mr. Chairman, in your approach to effect what you perceive to be valuable change in the way the National Park Service is managed. You used the word "politics" in your opening comments. I would have to think that what you are doing also has its own political point of view other than the one that you might disapprove of that might have been administering the parks over the last several years. I guess you can also make effective headlines when we use those cherished words "historical national environmental treasure" or "treasures" that we always like to use when we talk about both the crown jewels of our environment, the national parks of our Nation. They are something that always evoke emotion, and we rally necessary support or oftentimes the kind of support that is necessary to make change, and that all calls for good rhetoric. But I question whether it calls for good management. It is interesting that you are proposing legislation that speaks of the kind of term that my colleague referred to, "micromanagement" of a system by giving authority, greater authority, to the Congress, and yet I look around this room and the committee members today, and I suggest if this is micromanagement then Congress ought not be involved in it because until this will make headlines in the local paper, a good many people in this committee are not going to be willing to come and take the time to become involved in the management the way Mr. Mott does on a daily basis with his fine administrative staff. I think it is important that we recognize our own ability, our own time limitations, and also cast some of the blame, if there is blame, for the way the parks have been managed over the last good many years right back on Congress itself. We know who has the budget authority and who appropriates the money, and you can make all kinds of excuses for what administrations send to Congress as the appropriate level, but the bottom line is if we choose to appropriate more than any administration ever wanted it usually gets spent where we want it spent. So there is criticism to go around, and when something is not running right, the great bureaucratic approach is, well, let's restructure it, let's change it in such a way that me and my own personal interests are going to have a greater amount of authority over the way it is being run, and I suggest that H.R. 3964 approaches that from the point of view that I just reflected, and if it does and if it becomes law, I really question if the National Park Service is going to be run any better than the way it is being run right now if in fact it is the greater responsibility of this committee to micromanage something that it cannot possibly do at this time. My colleague from California spoke of a Constitutional concern in an administrative agency having the authority to bypass the administration. I guess it is called a separation of powers and the nec essary Constitutional responsibility that goes along with it, a lot of debate going on in this country today as to the responsibility of the-of an administration versus the responsibility of Congress. It is only natural that we would grope for greater amounts of power, but the question is can we responsibly handle them. I would suggest that we have all the power we need if we use it and use it in the way that it was so designed under current law and that this bill, as I understand it and as I have read it, is simply not appropriate or unnecessary. If we do the job that we are sent here to do, we have the power to make the changes necessary the way we would want them made. Restructuring the system will not serve it well. It will not depoliticize it. It will not bring about the kind of changes that, Mr. Chairman, I think you want through this kind of legislative effort. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Lewis, the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend you for bringing forth H.R. 3964. I think it is a thoughtful piece of legislation. I think it will go a great deal down that road toward protecting our National Park System, and I will be supporting H.R. 3964. Thank you. Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for his support. Ms. Vucanovich. Ms. VUCANOVICH. I thank the Chairman. I certainly am pleased that we are having this hearing because I think we should perhaps discuss these issues. But I am inclined to agree with my colleague Mr. Craig over here, who feels that it is micromanagement. I believe it is. I don't think that it is our committee's job to get into the administration of the National Park Service, and so forth. I just have to say I have worked with Bill Mott in developing a park, the Great Basin Park. We had the chairman out there. I think Mr. Mott has been very responsive to our committee, but also to the needs of the people of our country, and I am not convinced that the system needs to be changed. I think that Mr. Mott has done a good job, and I think if we have any concerns about what he has done, I think maybe we ought to try to change that or have some input with him. I am inclined to oppose this bill, and I thank the chairman for the time, and I yield back my time. Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Hansen, do you have any opening comment? Mr. HANSEN. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VENTO. I don't want to get into a debate with my-with the members. When is the right timing to bring up a bill like this? I think the gentleman from California pointed out we do not know what the results of the November election will be. So it is going to be evenhanded in that particular sense. In this instance to bring it forth at this time I think really treats both our political partisans alike, and I think in terms of what we are looking for, and of what I am looking for, obviously is not a partisan advantage on this particular issue. If we bring it up later, I expect next year if there is a Democrat elected that there would be a whole contingency of different views that might prevail in some quarters. So I think we all can sit back and look at this. Obviously, we have to point out the deficiencies in the existing system in order to justify a change. I do not apologize for that. I think that is what is necessary, and I think we are trying to strive to get a better system. So in any case, hopefully some of the questions that come out today will permit us to find a policy path that is workable. Indeed, I think that the micromanagement of the National Park System is going to be accelerated under the existing system where we find a lot of personal views and Assistant Secretaries involved. I think that invites the kind of participation on the part of the Appropriations Committee to be involved as well as this committee in terms of the day-to-day management unless you have a solid professional core in which judgments are based. If the issue is going to be whoever can wield political pressure, then that is going to be an activity that Congress is well attuned to deal with and we are fighting off day to day. I think some days we have to be known by what we oppose as well as what we favor in terms of some suggestions for inclusion in the Park System. Before proceeding to our first witness, and without objection, let us have printed at this point in the hearing record, a copy of the bill, H.R. 3964. [The bill, H.R. 3964, follows:] 100TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. 3964 To establish a National Park System Review Board, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. VENTO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on I 1 A BILL To establish a National Park System Review Board, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM REVIEW BOARD. 4 (a) ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS.-There is 5 hereby established a National Park System Review Board 6 (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "Board"). The 7 Board shall maintain a continuing review of programs and 8 activities of the National Park Service and of existing and 9 proposed national park system units. The Board shall trans10 mit to the President and to each House of the Congress an 11 annual report containing the results of its review, together |