Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much. Madam President, I want to say--which has already been said a number of times--how pleased I am that we are moving forward on this important legislation. I am a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we worked very hard last year to bring this to the Senate. Of course, as you know, we found some problems, particularly with the House version, and ended up with a temporary bill. That temporary bill expires the first of May, and all of us, I think, are aware of how important it is for us to get on into the permanent reauthorization of this bill so that our various State highway commissions can go forward with their plans. The current ISTEA law has certainly, over the years, made some important changes in our whole transportation program, our transportation policies. It has changed things a great deal. We have come up with a national system of Federal highways. We have found a way to protect this system and to cause it to be effective. But as we move into the 21st century, we need, of course, to update this law as it was passed to make it more flexible, to make it such that the States can deal with the unique issues that they have. I am from Wyoming where we have probably more miles and fewer people, more miles per person than, I suspect, most any other State in the Union. So our needs are quite different than they are in California, than they are in New York or Rhode Island. And this ISTEA bill tends to recognize that with more flexibility and more efficiency by reducing some of the regulations that go with it, by putting programs together and helping us to meet the challenges that are before us. It is not perfect, of course. I believe ISTEA II achieves this goal of efficiency and flexibility, and creates ``new rules of the road'' that serve the national interest and will help us to build the highways--I hate to be repetitive--and bridges of the 21st century. I heard that somewhere before. At any rate, my State, as is the case with all other States, has road needs. And our roads are in a condition such that they need a good deal of repair, a good deal of maintenance. Again, Wyoming is unique. Wyoming taxpayers contribute more to the highway trust fund per person than any other State in the country because we drive more--nearly $200 per person in Federal gas taxes. And yet we have a deteriorating bridge and road system. According to the best figures I get from our highway department, 44 percent of our roads and bridges are in a deteriorating condition, in a fair to poor condition. So we have a great deal to do. These shortfalls, of course, in the roads of Wyoming, as in other States' roads, are a detriment to all taxpayers. If we are to have a national system, then, of course, you have to cross all the States to get there. A set of efficient and well-maintained roads is important to the cities that export goods around the country, as they are to us in Wyoming. This bill, of course, and all of the activities and dollars that go with it are a very direct contribution to the Nation's economy. These dollars move out quickly. These dollars move to fill the needs of people throughout the country, provide jobs, and are very efficiently used in a very quick fashion. So ISTEA II will help the flow of goods and services in our country. We worked very hard. I want to salute the chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, who worked so hard to find, along with others, a fair solution. This is a difficult issue. Through the years, as everyone knows now, we have taken in more money from Federal highway taxes than we have spent. We kept it in the trust fund, at least partially, to help balance the budget. We have a unified budget, so if you spend the money, even if it is in the trust fund, you spend the money in the highway fund, then you have to reduce the spending somewhere else in order to stay within the spending caps. That is not easy. So the first discussion we have had-- it has been a very difficult one--is how much of that money do you spend without impeding on the other spending? The second difficult one, of course, is that of the formula in which there is distribution. There is always great controversy about the formula. There are States that pay in more than they, frankly, get back. There are States that get more than they pay in. There are those who believe all the dollars should go to highways. There are others who believe part of the money--this is, after all, a surface transportation bill--some of the dollars ought to go for public transportation, some ought to go for Amtrak, some ought to go for bicycle trails, and those kinds of things. So I suspect, of all the bills that we deal with, No. 1, everyone wants to pass it, everyone knows that it needs to go forward. But there are so many different kinds of interests that are represented here--and legitimate, all legitimate. So finding a fair funding formula, based on the national interests, is most difficult. I admire very much what the leadership of this committee has done. And it is there to emphasize a National Highway System. I think that is key--a National Highway System. Let me talk just a minute about an issue that I guess I would have to admit is particularly important to me, but I think to others as well. I happen to be chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks. We find ourselves with national parks that are being loved to death. More and more people like to go to parks, but at the same time we find ourselves $5 billion to $8 billion in arrears in infrastructure. Nearly $2 billion of that backlog is in highways. And, of course, parks only have one source of revenue, really, for the maintenance of their highways, and that is Federal taxes. Counties do not come in to Federal parks and build roads as they do in some other public lands. The State does not contribute to the highways inside of parks. So we have found that a high percentage of existing park roads and bridges are in poor condition. And therefore, we need to do something about it. In my State of Wyoming, Yellowstone National Park alone is $250 million behind for the care of highways. It is very difficult. First of all, they are built in difficult places. Their season is rather short to reconstruct. So it is hard to keep highways moving. We are very pleased that in this particular bill we make a step forward--we make a step forward--and have moved up from about $70 million a year, which has been traditional, to about $180 million. So it makes a great deal of difference. And then the Park Service will decide where those allocations are made. The same is true of other Federal lands. Wyoming is 50 percent Federal lands. Some States are much higher. Nevada, for example--86 percent of that State is owned by the Federal Government. So you have BLM lands. You have forest lands. You have refuge lands. All of these are lands that we look forward to helping through this program. And they will receive a small, relatively small increase, relatively small in terms of the problem, but a sizable increase. Senators Chafee and Warner and Baucus have been working with us on this issue. I feel confident that these park needs will very much be accommodated. I thank the Senators for their willingness to do that. ISTEA II will streamline the program structure and give States and localities more flexibility. I believe that is very important. There is a consolidation of five programs into three, which helps to make it more efficient, provides more flexibility and gives the States more of a chance to decide where their dollars ought to go. I think that is very important. Again, I thank Senators Warner, Chafee and Baucus. They have worked very hard through this time. Senator Baucus, Senator Kempthorne, and I introduced an ISTEA II reauthorization bill. We called it STARS 2000. It was a shining example of what we ought to do. That was earlier this year. I thank them and their staffs for putting it together. Then Senator Chafee used that as one of the alternatives, we came together with a bill that I think is top-notch and one that I think we should move forward with as soon as possible. There are some complications, of course. And they have been going on for years. One of them is the idea of using Federal funds to require that States behave in certain ways in order to get their money. We will be talking about that. I suppose in a number of areas--one of them will have to do with drunk driving, having to do with alcohol content. No one is for drunk driving. Everyone wants to do everything they can to put a cap on that, eliminate it, if possible. But I have to tell you, Madam President, that I find it very difficult to explain why the Federal Government has to tell the States how to do these various things. I happen to have been in the Wyoming legislature. Most of us here have been in our State legislatures. I think legislatures are perfectly capable of deciding what those kinds of things ought to be, whether it is motorcycle helmets or speed limits or drunk driving, alcohol content. It seems to me those are the kinds of things that States really ought to do. And I can tell you that folks resent very much the idea of using what they call ``blackmail'' in terms of Federal money to do that. So I hope we can avoid that. I hope we can be for all the things we ought to be for. But the idea of us deciding here seems to me to be inappropriate. So I really am pleased that we are moving, and I am glad the leader has brought this forward. Certainly, much of that is a result of the efforts made by the Senators from Texas and West Virginia as they pushed very hard to do this. ISTEA II maintains the integrity of the ISTEA law. It improves it by more equitable investment of user fees. It ensures that people can cross the country with goods and services. And ``bridge'' States are involved as well. It increases flexibility. Again, obviously, nothing is perfect. A bill of this kind is never totally suitable to everyone. But that is the way it is. That is what we are here for. That is why we have a system of deciding and voting-- so that we can come up, by a majority vote, to the thing that we think best serves this country and serves it on the intermodal surface transportation. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, in conjunction with the previous unanimous consent agreements, Monday the Senate will be in a period for morning business from 12 noon until 2 p.m. At 2 p.m., the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1173, the so-called ISTEA legislation. It is hoped that the Senate will be able to make good progress on this important legislation during Monday's session. In addition, the Senate may consider any executive or legislative business cleared for floor action. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible Monday after 5 p.m.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there are many issues in the Congress that divide us. We come from different areas. We come from different philosophies. Today I come to the floor with a bill that is an opportunity to come together collectively, introducing a bill on one of the uniquely American priorities that does, in fact, bind us together-- our national parks. If you have felt the Earth shake and experienced the thunder of Old Faithful in Yellowstone or contemplated the patriotic enigma at Gettysburg, you can well understand my passion for support of these areas so important to our national identity. The value of national parks is clearly one of the cultural constants for Americans. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, I can tell you each and every Senator needs to look at the perilous state of the parks today and act with me in developing some long-term solutions. The bill I introduce today, Vision 2020, the National Parks Restoration Act, is a result of a quite lengthy process of inquiry and of study. Over the last year, the subcommittee has had more than 15 park-related hearings. We have spoken to dozens of park experts-- environmental groups and user groups. We have listened to the suggestions as well as the criticisms from our colleagues and have attracted activity in the House. Our purpose is and was to carefully review the state of national parks and to evaluate areas for improvement within the agencies. We have found that there is a system of parks tremendously popular with the public but afflicted by problems that the public sometimes only vaguely recognizes. Let me share some of the findings. Our system of national parks stands at 376 units, including over 83 million acres of the most treasured landscapes and historical sites of our national possessions. The National Park Service is charged by law with a distinctly unique mission--to protect its natural and cultural resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and future generations. It is a charge and responsibility that is hard to handle in the best of times. In times of fiscal constraint, that mandate requires a broad range of innovative approaches to get that job done. Each year, over 250 million recreational users enjoy our parks. Our hearings revealed that each year 12 million visitors are from foreign lands, with their visitations contributing significantly, of course, to America's $22 billion international travel trade surplus. This explosive popularity directly stimulates over $10 billion in annual economies locally and supports 230,000 tourism-related jobs. However, the parks face many problems. One of the most pressing problems facing the agency is the ``thinning of the blood,'' explained in one of our hearings by previous Park Service Director Jim Ridenour. At the same time, new parks have been added to the system without appropriations to care for them. The agency has been saddled with new responsibilities at the same time the resources have not been available for the parks already there. Collectively, the shortfall between where the Park Service is and where it should be in terms of maintenance, construction, staffing and resource protection is approximately $5 to $8 billion in arrears. Another problem is the wear and tear on roads, bridges, campgrounds and other facilities, leaving critics to observe that the parks have been ``loved to death.'' As visiting populations grow, facilities that were often built decades ago cannot stand the strain. It has become clear through our oversight process that park managers are hobbled in their ability to assess the inventory of natural and cultural resources, probably one of the primary functions of the park and the park management. The funding and cooperative cost sharing have simply not existed to catalog the resources that the parks must protect. At a time when we need the best from the Park Service managers, rangers, maintenance, scientific and administrative staff, we find there is less to offer them in terms of professional development. Probably as serious as any of these conditions is the problem of the public apathy. Don't get me wrong, the Americans truly like their parks. They love their parks. But as of yet, that has not really translated into a definitive call for action from the Congress or the administration. In my local park of Yellowstone, there has been some increase in appropriations each year, but the required changes in terms of retirement, in terms of staffing and in terms of inflation have been more than eaten up in the increase in the appropriations to where the expendable income has, in fact, gone down. Probably as serious as any of these conditions, as I said, is public apathy. I can tell you, the day is coming when we will have increasing problems, and I hope that we will be ahead of that game. I propose we mobilize ourselves to address these problems before we are in a crisis and have to close parks and take more costly measures. I continue to say if we are to have these resources in the future for our kids and our future generations, then we are going to have to do something soon, the sooner the better, in terms of coming to a solution. If we continue to do what we have been doing, we can't expect better results in the future. So Vision 2020 provides a broad, systematic approach to addressing the needs of the National Park Service. The restoration bill takes a broad approach, with 11 titles covering key areas of concern. Vision 2020 will enhance resource protection by extending the fee base that goes directly to park programs. This will be accomplished by expanding, extending and dedicating to the park increased demonstration projects fees that were approved last year and that have been in effect 1 year. We want to put them in all the parks where it is practical and lawful to collect those fees. We now have them in about 100 parks out of 376 that can be expanded. We need to harness the enthusiasm of voluntarism, and also philanthropic donations. Voluntarism is alive and well in many parks. At Golden Gate Recreation Area, 8,400 residents of the Bay Area donate time each year to support the park in a variety of ways--volunteer time and philanthropic donations can be improved by orders of magnitude to add to the solvency and expertise and the work power of parks. We need to tap the power of individual donors for local causes. At our hearing in Denver, I learned the charitable contributions are most successfully subscribed from individual donors on a local basis, those that visit or those that live, or those who are familiar with the park that is closest to them, where they can help monitor the direct results. As a result, we also ask the National Park Foundation to develop a formal program of orientation, strengthening, guidance, and ongoing assistance for park locales interested in developing friends and groups that are interested in supporting their local park. There are many in almost every park. We were in Gettysburg last week. Gettysburg has several groups supportive of their own park. We need to find ways to enhance the contribution of concessionaires. Park funding levels will be directly enhanced by asking the concessionaire to help to shoulder a more realistic portion of the park's expenses through a fee structure that closely tracks their earnings in particular parks. At present, fee schedules vary widely. Face it, people do travel in parks. They do require lodging, meals and facilities. Remember the purpose of the park? To preserve the resource and provide a pleasant and quality visit. That is what these concessions do. Many concessionaires operate in an almost noncompetitive market where the business is virtually assured. We are striving for a fee system that maximizes revenues for these businesses privileged to operate in parks--of course, recognizing the need for them to make a profit in order to be there. We need to improve park concession management performance. In fairness to concessionaires and park visitors who rely on their services, a dramatic change is proposed in the way concessions are managed by the Park Service in this legislation. We think the parks should utilize more of the private sector expertise in these activities that are totally commercial in nature and we would utilize a private industry asset manager to support many aspects of developing, bidding, developing prospectus and rewarding management of commercial contracts. An advisory board, made up of the agency and industry experts, would guide the director. This would be a board of three agency people, three private sector people, chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, controlled, obviously, by the agencies, to ensure that whatever is done in the commercial sector does not, in fact, damage the resource protection purpose of the park. In addition to that, we are going to ask that our Hollywood friends share some in the cost of maintaining parks. Hollywood will be asked to do their part through a provision that ties filming fees to a small percentage of the commercial production costs. You would be surprised how many movies are made in parks. We think that is fine, but there ought to be some contribution. We are not asking much from Hollywood, but the American public expects some return for the use of those public facilities. We are developing a Passport to Adventure to garner members. A park ``passport system'' would be created featuring annually issued collectible stamps similar to the successful duck stamp series, raising revenues which would encourage people to contribute something to their park; or perhaps a tax refund contribution. We thought we would make it easy for people to make a contribution, a unique opportunity for American taxpayers who want to not only talk the talk but will, as a result, have an option of dedicating part of their tax refund to the National Park Resource Protection programs by simply checking it off on their tax form. Promoting agency professionalism. One title of the bill concentrates on the strategy for developing more expertise among National Park Service employees. By the way, let me say that my experience personally with parks over the last year or two leads me to believe or feel that there is a great deal of loyalty among park agency employees. I don't know of an agency in the Federal Government where people are more committed or more loyal to what they do than the employees of the Park Service. Of course, to be able to do that, they do need the additional ability to have training as well as defining a system of recruitment. Future park superintendents and senior managers need to have an opportunity to become as professional as possible. We are interested in making sure that science is there as a foundation for the management of these resources. Vision 2020 directs support for the science necessary to guide that important work by making some shifts in the program. The Park Police are important. I guess I didn't realize myself until recently what a significant contribution the Park Police make, particularly here in Washington where there are over 400 Park Police to take care of the parkways, the parks, the rivers, and all of the things here, as well as in New York City. This aspect of the Park Service has often been overlooked. We are asking that there be some studies to assure that they have the resources to do the kinds of things that they are obliged to do. Finally, we are going to talk about an innovative area of park resources. Almost all of the large parks have the same kinds of things that small towns have. They have sewers, streets, buildings, all of which are very difficult to maintain on an annual budget. So we are going to seek to put into play, at least as a demonstration program, a bonding program where large parks like Yosemite could have an opportunity to issue bonds of $10 million--and, in fact, that will be the limit for any park--to do some kind of facility restructuring that can't come out of annual budgets, direct a stream of repayment revenue from the demonstration project so that maybe over 5 or 10 years those bonds would be retired--similar to what almost every government agency does in the whole world when they have facilities to build. This won't be easy. It is not customary for the Federal Government to have bonding programs. It's also, frankly, sometimes uncustomary for the Government to do anything they haven't been doing for a hundred years. So there will be some difficulty in causing that to happen. But we think it's important, and we think it will be useful. Basically, what we are seeking to do, Mr. President, is to recognize how important parks are, to recognize the difficulty parks have had, and are continuing to have, in maintaining those resources, to deal with some opportunities to supplement the taxpayers' appropriation support for parks by having some outside methods of raising funds that can be used in the parks. With those additional funds will go some requirements for additional and strengthened management, so that there is accountability for how those dollars are spent. There will be a vision plan over a period of time for the agency, with vision plans coming from each park, with measurable results in the plan. The GAO, the Government auditing office, says often we have plans and we even have appropriations where the plan is not implemented and we want to cause that to happen. And then, in addition to that, of course, we want to help strengthen the management through professionalism and do some things, such as bonding. So, in conclusion, I want to ask you to consider for a moment an America without national parks. How would we feel without Yosemite, Independence Hall, or Grand Canyon protected for public enjoyment? How much of our national identity is reflected in these icons--the Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone, the National Capital Mall, or Old Faithful? How much of the rugged, adventurous American spirit is still revisited by hiking the back country of Glacier or mountaineering in Alaska's Denali? What would America be without protecting habitat for bison, moose, and bighorn sheep? These are the kinds of things we have available. These are the kinds of things that challenge us to protect. As Americans, what would we leave our children and grandchildren if not these wild and historic places to reflect, recreate and pause for some spiritual renewal? It seems to me that we all have an obligation to a measure of national service directed at strengthening our proud system of parks--the first such system in the world--the system that over 100 other nations have modeled after around the world. So I am asking for the support of my colleagues for Vision 2020--not only your vote, but also your review and constructive commentary. We worked very hard to put together the bill. We don't suggest that it is perfect. We will have hearings, and there will be an opportunity to evaluate how we achieve success. That is the key. These words are not unchangeable, but the goal is to preserve the parks. I believe that together we can accomplish constructive changes. We have an opportunity to bring the National Park Service and our national parks into the 21st century, alive, vibrant, effective and efficient. I think the public expects us to seize upon that opportunity so that our parks will be healthy and available for them to enjoy for a very long time in the future. So, Mr. President, I will submit this bill. First of all, I will add Senator Spencer Abraham as an original sponsor. I submit the bill for introduction.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there are many issues in the Congress that divide us. We come from different areas. We come from different philosophies. Today I come to the floor with a bill that is an opportunity to come together collectively, introducing a bill on one of the uniquely American priorities that does, in fact, bind us together-- our national parks. If you have felt the Earth shake and experienced the thunder of Old Faithful in Yellowstone or contemplated the patriotic enigma at Gettysburg, you can well understand my passion for support of these areas so important to our national identity. The value of national parks is clearly one of the cultural constants for Americans. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, I can tell you each and every Senator needs to look at the perilous state of the parks today and act with me in developing some long-term solutions. The bill I introduce today, Vision 2020, the National Parks Restoration Act, is a result of a quite lengthy process of inquiry and of study. Over the last year, the subcommittee has had more than 15 park-related hearings. We have spoken to dozens of park experts-- environmental groups and user groups. We have listened to the suggestions as well as the criticisms from our colleagues and have attracted activity in the House. Our purpose is and was to carefully review the state of national parks and to evaluate areas for improvement within the agencies. We have found that there is a system of parks tremendously popular with the public but afflicted by problems that the public sometimes only vaguely recognizes. Let me share some of the findings. Our system of national parks stands at 376 units, including over 83 million acres of the most treasured landscapes and historical sites of our national possessions. The National Park Service is charged by law with a distinctly unique mission--to protect its natural and cultural resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and future generations. It is a charge and responsibility that is hard to handle in the best of times. In times of fiscal constraint, that mandate requires a broad range of innovative approaches to get that job done. Each year, over 250 million recreational users enjoy our parks. Our hearings revealed that each year 12 million visitors are from foreign lands, with their visitations contributing significantly, of course, to America's $22 billion international travel trade surplus. This explosive popularity directly stimulates over $10 billion in annual economies locally and supports 230,000 tourism-related jobs. However, the parks face many problems. One of the most pressing problems facing the agency is the ``thinning of the blood,'' explained in one of our hearings by previous Park Service Director Jim Ridenour. At the same time, new parks have been added to the system without appropriations to care for them. The agency has been saddled with new responsibilities at the same time the resources have not been available for the parks already there. Collectively, the shortfall between where the Park Service is and where it should be in terms of maintenance, construction, staffing and resource protection is approximately $5 to $8 billion in arrears. Another problem is the wear and tear on roads, bridges, campgrounds and other facilities, leaving critics to observe that the parks have been ``loved to death.'' As visiting populations grow, facilities that were often built decades ago cannot stand the strain. It has become clear through our oversight process that park managers are hobbled in their ability to assess the inventory of natural and cultural resources, probably one of the primary functions of the park and the park management. The funding and cooperative cost sharing have simply not existed to catalog the resources that the parks must protect. At a time when we need the best from the Park Service managers, rangers, maintenance, scientific and administrative staff, we find there is less to offer them in terms of professional development. Probably as serious as any of these conditions is the problem of the public apathy. Don't get me wrong, the Americans truly like their parks. They love their parks. But as of yet, that has not really translated into a definitive call for action from the Congress or the administration. In my local park of Yellowstone, there has been some increase in appropriations each year, but the required changes in terms of retirement, in terms of staffing and in terms of inflation have been more than eaten up in the increase in the appropriations to where the expendable income has, in fact, gone down. Probably as serious as any of these conditions, as I said, is public apathy. I can tell you, the day is coming when we will have increasing problems, and I hope that we will be ahead of that game. I propose we mobilize ourselves to address these problems before we are in a crisis and have to close parks and take more costly measures. I continue to say if we are to have these resources in the future for our kids and our future generations, then we are going to have to do something soon, the sooner the better, in terms of coming to a solution. If we continue to do what we have been doing, we can't expect better results in the future. So Vision 2020 provides a broad, systematic approach to addressing the needs of the National Park Service. The restoration bill takes a broad approach, with 11 titles covering key areas of concern. Vision 2020 will enhance resource protection by extending the fee base that goes directly to park programs. This will be accomplished by expanding, extending and dedicating to the park increased demonstration projects fees that were approved last year and that have been in effect 1 year. We want to put them in all the parks where it is practical and lawful to collect those fees. We now have them in about 100 parks out of 376 that can be expanded. We need to harness the enthusiasm of voluntarism, and also philanthropic donations. Voluntarism is alive and well in many parks. At Golden Gate Recreation Area, 8,400 residents of the Bay Area donate time each year to support the park in a variety of ways--volunteer time and philanthropic donations can be improved by orders of magnitude to add to the solvency and expertise and the work power of parks. We need to tap the power of individual donors for local causes. At our hearing in Denver, I learned the charitable contributions are most successfully subscribed from individual donors on a local basis, those that visit or those that live, or those who are familiar with the park that is closest to them, where they can help monitor the direct results. As a result, we also ask the National Park Foundation to develop a formal program of orientation, strengthening, guidance, and ongoing assistance for park locales interested in developing friends and groups that are interested in supporting their local park. There are many in almost every park. We were in Gettysburg last week. Gettysburg has several groups supportive of their own park. We need to find ways to enhance the contribution of concessionaires. Park funding levels will be directly enhanced by asking the concessionaire to help to shoulder a more realistic portion of the park's expenses through a fee structure that closely tracks their earnings in particular parks. At present, fee schedules vary widely. Face it, people do travel in parks. They do require lodging, meals and facilities. Remember the purpose of the park? To preserve the resource and provide a pleasant and quality visit. That is what these concessions do. Many concessionaires operate in an almost noncompetitive market where the business is virtually assured. We are striving for a fee system that maximizes revenues for these businesses privileged to operate in parks--of course, recognizing the need for them to make a profit in order to be there. We need to improve park concession management performance. In fairness to concessionaires and park visitors who rely on their services, a dramatic change is proposed in the way concessions are managed by the Park Service in this legislation. We think the parks should utilize more of the private sector expertise in these activities that are totally commercial in nature and we would utilize a private industry asset manager to support many aspects of developing, bidding, developing prospectus and rewarding management of commercial contracts. An advisory board, made up of the agency and industry experts, would guide the director. This would be a board of three agency people, three private sector people, chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, controlled, obviously, by the agencies, to ensure that whatever is done in the commercial sector does not, in fact, damage the resource protection purpose of the park. In addition to that, we are going to ask that our Hollywood friends share some in the cost of maintaining parks. Hollywood will be asked to do their part through a provision that ties filming fees to a small percentage of the commercial production costs. You would be surprised how many movies are made in parks. We think that is fine, but there ought to be some contribution. We are not asking much from Hollywood, but the American public expects some return for the use of those public facilities. We are developing a Passport to Adventure to garner members. A park ``passport system'' would be created featuring annually issued collectible stamps similar to the successful duck stamp series, raising revenues which would encourage people to contribute something to their park; or perhaps a tax refund contribution. We thought we would make it easy for people to make a contribution, a unique opportunity for American taxpayers who want to not only talk the talk but will, as a result, have an option of dedicating part of their tax refund to the National Park Resource Protection programs by simply checking it off on their tax form. Promoting agency professionalism. One title of the bill concentrates on the strategy for developing more expertise among National Park Service employees. By the way, let me say that my experience personally with parks over the last year or two leads me to believe or feel that there is a great deal of loyalty among park agency employees. I don't know of an agency in the Federal Government where people are more committed or more loyal to what they do than the employees of the Park Service. Of course, to be able to do that, they do need the additional ability to have training as well as defining a system of recruitment. Future park superintendents and senior managers need to have an opportunity to become as professional as possible. We are interested in making sure that science is there as a foundation for the management of these resources. Vision 2020 directs support for the science necessary to guide that important work by making some shifts in the program. The Park Police are important. I guess I didn't realize myself until recently what a significant contribution the Park Police make, particularly here in Washington where there are over 400 Park Police to take care of the parkways, the parks, the rivers, and all of the things here, as well as in New York City. This aspect of the Park Service has often been overlooked. We are asking that there be some studies to assure that they have the resources to do the kinds of things that they are obliged to do. Finally, we are going to talk about an innovative area of park resources. Almost all of the large parks have the same kinds of things that small towns have. They have sewers, streets, buildings, all of which are very difficult to maintain on an annual budget. So we are going to seek to put into play, at least as a demonstration program, a bonding program where large parks like Yosemite could have an opportunity to issue bonds of $10 million--and, in fact, that will be the limit for any park--to do some kind of facility restructuring that can't come out of annual budgets, direct a stream of repayment revenue from the demonstration project so that maybe over 5 or 10 years those bonds would be retired--similar to what almost every government agency does in the whole world when they have facilities to build. This won't be easy. It is not customary for the Federal Government to have bonding programs. It's also, frankly, sometimes uncustomary for the Government to do anything they haven't been doing for a hundred years. So there will be some difficulty in causing that to happen. But we think it's important, and we think it will be useful. Basically, what we are seeking to do, Mr. President, is to recognize how important parks are, to recognize the difficulty parks have had, and are continuing to have, in maintaining those resources, to deal with some opportunities to supplement the taxpayers' appropriation support for parks by having some outside methods of raising funds that can be used in the parks. With those additional funds will go some requirements for additional and strengthened management, so that there is accountability for how those dollars are spent. There will be a vision plan over a period of time for the agency, with vision plans coming from each park, with measurable results in the plan. The GAO, the Government auditing office, says often we have plans and we even have appropriations where the plan is not implemented and we want to cause that to happen. And then, in addition to that, of course, we want to help strengthen the management through professionalism and do some things, such as bonding. So, in conclusion, I want to ask you to consider for a moment an America without national parks. How would we feel without Yosemite, Independence Hall, or Grand Canyon protected for public enjoyment? How much of our national identity is reflected in these icons--the Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone, the National Capital Mall, or Old Faithful? How much of the rugged, adventurous American spirit is still revisited by hiking the back country of Glacier or mountaineering in Alaska's Denali? What would America be without protecting habitat for bison, moose, and bighorn sheep? These are the kinds of things we have available. These are the kinds of things that challenge us to protect. As Americans, what would we leave our children and grandchildren if not these wild and historic places to reflect, recreate and pause for some spiritual renewal? It seems to me that we all have an obligation to a measure of national service directed at strengthening our proud system of parks--the first such system in the world--the system that over 100 other nations have modeled after around the world. So I am asking for the support of my colleagues for Vision 2020--not only your vote, but also your review and constructive commentary. We worked very hard to put together the bill. We don't suggest that it is perfect. We will have hearings, and there will be an opportunity to evaluate how we achieve success. That is the key. These words are not unchangeable, but the goal is to preserve the parks. I believe that together we can accomplish constructive changes. We have an opportunity to bring the National Park Service and our national parks into the 21st century, alive, vibrant, effective and efficient. I think the public expects us to seize upon that opportunity so that our parks will be healthy and available for them to enjoy for a very long time in the future. So, Mr. President, I will submit this bill. First of all, I will add Senator Spencer Abraham as an original sponsor. I submit the bill for introduction.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 1693 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMAS. I also ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be extended to Steve Shackelton, a detailee on my staff from the U.S. Park Service, during my statement today.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for about 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Warner.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record stay open until 2 p.m. today for the introduction of legislation and the submission of statements.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 2 p.m. on Monday, March 2, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1173, the ISTEA bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, March 2, and immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and there be a period for morning business until 2 p.m., with the time equally divided among the two leaders.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, Sunday, February 8 marked the second anniversary of the signing of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996. As we take this opportunity to reflect on the state of telecommunications reform, I rise to share my concerns with the implementation of a critical provision of the historical law--the provision dealing with universal telephone service. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ordered the overhaul of the estimated $23 billion in subsidies currently used to fund universal telephone service. Congress intended all implicit subsidies to universal service to be removed from rates and transferred to a new explicit Universal Service Fund to be supported equally by all carriers. In the face of declining telephone rate support, through federally mandated access charge reduction and new competitors targeting the most profitable markets and services, a sustainable universal service support mechanism is ever more important. I view with great concern the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) current formula for universal service support: twenty-five percent of funding from federal sources and seventy-five percent from each state. Many states, like Wyoming, clearly are not in a position to bear seventy-five percent of the universal service burden alone. Universal service is a shared state-federal responsibility. The best approach to fulfill Congress' intent and ensure affordable phone service in all corners of the country is to create a national universal service fund that ensures support reaches where it is needed most. The fund should be based on interstate and intrastate telecommunications revenues and cover one-hundred percent of the subsidy needed to keep phone rates affordable for customers in rural and high-cost areas. With a national fund, all telecommunications service providers would contribute a portion of their revenues to support reasonable rates across the country. In other words, service providers in more urban, low-cost areas would help support affordable phone service in rural, high-cost areas. Leaving seventy-five percent of the funding responsibility to the states would place a disproportionate burden on consumers, service providers and utilities commissions in rural states like Wyoming. Such a burden could result in higher phone rates and reduce network investment--both of which would have a chilling effect on economic development opportunities. Since telecommunications is a vital element of commerce, disparate universal service surcharges on communications services between states would divert industries and job growth away from the rural areas that need it the most. Mr. President, I submit for the Record a letter I wrote with the other members of the Wyoming delegation to the FCC on this issue. There is still time for the Commission to get this funding problem right. We must ensure that all customers across the country continue to have access to quality local phone service at affordable rates. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, July 23, 1997. Hon. Reed E. Hundt, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hundt: Reforming our nation's universal service system is a tremendous challenge, and one that will have lasting implications for telephone customers in Wyoming and other rural states. In your work on the Joint Board, we encourage you to protect the interests of rural consumers and create a national high-cost fund that sends support dollars where they are needed most. By doing this, you will fulfill the clear mandate of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and help sustain a truly national communications system available to all citizens. In the face of declining telephone rate support, through federally mandated access charge reductions and new competitors targeting the most profitable markets and services, a sustainable universal service support mechanism is ever more important. We therefore view with great concern the current formula for universal service support: 25 percent of the funding comes from federal sources and 75 percent from the states. In Wyoming, with its vast terrain and dispersed and relatively small population, a 75 percent state funding responsibility will have a clear, immediate and detrimental effect on phone rates. Although Wyoming has a universal service funding mechanism, it is beyond the capacity of Wyoming to absorb the huge increases in costs that a 25/75 split would create for it. It is clear to us that a federal universal service fund that pays only 25 cents on every dollar of high-cost telephone service will shortchange thousands of Wyoming telephone customers, and millions of others across the country. Universal telephone service is a national commitment requiring strong federal support. In that regard, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 envisioned a partnership between the states and the federal government to work together on the nation's telecommunications challenges. We urge you to adopt a national high-cost fund that provides all of the rate support needed to keep Wyoming customers connected to the public telephone network. Only with a national fund available to all high-cost service providers can customers in our state be assured of affordable access to this vital communications link. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We hope you will join us in supporting a cooperative national solution for universal service. Sincerely, Craig Thomas, U.S. Senator. Michael Enzi, U.S. Senator. Barbara Cubin, Member of Congress.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk a little bit about a parochial issue that is peculiar to Wyoming, but it is one that is troublesome. It has to do with the Jackson Hole Airport. I am rising to express my frustration regarding the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its lack of action with respect to an environmental assessment (EA) regarding safety issues at the Jackson Hole Airport. Let me explain why the issue is so important to us in Wyoming. Jackson Hole is the busiest airport in Wyoming. It is the only commercial service airport in the country that is located within a national park, Grand Teton National Park. As a consequence, of course, the FAA and the Park Service are very careful about making safety or other improvements at this facility. And they should be. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on national parks, I agree that all of the proposals for changes at the Jackson Hole Airport ought to be carefully examined. You won't find a bigger advocate for our national parks in the U.S. Senate than me. However, there are some significant safety issues that must be addressed quickly. Between 1984 and 1992, the airport had more ``runway excursions,'' which is a nice way of saying they ran off the end of the runway, than any other airport in the country. This includes a broad range of aircraft, from general aviation and small commuters, to large aircraft such as 757s. Since 1992, there have been seven additional runway ``incidents'' that have occurred. In response to these problems, the Jackson Hole Airport board began an environmental assessment in 1992. All the interested parties, including the Park Service and the FAA were at the table. In fact, in 1993, I wrote Transportation Secretary Pena asking for interagency cooperation on this important issue, including the National Park Service, the Interior Department, the FAA, and the Department of Transportation. I wrote that letter in order to avoid the kind of situation that we have now. In April of 1997, the airport board finally completed the assessment, after 5 years, and submitted it to the FAA. The results of the environmental assessment appeared to be very reasonable. It would bring the runways into compliance with current FAA runway standards. That makes sense. It would improve safety without increasing the length of the runways, which is very important. There is opposition by some to making the runways longer because they are in the park. And there is some opposition to making them longer because that could accommodate bigger airplanes, and some people are not anxious to see that happen. It would not result in any significant noise increase. In fact, I am told that the newer airplanes are less intrusive with noise perhaps than the older ones. If, in fact, these statements are correct--and they appear to be-- then why is the proposal being delayed? The FAA has been unresponsive and uncooperative with my office on this matter. In December of 1997, 8 months after the completion of the study, the FAA still had not acted on the environment assessment. I wrote the agency asking it to expedite its consideration of this matter and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. I still have not received an answer to my letter from the FAA. The letter was sent in early December of 1997. All the letter asked was for a date by which we could expect a decision. I didn't ask for a decision, I didn't urge a certain outcome, just the date. I called the FAA Administrator several weeks ago and though she said she would check into it I have heard nothing from her or her staff. For an agency that claims safety as its No. 1 priority, these delays are hard to understand. This assessment is not an effort to expand the airport. There won't be longer runways, bigger airplanes or more flights. It is about safety, safety for everyone flying in and out of this airport. Time is of the essence--there is a short construction period, as you might imagine, in Jackson Hole, WY. The FAA needs to come to a decision quickly or these safety improvements will be delayed for yet another year. Mr. President, I guess I have to admit that I am simply expressing my frustration with this situation. The FAA's primary responsibility is safety. The Jackson Hole Airport presents an opportunity to deal with an important safety issue and we've received no response from the FAA. I, therefore, intend to be rather critical of the FAA until it decides to act and comes to a conclusion. This process has gone long enough. The FAA needs to move forward now. I typically am not anxious to come to the floor of the Senate and grumble about a federal agency, but I think this is something that needs to be grumbled about, and therefore I am here. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for arranging for our discussion this morning. It seems to me it is one of the most basic discussions that we will have during the year. Budgets, after all, are sort of a map as to where we go. They are without great detail, but sort of limit where we are going. They have to do with the revenue that we anticipate raising. They have to do with the expenditures, and generally where those expenditures will be. So, in terms of direction, in terms of what we really expect the Federal Government to do, the budget is extremely important. Let me mention that the budget basically is done by the Congress. The President has been very outgoing in claiming credit for all the things that have happened over the last few years, but the fact is the Congress is responsible for the spending. No spending can occur unless the Congress agrees to it. No spending can be made in the Federal establishment unless approved by the Congress. So the responsibility is here, and I guess also you could say if there is any credit for having done some downsizing over the past few years, it also goes here. But I wanted to talk about something just a little bit different and that is, frankly, my disappointment in the approach that is taken in this case, and other cases as well; I am disappointed that when we have something to decide in our Government, all of our Government, that we are not more willing to lay things out as they are. I am, frankly, a little exasperated with all the spinning that goes on from almost everyone here, but frankly particularly from this administration, in sort of trying to say that things aren't really what they are. That is so discouraging, especially when we are in a time when there is greater communication availability to all the world, and certainly to the American people, than there ever has been. So that if you ever thought of having Government of the people, for Heaven's sake, now we can do that because everyone can know what the facts are. They are there automatically. Yet, as we go through these things, it is really difficult to understand what is being done because they are described one way at the White House, you know, as if this is a wonderful breakthrough and we are going to contain the size of the Government; that this is the end of the era of big Government. But the fact is, it is not. It is a growth. It is larger Government. It is more taxing. But it is hard to kind of decipher these things. Let me read some material from James Miller, who was the OMB head in the Reagan years. He is talking about the things that have been said, and what he thinks, at least, the real facts are. Miller says we have, in ``. . . the president's words, `the smallest government in 35 years[.]' '' And yet, in 1963, ``at the height of Camelot,'' he calls it, ``total federal spending (in 1997 dollars''--1997 dollars, adjusted for that--was $580 billion, with 48 percent going for defense. For 1998 the federal government will spend $1,625 billion, of which 16 percent is for defense. And the President says ``the smallest Government in 35 years.'' You know, that just is not the way it is. Now we are spending 15 percent for defense, as the Senator from Texas just described. Federal spending per capita was $3,069 in 1997 dollars in 1963. It is, today, $6,000. Spending per capita has doubled. The President says we have ``the smallest Government in 35 years.'' The comparison is even more telling when you include State and local governments--$4,100 per capita in 1963; $9,500 per capita now. You know, it is really discouraging to try to deal and get people involved in making decisions as to what they think is best for this country when the facts are so distorted. There is nothing wrong with having it laid out there in real terms. This is a legitimate decision. There are those who want more Government and more taxes and more expenditures. That is a legitimate point of view. I don't happen to share it. That is the liberal agenda. That is what we debate all the time. The other alternative, of course, is to have less taxes, less spending, a less large Federal Government and move, more and more governmental functions closer to people. Those are legitimate debates. Why it is, frankly, that we tend to hide those all the time under rhetoric I am not certain. Let me give you another example. The President says, ``Under the leadership of Vice President Gore we have reduced the Federal payroll by 300,000 workers.'' According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, between January 1993 and September 1997, Federal civil employment fell by 254,000; 217,000 of that was attributable to defense, the closing of bases, civilian workers in defense; 17,000 came from downsizing the Department of Veterans Affairs; and 14,000 more from completing the work on S&L's. This is not a reduction in the size of Government. But, you know, we are told that. So, Madam President, I am hopeful, too, we can hold the caps we agreed upon last year, that the President agreed upon. I hope we can continue to move towards making the Government smaller and more efficient. I hope we do not continue to grow and to bring in new fees that we don't recognize as taxes, although they are. So we have a great opportunity. All I ask is let us get it out there, debate it on the face of the real facts and not disguise it, trying to act as if it is something that it is really not. Madam President, I yield now to the Senator from Kansas to complete our discussion for this morning.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THOMAS. I would like to speak up to 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have had this afternoon several Members rise to talk about ISTEA funding. I rise to support the things that they have said. One of the most important bills that we passed in our committee last year, and I think one of the most important elements before us now in the Senate, is the funding of the Intermodal Transportation Act. We worked a great deal last year. I happen to be on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and we came up with an extension of the ISTEA bill, which expired last year, by the way. Now, of course, we are operating on a temporary arrangement, which makes it very difficult for State highway departments to make the contracts that are necessary. I think it is particularly important for States like Wyoming and the northern part of the country, where you have a relatively small short contracting and construction time, that we move to pass this bill so that the States will know what money is available to them. There should have been approval last year, other than an extension. Unfortunately, we couldn't come to an agreement with the House. Furthermore, right here in the Senate, as I recall, there were some things that were brought up that kept us from considering ISTEA. But now it is time to do that. We also have before us a proposal to extend the authority for spending, to use more of the dollars that are collected, and I agree with that. I have not yet become a sponsor of it, but I, frankly, propose to be. We have been spending in the neighborhood of $21 billion a year on ISTEA, but Federal taxes have been raising more like $27 billion. Now, of course, as a result of last year's budget, we converted the 4.3-cent tax, having gone to the general fund, to now go to the highway fund. I support that idea. So it is time for us to do that. I am concerned, of course, that we do it within budget guidelines. I am not interested in breaking the budget caps by simply spending. I know when you have a unified budget, if you are going to spend more money here, you have to make arrangements on the other side, too, which restricts spending. I am for that. I think it is necessary for us to do it. I am sorry that it has been postponed. It was my understanding that it would be the first item of business to be considered or early, at least, in this session. I know there is controversy now with the budgeteers in terms of how that works, but this is an authorization, as I understand it. It is not an expenditure, of course. It authorizes what will then be put together by the budgeteers and appropriators. Mr. President, I certainly want to endorse the notion that there is nothing more important or nothing that needs to be dealt with more currently than the idea of expanding ISTEA. I hope that the leader and others in the leadership will give some consideration to that. I think we can move forward. I know that there is not certainty in the House as to the direction they want to take, but I believe passage of the Senate proposal and shipment of it to the House would cause that to happen. If it is difficult, it is difficult. It is no more difficult now than it will be later. To the contrary, as we get toward the end of this session, it may be even more difficult to find time. I suggest, hope and urge that we bring it to the floor as soon as possible, and we resolve that issue so that we can move forward on this transportation question, which is probably one of the most important economic things we do in our States. These dollars go there, they are contracted, they go into business, and we provide a better transportation system. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, February 12, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to review S. 62, a bill to prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument in Idaho without full public participation and an express Act of Congress, and for other purposes. S. 477, a bill to amend the Antiquities act to require an Act of Congress and the consultation with the Governor and State legislature prior to the establishment by the President of national monuments in excess of 5,000 acres. S. 691, a bill to ensure that the public and the Congress have both the right and a reasonable opportunity to participate in decisions that affect the use and management of all public lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States. H.R. 901, an act to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over public lands and acquired lands owned by the United States, and to preserve State sovereignty and private property right in non-Federal lands surrounding those public and acquire lands. H.R. 1127, and act to amend the Antiquities Act regarding the establishment by the President of certain national monuments. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161. committee on energy and natural resources