Senator WALLOP. Let me just observe that we've heard a variety of approaches, with again a general underlying thesis, that it's time we relooked at these things with the idea in mind of achieving certain purposes and goals which vary a little out here. One big hope that I have, and I urge you to be helpful to the committee on that, is not to get so pinned to a principle, such as yours, Barry, that generally recreation opportunities should be funded from general revenues; or yours, Destry, that raising fees, for example, be related solely to the commercial value and not something else; or ways of spending the money or allocating it and reallocating it that we don't, in the midst of being pinned to that wall, find ourselves incapable of action at any level and confront an unprincipled disaster. I think one of the reasons, for example, that the Director wants to retain a certain portion of the fees collected in a given facility in that facility is to provide the incentive to collect them. And as you know-and Destry, you know this-you can go into a lot of parks with entrance gates that collect fees and find them unmanned because of a certain set of circumstances. There are other priorities that a park superintendent feels that he must address first, rather than the collection of fees. You know, one can order them to do it, but not without cost somewhere else within the system. I mean each of these things is going to come down to a sort of level of practicality. I mean I thoroughly agree with you, Destry, that it would not be a bad idea to have some small fee for back country developed sources. But collection of it presents the same problem as it does a park with multiple entrances. I mean who the hell is going to be around when you light your fire in a little prepared tent ground and say, fifty cents, please? And if we start putting automation in, I can tell you what the average user is going to feel like when left to his own devices with an automated collection. So we're going to have to kind of work within the general consensus that I hear out there, and I heard this morning, too; that the administration's witnesses weren't giving the administration's line. And it just was clear and obvious. There is a feeling that these fees for users should be devoted to enhancing the ability of the country to deal with a certain portion of its recreational structure, not as a substitute for an appropriation process that's already there. I don't believe that you can fundamentally divorce that somewhere down the road. I mean sooner or later somebody's going to take it into the back water of consideration and find an artful way to devise budgets that will reflect that. But not initially. And initially it's going to give us an opportunity to do some things that we can't now do, but we must. And again, let me suggest-who was it that mentioned that-oh, I think you, Mr. Howell-that certain private resource people weren't here. This is only Mr. HOWELL. Independent sector. Yes, sir. Senator WALLOP. Independent sector. This is a threshold event. I do not by any stretch of the imagination look for high-speed, reckless kind of action on this. I'm sensing, Destry, that this isn't nearly as dangerous as it once was. I think there is a consensus around that economic circum stances are driving us to decisions that we might have rather skirted in the past. And with that, I also sense very much that we can probably develop some kind of common ground that requires a little give from this particular view or that particular view in order to somehow or another surround the whole view, which I keep hearing coming across. It's not going to be easy. Hopefully the Commission, if it ever gets started, Derrick-and I'm certainly glad I didn't hold my breath for January-nonetheless, hopefully we can address a lot of these issues, and that we don't, because of the reconciliation requirement, get too far committed down one course that will prohibit us from traveling another. I suspect that's possible. I think the chairman's statment this morning was pretty reassuring. If he won't, it's hard for me to see how we can. He does have a certain place and control over what happens here. And I agree with him on it. The thing that I think we'll need your help on the most is how to provide an appropriate level of flexibility so that you can have some rationality in how these are applied and where, and that we don't either increase the cost of administration to the point increased fees are a consequence, or that Congress holds the rein on it, that there is virtually no change in the set of circumstances. That's really going to be the hard part, is to give sufficient rein so that they can be accountable and find the means by which we can judge them accountable, without toying with every single part. I don't think Senator Bumpers meant exactly what he said. But God, if we have to review each thing in each instance in this whole recreation system of ours, whether the corps, the Forest Service, the BLM, the Wildlife Refuges, the committee will never do anything else. Mr. HOWELL. Mr. Chairman, I find it incredible that these fees are set by the Congress. In my State, I set the fees; the Governor gives me the job to do, and I do it, and we are pretty well satisfied with what we do. Senator WALLOP. I find it incredible, too, except that I've been here long enough to know that what I find incredible is irrelevant. [Laughter.] Mr. HOWELL. It's obvious that it's irrelevant, what I find incredible; no question about that. Senator WALLOP. I mean we're going to have to do it, but it has not been the desire-and the big whoo-ha in whatever it was, 1978-was less over the principle than whose reins were going to be on the bit. I mean thank God, because the principle, I think, was one that was catastrophic. We need your support. We need you to tell us that that's going to be a little bit outrageous. But you also have heard it, and Senator Bumpers who is well committed to the quality of recreation experience, as is anybody on this committee, but you did hear the reservation that he expressed to both the Director and Frank. What's going to be in every place, and where it's going to be, and I know what he's talking about. And we can't get there through that door. So your help is going to be primary in trying to achieve some rationality in all of this. The thing that encourages me most is the common thread from the States, the associations, from various agencies of Government that appeared here this morning. With that we have a fair chance to survive with our next-and with a system that is a little stronger at the other end. Mr. HOWELL. Mr. Chairman. Senator WALLOP. First Mr. Howell, and then Barry. Mr. HOWELL. I just want to say that my reference to 7525 a while ago, you understand that the State level and local level bookeeping is different than it is at the National Park Service level. Barry noted a while ago that you all don't handle your own inns and lodges as we do, and our maintenance dollars are figured one way, and the Federal figured another. So take that into consideration in my remarks. Senator WALLOP. It's one of the things that I think we ought to take into consideration, too. This idea that all the funds that we collect for a variety of things go into one pocket and go into a common maelstrom out there and swirl out in unrelated ways back has got to get over. There has to be some-we can argue over the 7525 or what's an appropriate level of fee for which kind of activity or another, but we shouldn't argue over whether there has to be some clear means of accounting for what we do collect, in the public's mind translating it into the quality of the experience that they expect when they go to these places. Mr. TINDALL. Derrick used the reference to a closed loop user fee system or approach. And I think that's a good generic reference to it. What I sense the discussion from the previous panel and from this panel seems to be coming down to is what's the definition of the loop. What are the parameters financially; what are the uses; how much goes back to the generating unit or the generating agency or the generating system? We happen to think that the more useful reference is systemwide rather than site-specific. Senator WALLOP. But see, there're two things that are being talked about here. Yours is the one extreme, systemwide. I don't think Derrick's was quite a closed loop, but let's call that the other extreme. And then there is the Mr. TINDALL. I would hope you wouldn't do it quite that way, since- Senator WALLOP. No, but then there is that middle ground that a portion stay here and a portion go to the system. So in all of that, there's a concept for which we can find a meeting of the minds, surely. Mr. TINDALL. You know, I don't recall specifically what the representative of the Corps of Engineers said, but they manage a lot of things, not the least of which are big things like the Intercoastal Waterway. And every time a recreation use fee is proposed for that, there seems to be a hue and cry from the boating community who might in fact pay that. I don't know whether they refer to that type of thing or not. But in the consideration of the notion of charging for recreational use of Federal natural resources, it seems to me that you have to draw the loop and the definition around those people. Senator WALLOP. I agree with that. That's the art of all of this, and that's where we, Mr. Howell, come up on the shoals pretty quickly, that it's not so much in the State, the breadth of a State, no matter which the State is, recreation opportunity is necessarily more limited than the whole nation. And we get players in this thing who have a variety of different constituencies and a variety of different positions in the Congress to exercise the cares and concerns of those constituencies happen to be well placed. The loop is like the ones I used to throw: It misses. I mean I think our purpose is generally to try-and I think both Max and the Corps said in response to Senator Bumpers that the only real way to keep things reasonable is to have the broadest base you can and the basis of reasonability. That would clearly mean users of inland waterways, just as much as it would be users of developed campgrounds. It would be hard for me to justify asking somebody for $5 bucks to go into Yellowstone, and say that the boaters can free through an inland waterway. There are fundamental quality services that are being provided in either instance which tell us should have some care. I thank you all for coming, and we really do look forward to working with you on this. There are others undoubtedly, who will wish to comment on this, independent sectors as well. The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks, and that's only this hearing. As I understand it, there will be more on this subject as we get specific recommendations and opportunities to deal with it as we go along, and perhaps you can develop specific recommendations that would generate from within. Mr. HOWELL. Mr. Chairman, could I clarify that independent sector thing for just a second? I am talking about Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, church groups who do all this programming on our parks and on your parks and everywhere in the recreation system that need to comment on this, because larger, higher entrance fees might exclude a busload of those kids from a park. And our purpose is to include folks in leisure services and so I am just concerned that they have time to comment, and I'll encourage them. Senator WALLOP. Yes, and we look forward to it. I think the real purpose of this is not really to exclude anybody, but I still hearken back to something like what the Director said; that it is almost inconceivable that somebody could drive 500 miles to a park and not have $5 to get in it. I mean they're not going to get home from it if they can't do that. And, you know, the urban park concept, that the express takes care of a certain other level of the Government and the Nation's accountability. But clearly there is a balance that must be neces sary. Mr. CRANDALL. Mr. Chairman, just to validate their statement there, in reading back through the history-and it's been a stormy history on the Golden Eagle Passport. At one point, the pricing of the Golden Eagle Passport was defined as being approximately the cost of a tankful of gas. And at that time they were talking about $5 to $7 for the Golden Eagle Passport. |