![](media/image1.png){width="5.60625in" height="0.9125in"}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Testimony of Thomas C. Kiernan, President**                         |
|                                                                       |
| *RE: Legislative Hearing on S. 1253, National Park Centennial         |
| Challenge Fund Act*                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Senate Committee on  |
| Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate                     |
|                                                                       |
| August 2, 2007                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I am Tom Kiernan,
president of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). Since
1919, NPCA has been the leading independent voice of the American people
for protecting and enhancing our National Park System for present and
future generations. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of our more
than 330,000 members nationwide who visit and care deeply about
America's national parks.

I particularly appreciate that the subcommittee has chosen to hold this
important hearing on the proposed national parks centennial legislation
in this time frame with the press of so much other important business
before the Congress. Taking this step in the legislative process now
clearly demonstrates that you share our goal of making national parks a
national priority as the centennial of the founding of the National Park
Service and the unique and magnificent park system the Park Service was
created to manage and conserve approaches in 2016. Time is certainly of
the essence in launching an ambitious, viable program to help repair and
enhance the park system in order for it to begin its second century in
the best condition possible, prepared for the challenges of the future.
It is a task that requires the Congress, the Administration,
philanthropic groups, conservationists, communities, and individual park
advocates working together for a common purpose - to harness American
pride, patriotism and vision to protect this precious national legacy.
Holding this hearing before the impending recess sends an important
message to that effect.

NPCA strongly supports the effort to create a special, dedicated fund
over and above amounts provided in the regular appropriations process to
address priority programmatic and project initiatives to enhance the
park system during the years leading up to the centennial. We see this
concept not only as an important source of money to pay for important
and worthy programs and projects for the parks, but as a way to engage
the American people in keeping their own heritage alive.

Let me emphasize at the outset, though, that this proposal alone will
not solve the problems and address all the long and short term needs of
the parks which have resulted from decades of funding shortfalls during
many administrations and Congresses. It must be thought of as one part
of a concerted, comprehensive, multi-faceted, multi-year effort to
restore and adequately fund the nation's parks. Substantial increases in
park funding, particularly for operations in addition to this bill,
sustained over many years will be needed to make the parks whole .

Chronic funding shortfalls continue to be the most pervasive threat to
the national parks. Our analysis shows that the shortage of funding for
park operations has grown to more than \$800 million every year. The
backlog of maintenance and preservation needs exceeds \$7.8 billion, and
the Park Service has a backlog of\$1.9 billion in acquiring inholdings
within park boundaries. Many park managers have been forced to reduce
their work forces, lower the number of public education programs they
are able to offer, shorten visitor center hours or shutter visitor
centers altogether, and deny requests from school groups for ranger-led
tours. In parks across the country, interpretive displays and signage
are outdated, brochures are in short supply or non-existent and
interpretive rangers are missing. In many parks, nationally significant
lands are subject to development threats. Under these constraints, park
managers struggle to engage and inspire visitors, and protect natural
and cultural resources.

Mr. Chairman, I know of your strong interest in seeing these problems
remedied and in knowing what the long-term vision for the National Park
System should be. In order to help address these issues, I have brought
a copy of NPCA's report, "5 Ways America Can Fix Our National Parks",
which lays out our vision of what needs to be done for the park system
to have a bright and successful future. With your permission, I would
like to submit this document as a part of the record.

A commitment for sustained funding increases is absolutely necessary to
make progress toward eliminating the annual \$800 million operating
budget shortfall. We believe without a doubt that, armed with the facts,
the American people will agree that the protection and enhancement of
the superlative natural, cultural and historic symbols of our shared
American experience should indeed be a national priority, particularly
in these difficult and unsettling times when the meaning of our heritage
is so profound. These places remind us of who we are and how we got
here, as a people and as individuals with personal and family
connections to special park places.

We are very gratified, and frankly relieved that the administration
requested and the full House of Representatives and the Senate
Appropriations Committee have approved FY 2008 Interior appropriations
bills containing a significant first installment in the increases for
park operations that are so essential. It would mean, roughly, that the
\$800 million operating shortfall would drop nearly to \$600 million for
the 2008 fiscal year. It is a good start. This increase needs to be
sustained as the appropriations process moves forward, and we
respectfully solicit your help in achieving that goal. I know that you,
Mr. Chairman, and many members of this subcommittee, have consistently
supported increased funding for park operations in the appropriations
process, and I want to thank you for that.

Nearly one year ago at Yellowstone National Park, Interior Secretary
Kempthorne announced an initiative to re-focus attention on the national
parks and their needs in anticipation of the 2016 centennial. One of the
key elements of that initiative is the so-called "centennial challenge,"
and how that concept is to be manifest in legislation is, of course, the
subject of today's hearing. But before I discuss the legislation, let me
say a word about Secretary Kempthorne.

Since his arrival, we have experienced a sea change in receptiveness at
the Interior Department to our entreaties about the needs of the parks
and the federal responsibility to address them. Clearly, he shares our
vision about the value of the National Park System to the American
experience, both now and in the future, and I attribute the lion's share
of this administration's newfound interest in the national parks to his
presence and his commitment to help the parks on his watch. I thank him
for his leadership in support of the national parks.

Having an experienced director who has worked her way up through the
ranks of the Park Service has also been good for the parks. Let me say
for the record that it is a pleasure to work with Director Mary Bomar.

While the central element of the effort to address the needs of the
National Park System during the years leading up to the 2016 centennial
must be focused on encouraging the federal government to meet its
fundamental stewardship responsibility in protecting and adequately
funding the national parks, much of the attention surrounding the
centennial initiative has been devoted to the idea of creating a program
to carry out selected signature or centennial projects and programs. We
heartily support this concept so long as the specific projects and
programs are integrated into a vision for the National Park System as a
whole and will take the parks to a higher standard of excellence in
preparation for their next century. The program should consist of new
money, and should not result in reduced funding for other important park
needs.

Forty years ago, when the Eisenhower administration launched "Mission
66", its commitment of \$1 billion in preparation for the 50^th^
anniversary of the National Park System, it did so in the context of the
development of the interstate highway system, with a vision very much
influenced by that endeavor. The \$1 billion initiative that President
Eisenhower launched and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson continued is
worth some \$7 billion in today's dollars. Although that investment was
devoted to a smaller national park system serving fewer visitors, it was
tremendously important. In hindsight, however, it also resulted in what
is now acknowledged to have been too heavy an investment in
infrastructure projects, some of which needed to be reworked in later
years. Accordingly, the centennial challenge must incorporate a strong
set of criteria for project selection that will build on the most
beneficial aspects of the Mission 66 experience, meet genuine park
system needs, and avoid a repeat of past mistakes. It should articulate
a vision and define priorities based upon the mandates of the National
Park Service Organic Act and its mission. It must contribute to a
compelling case that the Park Service will be better equipped to restore
natural and cultural treasures, to protect park resources, to serve park
visitors, to enhance park science, to engage the full diversity of our
nation in the parks, and better connect them to schools and
universities. It is essential that the Park Service focus as well on how
it needs to evolve in order to fulfill its mission in the next century
and to integrate the parks into the lives of more Americans and keep
them relevant to the communities in which we live. If that occurs,
Congress can be fully justified in making a ten-year commitment to
enhanced park funding.

From its inception, the National Park System has benefited greatly from
the generosity of the American people, who have contributed many
millions of dollars in support of their parks in order to assure a
measure of excellence in the condition of park resources and the quality
of park programs for visitors. According to the Park Service, in 2005
the combined value of contributed services, aid and funding to national
parks through cooperating associations, volunteers and friends groups,
as well as the National Parks Foundation was approximately \$241
million. One of the truly exciting things about the centennial challenge
concept is its potential to increase the level of philanthropic support
for the park system. We see that as an integral part of the initiative,
not just incidental to it.

For its part, the Administration proposes to leverage additional
philanthropic activity by creating a required match program whereby
federal funds would be made available equal to amounts contributed by
non-federal sources, up to \$100 million per year. That is to say, if
only \$20 million dollars is raised privately under the program in a
year, the federal government would contribute only \$20 million. The
"challenge", therefore, would be to raise at least \$100 million in
philanthropy every year to ensure that the full \$100 million in federal
dollars could be released for centennial projects and programs.

As is so often the case, the devil is in the details.

The administration's bill, which you and Chairman Bingaman introduced in
the Senate by request as S. 1253, requires that non-federal
contributions be made in cash and paid directly into the Treasury in
order to qualify for the federal match.

What we have learned from the various parks friends groups and other
charitable organizations with whom we have developed close relationships
over many years is that counting only cash contributions which are paid
into the treasury is too limiting. In fact, by far the largest share of
contributions to the park system is in the form of in kind materials and
services. For example, in 2005, friends groups donated \$61 million -
\$8.5 million in cash and \$52.5 in non-cash contributions, according to
Park Service estimates. It is important to note that non-cash
contributions often take the form of turnkey facilities such as museums
and visitor centers, materials such as the steel used for the
restoration at Yosemite Falls, and other projects providing monetary
value to directly benefit a specific park. Because such friends groups
can often achieve market efficiencies through project management the
Park Service cannot, such in kind contributions often result in
substantial cost savings. This should be maintained.

Under the match proposal, parks with particularly active or successful
friends groups likely would be disproportionately advantaged since
projects or programs they support would have a greater chance of being
funded. Today, there are 391 units in the National Park System. There
are some 175 friends groups. Some serve more than one park, but many if
not most units have no such groups. Some accommodation needs to be made
in the match concept to assure that parks without active, successful
friends groups are not disadvantaged or forgotten.

Finally, requiring the matching funds to be channeled through the
treasury could actually be detrimental to the goal of increasing
charitable contributions. Not only does it

foreclose giving credit for in-kind or other non-cash contributions, but
high-end donors in particular understand that financial gifts made
directly to the government do not earn interest but that gifts though
intermediary non-profit groups do. Many of those donors also fear that
their contributions will not be uses as they intended if they write a
check to the federal treasury.

The Grijalva/Rahall centennial bill (H.R.3094) introduced in the House
of Representatives two weeks ago would also create a centennial fund to
be used for selected projects and programs, but makes the philanthropic
component optional rather than mandatory. Although the House bill
clearly is not yet before this subcommittee, I believe you will find a
brief explanation of our views on it informative. Since H.R. 3094 sets
up a straightforward \$100 million per year dedicated fund for the next
ten years, it obviates the problems I just outlined as to what should be
considered as qualified matching funds and how those contributions
should be passed through, which are created in the administration's
bill. For example, by using existing partnership authority, H.R. 3094
avoids the need to create new bureaucratic mechanisms that would be
needed to make a philanthropic match requirement work. It ensures, for
instance, that parks without active philanthropic partners will receive
needed assistance in preparation for the centennial, while enabling
friends groups and their national park partners to be as creative as
possible in developing additional project or program proposals using the
potential federal monetary commitment to leverage additional
philanthropic activity. Without the requirement of a match, the bill
avoids the need to develop a more encompassing and realistic match
definition or to debate the inclusion of appropriate in kind
contributions. By using existing partnership authority, it eliminates
the need to address whether philanthropists would have to write checks
directly to the treasury.

That is not to say the potential to increase philanthropy is sacrificed.
It will be absolutely critical for the Park service and its partners to
work together to maximize the potential for using this program to
attract additional philanthropic support.

H.R. 3094 allows for sufficient flexibility to enable the Park Service
to submit proposals to Congress that include a match component without
requiring that funds be withheld from parks based on the existence or
lack of a non-federal match. Experience shows that park philanthropies
generally follow a philosophy of adding value. If the private sector
sees itself as supplanting rather than supplementing the federal
responsibility to fund the national parks, philanthropy retreats since
no added benefit is evident. Potential donors are in general unwilling
to pay for things they perceive their tax dollars should already be
covering. By the same token, if potential donors recognize an increase
in federal government priority for the national parks and an improved
federal commitment to adequately funding park operations, their
motivation to add value, including specific park improvements and
programs will be invigorated. When coupled with sustained increases in
funding for park operations, creation of the national park centennial
fund clearly demonstrates the kind of increased federal attention that
can lead to expanded charitable giving for the park system.

Again, Mr. Chairman, let me commend you and all the members of the
Subcommittee, for your interest in taking substantive action to ensure
that our national parks are ready to meet the challenges of their second
century. The lead up to the centennial presents an extraordinary
opportunity to evaluate and prepare to meet these challenges and to
reach the park system's full potential as one of our country's premier
resources. Our sleeves are rolled up and we are ready and willing to
work with you to perfect this important legislation and see it enacted
into law as soon as possible. The national parks should be a national
priority. By 2016, the entire National Park System should be a model for
the world of American excellence and innovation, grounded in protecting
the natural and cultural heritage we hold so dear.

I am happy to respond to any questions you might have.