LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND Lk"JDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 2941 

TO IMPROVE THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE 

QUARTERS OF LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY FIELD 

EMPLOYEES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

24-362 cc 

MARCH 5, 199&--WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-62 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-052715-5 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

JOHN T. DOOLI'ITLE, California SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

KEN CALVERT, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California Samoa 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

WES COOLEY, Oregon OWEN B. PICKE'IT, Virginia 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi~ 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina Rico 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

JACK METCALF, Washington SAM FARR, California 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine PATRICK J . KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. , Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLI'ITLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachus~tts 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Staff Director/ Counsel 

STEVE HODAPP, Professional Staff 

LIZ BERNBAUM, DEMOCRATJCE COUNSEL 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held March 5, 1996 .......................................................................... ........ . Text of H.R. 2941 .. ... ... ..... ........... ................... ... ........... .. .... ... .................................. . Statements of Members: Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah ........................ .. Hefley, Hon. Joel, a U.S. Representative from Colorado .................. .... .. .. .. .. Richardson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico ................ .. Smith, Hon. Linda, a U.S. Representative from Washington, .................... .. Statements of witnesses: Brown, Bruce, Bureau of Reclamation ................................ ........................... . Cooper-Levy, Herb, Executive Director, National Association of Housing 

Cooperatives .. .. .. ...................... ............................. ..... ........... ........................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Hill, Michael, Association of National Park Rangers ........ .......................... .. Iobst, Steve, Association of National Parks, Maintenance Employees .. .... .. Prepared statement .. ........... .......................... ........ ...................... ........ ..... . Kennedy, Roger, Director, National Park Service ........ .... .................. ...... .... . Prepared statement ................. .... ........ .............................. .......... ............. . Klinge, Lew, Bureau of Land Management .................... .............................. . MacAllister, Jack A. , Chairman Emeritus, U.S. West, Incorporated .... .. .... . Prepared statement ................................................................................. .. Naranko, Allen, Bureau of Indian Affairs ...................... ....................... .. ...... . Reimers, Mark, Deputy Chief, Forest Service ............ ...... ........ ........ ............ .. Prepared statement ....................................... ....................... ......... .. ........ .. Sullivan, Barry, Association of National Park Rangers .............................. .. 

(Ill) 

Page 

1 

30 

1 

9 

10 

28 

22 

23 

76 

5 

7 

49 

13 

54 

21 

24 

78 

22 

16 

68 

2 

LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY FIELD 

EMPLOYEES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1996. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

Mr. HANSEN. The meeting will come to order. Today, we will listen to very important testimony on legislation which Mr. Hefley has introduced to improve housing for land management agency personnel. It would be deja vu all over again for me to say that it 

is an important piece of legislation. 

But what is unusual with respect to H.R. 2941 is not that it is 

important to any member of this body, but rather to the thousands 

of park rangers, Forest Service personnel, and others who are required to live in the substandard government housing scattered 

throughout the country. There is an old saying that Park Service employees are paid in 

sunsets. While I believe that is true in some respects, I think that 

when the day is over and the sun has set, these hardworking employees deserve a decent place to hang their broad-brimmed hats. The housing crisis has been thoroughly studied and documented 

by GAO, as well as the Administration. Many persons have worked 

on this issue in recent years, from the Appropriation Committee to 

the National Park Foundation. 

In fact, even Secretary Babbitt made it a point to pick up a hammer for a photo-op in Tennessee. Despite all the work which has 

gone toward addressing this issue, it clearly cannot and will not be 

fully addressed until some additional authority is provided to the 

agencies. 

The legislation before us today is a comprehensive effort to address this problem. It ensures that existing funds will be directed 

toward the most pressing needs and, even more importantly, pro~ 

vides a variety of tools which could be used to encourage the private sector to become involved in addressing the housing problem. Private sector funding, combined with increased employee responsibility, have the potential not only to help erase the current 

(1) 
2 

backlog, but also to place the program on a firm foundation so that 

we are not back here facing another housing problem in 30 years. 

Therefore, I commend Mr. Hefley for tackling the problem and 

following in the footsteps of Senator Wallopp who worked so long 

and hard to pass companion legislation in the last two Congresses. 

Since the issue has already been thoroughly aired, it is time to 

move forward. 

Therefore, I want to alert members that I intend to mark up this 

legislation later this month, and I look forward to any input from 

them in a timely fashion. I hope that this will be one effort where 

we can work on a bipartisan to find a solution which is long, long 

overdue. 

Mr. HANSEN. I thank you people for being here today. As you all 

know, there are 100 meetings going on right now, and we expect 

members to come dribbling in, as they normally do. And we will 

move ahead with the first panel. 

Our first panel is Mr. Barry Sullivan, Association of National 

Park Rangers. There is a sign there that tells you where you are. 

I don't know if it is on both sides or not. Mr. Michael 0. Hill, Association of National Park Rangers; and Mr. Steve Iobst, president, 

Association of National Park Maintenance Employees. We do appreciate you being with us today, and thank you for taking the 

time to be here. May I ask you how much time you need to give 

your presentation? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Approximately five minutes. 

Mr. HANSEN. Everybody feel OK with that? 

Mr. HILL. Five minutes will do. 

Mr. HANSEN. All right. If you will look in front of you there, you 

see those little lights on. Christina will turn that green light on, 

and when that goes on, you have five minutes. However, the yellow 

light will tell you, you are winding up, and the red light means 

that we throw you off the stand. Not really, but if you do need a 

couple minutes more, please let us know. We are grateful for your 

being here. And, Mr. Sullivan, we will start with you, and you have 

got five minutes. The floor is yours, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY SULLIVAN, ASSOCIATION OF 

NATIONAL PARK RANGERS 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this group and discuss a little bit of the issues regarding National Park Service housing. I am and would like 

to state for the record on annual leave at this time, not representing the National Park Service, though I am a National Park Service employee, a park ranger at Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area in New Jersey. 

I would like just to talk a little bit about park housing specifically and personally as it applies to me. I have been with the Park 

Service approximately 20 years and have lived in government housing approximately 17 of those 20 years. 

Recently, we have seen some significant improvements in park 

housing that has come over the last few years. The present administration of the National Park Service, as well as Congress, has 

supported some of those improvements. Some dollars have been put 

into the park housing, and we have seen some improvements. 
3 

However, the magnitude of the problem that is out there, and I 

will address some of those issues specifically, but the magnitude is 

well beyond the scope of what those dollars that were put into the 

housing can nearly come to compensate. The problem is enormous, 

and the issues are important to the park rangers. 

Personally, the house that I live in is a historic house. It was 

built during the chestnut blight in the 1930's. It is a nominated for 

National Register property. It is a large farmhouse. And as most 

large farmhouses built during those days, it lacks insulation. It has 

had significant problems with roof leakage and such. It has a slate 

roof, very expensive to maintain. The house is situated in an area 

where we keep fire equipment, gas tanks for gas pumps and such 

for vehicles, as well as maintenance storage. 

My residence there is required by the agency which means that 

I, in fact, am required to live there. I have no choice where I live 

but must live in that particular house. The rent is set up by a system which addresses the fair market value in the local location. 

In 1991, there was a northeast regional assessment, and during 

that assessment, which was done by the Bureau of Land Management, it was determined that the rents in Delaware Water Gap 

were not commensurate with housing outside of the park. 

And as a result of that, there were some significant increases. 

My rent, which presently at that time, 1991, was approximately $6,000, was going to jump up to over $9,000 per annum. And in 

addition to that, I pay approximately $3,000 in utilities, again, a 

lot of fuel oil because of the lack of insulation. 

The rent, that $9,000 combined with the $3,000, would bring the 

rent issue up to about $12,000 I would be paying in housing. In 

1991, my salary based on my pay stubs was about $36,500 which 

meant that approximately one-third of my entire salary was scheduled to go into housing. That was significant to me, as well as my 

family, and that expressed a lot of concern. We expressed a lot of 

concern, and some of that I believe was probably what precipitated 

some of the first rounds of this housing bill. 

Those issues of the rent, as well as the required occupancy, have 

really had a significant impact on the National Park Service and 

the park rangers specifically. I have seen some impacts on morale, 

the esprit de corps. The Park Service and the park rangers is a 

proud tradition, and the park rangers that have worked for me in 

those 20 years, some of the finest people in the world, have really 

taken some hits all along the way with required occupancy and 

park housing and rents in general. 

I think this bill starts the process to look at some of those inequities. I think that there are some excellent provisions to it. My distinguished colleague here, Mr. Mike Hill, is going to address some 

of those in regards to the Association and how it feels. But I think 

that some of those issues that are out there and some of the issues 

that this bill talks about are important issues, and I look forward 

to seeing the bill moved forward. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 

STATEMENT OF BARRY SULLIVAN, AsSOCIATION OF NATIONAL PARK RANGERS 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee 

today to talk about the conditions of employee housing in our National Parks. Please 

allow me to introduce myself, my name is Barry Sullivan, and I speak to you this 
4 

morning as a member of the Association of National Park Rangers. While I am a National Park Service employee, I am here today on my own time, and have taken 

annual leave to provide testimony before you. Professionally, I am a National Park 

Ranger presently workin& at the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area 

(NJ/PA). My current position is as the New Jersey District Ranger, I manage a program that is responsible for the protection of the approximately 2 million park visitors and the 35,000 acres under the care of the NPS in the NJ District. I have been 

in this position for the past seven years, though my Park Service career goes back 

nearly 20 years with assignments in six National Park Service areas across the na- tion. I am a GS-12 employee, married with two children. This is the first time I 

have addressed such a distinguished group, but I sought this opportunity because 

I, and the members of the Association of National Park Rangers, believe there is room for improvement in the National Park Service's housing program. I am here this morning to speak with you regarding experiences, both personal and those of my coworkers regarding life in Government housing. I presently live 

in ~overnment housing as a required occupant, which means my occupation of the 

res1dence is a requirement of my employment. In my nearly twenty years of employment as a park ranger I have lived more than 17 years in government housing, all 

of which was as a required occupant. I have lived in Government housing in Staten 

Island, NY; Medora, ND; Sparta, NC and in my present house in Walpack, NJ. 

During 1991 the Bureau of Reclamation conducted a housing survey to determine 

the fair market value for "rents" that NPS rangers pay for Government housing in 

several regions. This survey is conducted every five years. During the five year gap between surveys the rents rangers pay was increased by the CPI each year. As a result of this survey it was determmed (by the contractor conducting the survey) that the rents charged for government housing in the Delaware Water Gap NRA was not commensurate with rents outside of the park. (One wonders why rents are based on the fair market value when salaries are not). Calculations were made utilizing the findings from this survey, and as a result the rent I pay to the Government for housing that I am required to live in was scheduled to increase from nearly $6,000. per year to $9,000. per year, in addition I pay approximately $3,000. in utilities. In 1991 my base salary was $36,965. As a result of the increases I was looking 

at paying approximately Ya of my base salary into housing expenses. That is signifi- cant. Fortunately Congress, realizing the impact of this increase on families and mo- rale, put a 10 percent annual cap on the increase in rent. Even with the cap in place 

my rent has risen to over $7,000. plus utilities. 

I would like to digress from the rent issue for a moment to discuss "Required Occupancy", and Government housing in general, as it applies to National Park Rang- ers. Required occupancy was established to provide a presence in the parks to protect resources, provide services to the public, protect historic structures, and to pro- vide rapid emergency response. It is a significant benefit to the Service. It is highly impactful on the lives of employees and families who must live under its terms. 

During the past few years I have answered the phone or door on m~ residence while 

"off-duty" for official business approximately 105 times each year. (I am required to 

keep a log). These calls have ranged from true emergency calls, to visitors lost, looking for Manhattan at 2:30 am. Generally I am not compensated for these incidents. 

my residing in this area has proved of benefit to the Government and the visitor numerous times by reducing response time during search, and rescues, fires, law en- forcement and other emergency incidents. Required occupancy has a cost, and it is 

the occupant who pays the price. As a Park Ranger in a required occupancy situation I have no say in the location or type of residence the NPS places me in. Nor 

do I have any opportunity to negotiate over rent or conditions under which I must 

live. And finally while being put in a situation where I have no opportunity to pur- chase a residence during my career I am denied the chance to develop equity in a house for my retirement years. I have presently paid over $60,000. for housing in 

my present house. That's $60,000 for the house, zero for the employee. The residence that I live in a historic farm, built during the chestnut blight of 

the 1930's. My closest neighbor is approximately 1.5 miles away, grocery store and 

hospital facilities approximately 26 miles away. During the year prior to my occu- pancy of this structure both the residence and the out buildings were broken into 

and vandalized. The barns and outbuilding of the farm complex are used as a fire 

cache (house), maintenance storage, gas station and salt storage ares. Several times 

daily I have trucks and other vehicles driving through and gassing up at my residence. As a historic structure the building is in disrepair, it is rated by the NPS as "fair", lacks insulation (I pay for fuel oil), and does not meet many building codes. 

It is heavily infested with insects and rodents. All of these situation impact on me, 

but more importantly on my spouse and children. When I talked with my/eers about coming to Washington to testify on this bill, several of them expresse sur-
5 

prise, for each of them knows many other park residences which are in far worse condition than mine. Indeed, and unfortunately that is true. I have seen rangers living under these conditions. Several of them are in may home park, others are in 

other parks across the nation. Rangers living in trailers not fit from human occu- pancy. In structures that leak, are structurally unsound, contain safety hazards, 

and which in many areas would be judged uninhabitable. Yet they live in them. Yet 

they pay rent. These situations are combining to rip at the heart of the National 

Park Service, the morale, the esprit de corps and the professionalism of the National 

Park Ranger. I see it in the staff I supervise and in the new recruits we must hire 

to fill in behind the highly trained and committed rangers who leave the Service 

because of these conditions. We need help. 

In the past few years the management of the National Park Service and Congress 

has made attempts to help remedy these housing problems. But the magnitude of 

the task is enormous, and these efforts while significant, fall far short of the solution. Your support is needed. The bill before you H.R. 2941, the "Housing Improvement Act or Land Management Agencies" will begin a process to deal with the inequities identified above. This bill is important to help maintain the health of the 

National Park Service. The Association of National Park Rangers, an organization 

representing 1600 rangers supports this legislation. Legislation that is critical to as- suring that the U.S. National Park Service remains the world example that it has 

been since 1872. 

I thank you for this opportunity to come before your and share with you conditions which significantly impact on my life, the lives of my coworkers, and my ability to do my job. A job which I and others are deeply committed to, protecting the 

incredible resources of this nation. A job which is dozen by the finest people in the 

world. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have, Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan; appreciate your testimony. Mr. Hill. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HILL, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL 

PARK RANGERS 

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

here today. The Association of National Park Rangers has testified 

in the past two Congresses in favor of similar legislation. I am 

pleased to represent the officers and members of the Association 

who, again, voice their support of a bill that addresses the embarrassing housing situation in our National Parks, Forests, Reservations, and other public lands. 

I am here on my own time and at my own expense as a representative of the Association of National Park Rangers. Our views 

have not been reviewed, approved, or disapproved by the National 

Park Service, the Department of the Interior, or the Office of Management and Budget. 

Our Association was formed in 1977. It is a professional organization comprised of about 1,600 National Park Service rangers and 

other employees from all regions, salary grades, and specialties. 

ANPR is neither a union nor a bargaining unit, but rather a volunteer association formed to advance the ranger profession and support the National Park System and the National Park Service. We 

limit our activities to the presentation of factual, impartial, professional perspectives. As an association, we have been very concerned 

about the particular issue since our founding. 

I have been a Park Ranger for almost 23 years now, Mr. Chairman, and I have been required to rent my home from the government for 18 of those years in six different parks. In previous hearings on this issue, a great fuss was made about the ranger living 

in a shipping container on San Miguel Island in Channel Islands 
6 

National Park. Well, I lived on San Miguel Island before the ranger-in-a-box days. In those days it was a tent. 

Only three years ago, after 20 years of public service, my family 

and I finally began to purchase our first house and live the American dream. I will have the mortgage paid off when I am 75 years 

old. My personal situation is actually rather typical of that of the 

members of our Association. Mr. Sullivan has already spoken about 

some of the actual conditions that some of our members face, and 

we will be happy to answer questions on that. Some of the factual information pertinent to this particular issue 

is startling; bathtubs and toilets suddenly disappearing through 

the floor while in use; employee-paid utility bills consuming twothirds of a family's total housing budget; rent paid to the government eating over half of a family's monthly income; rats climbing 

into bed with babies. These occurrences are facts. Now, we don't object to being required to rent our house from the 

government as a condition of employment. Sometimes there is simply nothing else available because the park itself is so far from 

town. Sometimes it is the best way to keep vandals and the ravages of time from destroying a building or an important event occurred or where historically important people lived or worked. 

Often, the only way that rangers can be made available to find 

people who get lost, to keep them alive and deliver them to a hospital after an automobile accident, or put out fires in government 

or concession-owned buildings in the wee small hours is to have 

them living on-site. In many places, we are the police, the fire department, and the 

paramedics all rolled into one. If somebody has a problem, we fix 

it. We don't have the people to provide 24-hour-a-day emergency 

coverage with on-duty people. But we do have a 24-hour-a-day responsibility to provide those services. Required occupancy is one 

tool to do that. It is in the public interest that we have people living in the parks for a variety of reasons. 

But it is never in the public interest to order people to live in 

a building that is unsafe, that ruins the family's finances to heat 

or cool, or places dedicated, hard working American citizens in the 

awkward position of having to choose between paying exorbitant 

rents for marginal housing or turning their backs on public service 

in order to make enough money to put a decent roof over their families' heads. 

We strongly support the passage of legislation that clearly establishes that providing employee housing is a necessary and important management tool for Federal land management agencies. We 

are pleased that H.R. 2941 recognizes that government housing is 

necessary in many locations for the effective management of public 

lands, and it is often critical in the recruitment and retention of 

qualified land management employees. 

We also support passage of legislation that assures that the 

housing provided by these agencies is fair, safe, and adequate, and 

that the rental rates, including the cost of utilities, don't break the 

bank. We also support the passage of legislation that gives the Secretaries flexibilities that they don't currently have under the authorities that they have in order to try some different ways of providing this housing. 
7 

Mr. Chairman, the Association appreciates continuing interest of 

this committee on the issue of employee housing. We have tried to 

work on this for several years. We appreciate the committee's support, and the support of this committee is vital to our efforts to 

bring needed attention to the deplorable housing conditions facing 

many National Park Service employees. I would be pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill. Mr. Iobst. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE IOBST, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL 

PARKS, MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES 

Mr. IoBST. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

today on my own time to present the position of the Association of 

National Park Maintenance Employees regarding H.R. 2941. The 

Association is made up of over 400 dues-paying maintenance employees and park managers throughout the National Park Service 

and has been in existence for six years. 

I am currently the Acting Chief of the Facility Management Division for the National Park Service. In another six weeks, I will return to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado where, for the 

past seven years, I have been Chief of Facilities Management. One 

responsibility of mine is to manage the housing program at Rocky, 

including maintenance and repairs, rehabilitation, removal, new 

construction, and the administrative side as well. I had similar responsibilities for almost 10 years in Yellowstone National Park. 

We commend the committee's effort to address employee housing 

issues which are complex, emotional, and have far-reaching consequences. We strongly support expanded authorities for the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture. This statement deals specifically with housing of National Park Service employees. 

A variety of solutions are needed because problems vary from 

park to park, and economics are different across the Service. The 

Service has made some progress through appropriated funds, a 

partnership with the National Park Foundation, as well as management techniques to address the housing problem. But more 

must be done. 

The Association has several comments and suggestions that we 

feel will make the legislation more effective. I have been personally 

involved in three innovative approaches to housing solutions for 

Rocky Mountain National Park. 

These included purchase of a private resort outside the park, a 

partnership with the Town of Estes Park, and a private developer 

proposal within the park working with Bank One. In all three 

cases, the National Park Service did not have the authority to 

move very far into these ventures or make commitments. 

I would like to highlight a few of the Association's comments provided in our statement. We agree that the issue of salary as related 

to rents may not be what it once was. However, pay remains an 

issue for seasonal employees when faced with the availability and 

affordability of housing in many areas. 

We agree that rent is based on averages and comparability. However, it is not related to the actual cost of providing and maintaining housing. We ask that the legislation authorize the Secretaries 

more flexibility to, one, set rents based on the actual cost of provid-
8 

ing and maintaining housing; two, adjust base rents more frequently; three, not limit annual increases; four, continue to use 

survey information; but, five, allow rents to be capped on a percentage of one's income where applicable to avoid exorbitant rents. 

The Association is encouraged by the language allowing the Secretary to make payments or contributions to reduce overall project 

costs when forming a partnership. Often, in forming a public-private partnership, we have learned that the success of that partnership can be directly tied to the ability of the National Park Service 

to be a contributing partner to show good faith and to assure the 

agency's concerns and requirements are adequately met. 

In past attempts at ventures involving the private sector, involvement by other agencies-a local community or housing authority-would add strength and vitality to the venture. 

The Association does not think it is necessary to legislate the requirements of Section 7, survey of existing facilities. The maintenance community in the National Park Service has been actively 

involved in assessing condition and needs, as well as providing significant documentation to develop a comprehensive housing improvement program. 

Over the past three years, the National Park Service has made 

considerable progress to assist the agency's housing inventory, conditions, needs, and develop a logical approach to improving the 

availability and condition of employee housing. 

Under Section 9, the authority for cooperative ventures for infrastructure, the Association is very supportive of the language in this 

section. We know that the National Park Service is continuously 

looking for opportunities beyond its boundaries to regionalize utility systems, develop cooperative maintenance programs, and join 

forces with other public works entities. 

We would like to see this section expanded to include the authority for cooperative ventures for infrastructure serving any National 

Park Service facilities, as well as the provision of housing units. 

The Association would like to suggest the following additions to 

this important legislation. Number one, we recommend that the 

Secretary be authorized to provide transportation for employees between their duty station and communities outside the parks. Employees must, of course, cover the cost of this service. We recommend that the Secretary be authorized to study the feasibility of providing housing allotments to help with the cost of 

housing where the local market cost is too high. Reducing the need 

to upgrade or construct government housing-if I could have just 

a few more--

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. Finish your statement. 

Mr. IOBST. This concept would also be utilized to assist employees that would like to enter the private housing market. This study 

would also evaluate a program that would allow employees to set 

aside a portion of their rent payment into a program similar to the 

thrift savings plan to, in essence, build equity. 

In closing, the Association of National Park Maintenance Employees is encouraged by the committee's efforts to improve the National Park Service's ability to address employee housing. The need 

is urgent, and we ask that you act quickly. The Association is 

ready and able to work with the committee and the National Park 
9 

Service to assure that new and innovative approaches are available 

to address the housing needs of the agency. The Association would 

like to thank the Chairman and the members of the committee and 

the committee staff for the opportunity to appear here today. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Iobst may be found at the end of 

hearing.) 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Iobst. We appreciate the testimony. 

If you would all stay right where you are, we have been joined by 

our good friend from Colorado, Mr. Hefley, who is the chief sponsor 

of this piece of legislation. And I would like to turn to him for any 

opening statement he may have at this time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM COLORADO 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do have an opening statement I 

think, and rather than give the opening statement now, we have 

the witnesses here. I would like for it to be included in the record. 

Let me just say I apologize first of all for being a little late in getting here and am glad you went ahead and began. I appreciate 

very much you going ahead and having these hearings. 

Our desire is to try to help you with what evidently, from what 

these witnesses have said and what we have learned, is a very real 

problem. And we don't have any magic about how the best way to 

help you is. We want to work with you to work this out. I appreciate some excellent suggestions that have just been made by this 

panel. 

It seemed to me there was one theme that ran through the panel 

and that was the need for flexibility, that you need-that one answer doesn't necessarily do it in all your locations, that you need 

transportation from the community. In some places, you need help 

within the park, and other places, that privatization might work 

somewhere else. And we want to incorporate the suggestions that 

have been made as we try to work on this legislation. 

So what you see before you in this particular piece of legislation 

is not a finished product. It is a work in progress, and you are contributing greatly to that work. Maybe we can actually come up 

with some things that will be helpful to you. We certainly don't 

want to add to your burden. You have got enough problems in this 

area as it is. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I think I would suspend 

now, and we will go ahead with the witnesses. 

[Prepared statement of Hon. Joel Hefley follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that you've chosen to schedule a hearing on my parks housing bill so early in this legislative session. This has been a longtime problem of the Park Service and, I hope, we'll be able to come up with a formula to bring about some short-term solution. 

As I said, this problem is not new. Twice, this subcommittee has asked the General Accounting Office to evaluate Park Service housing needs and twice, the GAO 

has found that more specific evaluations were needed from the Park Service. Further, the GAO suggested that the Park Service consider re-evaluating its management policies to address this need. Today, we will examine the steps the Park Service and other land management agencies have taken to address these needs. In its two reports, the GAO found that approximately 60 percent of the Park Service's housing stock was in poor to fair condition. Of that, 15 percent, or over 600 

units, were considered to be in poor shape. The Park Service has claimed $546 mil-
10 

lion will be needed to upgrade employee housing, a figure the GAO says it cannot 

verify. Nevertheless, since 1989 the Congress has appropriated approximately $70 

million to address NPS housing needs. Today's hearing begins an attempt to find answers to these questions and solutions to the housing problem. We will also hear from representatives of other Land 

Management Agencies and some private groups about their efforts to address housing needs in a time of budget constraint. Several of these, I'm proud to say, have 

strong ties to may home State of Colorado. 

Mr. Chairman, last year in the National Security Committee, we came up with a plan to upgrade the housing of military personnel around the world. Providing our personnel with proper housing gave me as much satisfaction as any debate we've 

had over grand defense strategy. Because we'll be able to see the results of that 

work in the faces of the people who live in that housing and, I believe, we'll see even better performance from personnel who are well housed. Things should be the same for our Land Management employees. We cannot ex- pect morale to be high in any agency that houses its employees in what NPS Director Roger Kennedy calls "third-world conditions." Nor can we expect new recruits 

to be attracted by the prospect of living in such housing. Make no mistake, solving these problems will be no easy task. It is unlikely the 

Land management Agencies are going to see increased appropriations for anything 

in the near future, even for employee housing. We dealt with that in National Security by finding ways to attract private investment in such housing through loan 

guarantees and other incentives. We might look at something similar here. 

We must also consider that the economies of scale are vastly different between 

the Department of Defense and the Land Management Agencies. We may have to 

consider changes in the ways we have approached employee housing. Today's hearing begins an exploration as much as a solution. But clearly, this is an issue we should address and the bill before us today is a starting pint. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from New Mexico. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, employee housing is an important issue. The provisions of H.R. 2941 apply to all Federal land 

management agencies. Even though that is the case, most of the 

attention in both the Congress and the press on the issue of employee housing is centered on the National Park Service. This isn't 

surprising since the National Park Service has the largest housing 

inventory of any Federal agency, and more park employees are required to live in government housing than any other agency. We have all seen examples of the deplorable employee housing. 

I have seen it. We know problems exist. What we lack are accurate 

assessments of each agency's housing needs, as well as concrete 

plans to address those needs. If we are to properly address this 

issue, I think the Congress needs an accurate assessment of employee housing requirements, the costs associated with those requirements, and a viable working plan to address housing needs. 

I want to express my strong support to the field employees of our 

land management agencies who have had to live in rundown housing. While there is a valid need for employee housing that should 

be provided, such housing should be well maintained, safe, and affordable for these employees. I think this bill, Mr. Chairman, is a good start. It adequately addresses the employee housing issue. We have to do it right. I thank 

you for holding this hearing. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. It has been interesting to hear your testimony regarding this. You know, in this business, sometimes we 

come up with a one-size-fits-all piece of legislation. We make more 
11 

problems than it is worth. So we kind of have to be very careful. 

And on occasion we will put something in, and someone reads it 

wrong, and all of a sudden we spend all our time trying to straighten up what really was in a piece of legislation. So we want to be 

very careful. 

And, frankly, I would like to avoid legislation and let the thing 

work on its own. But I kind of get the impression from you three 

gentlemen that you basically agree with the bill, and as the gentleman from Colorado pointed out, there is nothing really sacred in 

here. We will switch it around any way that makes the thing work, 

and it is a working document that we will try to come up with. 

Am I reading this right, that you are actually to the point that 

you feel it is time for Congress to move in and make some legislative changes? Or do you think this can be done administratively? 

Do one of you want to respond to that? Mr. Hill? Whoever? Just 

grab the mike and talk. 

Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, we feel that legislation is appropriate 

because there are authorities that could be used if the Secretaries 

had them that would help to fix some of this stuff. There are also 

some, you know, fundamental questions about exactly how do we 

go about paying for the upkeep of these houses. 

Some of the housing stock that we have in the National Park 

Service was designed and built to be houses. Others of the housing 

stock are historic structures that are historic for a variety of reasons. We got people that are required to live in lockkeeper's 

houses-well, I guess they were until the flood came by. 

But, you know, we have got people that are living in historic 

structures that were never designed or intended to be houses, and 

yet we are having them live there. That is okay except the utility 

bill for some of these houses gets pretty big real quick because they 

are not insulated. 

So right now the agency itself doesn't have the authority to make 

thos~ kinds of adjustments to the level that it needs to be, and we 

think legislation could sure help out there. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Iobst. 

Mr. IOBST. I would like to add to that, that I believe that having 

authorities legislated is important based on my familiarity with 

projects we have tried in Rocky Mountain National Park, as well 

as being involved in the Park Service's housing initiative the last 

few years. We have tried a variety of things to look at innovative 

solutions to involve the private sector. 

And like I said earlier in my statement, we keep bumping up 

against not having the legislative authority to do some of those 

things. And in some cases, we have found a willing partner, but we 

cannot enter into an agreement because we do not have the authorities that are in this bill. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Sullivan, would you like to respond? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. I concur with those statements. We seem to 

run into walls. Throughout the Park Service, there is an agreement 

to try to make improvements here, but we seem to continually run 

into walls. One of the issues that I see frequently and Mr. Hill addressed this is in the area of required occupancy where someone 

has been in required occupancy for almost their entire career. 
12 

They get to the point where they are ready to retire, and they 

have had no opportunity to develop any equity in any type of structure, and as a result, their entire retirement is forced to go into 

some sort of housing issues. And that is really prohibited by the 

existing legislation. I think there is some room there with some legislative changes to make some improvements in that area. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, we will look to you gentlemen to supply us 

with some of the things that you have given us in your testimony. 

A lot of them make a lot of sense to me. Do you see anybody out 

there that just wants to make political hay on this, or is this going 

to be a dedicated, honest effort to do something right without someone trying to further their political position? 

Mr. IOBST. I think that it is something that is really needed for 

the National Park Service, and it is going to help us progress with 

a tremendous backlog of needs related to housing. I don't see this 

as something that has been politicized at all. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, as I stated in my opening comment, if we 

kind of refine this thing and get it moving, we want to be marking 

it up and go, and we would appreciate hearing from you. And I 

would appreciate hearing from members of the personnel of the 

Park Service, Forest Service and BLM, where we are putting this 

housing who would be supportive of the issue. And if they have 

anything that they want to add, this is a very open committee. We 

are more than willing to have people give us their input. 

And I want to thank all three of you for taking the time on your 

own nickel to come here and the leave that you had to take for this. 

It is very kind of you, and also we respect that and appreciate it. 

So we will excuse you and move to the next panel. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HANSEN. Oh, excuse me. Mr. Richardson, do you have any 

questions further on this? If you would please take the floor. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question because I won't be able to stay throughout Mr. Kennedy's testimony, 

and his testimony I would consider very valuable. If there is an 

endless pot of money and you had a choice between improving existing housing and giving park employees, say, or BLM employees 

a housing allowance, which would it be? Maybe if you could really 

rapidly answer that question. Don't say a case-by-case basis. Just 

tell me if you had priorities to make, what would you do? 

Mr. HILL. You couldn't solve the problem with an either/or situation, sir. I mean, that is the answer. The honest answer is that you 

couldn't fix it all with allowances because some places there are no 

houses to rent on the private market. In other cases, we are putting some money in houses that we probably ought· to be tearing 

down, but we are stuck with them right now. So I think--

Mr. IOBST. Yes. I would agree with Mike that there are places 

where there isn't anything affordable, there is not anything available in a private housing market adjacent to the park. 

But in a lot of cases, I do know that park employees would appreciate the opportunity to have an allotment to allow them to 

enter the private housing market. That would, in turn, allow the 

Service to reduce its investment in infrastructure and long term 

maintenance needs in some instances. 
13 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, it is certainly not an either/or, is it? I mean, 

in some particular instances you find a place where it is just out 

of necessity to have a housing allowance; in other places out of necessity to fix the place up if I am reading that right. I mean, as 

I look at our park units, it would just seem that they don't all fit 

the one criteria or the other. 

Mr. HILL. I think the issue, sir, is that our folks don't mind living 

in required occupancy for the good of the visitor and for the good 

of the park. But if they are forced to live there, they would like to 

have a decent place to live. And everybody else I think, given the 

option, would just as soon be building equity rather than paying 

rent. 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. I mean, what good is a housing allowance if 

you are 400 miles from the nearest place to use it? 

Mr. HILL. Right. 

Mr. IOBST. It is a mix, sir. Mr. HANSEN. Well, thank you so very much. You have been very 

informative, and we are very much appreciate you being here. 

Thank you very much. We will now turn to our second panel. Mr. 

Roger Kennedy, Director of the National Park Service, and Mr. 

Mark Reimers, Deputy Chief of the Forest Service, would you 

please come up? Mr. Kennedy, it is always an honor to have you 

in front of us, sir. · Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Reimers, we appreciate you being with us 

again. Mr. Reimers has been in front of the committee a lot lately, 

and we appreciate him being here. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Reimers, 

how much time do you need? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Five for me I think. I would like to do two things, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I would like to give you my quick testimony, and then I think there are some numbers as to us and the 

other agencies. That may take another two minutes maybe but 

comparisons of numbers of people, numbers of units, and stuff that 

ought to go in the record. Mr. HANSEN. Let us give you both seven minutes then. Would 

that be all right? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mr. HANSEN. Then you would have ample time. If the red light 

goes on, we are not going to throw anything at you. You know that. 

We always appreciate having you with us, and so, Mr. Kennedy, we 

will turn the floor to you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am required to read to you the following sentence which says, "The Administration has not had time to complete its interagency consultation on this wide-ranging legislation. 

We will gladly provide legislative reports stating our position on 

the bill as soon as we have completed this interagency review." I 

would now like to testify on my own if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to offer to you and to Mr. Hefley and potentially Mr. Richardson my thanks for what seems to me to be a very fine piece 

of legislation, absolutely headed in the right direction with the 

right intentions. 

24-362 96-2 
14 

I further would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your collateral endeavors in H.R. 2067 which, under the general cover of 

minor boundary adjustments, gives us more flexibility in some adjacent activity that will help housing as well. These are both very 

fine undertakings. In particular, I want to associate my views with those of my colleagues that have just testified to you. Mr. Iobst, in particular, referred to Section 7 and Section 9 in ways with which I wholly concur. I would like to go, if I may, quickly through those areas in 

which I would like to just add a little stress. 

But, in general, my testimony is we think this is the way to go. 

This is the time to do this on a bipartisan basis, and I hope you 

will move it ahead as rapidly as you can. I want to thank you and 

Mr. Hefley and Mr. Richardson for undertaking this process right 

now. We need it. 

We need the flexibility to do things in association with private 

parties in ways that have been rendered difficult, as Mr. Iobst and 

others have testified, by the existing state of legislation. It is not 

primarily a money matter at the initiation. It is a matter of getting 

partners to do things they can do on a profitable basis so we can 

get on with this. 

There are two or three pages in here of the finest kind of interagency prose in my prepared testimony which I would like to submit for the record. But I would like to stress that I do not personally feel that we need a whole lot more study with regard to the 

necessities for cooperative agreements and the other provisions 

that are in this bill that we have talked to this committee about 

many times before. 

We know quite a lot about that. Maybe we need to study it in 

another 15 or 20 minutes, but we have spent a lot of time studying. It is time to get on with those things so the Secretary and the Director and others have got the flexibility to move. 

With respect as well to flexibility, we do, of course, have some 

specific suggestions which are in my prepared testimony about adjustments in the bill where we think it gets down to providing too 

little flexibility, and those are at the back end of my provided testimony. 

In general, the difficulty for our folks is at once the provision of 

additional money to care for those properties lying within the parks 

where people do have to be to protect the parks and the people who 

come there. But we must move as quickly as we can to place housing outside of parks and not just for our own employees, for other 

people's employees who have got to be there to do the work in the 

parks in many cases on a seasonal basis, which is of enormous importance to the proper care of those parks. 

Years ago, we concluded that we needed partners in operating 

parks, sometimes called concessionaires, sometimes called cooperating association. Those folks have employees too, and the way to 

handle their needs, as our needs, are in adjacent communities. And 

some of the provisions of this bill will make-and the other bill to 

which I referred-will make that more likely to happen. 

And it will mean that people have got a place to go that they can 

afford because it is built by other parties. We need the opportunity 

to commit to occupy over extended periods, thereby providing a 
15 

stream of revenue which any developer will need to do that kind 

of work. 

In general, our comments as to tinkers and adjustments are in 

my formal testimony. I do want to echo Mr. Iobst's comments with 

respect to another big study. That is Section 7. I know that thanks 

to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' own endeavors to get a handle on 

their needs, we are in the process finally of the development 

through their private contractor. 

They have tested and found and has now gone through 95 percent of their needs. The BIA has taught us some things about the 

proper and effective way of assessing location by location the real 

needs. That is underway anyway. I don't think you need to legislate it. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary. I am offering you an enthusiastic endorsement for this process. I hope it can 

move forward on a bipartisan basis. We need greater flexibility. Of 

course we need more money too, but let us start with the flexibility 

and get on with that. 

Now, if I may, I would like to offer you just some comparative 

numbers with regard to what we and the other agencies have and 

need, and I think I can do this fairly rapidly if I am lucky. With 

regard to the National Park Service, we have about 22,000 employees full-time or part-time. We have about 1,800 of them that are 

in required occupancy out of a total of about 5,100 total units of 

housing. 

Our circumstances are very, very different from the other agencies, and they are as follows: in the Bureau of Reclamation, there 

are 865 residences owned. The number of required occupancy is too 

small to reckon. In the Forest Service, there are 5,170 housing 

units of which 75 are required out of a total number of employees 

of about 40,000-very different proportions. 

In the case of the BIA, there are about 4,000 housing units of 

which about one-quarter, 1,200, are required out of a total number 

of employees of 16,600. In the case of the BLM, there are 250 units, 

and this I think is a significant point, only four of those are required because they have an entirely different kind of operation out 

of a total number of 8,800 employees. 

And with the Fish and Wildlife Service, there are a total number 

of FDEs of 3,220. Total number of units 769-I am sorry. It has 

been strongly suggested by my staff that I referred to FDEs. How 

many bodies then? Between 20 and 22,000 depending on how many 

seasonal you have got working in any particular year. OK. That is 

for us. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 3,220 FDEs. We all know that is not 

a body count. That is a full-time equivalent count. That is as close 

as you can get. 769 total housing units of which about half, 365, 

are required occupancy-just so that the difference among these 

agencies is clear. 

We have got a lot of people as the BIA does of people that have 

got to be on the scene; in their case largely for health and otherand educational purposes; in our case because we have to preserve 

and protect and take care of the people who get there. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 
16 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy may be found at the end of 

hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Director; appreciate it. Mr. 

Reimers. 

STATEMENT OF MARK REIMERS, DEPUTY CHIEF, FOREST 

SERVICE 

Mr. REIMERS. Yes. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Richardson, 

pleasure to be here with you today and talk about this legislation. 

I do have with me Kathleen Connelly, the Deputy for Administration, as well as somebody both from engineering and property management if we get into detailed questions. One of the points I would like to make is that there are some 

distinctions between the Park Service and the Forest Service with 

regard to the need. When you look at our testimony, you will see 

that we raise a number of questions. And I would like to try to sort 

of point that out as Mr. Kennedy did. 

At most of our locations, housing is predominantly provided by 

the private sector, and our employees live in local communities. 

And it is not hard for any of you to picture the National Forest System and to remember the green land with a lot of white lands within the boundary. And so typically our people live in the communities. As was mentioned by Mr. Kennedy, we almost never require 

somebody to live in housing. There are some major differences. As you are aware, the Park Service has to deal with exclusive jurisdiction with regard to law enforcement. We primarily depend on 

local authorities for law enforcement so we don't have that kind of 

requirement. So if you looked across the National Forest System, 

you would see us predominantly in the communities. I think in most cases rangers on our districts would not be living 

in the ranger houses anymore but are actually in the communities. 

That is their preference quite often because of the proximity to 

schools, to hospitals, and other circumstances. 

So I think there is a significant difference between the situation 

of the Forest Service with regard to the needs of housing and the 

Park Service. And even though our testimony raises a number of 

concerns, we try to clearly point out that we were not trying to 

judge the Park Service need, but rather what are the opportunities 

and needs of the Forest Service and their employees. 

I have lived in housing on the National Forest System in at least 

three circumstances. I do recall some of it not being of the most expensive nature, and I can remember other that was quite adequate. 

And so I think there are some significant differences, and those 

were pointed out in the GAO report of 1994' between the agencies 

and their needs. 

From our own standpoint, the provision in Section 3 and later 

the definition that relates to that reasonable value, we have been 

able to operate under the OMB circular that deals with rental and 

construction of government quarters and feel that has basically 

worked well for us. The money that we collect goes into a fund, and 

we are able to reuse that. That amounts to between 6 and $7 million a year that we collect in rentals, and all that money goes back 

to the maintaining of those quarters. 
17 

Now, you will see in my testimony that we do have a backlog of 

maintenance of $159 million, and so there is a dilemma. Much of 

the housing that we have was constructed in the 30's and 40's. 

Most of you have passed the old ranger station dwellings. They 

were all painted the same color in the West so you always could 

pick them out. In many cases, those are no longer used by the 

ranger, but they are used by other employees. 

But there is a backlog of maintenance that ties to many of the 

new laws such as accessibility for people with maybe a disability, 

the question of energy retrofitting-the problem that was pointed 

out by previous witnesses of the fact that we didn't insulate and 

do some of the other things. We have dwellings that need that 

work. 

We have also had to deal with asbestos. So we do have a backlog 

of maintenance to deal with. But we are not seeking really to expand our role in providing housing. We are continuing to try to de- pend on people getting housing in the communities where they live. Largely, I think that is accessible. Clearly, we have circumstances where we have particularly gone 

to build bunkhouses. If you looked in our 86'-I mean, our 96' appropriations, you would see that the specific things we have needed 

to do is build some bunkhouses in remote locations for crew. So 

that is sort of a background of a picture. When you look at Section 4, the joint public-private sector housing, we raise some concerns there with the concept of a long-term 

lease. As we try to work through the problems in these communities, generally we would rather see that the housing would actually be built on private land which is normally available in most 

of these communities, and then people would-you know, it would 

be built in the private sector. Our people would compete in the 

community for that housing so we don't really see a need for that 

kind of authority. We have some of the same questions with Section 5 in the question of a joint employee-agency housing program. Again, most of 

our people are getting their housing in the private sector. If they 

choose to buy a home, they do that, and then we do have authority 

to help with relocation. Most of our employees actually do-are mobile. After a period of time, they move to another area. And so the 

relocation helps out that problem of investing and moving ahead. 

With regard to the leasing of seasonal quarters, we have some 

concerns with what we conceive of as moving more into the housing 

business for the Forest Service which we are not anxious to do. 

Now, as Mr. Hefley is probably aware, we are doing an intensive 

study in Vail, Colorado involving . all of the Federal partners-ourselves, the community government, HUD, the Governor's Office. 

We are trying to look through there and determine, you know, 

what are the needs for that community, how should all of the Federal agencies interact in order to meet that need, and how to proceed. 

Now, we have the authority to do most of what we see at this 

point as required with regard to dealing with that pilot study. We 

may learn from it that we lack an authority, but at this point in 

time, we think we have the authority to move it. But we want to 

do it in conjunction with the city fathers in Vail. 
18 

We want to have agreement if there is a need for low income or 

mid-income housing that it is done in the community context, and 

we work it through that way. We agree with the previous witness 

that Section 7-we don't need any more surveys with regard to the 

kind of housing we have or where it is located. 

So I guess in conclusion, another suggestion was made of the 

possibility of studying a housing allowance. We would be open to 

that kind of study to see if there is a mechanism that would be 

helpful. 

Generally, we see at this point in time for the Forest Service that 

under existing authorities and based on the land pattern that we 

have and the availability of private land and private housing that 

we can deal with most of our dilemmas. We do have a backlog of 

maintenance that needs to be addressed. 

We sometimes have a very specific problem in very remote locations, but a number of the authorities in this bill, it would be hard 

to imagine how you would ever encourage a private investor into 

some of our most difficult circumstances, say, in Alaska. The only 

alternative we think sometimes in a very remote location is, in fact, 

for the Federal Government to build the housing. We do get some 

construction dollars, some maintenance dollars in our budget to do 

that. 

So that concludes my testimony. We want to work with the committee though. If you continue to have this authority to apply to 

us that we work it through so that we have the discretion to do 

what makes sense as opposed to any kind of a requirement that 

would require us to move in a particular direction. Thank you very 

much. [Prepared Statement of Mr. Mark Reimers may be found at the 

end of hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Reimers. Mr. Hefley. Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much, and, again, Mr. Chairman, 

I think the testimony has been excellent with these two panelists. 

Let me-Mr. Reimers first. I think you bring up Vail, and I think 

that is a good example of one size not fitting all. In the Vail valley there, there is no medium or low income housing, and I would think your rangers would have a great deal of difficulty there. So I have been pleased that you are doing that study. 

And as I understand it, you have no kind of housing allowance 

now, do you? 

Mr. REIMERS. That is correct, we don't. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Roger, I can't tell you what a pleasure it is for you 

and I to be on the same side of an issue, but even at that, I don't 

think we have been very far apart in the past. 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, sir. I don't find this unusual but keep going. 

Mr. HEFLEY. I think we have got one little problem we need to 

sit down still, and I think maybe now is the time to do it and work 

on. But this I think is something we can both wholeheartedly try 

to work on to deal with. The Forest Service testified that most of 

their folks are in the community, and, in reality, most of your folks 

are in the community as well. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. Mr. HEFLEY. And I would think-! know for many of those communities, particularly around Rocky Mountain, Grand Lake, and 
19 

Estes and so forth, they love it for your folks to be in the commu- nity. They have become an integral part of the community, and 

they are proud of you. Is there a policy within the Service to try 

to keep as many of them in a community as you actually can? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. But as you suggested a minute ago, what 

is true of Vail is true of Estes Park. That is a pretty tough place 

for some people that are not making a lot of money to get on with 

a decent life and decent housing. And it is exactly those circumstances which are the biggest problem. 

Well, of course, we want them to live in the community. Some 

people come seasonally. It is very tough to get seasonal quarters. 

We need to get on with this and do that on an economically sound 

basis. That is why we think this is a good way to go. Mr. HEFLEY. You know, Mr. Hansen and I are on the National 

Security Committee and worked last year to develop the privatization housing for the military. And one of the things that we have 

struggled with is that we are dealing with a very different scale. 

Mr. Reimers mentioned in Alaska. Well, you know, you have a 

few housing· units up there hard to attract. With a military base, 

you might have a few hundred. Does the difference in scale preclude us from getting private--

Mr. KENNEDY. No, it really does not. What we have got going 

now in the first place is a real consensus based on an awful lot of 

testimony that we got to get on with this and free us up to make 

arrangements with the private sector. That is the first thing. That 

is an important change. There is just no difference about that so 

far as I can tell. 

Secondly, we have a reanimated National Park Foundation 

which is in a position now to take some leadership to make arrangements, not just to find the money, but to find the partners 

and get on with it in a businesslike way. We had a meeting the 

other day in Boulder about private-in Denver it was with a whole 

range of private folks to move on this. 

Now, we find that we encounter the aforesaid impediments to get 

on with it in a businesslike way, which you are in the process of 

trying to get out of the way for us. The presence of a business- based enterprise which has common purposes with us-that is, the 

National Park Foundation-is a great blessing in this picture. It is 

a relatively new entry in solving this process. So between us and 

you and the Foundation, I think we can move on this now. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, Roger, would you-you know, you don't have 

to go through it in detail today, but we keep hearing about these 

regulatory structures that limit what you can do. Would you go 

over your situation--

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. 

Mr. HEFLEY [continuing]. and share with us before we take this 

to a vote in committee which one of those do we need to make doggone sure that we get rid of or change so that you can--

Mr. KENNEDY. The Foundation itself needs a little more flexibil- ity. I think we have legislation up for you and Mr. Hansen. I can't 

remember the precise provisions in the minor boundary adjustments bill that are collateral to this bill, but they need to go forward also. And we will seek to sharpen up the prepared testimony 
20 

so that it is a little more specific with regard to what we need to 

get changed now. 

I think that in the course of getting this prepared testimony up 

to you, we were a little less vigorous in our support of some of the 

provisions of the bill that are specifically responsive to the point 

you are raising. And we can do that in the next week or so to get 

on with this. Mr. HEFLEY. That would be great because if we don't do this 

right the first time-- Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Absolutely. Mr. HEFLEY. You know, the conclusion that I have come to in 

trying to deal with this is that while the scale isn't the same as 

with the Defense Department, the bottom line is the same. Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. Mr. HEFLEY. And the bottom line is that we can't get there from 

here with appropriated funds and our old ways of doing things. We 

have to be innovative if we are to solve these problems. Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely. And the scale is big enough, Mr. Hefley. If we pull together-boxcar the Park Service's requirements 

alone, let alone what we can boxcar in from others, it is a familiar 

device in the financing of housing, that we pull a lot of units having comparable characteristics into common securities that are 

then put on a market which can receive those aggregates. That is 

the basis for a lot of other housing legislation. We just need to 

apply those principles in a businesslike way to our needs. The volume is big enough. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Super. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. Let me just in generalities 

go over a few things if I could. You both kind of proposed or quoted 

OMB policy as a reason to oppose those elements in the bill which 

provide for special consideration to your employees in terms of 

housing. 

I think Mr. Hefley, who Chairs the Committee on Military Con- struction, has a huge problem over there that he is constantly 

wrestling with. And to a certain extent, we do give special consideration to the military constantly. I don't know how else you could 

do it. Somebody is on ADAC and somebody else is in some wild spot. 

Well, there is some comparability here. You say we would like to 

live in the cities. How do you do that for Bryce Canyon? 

Mr. KENNEDY. You don't. You are entirely right, Mr. Hansen. 

Mr. HANSEN. They have got to drive all the way to Panguitch if 

they could find anything, and I doubt that they could. How do they 

do it in some of these other areas? So I almost think there isn't a 

one-size-fits-all. I think you have got to have some flexibility. Maybe I am wrong on this thing. Maybe Forest Service is a little 

different. I agree with Mr. Reimers that basically they can live in 

cities. I look at the Jim Bridger National Forest. I look at up around 

Kemmerer, up around Sweetwater County and those areas. I wonder how those guys do it in some of those areas. Boy, they got a 

long way to go if they are going to take care of the responsibilities 

of a forest ranger. So I--
21 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Hansen, I think my colleague from the Forest 

Service was referring to communities, but he didn't necessarily 

mean big towns I think. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, coming from a little town myself, I get nervous when they get over 600 people in a town so I can well understand what that is like. My little town has gone from-when I was 

on the city council years ago-1,600 to 12,000. I am seriously 

thinking of moving to Cokeville, Wyoming, but I don't think Barbara Cubin would appreciate it. 

Anyway, when you speak for the Interior Department, obviously, 

the greatest need is with the National Park Service, but you are 

here speaking for the Interior Department basically, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. What is the need for other Interior-ELM, people 

like that, Reclamation folks? You gave us some statistics which I 

appreciate, but they are relatively minor compared to your agency, 

aren't they? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. And the BIA. You know, those folks-there are a 

lot of reservations around. I would be curious to know where we 

are coming from. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. These folks that are here to do that if you 

want them to are Kenneth Brenneman from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Allen Naranko of the BIA, Bruce Brown of the Bureau of 

Reclamation, and Lew Klinge of the BLM. They are here. Would 

you like to hear from them? 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, your testimony has that in it, and I am sure 

they have written testimony. Is that correct, if I may ask? Can they 

give us testimony regarding-can you supply us with testimony regarding these issues or would you please? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Could we go a little bit informal at this point, Mr. 

Hansen, and ask them if they would like to supplement what I had 

to say that is already out? 

Mr. HANSEN. Fine. Bring them up. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Is that OK? 

Mr. HANSEN. Give us a brief supplement. Just come up to that 

mike by Mr. Kennedy. State your name, who you represent, and 

give us a quick response to my question if you would. 

STATEMENT OF LEW KLINGE, BUREAN OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT 

Mr. KLINGE. I am Lew Klinge with the Bureau of Land Management, and I don't have any formally prepared testimony, but I do 

have a few facts and figures if you would be interested in it. BLM 

manages a great deal of land in the West, and out of our 11,000 

employees, at peak season, which includes probably 3,000 

seasonals, we have about 253 housing units. 153 of those units are 

dorm rooms, 41 houses, about 14 duplexes, a couple of cabins, a few 

trailer pads. We consider ourselves to be the landlord of last resort; 

have as few units as possible. 

Most of our units house seasonal firefighters. So we are not a big 

player in this game, but we do have some employees-! think 

four-we have four of our units are required occupancy mostly for 

security and to deter vandalism. 
22 

And these people do face a lot of the problems that were discussed earlier here with having to pay fairly large rents for housing that is not anything that you or I would live in if we had a 

choice. I don't know what else I would say exactly. Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine . Mr. HANSEN. Do you have anybody who actually lives in an area 

that they can't be in a city regardless of the size? 

Mr. KLINGE. We have got people---

Mr. HANSEN. Can you give me an example? Mr. KLINGE. Some extremely remote areas of Alaska that, you know, they are a little more than cabins. I do think at this point all of our facilities have got indoor plumbing, but they are extremely remote, and there just is no other housing available. 

Mr. HANSEN. But it is really infinitesimal compared to Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Reimers? 

Mr. KLINGE. Yes, yes, absolutely. Mr. HANSEN. Appreciate that. What about BIA? Are they here? 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN NARANKO, BUREAN OF INDIAN 

AFFAIRS 

Mr. NARANKO. Good morning. My name is Allen Naranko. I represent the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Currently, we are pleased to 

announce that we are completing our housing study for employee housing. We have basically looked at about 90 percent of the housing stock for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and upon completion of 

it, we will have some very, very good statistical information about 

the housing conditions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 

methodology of feasibility in order to rehab, replace, or do whatever 

we need to address housing needs within the Bureau of Indian Mfairs. 

Mr. HANSEN. Don't you have agents that are on reservations? 

Mr. NARANKO. The people that we are housing predominantly are 

schoolteachers, law enforcement people; very isolated locations as 

you well know. 

Mr. HANSEN. I see. I appreciate that. Bureau of Reclamationdo we have anybody to respond on that? 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE BROWN, BUREAN OF RECLAMATION 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bruce 

Brown. While the Bureau of Reclamation owns about 868 housing units, most of those are from regional construction camps, and actually our need is probably the reverse of what the current trend 

is. We need to be able to dispose of a lot of those. 

Most of the 165 employees that we have living now are living in 

things like locktender's quarters, but for the most part, they are 

not required. We can probably-there is adequate housing in the 

local communities. 

Mr. HANSEN. All right. That has been very informative. I appre- ciate that. If you want to give us additional information regarding 

any of those, please feel free to do it. We would appreciate it. I 

guess we really have no further questions for this panel. We do appreciate all of the testimony, and you folks who in an 

impromptu way had to stand up, we really appreciate you being 
23 

here with us. We want to move ahead with this legislation, but we 

want to make sure we are on solid ground before we do it. 

Our last panel is Mr. Herb Cooper-Levy, Executive Director, National Association of Housing Cooperatives; Mr. Jack A. 

MacAllister, Chairman Emeritus, U.S. West, Incorporated. If these 

gentlemen would come up? Thank you, gentlemen, for being with 

us. Five minutes-do you need more? Five, OK. Christina will turn 

it on. Is that right? Is it Cooper-Levy? Am I pronouncing that correctly? 

Mr. CooPER-LEVY. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you both for being with us. We will turn to 

you, Mr. Cooper-Levy. You will be first. 

STATEMENT OF HERB COOPER-LEVY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING COOPERATIVES 

Mr. CooPER-LEVY. I am the Executive Director of the National 

Association of Housing Cooperatives. The word cooperative is used 

in this piece of legislation in three different ways. What I am here 

to talk about principally is the way it is used in Section 4 which 

is as a private business. Cooperatives exist in the United States. 

There are 45,000 of them. 100 million Americans belong to them. 

Credit unions, rural electrics, rural telephones are all cooperatives. 

Housing cooperatives exist in 30 states providing over 1 million 

units of housing. They are a flexible solution to the problem of providing housing-a private market solution-that can be used to 

solve-one solution that can be used to solve the problem before 

you. 

Housing cooperatives are the most successful form of housing 

that the U.S. Government has ever been involved with. The Federal Housing Administration's programs are so successful that the 

mortgage insurance premiums that were collected for the FHA-213 

program were entirely returned to the cooperatives that paid them. 

Housing cooperatives are a corporate form of home ownership. It 

is a way in which using the authority that has been suggested in 

this legislation, that of a long-term land lease, that the pad underneath the house could be leased by the housing cooperative corporation, along with any improvement as necessary, to provide for 

improvement of that housing, to provide for construction of additional housing, and to in the process provide equity to the employees who earlier testified that they would like to acquire equity. 

Housing coope;.·atives exist both as concentrated developments 

and scattered developments. Concentrated-most of us have seen 

reference to co-ops in New York City. Well over half of the cooperatives in the United States are in the New York City metropolitan 

area. 

But there are National Housing Cooperatives as well. The most 

successful one is Cooperative Services, Incorporated. It has over 

10,000 units serving elderly families in Maryland, Michigan, Massachusetts, and California. 

Our organization has worked with both the U.S. Army and the 

U.S. Navy to design housing cooperative programs for their personnel, senior enlisted, junior officer personnel who cannot afford 

housing who are forced to travel huge distances to acquire suitable 

housing that is affordable to those families. And we have designed 
24 

programs for those agencies to provide ownership opportunities 

through the cooperative model. 

The means by which this could work is by seeking private investment and capitalizing that private investment by the ability to pay 

on the part of the employees and improving the existing housing 

and in constructing additional housing on an as-needed basis. 

A National Housing Cooperative could be established which 

would include a couple of units in one park, a couple of units in 

another park, a couple of units in another service area, a couple 

units from another-one of the many agencies that are involved 

in-a couple units in any one of the agencies who have a deficit in 

the provision of adequate and suitable housing. 

I am not suggesting that this means is the only means to provide 

an answer to the problem but simply a market tested private approach in which we can flexibly participate in solving the problem 

that is before you. And without resorting to reading what is written, I would be available to answer any questions. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. Cooper-Levy may be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HEFLEY. [presiding] Fine. Thank you very much. Mr. 

MacAllister. 

STATEMENT OF JACK A. MACALLISTER, CHAIRMAN 

EMERITUS, U.S. WEST, INCORPORATED 

Mr. MACALLISTER. Thank you. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. MacAllister, are you still a resident of Colorado 

since your retirement from U.S. West? 

Mr. MACALLISTER. I have been staying busy-plenty busy. 

Mr. HEFLEY. I bet you have. Good to have you here. 

Mr. MAcALLISTER. Thank you very much, Congressman. I am 

Jack MacAllister, and I have been a member of the National Park 

Foundation Board from 1989 to 1995. I am currently what is called 

an alumni member of the Board and working on Friends of the 

Park Committee. And prior to that time, I had a great deal of interest in National Parks. 

One of the things that has struck me over the years is the quality of the people who are attracted to the National Parks and the 

National Forests. They truly represent some of the great people of 

our country. And yet many of them have been forced to live in very 

substandard housing. 

I have seen many of those houses because as I visit National 

Parks all over the country, I introduce myself to the park superintendent and ask to see the housing. And much of it is really a 

disgrace to our park system and to our employees and to our country. 

I think that the National Park Foundation is just beginning to 

become interested in this. Secretary Babbitt has declared this a 

number one priority. Director Kennedy has been working with the 

Foundation to try to find some innovative solutions to solving this 

problem. And certainly we have just heard one I think. 

But it isn't a case of where all of the National Parks need this 

help. As has been pointed out before, just last weekend, I was at 

Golden Gate National Historic Park in San Francisco. It is fundamentally an old Army base, Fort Mason, and they have very ade-
25 

quate housing. But I have also been in places where they have old 

dilapidated, rusted-out house trailers that are really a disgrace. 

The National Park Foundation has attempted to get started on 

this program, and I would characterize that only as a get-started 

program. We have identified several parks that we have tried to 

focus on instead of trying to solve all the problems in all the parks 

everywhere. We have tried to focus on some parks that have really 

needed help. 

I think the most success we have had is probably in my prepared 

remarks in the Isle Royale National Park in Michigan. And it just 

gives you kind of a glimpse of what could be happening because 

under the leadership of another alumni Director, Donald Thurber, 

they raised something over $350,000, and have gotten some cooperating agreements with various builders and the National Guard, 

and have been able to put up a dormitory and a couple ranger family homes just to see if they could do it. And they did it at a lot 

less cost than would have normally cost us to build the facilities. 

And it just showed us in the Park Foundation that it could be done. 

I am sure the Park Foundation has maintained a high level of 

interest in this program. If we can find a direction that can be productive, I am sure that there will be an all-out effort to raise private funds to help support this. It is a grand way for the United 

States Government to leverage their money by matching grants 

that could possibly be made to supplement the money raised from 

the private sector. 

I think it is a job that is long overdue that needs to be done, and 

I was really thrilled to hear that you were sponsoring this legislation which gives us the flexibility we need to move ahead. And I 

am convinced that with this flexibility and with the determination 

of the private sector that we could come together and provide decent housing and provide the opportunity for Park Service employees to build equity in their home. 

[Prepared Statement of Mr. MacAllister may be found at the end 

of hearing.] 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much both of you; again, excellent 

testimony. Both of you would agree that to bring the private sector 

into it makes sense? 

Mr. MACALLISTER. Absolutely. 

Mr. HEFLEY. In one way or another? And, Mr. MacAllister, with 

the Park Foundation, you folks have done some wonderful things. 

But it is my understanding from your testimony that you submitted that it is too big a job just for the Park Foundation to try to 

do? 

Mr. MAcALLISTER. Yes. I think it is probably too big a job for just 

the Foundation to do. I think the Foundation can be an important 

player and wants to be an important player. But the job is pretty 

big. It has been deferred for a long time. And there is a lot of pentup need. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Levy, one of the recurring themes from our 

panelists here is the concern about not building any equity when 

you are in the Park Service and you are living in required housing. 

The military has that problem. The pastor of a church who has a 

parsonage has that problem. 
26 

The governor~ack, you would remember Dick Lamb, our long- time governor in Colorado, complained about the fact when he left 

office he had no equity in a home. He had lived in the governor's 

mansion all those years. He had no equity in a home. 

The suggestion you make, Mr. Levy, as I understand, would 

allow them to take some of the benefits of homeownership with 

them as they move. Would you talk about that just a little bit? 

Mr. CooPER-LEVY. Certainly. The ownership in a cooperative is 

a dual relationship. You own an ownership interest in the corpora- tion which, in turn, owns the housing, and it may or may not own 

the land. And you are also a tenant to that corporation. The corporation need not be in one physical location. As I mentioned, there 

is at least one very successful national housing cooperative. As a Park Service employee or other land management employee moved from site to site, they could transfer their ownership interest from one house owned by the housing cooperative to another 

house owned by the housing cooperative. 

In the process, the development of this corporation at its establishment could set either a price-a controlled price to limit the resale of the ownership interest so that it remained affordable to persons in a similar situation in the future and allow a limited equity, 

or it could leave that price to whatever market exists and let the 

marketplace determine the value of the transfer of the ownership interest. 

In either event, the occupant's monthly charges would go toward 

building equity. They would be the same form of ownership equity 

as exists from any other form of homeownership. Since 1942, the 

Internal Revenue Code recognized housing cooperatives as one of 

the ways that persons could own housing. And there have been 

housing cooperatives functioning in the United States since 1876. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, of course, I think that would be a tremendous 

thing if we could do that and they could develop some equity as 

they go along. I feel very strongly that when we have government employees and we require them to live in government housing that 

we provide them decent housing. 

And as I have looked at a lot of military bases, as well as park facilities, many of those facilities are Third World quality. And 

there is a tremendous backlog. And as we said earlier, you can't get there from here probably under the normal circumstances. 

Now, Jack, you and the Foundation worked on this project at 

Rocky Mountain National Park. And would you tell us a little bit 

about the roadblocks you ran into when--

Mr. MAcALLISTER. Well, we were trying to find a solution to at 

least get started at Rocky Mountain National Park. And we discovered a summer home facility at a resort I guess you would describe 

it that was located right adjacent to the park that was for sale. 

And it had about as I recall 25 or 30 housing units of various sizes 

on the lot. 

Our thought was that if we could buy that, and I think the price 

was something over $1 million-1.2 million or something like 

that-if we could buy that facility and then turn it over to Park 

Service employees who could renovate the facilities under certain 

codes and guidelines, and then have a covenant which would require them to sell them to future Park Service employees who 
27 

needed the service, that it would give us an opportunity to start a 

cooperative. We weren't calling it a cooperative, but that is the 

idea. 

We got to the point where we thought we had a pretty good deal 

put together, but by the time we were able to get the appropriate 

approvals and get a sight on just how much money we were going 

to have to put up and who would manage the facility, who would 

collect the rent and who would sell the properties and take care of 

the business end of it, they got another offer, and it went away. 

I think that with the legislation that is currently being proposed, 

I haven't thought this quite through yet, but it seems to me that 

with many of the provisions that are in that law, we would probably have been able to move much faster on that deal and perhaps 

concluded it in time to make a deal. 

So I think that it is probably a good example of an opportunity 

that went by the boards simply because the time involved in putting it together didn't allow us to act quickly enough to take advantage of kind of a unique situation in the marketplace at that particular time. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Pombo, do you have any questions of the panel? 

Mr. PoMBO. Just one question. Just to follow up on what you 

were just talking about, it would involve private housing and it 

would have some type of a deed restriction on it that would say, 

for example, that it had to go to future employees or that employees of such and such an agency would be the ones who would purchase that? 

Mr. MAcALLISTER. Well, the original thought we had on it was 

pretty much that, that the idea of buying this and making it available in the first place would be for Park Service employees. The 

second idea would be to put some restriction on it so they couldn't 

just sell it in the general market, and the housing would eventually 

go away. But it would remain as a resource for Park Service employees who had to live in Estes Park, and because of the price of 

housing in Estes Park find it very, very difficult. 

Mr. POMBO. There is somewhat of a precedent in terms of low income housing or first-time buyer housing that has been established. I know in California we have used that extensively, that a 

buyer would come in, whether it is a first time home buyer or a 

low income home buyer, purchase a piece of property, a housing 

unit like that, they would be able to hold it for a given set of time. And if anytime within that-I believe that the one in my district 

was 10 years-anytime within that 10 years they had to sell it to 

another low income buyer or to a first time home buyer. So there 

is somewhat of a precedent. 

In this particular case if you are looking at creating an inholding 

in Federal land, the deed restriction would have to be for a longer 

period of time. But if that were the case, then you would have to 

do it that way. 

Mr. MAcALLISTER. This particular example was outside of the 

Federal land. It was on private land just adjacent to the National 

Park. But you are right. If it were using Federal land, there would 

have to be some thought-out provisions that would appropriately 

deal with that. 
28 

Mr. POMBO. Anything that would create more private property I 

am all for it. 

Mr. COOPER-LEVY. If I may, Mr. Chairman, we did some work 

with the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy looking at this question and 

its interplay with the Fair Housing Amendments and determined 

that there could very clearly be a priority given for occupancy and 

the very first priority for the class of persons for whom the housing 

was to be designed. But to make it exclusively for those persons 

violated the Fair Housing Amendments. 

The likelihood is that the demand that I have heard will far exceed the capacity of any private entity to meet all the deficit, but 

that the corporation would need to be established if it were established on a multisite basis or even on a single-site basis. So that 

it did not exclusively and in perpetuity limit its occupancy. 

The reality is that housing cooperatives cannot discriminate on 

the basis of any protected class, but they can discriminate on the 

basis of who will make an effective member to the corporation and 

certainly take into account as a priority for occupancy those persons who have the greatest deficit in housing living in substandard 

or housing that is far distant while serving their public purpose. 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, under what provision did you say 

that there would-you ran into a problem with making it--

Mr. COOPER-LEVY. Exclusive? 

Mr. POMBO [continuing]. exclusive? 

Mr. CooPER-LEVY. Fair Housing Amendments of 1988. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much. And, again, the testimony 

was excellent. And I am going to bring the committee to a close I 

think unless there is anyone else in the room that has something 

they want to add at this point, and I don't see anyone. So we will 

adjourn the committee. We do plan to mark this up I think on the 

28th of March so if any of you have specific suggestions about how 

we can improve the legislation between now and the 28th of March, 

please give that to us so that we can incorporate as many of the 

suggestions as necessary to make this thing work properly. And 

thank you very much for your testimony today. The committee is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned and 

the following has submitted for the record:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA SMITH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. CHAIRMAN, I appreciate your holding a hearing on the issue of employee housing in our National Parks. This is an issue that merits serious consideration and 

must be resolved by this Congress. The National Parks in Washington State are a real Source of pride of my constituents. We consider these National Parks to be the crown jewels of the entire Park 

System, on par with even the Grand Canyon. However, while the natural wonders 

in these parks are we-preserved, the housing structures can be characterized as horrible. 

At Olympic National Park, people can see the fines remnant of Pacific Northwest 

rain forest, rare Roosevelt elk and 50 miles of wild, scenic ocean shore. If these 

same tourists look closely enough they will also find substandard and dilapidated housing units for hard working seasonal employees. At Mt. Rainier national Park, visitors would not only see the greatest single peak glacial system in the United States, they would also see what the Park Service admits are deplorable housing conditions for park employees. 
29 

Don't get me wrong. These conditions are not the fault of National Park official. 

They work for a Park System with massive backlogs in operations and maintenance 

because Congress loves to create new National Parks without allocating new re- sources. I believe it's time that we give some attention to this backlog and a good 

place to start is with employee housing. 

I support H.R. 2941 because we need to start to develop other sources of funding 

toward solving this problem, possibly by giving the private sector a guaranteed rental stream in return for upgrading employee housing. 

I look forward to working with may colleagues to give our federal employees on our public lands a decent place to live. 

24-362 96-3 
30 

104TH CONGRESS H R 2941 2D SESSION • • 

To improve the quantity and quality of the quarters of land management 

agency field employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 1996 

Mr. HEFLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall "~thin the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To improve the quantity and quality of the quarters of land 

management agency field employees, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Housing Improvement 

5 Act for Land Management Agencies". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

7 (a) FINDir\GS.-Congrcss finds that8 (1) the provision of employee housing for Fed9 eral land management agencies is necessary for the 
31 

2 

1 effective management of Federal lands in many loca2 tions; 

3 (2) current government housing does not meet 

4 the needs of land management agencies at many lo5 cations, in terms of either quantity or quality, for 

6 field employees whose duties require their residence 

7 on Federal lands; 

8 (3) current government housing rental rates are 

9 based on local or regional comparability studies; 

10 however, salaries for most government employees are 

11 set nationally and are far behind comparable salaries 

12 for similar work; 

13 ( 4) current rental levels, which are based o'n av14 erage rents in the region for comparable housing, 

15 are unrelated to the actual cost of providing the 

16 housing; 

17 ( 5) lack of acceptable quality, affordable hous18 ing both on and off Federal lands is resulting in sig19 nificant recruitment and retention problems at a 

20 number of field units of the land management agen21 cies; and 

22 (6) significant opportunities exist to better in23 volve the private sector in resolving the housing defi24 cit for land management agencies. 

25 (b) PuRPOSES.-The purposes of this Act are-

•H 2941 IH 
32 

3 

1 (1) to develop an adequate supply of quality 

2 housing units for field employees of Federal land 

3 management agencies within a reasonable time 

4 frame; 

5 (2) to substantially expand the alternatives 

6 available for construction and repair of essential 

7 government housing; 

8 (3) to rely on the private sector to finance or 

9 supply housing in carrying out this Act, to the ma.x.i1 0 mum extent possible, in order to reduce the need for 

11 Federal appropriations; 

12 (4) to ensure that housing is affordable to all 

13 field employees of Federal land management agen14 CICSj 

15 ( 5) to provide increased opportunities for the 

16 ownership of housing by field employees, together 

17 with the equity and tax benefits associated with 

18 home ownership; and 

19 (6) to ensure that adequate funds are available 

20 to provide for long-term maintenance needs of field 

21 employee housing. 

22 SEC. 3. GENERAL AUTHORITY. 

23 To promote the recruitment and retention of qualified 

24 personnel necessary for the effective management of public 

25 lands, and notwithstanding any provision of section 5536 

•H 2941 IH 
33 

4 

1 of title 5, United States Code, to the contrary, the Sec2 retary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are 

3 authorized to make available employee housing and essen4 tial amenities, on or off the lands under the administrative 

5 jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned, and to rent or 

6 lease such housing to field employees of the respective De7 partment at a reasonable value. 

8 SEC. 4. JOINT PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING PR0-

9 GRAMS. 

10 (a) LEASE To BUILD PROGRAM.-

11 (1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.-The Secretary con12 cerned may13 (A) lease Federal land and interests in 

14 land to qualified persons for the construction of 

15 field employee quarters and essential amenities 

16 for any period not to exceed 50 years; and 

17 (B) lease developed and undeveloped non18 Federal land for providing field employee quar19 ters. 

20 (2) COMPETITIVE LEASING.-Each lease under 

21 paragraph (l)(A) shall be awarded through the use 

22 of publicly advertised, competitively bid, or competi23 tively negotiated contracting procedures, except that 

24 a lease to an employee housing cooperative may be 

25 awarded noncompetitively if construction on the 

•H 2941 IH 
34 

5 

1 leased land is then competitively bid or competitively 

2 negotiated. 

3 (3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.-Each lease 

4 under paragraph (l)(A)-

5 (A) may provide that the lessee operate 

6 and maintain the field employee quarters dur7 ing the term of the lease; 

8 (B) shall require that the construction and 

9 rehabilitation of field employee quarters be done 

10 in accordance with the requirements of the land 

11 management agency and local applicable build12 ing codes and industry standards; 

13 (C) shall contain such additional terms and 

14 conditions as may be appropriate to protect the 

15 Federal interest, including limits on rents the 

16 lessee may charge field employees for the occu17 pancy of quarters, conditions on maintenance 

18 and repairs, and agreements on the provision of 

19 and charges for utilities and other infrastruc20 ture; 

21 (D) may provide that, upon termination of 

22 the lease, the contractor shall abandon the 

23 quarters constructed on the property subject to 

24 such lease vest in the United States or restore 

25 the property to its natural state; and 

•H 2941 IH 
35 

6 

(E) may be granted at less than fair mar2 ket value if the Secretary determines that such 

3 lease will improve the quality and quantity of 

4 field quarters available. 

5 (4) PROCEEDS.-Any proceeds from any lease 

6 under paragraph (l)(A) may, notwithstanding any 

7 other provision of law, be retained by the land man8 agement agency entering into such lease and shall be 

9 used for payment of any costs related to the housing 

10 program, including administration, maintenance, re11 pair, rehabilitation, and construction activities in12 curred by the agency with respect to such lease, 

13 property subject to such lease, or any other em14 ployee housing project owned by, or under the juris15 diction or control of, such agency. Any surplus pro16 ceeds from such leases shall be retained by the agen17 cy for these purposes until expended. 

18 (5) CONTRIBUTIONS BY UNITED STATES.-The 

19 Secretary may make payments or contributions in 

20 kind to reduce the costs of planning, construction, or 

21 rehabilitation of quarters under a lease under this 

22 subsection. The obligation of the United States to 

23 make payments under a lease under this subsection 

24 in any fiscal year is subject to the availability of ap25 propriations for that purpose. 

•H 2941 m 
36 

7 

1 (6) THIRD PARTY PARTICIPATION.-A lease 

2 under this subsection may include provision for par3 ticipation by a third party, when third party pres4 ence is needed or required, and approved by the Sec5 retary concerned. 

6 (b) REJ\'TAL GUARANTEE PROGR.Al\I.-

7 (1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.-The Secretary con8 cerned may enter into a lease to build arrangement 

9 as set forth in subsection (a) with further agreement 

10 to guarantee, subject to the availability of appropria11 tions, the occupancy of field employee quarters units 

12 constructed or rehabilitated under such lease. A 

13 guarantee made under this subsection shall be m 

14 writing. 

15 (2) Lil\IITATIOl\'S.-The Secretary concerned 

16 may not guarantee17 (A) the occupancy of more than 97 percent 

18 of the units constructed or rehabilitated under 

19 such lease; and 

20 (B) a rental rate that exceeds the rates es21 tablished under section lO(b). 

22 (3) RENTAL TO GOVERNli1El\'T EMPLOYEES.-A 

23 guarantee may be made under this subsection only 

24 if the lessee agrees to permit the Secretary con-

•H 2941 IH 
37 

8 

1 cerned to utilize for housing purposes any units for 

2 which the guarantee is made. 

3 (4) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A SATISFACTORY 

4 LEVEL OF OPERATION AND ~WNTENA.l\'CE.-A guar5 antee shall be null and void if the lessee fails to 

6 maintain a satisfactory level of operation and main7 tenance. 

8 (c) JOINT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.-

9 (1) IN GE.l\'ERAL.-The Secretary concerned 

10 may use authorities granted by statute in combina11 tion '"'"ith one another in the furtherance of providing 

12 affordable field employee housing. 

13 (2) CONDITION.-The Secretary concerned may 

14 condition private development upon provision and 

15 management of field employee housing for the Fed16 eral Government in the affected location. 

17 (d) CONTRACTS FOR THE lVlANAGE~1ENT OF FIELD 

18 EMPLOYEE QUARTERS.-

19 (1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.-The Secretary con20 cerned may, subject to available appropriations, 

21 enter into contracts for the management, repair, and 

22 maintenance of field employee quarters. 

23 (2) TERMS AND COJ\'DITIONS.-Any such con24 tract shall contain such terms and conditions ·as 

25 such Secretary concerned deems necessary or appro-

•H 2941 IH 
38 

9 

1 priate to protect the interests of the United States 

2 and assure that safe, affordable quarters are avail3 able to that agency's field employees. 

4 (3) RENTS.-Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, any such contract may provide for the 

6 setting of rents at rates to be determined by the 

7 Secretary concerned in accordance with this Act and 

8 for their collection. 

9 SEC. 5. JOINT EMPLOYEE-AGENCY HOUSING PROGRAMS. 

10 (a) SALE OF QUARTERS.-

11 (1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.-The Secretary con12 cerned may sell field employee quarters to field em13 ployees of the agency or a cooperative whose mem14 bership is made up exclusively of field employees of 

15 the agency. 

16 (2) INTEREST IN LANDS.-The sale of quarters 

17 under paragraph ( 1) shall be limited to a leasehold 

18 interest in lands. 

19 (b) LEASE OF QUARTERS.-The Secretary concerned 

20 may lease Federal land to field employees of the agency 

21 or a cooperative made up of field employees of the agency 

22 for purposes of constructing employee housing and essen23 tial amenities. 

HR2941 IH-2 
39 

10 

(c) RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.-The Secretary con2 cerned shall have right of first refusal when any property 

3 transferred under this section is for sale. 

4 (d) COVENANTS.-The Secretary concerned may es5 tablish such covenants as may be appropriate to the prop6 erty, upon its sale by the Secretary under this section. 

7 (e) FAIR MARKET VALUE.-The Secretary concerned 

8 may sell or transfer employee quarters under this section 

9 for less than fair market value if the Secretary determines 

10 that such a sale or transfer will improve the quality of 

11 field employee quarters available and keep the quarters 

12 affordable at the salary ranges of field employees normally 

13 occupying them. 

14 (f) PROCEEDS.-The proceeds under this section 

15 may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, be re16 tained by the land management agency and shall be used 

17 for payment of any costs related to the housing program, 

18 including rehabilitation and construction activities, in19 curred by the agency with respect to property subject to 

20 this section or any other employee housing project owned 

21 by, or under the jurisdiction or control of, such agency. 

22 Any surplus proceeds under this section shall be retained 

23 by the agency for those purposes until expended. 

24 (g) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.-Disposal of employee 

25 quarters under this section to field employees and coopera-

•H 2941 m 
40 

11 

1 tives whose membership is made up exclusively of field em2 ployees is not disposal of excess Federal real property 

3 under the Federal Property and Administrative Services 

4 Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.). 

5 SEC. 6. LEASING OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEE QUARTERS. 

6 (a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.-Subject to subsection 

7 (b), the Secretary concerned may lease quarters at or near 

8 an installation in the United States for use as seasonal 

9 quarters. The rent charged to field employees under such 

10 a lease shall be that amount which is equal to reasonable 

11 value. 

12 (b) LIMITATION.-The Secretary concerned may only 

13 issue a lease under subsection (a) if the Secretary finds 

14 that there is a shortage of adequate and affordable sealS sonal quarters at or ncar such installation and that16 (1) the requirement for such seasonal field em17 ployee quarters is temporal')'; or 

18 (2) leasing would be more cost effective than 

19 construction of new seasonal field employee quarters. 

20 (c) UNRECOVERED COSTS.-The Secretary concerned 

21 may pay the unrecovered costs of leasing seasonal quarters 

22 under this section from annual appropriations for the year 

23 in which such lease is made. 

24 (d) PROCEEDS.-Proceeds from the rental of sea25 sonal quarters under this section may, notwithstanding 

•H 2941 IH 
41 

12 

any other provision of law, be retained by the land man2 agement agency and shall be used for any costs related 

3 to the housing program, including rehabilitation and con4 struction activities incurred by the agency with respect to 

5 property subject to this section or any other employee 

6 housing project owned by, or under the jurisdiction or con7 trol of, such agency. Any surplus proceeds under this sec8 tion shall be retained by the agency for those purposes 

9 until expended. 

10 (e) RENTAL TO NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.-

11 The Secretary concerned may rent seasonal quarters on 

12 Government lands to nongovernment persons during those 

13 times that such units are not required for seasonal em14 ployees. 

15 SEC. 7. SURVEY OF EXISTING FACILITIES. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.-Within 2 years after the date of 

17 enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned shall18 (1) complete a condition assessment fm· all field 

19 employee housing for land management agencies 

20 under their respective jurisdictions, including the 

21 physical condition of such housing and the necessity 

22 and suitability of such housing for the effective pros23 ecution of the agency mission, using existing infor24 mation; and 

•H 2941 IH 
42 

13 

1 (2) develop an agency-wide priority listing, by 

2 structure, identifying those units in greatest need 

3 for repair, rehabilitation, replacement, or initial con4 struction. 

5 (b) CERTIFICATION.-Each Secretary concerned shall 

6 review the list to certify that Government housing is pro7 posed8 (1) only where reasonable value private sector 

9 housing is not available; and 

10 (2) where needed for the convenience of the 

11 Government to carry out agency mandates. 

12 (c) SUBl\HSSION.-Each Secretary shall submit a re13 port summarizing the study under this section to the Com14 mittees on Resources and Appropriations of the House of 

15 Representatives and the Committees on Energy and Natu16 ral Resources and Appropriations of the Senate. 

17 SEC. 8. USE OF HOUSING-RELATED FUNDS. 

18 (a) APPROPRIATIOKS.-Expenditure of any funds au19 thorized and appropriated for new construction, repair, or 

20 rehabilitation of housing under this Act shall follow the 

21 housing priority listing established by the agency under 

22 section 7, in sequential order, to the maximum extent 

23 practicable. No more than 20 percent of the funds appro24 priated for these purposes shall be spent on other than 

25 actual construction activities. 

•H 2941 IH 
43 

14 

1 (b) RENTAL lNCOl\IE.-

2 (1) SPECIAL FUND.-Notwithstanding title 5, 

3 United States Code, or any other provision of law, 

4 rents and charges collected by payroll deduction or 

5 othet"'ise for use or occupancy of quarters of agen6 cies identified in this Act shall, after the date of en7 actment of this Act, be deposited in a special fund 

8 in each agency, to remain available until expended, 

9 for the maintenance and operation of the quarters of 

10 that agency. 

11 (2) REil\IBURSABLE ACCOUNT.-All funds gen12 crated from rental income shall be deposited to a re13 imbursable account at no lower than the agency re14 gional office level in order to ensure maximum effi15 ciency in fund utilization. 

16 (c) SET-ASIDE REQUIREMENT.-For all units of 

17 housing where the actual rent charged is less than the 

18 amount of funding necessary to maintain all field em19 ployee housing in good condition or upgrade such housing 

20 to good condition, the manager of that unit or subunit 

21 shall set aside such additional funds from normal operat22 ing accounts as are necessary to maintain housing in good 

23 condition or upgrade field employee housing to good condi24 tion over a reasonable period of time. 

•H 2941 IH 
44 

15 

(d) BUDGET LIKE lTE:\L-The Presidents' proposed 

2 budget to Congress for the first fiscal year beginning after 

3 enactment of this Act, and for each subsequent fiscal year, 

4 shall identifY specifically, in a separate line item for each 

5 land management agency, non-constn1ction funds to be 

6 spent for housing maintenance and operations which are 

7 in addition to rental receipts collected. 

8 SEC. 9. AUTHORITY FOR COOPERATIVE VENTURES FOR IN9 FRASTRUCTURE. 

10 The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative 

11 agreements or joint ventures with local and State govcrn12 mental agencies, other Federal agencies, Indian tribes, 

13 and private entities either on or off the lands subject to 

14 the jurisdiction of the Secretary, to provide appropriate 

15 and necessary utility and other infrastructure facilities in 

16 support of fi eld employee housing facilities provided under 

17 this Act. 

18 SEC. 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

19 (a) CO!\"STRUCTION LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL 

20 LANDS.-The Secretary concerned may not utilize any 

21 lands for the purposes of providing field employee housing 

22 under this Act which could impact primary resource values 

23 of the area or adversely affect the mission of the Depart24 ment. Further, any construction carried out under this 

•H 2941 IH 
45 

16 

Act shall be fully consistent ·with approved land manage2 ment agency plans. 

3 (b) RENTAL RATES.-

4 (1) ESTABLISHl\IENT.-The Secretary con5 cerncd shall establish reasonable value rental rates 

6 for all quarters occupied by field employees of land 

7 management agencies. 

8 (2) ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS.-Thc Secretary 

9 concerned may make annually an adjustment for a 

10 calendar year in the rental rates established under 

11 paragraph (1). Such adjustment may not exceed the 

12 Department of Labor's then applicable Consumer 

13 Price Index Residential Rent Series annual adjust14 ment factor. 

15 (c) AVAILABILITY OF QUARTERS.-ln carrying out 

16 this Act and section 5911 of title 5, United States Code, 

17 ·with respect to land management agencies, the Secretary 

18 concerned shall determine the availability of quarters on 

19 the basis of the existence, within reasonable commuting 

20 range of well-constructed and maintained housing suitable 

21 to the individual and family needs of the field employee 

22 at a reasonable value. 

23 SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS. 

24 For purposes of this Act-

•H 2941 IH 
46 

17 

1 (1) the term "employee" means an employee of 

2 an agency or an officially enrolled volunteer; 

3 (2) the term "essential amenities" means day 

4 care, laundromats, and recreational facilities and 

5 such other amenities as the Secretary deems appro6 priate. 

7 (3) the term "field employee" means an em8 ployee who is exclusively assigned to perform duties 

9 at a field unit (including but not limited to a forest, 

10 park, or refuge) and does not include any person as11 signed to any regional or other central office. 

12 ( 4) the term "land management agency" 

13 means14 (A) the National Park Service, United 

15 States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 

16 Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, 

17 and Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of 

18 the Interior; and 

19 (B) the Forest Service, Department of Ag20 riculture; 

21 ( 5) the term "primary resource values" means 

22 resources which are specifically mentioned in the en23 abling legislation for that field unit or other resource 

24 value recognized under Federal statute; 

•H 2941 IH 
47 

18 

(6) the term "quarters" means quarters owned 

2 or leased by the Government; 

3 (7) the term "reasonable value" means4 (A) in the case of field employees whose 

5 pay is not based on local comparability, a base 

6 rental rate which is comparable to private rent7 a! rates for comparable housing facilities and 

8 associated amenities, but not more than the na9 tiona! average of rental rates for renters inclu10 sive of utilities, whether paid as part of rent or 

11 paid directly to a third party, as determined by 

12 the most recent survey of American housing 

13 rental rates by the Bureau of the Census, De14 partment of Commerce; and 

15 (B) in the case of field employees whose 

16 pay is established on the basis of local com17 parability, the value which is established on the 

18 basis of local or regional housing market sur19 veys conducted pursuant to regulations issued 

20 under section 5911 of title 5, United States 

21 Code; 

22 (8) the term "seasonal quarters" means quar23 ters typically occupied by field employees who are 

24 hired on assignments of 180 days or less; and 

•H 21141 m 
48 

19 

(9) the term "Secretary concerned" means the 

2 Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agri3 culture, as appropriate. 

4 SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION. 

5 There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as 

6 may be necessary to carry out this Act. 

0 

•H 2941 IH 
49 

MARCH 5, 1996 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN F. IOBST, PRESIDENT , ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL 

PARK MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE, CONCERNING HR 

2941, THE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT ACT FOR LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee; I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

today, on my own time, to present the position of the Association of National Par1< 

Maintenance Employees regarding HR 2941 , the Housing Improvement Act for Land 

Management Agencies. The Association is made up of dues-paying maintenance 

employees and park managers throughout the National Park Service and has been in 

existence for six years. I am currently the Acting Chief of the Facility Management 

Division for the National Par1< Service. In another six weeks I will return to Rocky 

Mountain National Park in Colorado where, for the past seven years I have been the 

Chief of Facility Management. One responsibility of mine is to manage the housing 

program at Rocky, including maintenance and repairs, rehabilitation, removal, new 

construction and the administrative side as well. I had similar responsibilities for almost 

ten years in Yellowstone National Park. It is our belief that HR 2941 addresses 

housing for public lands employees in ways that here-to-for the Secretaries of Interior 

and Agriculture have been limited. While the Association does not support all aspects of 

this legislation, we commend the committee's effort to address employee housing 

issues which are complex, emotional, and have far-reaching consequences. We 

strongly support expanded authorities for the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture 

which allow them to enter into contracts and agreements with private entities to provide 

housing for employees on or off public lands. This Statement deals specifically with the 

housing of National Park Service employees. 

It is the Association's understanding that HR 2941 consists of several authorities and 

requirements related to the housing of employees that will assist in the management of 

National Park Service areas. These are; 

Authority to rent or lease housing on, or off, public lands 

Authority to lease Federal land and non-Federal land for the construction of employee 

housing for up to 50 years 

The provision that leases may be granted at less than fair market value and a third 

party may participate 

The provision that proceeds from leases or sale of employee housing may be retained 

by the National Park Service 
50 

Authority to sell housing to field employees or to an employee cooperative, limited to a 

leasehold in land 

The provision that the sale of employee housing may be at less than fair market value 

under certain conditions 

The provision that non-occupied housing can be leased to seasonal employee~ and 

non-government persons 

The requirement that a condition assessment of all housing be performed and a 

Service-wide priority list be developed 

The requirement that additional non-construction funds be set aside to maintain 

housing where income does not cover the cost of operation and maintenance 

Authority to set rental rates at a reasonable value and annually adjust those rents at a 

rate not to exceed the Department of Labor's applicable Consumer Price Index 

Residential Rent Series annual adjustment factor 

The association realizes that the National Park Service needs a variety of opportunities 

as well as flexibility in dealing with employee housing. A variety of solutions are needed 

because problems vary from park to park and economics are different across the 

Service. The Service has made some progress through appropriated funds, a 

partnership with the National Park Foundation, as well as management techniques to 

address the housing problem. But more must be done. The Association of National 

Park Maintenance Employees have several comments and suggestions that we feel will 

make the legislation more effective and pertinent in addressing employee housing . I 

have been personally involved in three innovative approaches to housing solutions for 

Rocky Mountain National Park. These included purchase of a private resort outside the 

park; a partnership with the Town of Estes Park; and a private developer proposal 

within the Park working with Bank One. In all three cases the National Park Service did 

not have the authority to pursue very far into the ventures, or make commitments. 

SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES 

(a)(3) We disagree that salaries "are far behind comparable salaries for similar work." 

Wage grade employees' salaries are based on a regional survey and with the advent of 

Ranger Futures, the issue of salary as related to rents is not what it once was. 

However, pay remains an issue for seasonal employees when faced with the availability 

and affordability of housing in many areas. 

(a)(4) We agree that rent is based on averages and comparability, however it is not 

related to the actual cost of operating and maintaining housing. We feel that the actual 
51 

cost of providing housing to employees should be a major consideration in establishing 

rents. Readjusting base rental rates every five years is too infrequent. Compounding 

the problem would be the limitation set in SECTION 10, (b) RENTAL RATES, (2) 

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS 

"Such adjustments may not exceed the Department of Labor's the applicable 

Consumer Price Index Rent Series annual adjustment factor" 

Because of the five year interval, negative adjustments and corrections applied to the 

base rent, and a limit on the annual increase; rents in many areas are well below the 

cost to provide housing as well as comparable rents in the local community. This 

situation is personified by the fact that an employee who, due to availability or personal 

preference. may pay half again as much or even twice the rent to live in comparable 

housing in the local community. We ask that this legislation authorize the Secretaries 

more flexibility to 1) set rents based on the actual cost of providing and maintaining 

housing, (2) adjust base rents more frequently, (3) not limit annual increases, (4) 

continue to use survey information, BUT (5) allow rents to be capped on a percentage 

of one's income where applicable to avoid exorbitant rents. 

SECTION 4. JOINT PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR HOUSING PROGRAMS 

(a)(1 )(A) The period of 50 years is troubling. This may be seen as a target more than a 

limit and may lock the agency into too long of a term to allow for effective management 

of the lease contract. The analogy is the long-term contracts with concessioners and 

the inability to effect significant changes for the benefit of the agency and or employees. 

The other concern is that the term "interests" needs to be clarified or defined. 

(a)(5) The Association is encouraged by this language allowing the Secretary to make 

payments or contributions to reduce overall project costs. Often in forming a publicprivate partnership, the success of that partnership can be directly tied to the ability of 

the National Park Service to be a contributing partner to show good faith and to assure 

the agency's concerns and requirements are adequetly met. 

(a)(6) We are also encouraged by the language in this section. In past attempts at 

ventures involving the private sector; involvement by other agencies, a local community, 

or Housing Authority adds strength and vitality to the venture. 

SECTION 5. JOINT EMPLOYEE-AGENCY HOUSING PROGRAMS 

(a)(1) The Association is concerned that the language in this section is not specific 

enough to prevent the sale of housing, within the park, to employees. The National Park 

Service should be given the responsibility to clearly define what constitutes a 

cooperative. This would also affect SECTION 5 (b). This entire section while, well 

intentioned, will be hard to administer. We would like the intent to allow increased 

opportunities for employees to own housing, and subsequently reduce the 
52 

government's responsibility to provide housing. 

(c) We are concerned that if the Secretary did not exercise the right of first refusal; the 

employee or cooperative could sell to anyone, thus rendering that housing unit 

unavailable for other National Park Service employees. This section plus SECTION 5 

(e) should include language that aliows the Secretary the ability to limit the amount of 

equity gained in a housing unit sold to an employee (or cooperative) as well as limiting 

the resale cost to another employee. While we do not have specific language at this 

time, we feel that the Secretary should be given the flexibility to develop sufficient terms 

and conditions for the sale and resale of employee housing which would include the 

ability to retain funding to in-turn exercise the option. 

SECTION 6. LEASING OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING 

(e) This provision of the legislation may be problematic. It makes sense if the agency is 

allowed to generate additional revenue to be spent on improving housing. But if rents 

are set to only cover operating and maintenance costs, then we question the benefit. If 

the intent is to improve the economic viability of a private venture to provide housing, 

then the Association supports this section. 

SECTION 7. SURVEY OF EXISTING FACILITIES 

The Association does not think it is necessary to legislate the requirements of this 

section. The maintenance community in the National Park Service has been actively 

involved in assessing condition and needs of employee housing. We have provided 

significant documentation to develop a comprehensive housing improvement program. 

Over the past three years the National Park Service has made considerable progress to 

assess the agency's housing inventory, conditions, needs; and develop a logical 

approach to improving the availability and condition of employee housing. The priority 

lists for addressing the backlog of housing needs is well thought out and is 

administered with some flexibility to address project schedules, economies of scale, 

construction seasons, and changing employee needs. 

SECTION 8. USE OF HOUSING RELATED FUNDS 

The Association feels that the requirement in section (a) regarding sequential order is 

too restrictive and could create inefficiencies. We also feel that income generated at a 

park should remain at that park to be spent on housing operation and maintenance 

needs. We do not support the additional administrative overhead regarding these funds. 

We also do not support the set-aside requirement as described in section (c). This 

would in effect take funds away from already insufficient operating funds currently 
53 

directed toward other aspects of park maintenance operations. We do support section 

(d), a specific line-item in the National Park SeJVice budget for operational funds to be 

spent specifically on housing maintenance as long as it does not deplete other 

operational funds in the National Park SeJVice budget. This would go a long way to 

reduce the amount of subsidy from operational funds currently needed to maintain 

housing. 

SECTION 9. AUTHORITY FOR COOPERATIVE VENTURES FOR 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

The Association is very supportive of the language in this section. We know that the 

National Park SeJVice is continuously looking for opportunities beyond its boundaries to 

regionalize utility systems, develop cooperative maintenance programs, and join forces 

with other public works entities. We would like to see this section expanded to include 

the authority for cooperative ventures for infrastructure seJVing any National Park 

SeJVice facilities, as well as the provision of housing units. 

SECTION 10. GENERAL PROVISIONS 

With regard to this section's reference to rental rates, the position of the Association 

was given earlier in this Statement. 

SECTION 11 . DEFINITIONS 

The Association requests that the term "field employees" in section (3) be expanded to 

include cooperators and contractors to not preclude the housing of non-National Park 

SeJVice employees that assist the agency in the administration and management of 

park areas. There are also central office employees duty stationed at field areas for the 

advantage of the agency. We do not support the definition of the term "reasonable 

value" as presented in section (7), (A) and (B). This language sets up a scenario where 

there would be different rental rates for the same housing unit, in the same park, on the 

basis for which the respective employees pay is set, regardless if the pay is the same. 

Because of significant investment in infrastructure and the associated maintenance 

costs; utility costs should be separate from base rental rates. The Association realizes 

that the issue of rent is complex and emotional. We encourage the committe to include 

language that gives the Secretary the authority to set rents based on factors that assure 

they are localized, comparable, consider the actual cost of providing housing, as well as 

fair. 

In addition to the comments outlined above, the Association would like to suggest the 

following additions to this important legislation. 
54 

1) We recommend that the Secretary be authorized to provide transportation for 

employees between their duty station and communities outside the parks. Employees 

must, of course, cover the cost of this service. 

2) We recommend that the Secretary be authorized to study the feasibility of providing 

housing allotments to employees to help with the cost of housing where the local 

market cost is too high, reducing the need to upgrade or construct government housing. 

This concept could also be utilized to assist employees that would like to enter the 

private housing market. This study would also evaluate a program that would allow 

employees to set aside a portion of their rent payment into a program similar to the 

Thrift Savings Plan to in essence build equity. 

In closing, the Association of National Park Maintenance Employees is encouraged by 

the committees efforts to improve the National Park Service's ability to address 

employee housing. The need is urgent and we ask that you act quickly. There are 

opportunities for the private sector to make significant contributions to the Service's 

housing needs. The National Park Service has pursued many public-private ventures to 

address housing, only to run into a brick wall because most were beyond the statutory 

authority of the agency. The Association is ready and able to work with the committee 

and the National Park Service to assure that new and innovative solutions are available 

to address the housing needs of the agency. 

The Association thanks the Chairman, members of the committee, and committee staff 

for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Steven F. lobs!. President 

Association of National Park Maintenance Employees 
55 

STATEMENT OF ROGER G. KENNEDY, DlllliCTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS OF THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

ON H.R. 2941, THE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT ACT FOR LAND MANAGEMENT 

AGENCIES. 

MARCH 5, 1996 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2941, 

the Housing hnprovement Act for Land Management Agencies. We supp2._rt the intent 

to improve govenunent-provided housing, but have a number of issues to resolve 

conceming H.R. 2941 . TI1e Administration has not had time to complete its interagency 

consultation on this wide-ranging legislation. We will gladly provide a legislative 

report stating our position on the bill as soon as we have completed this interagency 

review. 

H.R. 2941 consists of a variety of authorities and requirements related to employee 

housing that are designed to assist Federal land managers in the administrative and 

management functions. H.R. 2941 would authorize the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

the Interior to rent or lease housing and essential amenities on or off public lands to 

field employees; to lease Federal and non-Federal land for construction of employee 

housing for up to 50 years; and to sell housing to field employees or to an employees' 
56 

cooperative. H.R. 2941 also authorizes the Secretaries to lease housing to seasonal 

employees or to lease such housing to non-govenunent persons when it is not occupied 

by seasonal employees. The bill also requires a condition assessment of fi~ld housing 

and an agency-wide priority list for repair and rehabilitation and states that at units 

where the rent charged does not cover the cost of maintenance, the manager will set 

aside additional fimds from operating accounts to maintain housing in good condition. 

Finally, the bill authorizes the Secretaries to set rental rates at a reasonable value and 

to make aruma! adjustments in rental rates. 

The Department strongly supports efforts to improve the availability of adequate 

housing for Federal employees where suitable privately-owned housing is not available. 

We commend Rep. Hefley and others for recognizing the housing problems of the 

Federal land management agencies. As you know, we are exploring the use of 

partnerships, or other arrangements with the private sector, to help us meet our housing 

needs, but some changes in statutory authority could provide the added flexibility to 

address this challenge. A single solution cannot meet our needs Department-wide 

because housing problems vary significantly from unit to unit, but we recognize the 

efforts to incorporate a variety of options into tllis bill. 

2 
57 

Although the conditions for a number of employees have improved over the past few 

years, many park service employees still live in deplorable conditions. We have begun 

to ameliorate this problem by investing in employee housing and taking a_number of 

steps to improve the conditions of the professionals who work in our parks. However, 

we must do more. We would like to work with the committee to see. that housing 

conditions improve and employees' needs are being met. In addition, with continuing 

budget constraints, we need the flexibility to use creative and innovative partnerships 

to meet our housing requirements. 

In addition to comments that Will be included 41 our legislative report following the 

necessary interagency review, I would offer the following recommendations now. The 

findings in section 2(a) state that current goverrnnent housing does not always meet the 

needs of land management agencies in terms of either quantity or quality. We would 

like to suggest that our challenge is not one of quantity, but rather availability. We 

recommend that the word "quantity" be replaced with the word "availability." Section 

2 further finds that salaries are far behind comparable salaries for similar work. 

Recently, many field employees for the NPS saw a substantial pay increase over the 

last two years as a result of the ''Rangers Futures" effort. Another large sector of field 

. employees are wage grade employees whose pay has always been based on locality. 

3 
58 

We recommend that the findings be adjusted to reflect our efforts to improve salaries. 

Finally, the findings state that lack of affordable housing is resulting in significant 

recruitment and retention problems at a nwnber ofland management agency _field units. 

We feel that while these instances do exist, they are few in number. Affordable 

housing is but one of many factors that may influence an employee's decision. We 

recommend the findings be modified to take this fact into consideration. 

We are concerned by the statement in section 2(b) that one of the purposes of the bill 

is to ensure housing is affordable to all field employees of Federal land management 

agencies. We feel that tilis purpose can be misunderstood as suggesting that we should 

subsidize a housing program based on affordability and designed to provide additional 

compensation for o·ur employees. To be sure no one misunderstands, we recommend 

this purpose be deleted from the bill. 

Section 3 auti1orizes ti1e Secretaries to make employee housing and essential amenities 

available on or off public lands at a reasonable value to promote the recruitment and 

retention of qualified personnel necessary for the effective management of public lands. 

Although we certainly want to recruit and retain qualified personnel, the Administration 

supports ti1e well-established policy prohibiting ti1e use of rents and related charges as 

4 
59 

an inducement in the recruitment and retention of employees. Section 3 would 

contradict tllis govenunent-wide policy set forth Wlder 5 U.S. C. 5536 and implemented 

under 0118 Circular A-45. It would create a special class of Federal emph;>yees with 

benefits that are unavailable to employees in other agencies or living in private housing. 

Reasonable value, as defmed in Circular A-45, is detennined by the .rule of 

equivalence, and rental charges are set at levels equal to those prevailing for 

comparable private housing located in the same area, after adjustments for isolation and 

other ameJlities that may be lacking in the government housing. This principle ensures 

rental costs and effective compensation for employees living in government housing 

will be approximately the same as the rental costs and effective compensation of the 

majority of govemfuent employees living in private sector housing. 

Although we recognize that inferior housing can be an impediment to recruitment and 

retention of qualified employees (in certain high-cost and remote areas), the best way 

to address tltis problem is to invest in housing and improve salaries, wllich we have 

done. We are all familiar with stories of employees living in substandard housing, 

however, these situations are certainly not tl1e norm. For those employees that do live 

under unacceptable conditions, we have recently worked with OMB to modify Circular 
60 

A-45 so that it no longer requires rental assessments in certain living conditions. 

Section 4 provides specific authorities needed to take advantage of various options with 

the private sector. . These authorities have a number of consequences that we have not 

adequately reviewed through our interagency process. 

Section 4 authorizes the Secretaries to lease Federal land and interests in land to 

qualified persons for the construction of housing. There are a number of issues to 

address such as, what is meant by the term "interests." Does it, for instance, include 

buildings, utilities, water rights, etc.? We recommend that the term "interests" be 

clarified so we can ensure that our leases conform to the intent of Congress. We also 

encourage the committee to consider the Administration proposal transmitted last May 

to provide authority to lease facilities within and outside of the boundaries of park units 

for employee housing and visitor services. 

Section 4 also states that the Secretaries may guarantee occupancy of employee 

quarters but the guarantee shall be null and void if the lessee fails to maintain a 

satisfactory level of operation and maintenance. One change needed would be to allow 

the Secretary to terminate the lease and notjustnullify the guarantee. 
61 

Section 5 authorizes the Secretaries to sell housing to field employees of the agency 

or a cooperative whose membership is made up exclusively of the agency's field 

employees. This could raise nwnerous opportw1ities for conflict of i~terest. In 

addition, some of the provisions of this section are subject to the pay-as-you-go 

(PAYGO) provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 and 

would increase the deficit. We will have to address these and other issues in our 

follow-up legislative report. 

Section 5( d) authorizes the Secretaries to establish covenants appropriate to the 

property upon the sale of the property, but does not appear to allow the Secretaries to 

enforce such covenants. 

The disposal of Federally owned buildings, improvements or facilities managed by the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs is set forth in 25 U.S. C. § 443a. That statute authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to convey such property to a Tribe, and or group upon their 

request. Given the wlique status of land managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we 

support the provisions of25 U.S.C. §443a and request that Indian Lands specifically 

be excluded from the provisions of Section 5 of the bill. 

7 
62 

Section 6 which authorizes the Secretaries to lease seasonal quarters on government 

land to nongovenunent persons during times they are not required for seasonal 

employee use. Finding a profitable, off-season use for seasonal housing ~an provide 

opporttuuties for an arrangement that is of mutual benefit to a private enterprise and the 

Service, but we must balance that with the additional costs of year-round maintenance 

and government liability. 

Section 7 requires the Secretaries to. complete a condition assessment, by bureau, of all 

existing govemment-owned employee housing under their respective jurisdictions, 

including the physical condition and suitability vis-a-vis the effective prosecution of 

bureau missions. As a part of this assessment, each agency would be required to 

prepare a priority list of all such facilities in tenns of greatest need for repair, 

replacement, or initial construction and provide Congress with a report on this list. 

From the standpoint of the NPS, the requirement to conduct a survey of existing 

facilities would impos~ no mmsual hardslup, as such a survey is an ongoing 

requirement of each park manager. However, we believe this section is unnecessary 

because we are already taking action in this area. As a result of the recent GAO 

reports on our employee housing program, the NPS entered into an agreement with the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs to have a private consultant perfonn condition assessments, 

8 
63 

private market analyses, and feasibility studies at four NPS locations. These 

comprehensive, independent studies include extensive information on inventory and 

condition assessments to identify rehabilitation required to bring existing !llits up to 

maintainable condition. Capital improvement projects are coded and included for 

quick and easy sorting by category; for example, all life/safety projects can be 

identified and associated costs calculated. The NPS expects to have the preliminary 

reports within the next 30-60 days and will be reviewing this process to see if it has 

Servicewide merit. 

Section 8 requires that any fi.mds authorized and appropriated for new construction, 

repair, or rehabilitation of housing would be spent in accordance with the priority list 

identified in section·?, to the maximwn extent practicable. We oppose this provision. 

To establish a nationwide priority list that would automatically dictate how funds would 

be spent to upgrade or replace employee housing would not be wise in our view. Each 

housing unit should be considered on its own merits, and park managers must be given 

the flexibility to make their own judgments based on local conditions at the time. We 

can envision many circumstances that could make it impossible to pursue a pre-existing 

schedule for rehabilitating a particular housing unit, and this provision would prevent 

us from skipping to a lower priority unit that was ready for rehabilitation. Enactment 

9 
64 

of the provisions of section 8 would necessitate an additional administrative layer at the 

Washington Office at a time when we are working to reduce administrative overhead 

at the NPS. 

Section 8 also states that uo more than 20 percent of funds appropriated for these 

purposes shall be spent on other than actual construction activities. We support this 

concept and have worked hard over the last several years to reduce our planning, 

design, compliance and contract supervision costs. However, we do not believe this 

should be legislated and recommend that the language be deleted from the bill. 

Section 8 also requires that rents be deposited in a special fund within each agency and 

that all funds generated from rental income be deposited in an account at no lower than 

the regional office level. In our view, these provisions are unnecessary and overly 

burdensome. The NPS accOtmting operations center is exploring the possibility of 

reimbursement directly to the parks --bypassing the regional (field) level all together. 

This is an effort to streamline the procedure a.D.d make it consistent with our 

restructuring plan. Therefore, we recommend tl1at the rental income not be restricted 

to deposition in regional (field) accounts. 

10 
65 

Section 8 requires that managers, at units where rental income does not cover housing 

maintenance costs, set aside funds from operating accounts to cover the difference. It 

further requires a budget line item identifying non-construction funds to b_e spent for 

housing maintenance and operations beyond the amounts collected through rental 

receipts. We believe these provisions are also wmecessary and overly burdensome, and 

recommend d1ey be deleted. 

Section 9 authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements or joint 

ventures with others to proVide appropriate and necessruy utility and other 

infrastructure facilities in support of field employee housing. We will need more time 

to review d1e implications of tlus provision and will provide additional 

recommendations in our legislative report. 

Section 10 requires the Secretary to detennine the availability of quarters on the basis 

of the existence, within reasonable commuting range, of well-construc.ted and 

maintained housing, suitable to d1e individual and family needs of the field employee 

at a reasonable value. We reconunend that the term "availability of quarters" be 

consistent with the O:tvffi Circular A-ll, which states that housing should be available 

within a 60-minute, one-way commute or two-hour round trip commute. 

11 
66 

The definition of "reasonable value" in section 11 contradicts the government-wide 

policy, set fourth under 5 U.S.C. 5536 and implemented w1der O.MB Circular A-45. 

We believe the definition of "reasonable value" should remain as it curren~ly is under 

OMB Circular A-45. 

In closing, we believe an examination of other alternatives to the current methods of 

providing employee housing would be useful. You may recall that in its 1994 report, 

"National Park Service: Reexamination of Employee Housing Program is Needed," 

GAO recommended that the Park Service explore the possibility of providing housing 

allowances or ~ubsidies to employees when local housing is not affordable. Although 

we must consider govenunent-wide requirements, such a study could lead to more costeffective solutions·in high-cost areas of the country. 

Finally, the current budget situation combined with the level of need for housing require 

us to look beyond traditional approaches. For instance, it might be helpful in some 

areas if the Secretaries were authorized to provide transportation to employees between 

their duty stations and commwlities outside the park--provided of course, that 

employees cover the cost of the service. This authority to provide transportation would 

help us avoid constructing housing inside park bow1daries for employees who would 

12 
67 

not otherwise have transportation to work. 

We would be pleased to work with the Committee to develop language refl~cting our 

suggested changes to H.R. 2941. Mr. Chainnau, tllis concludes my prepared statement, 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

13 
68 

STATEMENT OF 

MARK REIMERS, DEPUTY CHIEF 

FOREST SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Concerning H.R. 2941 a bill "To improve the quantity 

and quality of the quarters of field employees• 

March 5, 1996 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer the views of the 

Department of Agriculture on H.R. 2941, the "Housing Improvement 

Act for Land Management Agencies.• I am accompanied today by 

Kathleen Connelly, Deputy Chief for Administration. 

The Department of Agriculture strongly supports the goal of 

having affordable, quality housing available to government 

employees. At most of our locations. housing is predominantly 

provided by the private sector and our employees live in local 

corrmunities. 

The Department of Agriculture recognizes its responsibility to 

provide affordable, quality housing for employees in certain 

remote locations and provides quarters in such circumstances 

nation wide . While we do have a backlog of needs to improve 

existing housing or provide additional housing in some locations, 
69 

we are largely able to meet these needs using existing 

authorities and funding mechanisms. While the Department of 

Agriculture would not object to establishing new authorities in 

law for other land managing agencies who may need them, we 

generally do not believe the additional authorities that would be 

provided in H.R. 2941 are necessary to improve housing for Forest 

Service employees. We should note, however, the Administration 

has not had time to complete its interagency examination of this 

wide-ranging legislation. The Administration will provide a 

legislative report stating our position on the bill as soon as we 

have completed this interagency review. 

Wbat the Bill Does 

H.R. 2941 would augment the authorities of the Secretaries of the 

Interior and Agriculture to provide housing and amenities for 

government employee at reasonable rates where housing in 

unavailable in the private sector. These authorities include: 

public sector lease and development of employee housing; sale, 

lease, or transfer of employee housing to employees or employee 

cooperatives; and leasing of non-government facilities for 

employee housing. 

H.R. 2941 would enhance or modify existing funding mechanisms and 

establish new ones. Receipts from public/private ventures and 

public/employee ventures would be available to the agency until 

expended for housing proJects. Rental fees collected for use and 
70 

occupancy of quarters would be deposited in a special fund and 

available to each agency until expended for maintenance, 

construction, and operation of quarters. H. R. 2941 would also 

require that managers set aside appropriated funds as necessary 

to maintain or upgrade housing. H.R. 2941 would also require 

that the Administration request additional funding for employee 

housing in a separate line item for each land management agency 

in the President's budget. 

H.R . 2941 would establ i sh a national priority list for repair, 

renovation, and construction of housing. H.R . 2941 would also 

require surveys of housing available through the private sector, 

assessments of the condition and needed repairs or upgrades for 

existing quarters on public lands, and submission of a report to 

Congress. 

H.R. 2941 would also authorize the use of government quarters by 

non-government employees when t he quarters are not in use and 

change the way rents are established for employee housing. 

Concerns About the Bill 

The Department of Agriculture has concerns about a number of the 

provisions of H.R . 2941. 

Currently, Forest Serv1ce rental revenues are deposited in a 

reimbursable account to be used for maintenance and improvement 

3 
71 

of employee housing. We support the concept of charging 

reasonable rental rates for government quarters, however, the 

provisions of Section 3 of H.R. 2941 are inconsistent with 

current Administration policy prohibiting the reduction of rents 

and other related charges as an inducement to recruit or retain 

employees. This policy is articulated in Office of Management 

and Budget (OMBl Circular, A·45, Rental and Construction of 

Government Quarters. 

Also Section 11(7) would change the formula for arriving at 

rental rates by defining •reasonable value" in a manner that is 

inconsistent with current Administration policy as articulated in 

OMB Circular A·45 . Changing the formula would actually decrease 

revenues and increase the need for appropriated funds to pay for 

maintenance. With the current Forest Service $149 million 

backlog in housing needs, we recommend continuing with the 

current formula of setting rents based on market conditions. A 

rental strategy based on employee ability to pay would create an 

inequity for federal employees who do not occupy government 

housing and would reduce rental receipts at the same time 

appropriated funding sources are being reduced. 

Section 4 of H.R. 2941 provides the authorities for new 

public/private •lease to build" programs to provide quarters 

through the private sector. While authority to work with private 

entities might be useful, Section 4 provides generous incentives 

to the private sector. These might result in placing 

4 
72 

considerable pressure on the agencies to enter into these 

agreements especial l y in areas that are developing rapidly or 

have intense visitor use . Among other things, the "lease to 

build" program offers the private sector leases below fair market 

value for up to SO years and rental guarantees. While these 

agreements might have a short-term benefit of providing new 

employee housing, t he cost of leasing interest in publi c lands 

below market values , t he c osts of guaranteeing rent to 

developers, and t he po tenti al decl i ne in condition o f the housing 

over the l ength of the l eases would be high . 

Section 5 of H.R . 2941 authorizes public/employee housing 

programs including sale , lease, and transfer authorities to field 

employees and cooperat i ves o f field employees for the purposes of 

constructing employee housing and amenities. The lease , sale , 

and t ransfer o f i nterest in lands or housing on public lands to 

employees appears to present numerous opportunities for conflicts 

of i nterest . We are also c o nc erned that they mi ght be viewed as 

creating a special benefit ava ilable only to certain employees. 

We would like to see safeguards carefully crafted in law before 

we could support these programs . 

Section 6 (e ) of H.R . 2941 would authorize the lease of government 

quarters used by seasona l emp l oyees by non-government people when 

the quarters are not i n use. Whi l e this is a reasonable -sounding 

proposal , the liabil i ty i ssue for the government, the additional 

cost of year-round maint enance, and the pressure on the local 

5 
73 

managers to provide housing to non-government workers at resorts 

and national scenic attractions would be undesirable. 

While we believe that providing housing to non-government 

personnel should remain a function of the private sector, we are 

involved in activities to address this issue. The Forest Service 

and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are engaged 

in working with the Governor of Colorado, other Federal agencies, 

county and local governments, Forest Service permit holders, 

organizations conc erned w1th low cost affordable housing, and 

other organizations in the Rocky Mountain Region to pilot 

solutions to affordable housing problems. The Forest Service 

realizes that we do not hold the key to the entire solution to 

providing affordable housing. However, we do provide certain 

expertise and authorities that can assist in arriving at a 

workable solution. Forest Service authorities to provide 

financial assistant in rural community development and technical 

assistance in rea! estate act1vities in rural areas can 

contribute to the solution. Land exchanges resulting in suitable 

land for housing is one example of constructive assistance . We 

are committed to working collaboratively to reach a solution that 

results in affordable housing for private sector employees . 

We are also concerned about Section 7(a) of the bill that 

requires a national condition assessment of employee housing 

within two years and the development of a national priority 

list . The Forest Service uses a decentralized evaluation and 

6 
74 

prioritization system for employee housing that works very well . 

Annual ly, local line off icers evaluate the condition of a l l 

facilities , including employee housing, identifying construction 

and improvement needs, costs and priorities. High priority 

proj e cts can be identified and financed at the local level . As 

part of the budget development process, each Region establishes 

regiona l priorities for facility construction, including housing, 

and these priorities are honored nationally to the extent 

possi ble with the annua l appropriations . 

We wou l d ob j ect to t he provision of Section 8 (b ) (2 ) that t he 

rental receipts funds should no longer be managed at the local 

l eve l but be elevated to the regional level. This would 

undermine the local manager's abi l ity to accomplish the most 

needed work. 

We are also concerned wit h the added requirement and cost of 

conducting a survey of the availability of housing within a 

reasonable commuting range of all duty stations in Section 

lO(c l. We currently perform housing surveys according to the 

guidelines of OMB Circular A·4 5 in communities near our quarters 

with a population o f 1,500 or greater (5 , 000 or greater in 

Alaska i, to establish •comparable" rental rates for our own 

housing units . We would prefer to continue our current process 

rather than creating a new process. 

PAYGO Implications of Funding Mechanisms 

7 
75 

We are advised by the Office of Management and Budget that some 

of the provisions of H.R. 2941 would be subject to the 

Pay-As - You-Go (PAYGOJ requirements of the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 . Because receipts from the 

sale or transfer of public assets may not be treated as revenue 

under the Budget Enforcement Act and the expediture of those 

receipts would be scored as direct spending , the net effect of 

H.R . 2941 would be to increase the deficit. 

ClOS lnq 

The Department of Agriculture is committed to providing adequate 

housing and appropriate amenities to our employees at remote 

locations where private sector housing is not available. We 

recognize that other Federal land managing agencies may not have 

the breadth of authority available to them or may have special 

circumstances when they need additional authorities. We welcome 

the opportunity to work with Congress on these issues. 

This concludes my statement on H.R. 2941. I would be happy to 

answer any questions you might have. 

8 
76 

National Association of Housing Cooperatives 

1614 King Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2719 

(703) 549-5201 FAX (703) 549-5204 

March 4, 1996 

Chairman James Hansen 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests & Lands 

1324 Longworth 

Washington, DC 20515 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Re: HR 2941 

I am Herb Cooper-Levy, Executive Director of the National Association of Housing 

Cooperatives (NAHC) and am present to testify in favor of passage of HR 2941. 

Organized in 1950, NAHC is the only nationwide housing cooperative organization. 

Its membership brings together professionals, organizations, individuals and 

residents who are all committed to the concept of resident homeownership . The 

NAHC Board includes housing professionals responsible for the development and 

management of cooperative housing as well as resident owners who are often 

members of boards of directors which oversee the management of their own 

developments, who act together with other resident owners in their area to affect 

state and local policies regarding multi-family homeownership, and who train 

others in the creation and continued functioning of sound, democratic, residentowned developments. 

Housing cooperatives are a form of multi-family home ownership. A housing 

cooperative is formed when people join with each other to form a corporation that 

owns or controls the building(s) and/ or property in which they live. Each month 

they pay an amount that just covers the expenses of operating the property 

(including such items as mortgage, property taxes, maintenance, insurance, utilities 

and contributions to reserves). Housing cooperatives can be single family homes, 

group homes, mobile homes, townhouses, garden or highrise apartments. The 

purchase price of co-op membership can be restricted to assure affordability for 

incoming members or the price can be left to the market. 

The concept of housing cooperatives being used to meet the needs of land 

management agency field employees is embodied in Section 4 of the proposed 

legislation. 
77 

NAHC has experience in working with the US Army and Navy in creating similar 

programs. We helped the US Army design the Soldiers Home and Retirement 

Equity program. With others, we designed the Navy Cooperative Housing 

Program. Each of these programs are designed for military personnel with senior 

enlisted or junior officer ranks, who cannot afford to purchase suitable housing. 

Each is designed to utilize base ground as the principal public contribution to a 

national housing cooperative, which would have the responsibility for designing, 

constructing, training prospective residents and occupying the housing cooperative. 

These housing cooperatives are national in scope. Service members who purchase 

an ownership interest in the housing cooperative could transfer the interest to 

other housing owned by the housing cooperative, should the service member be 

transferred. 

In the bill before you, a similar system could be created. The land under the 

footprint of the housing created to house land management agency field employees 

could be leased to the housing cooperative, for a nominal fee and for a long-term 

lease (50 years), and the housing cooperative could build scattered single-family 

housing. 

As the land management agency field employees may be transferred to other sites 

owned by land management agencies, either preexisting housing that is a part of the 

housing cooperative would be occupied by the land management agency field 

employee or the housing cooperative would cause additional dwellings to be 

available. Housing could be rehabilitated or newly-constructed. 

The ownership interest would remain intact as the land management agency field 

employee moved from site to site, appreciating at whatever rate that had been set at 

the creation of the housing cooperative, i.e. at a price-controlled rate or at market 

value. The US Army and Navy chose a price-controlled rate to assure continued 

affordability for the occupants they wished to serve. 

Cooperative Services, Incorporated operates the most successful national housing 

cooperative, serving over 10,000 eld erly families in Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan and California. 

A national housing cooperative is both feasible and one solution to the problem of 

providing affordable, decent housing for land management agency field employees. 
78 

Testimony of Jack A. MacAllister 

Chairman Emeritus, U.S. West, Inc. 

Before the National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee 

of the 

House Resources Committee 

March 5, 1996 
79 

Good morning. My name is Jack MacAllister and I am Chairman Emeritus of US West, 

Inc. I also served on the board of the National Park Foundation from 1989 to 1995. I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to testifY today on the importance of providing quality housing for 

National Park Service employees. I would like to speak briefly about the efforts of the National 

Park Foundation to address this issue by working with the private sector. 

Congress created the National Park Foundation in 1967 to serve as the official non-profit 

partner of the National Park Service. The Foundation in authorized to solicit, accept and 

administer gifts of real and personal property and to utilize them for the benefit of the Nation 

Park Service. The creation of the Foundation represented a partnership between the public and 

private sector to serve the common good: the protection, preservation and enhancement of the 

National Park System. The Foundation provides direct support for Park units through a 

competitive grants program that serves as venture capital to seed creative efforts to conserve 

Park resources for future generations. With the help of private partners, the National Park 

Foundation has made grants of over $10 million to support projects in the National Parks during 

the past five years. The Foundation's board is a great reservoir of talent and many of its 

members are prominent CEO's. 

In 1994, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and National Park Service Director 

Roger Kennedy requested the Foundation 's help in solving a problem plaguing many Parks. 

Deteriorating, unsafe, and sometimes almost uninhabitable housing located inside or outside 

our National Parks had created a housing crisis for Park employees. The Department of 

Interior and National Park Service had identified 2,863 substandard housing units in the 

National Park system. This included 659 trailers slated for removal and replacement with 

Page I 
80 

suitable "permanent" houses by the end of 1996. 

The National Park Foundation responded by launching the Housing Initiative led by a 

Taslc Force of National Park Foundation Board members, in which I participated. After 

researching the magnitude of the problem, the Task Force realized that addressing the systemwide housing needs was beyond the Foundation's means. The Task Force decided that each 

of its members should adopt one park in which to explore, test and demonstrate new 

approaches to solving the housing problem -- approaches that, if successful, could be 

replicated by the National Park Service on a larger scale, system-wide. 

The Housing Initiative sought to attain three broad goals: 

(I) To bring real improvements to the Target Parks in 1995; 

(2) To create affordable housing outside the Parks; and 

(3) To obtain donations of money, services, and materials in support of the 

undertaking. 

The Housing Initiative Task Force focused on two types of housing problems: 

(I) Where high costs of outside-the-Park housing force the Park to build and maintain 

inside-the-Park housing, the Task Force looked for innovative approaches to remedy 

the shortage of affordable housing; and 

(2) Where Parks have no choice but to provide housing inside a Park, the Task Force 

sought donations to help upgrade, replace, or add to the existing housing as needed. 

Page 2 
81 

I would now like to focus on the successful outcomes of the Housing Initiative Task 

· Force in two parks. 

Our efforts at the Isle Royale National Park in Michigan have been almost the most 

successful to date. Volunteers led by National Park Foundation Founder and Historian Donald 

Thurber have raised over $350,000 to support new housing projects and improvements. The 

National Parks Service agreed to match these donations dollar for dollar. Mr. Thurber was able 

to organize a dedicated group of volunteers for fundraising as well as enlist the volunteer help of 

the 107th Engineering Battalion of the Michigan National Guard, the Home Builders Association 

of Superior!and and Northern Michigan University. Three buildings have been constructed at a 

cost of $158,000, including a duplex dormitory for the two Ranger families who staff Malone 

Bay. If these structures had been built commercially, they would have cost $414,000-- more 

than twice as much as the actual cost. Isle Royale has taken a highly-organized approach to its 

housing efforts, and, as a result, has produced truly impressive on-the-ground results in a short 

period of time. 

A second target park success was in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, where 

there was an immediate need for housing for eight seasonal employees. In response to our 

outreach efforts, a local log home company contributed significant resources for the construction 

of this building. With support from other local donors, the building was erected in a one-day 

event, calling on the tradition of a barn raising, in which Secretary Babbitt participated. 

Overall, the Housing Initiative effort raised more than half a million dollars in cash and 

in-kind contributions in its first year. Our efforts have improved the housing for many Park 

Service employees in our targeted parks. 

Page 3 
82 

The current backlog of housing needs will not be eliminated solely by Federal 

appropriations. I believe that the Housing Initiative Task Force's experiences after just one year 

establish a successful precedent for broader joint efforts between the private sector and the 

National Park Service to address park housing needs. In order to create these kinds of publicprivate partnerships, the National Park Service needs more flexibility and should be allowed to 

enter into agreements with private entities to assist with housing projects both within and outside 

park boundaries. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testifY. I would be happy to answer any questions this 

committee may have regarding my experiences with the National Park Foundation's Housing 

Initiative. 

Page 4 

0 

ISBN 0-16 -052715-5 

90000 

9 780160 527159