STATE SERVICE DONATIONS IN BUDGETARY 

SHUTDOWN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 2677 

A BILL TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

TO ACCEPT FROM A STATE DONATIONS OF SERVICES 

OF STATE EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM, IN A PERIOD OF 

GOVERNMENT BUDGETARY SHUTDOWN, OTHERWISE 

AUTHORIZED FUNCTIONS IN ANY UNIT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM OR THE NATIONAL 

PARK SYSTEM 

H.R. 2706 

A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCEPT A STATE DONATIONS OF SERVICES 

OF STATE EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM HUNTING MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS IN A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN A PERIOD OF GOVERNMENT BUDGETARY 

SHUTDOWN 

21-952cc = 

DECEMBER 8, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-51 

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 

Supclimendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Oftice. Washington. DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16 -052400-8 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR. , Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR. , New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk /Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held December 8, 1996 ... ... .. .. . ... .. .. . .... .... .. ..... .. .. .... ...... ... ...... .... .. . .. .... .. .. .. . 1 

Text of: 

H.R. 2677 .. . .. . . .... .. .. . . . .. .. .... .... ... .. .. . . .. .. ... .... .... . . .... . .. . . ..... . .. . . ... ..... . .... ... .. ... . .. . . .. . . . . 56 

H.R. 2706 ... .... .... . . .. .. ... . . .. . . .... . . . .. .... .... ... .... .. .... .... . .... .... . . .. .. ... . ... . . .... ... .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . . 59 

Statement of Members: 

Geren, Hon. Pete, a U.S. Representative from Texas ...................... .. ........... 5 

Hayworth, Hon. J.D., a U.S. Representative from Arizona .......................... 1 

Hutchinson, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Representative from Arkansas ..................... 25 

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from Arizona .................................................. 7 

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche Lambert, a U.S. Representative from Arkansas ..... 24 

Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California ........................ 5 

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey ......................... 6 

Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a U.S. Representative from Minnesota ..................... 3 

Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and Chairman, 

Committee on Resources .............................................................................. 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Chandler, William J., Vice President, Conservation Policy, National Parks 

and Conservation Association (prepared statement) .. .. .............. .... .... .. .. .. . 90 

Frampton, George T., Jr., Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks, Department of the Interior .. .... .. .... ...................... .... .. .... ................ ... 36 

Prepared statement .. .. .. ... ..... . .... ... .... .... .. .... ... .. .... .... .. ... .... .. .... .... . .... .... ... . .. 84 

O'Connell, Bruce, National Park Hospitality Association, Waynesboro, 

NC .................................................................................................................. 33 

Symington, Hon. Fife, Governor, State of Arizona ........................................ 9 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 65 

Additional material supplied: 

McGrath, James P. (CRSJ: Report entitled, "Shutdown of the Federal 

Government: Effects on the Federal Workforce" ........................................ 92 

O'Connell, Bruce: Exhibits to statement ........................................................ 70 

Communications submitted: 

Bailey, Thomas B.: Letter of December 5, 1995, to Don Young ................... 109 

Miller, Hon. George: Letter of December 7, 1995, to Hon. Don Young ........ 63 

Vollmer, Kerren A.: Letter of December 5, 1995, to The Natural Resource 

Committee ..................................................................................................... 106 

(III) 

STATE SERVICE DONATIONS IN BUDGETARY 

SHUTDOWNS 

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. J.D. Hayworth 

(Member of the Committee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. J.D. HAYWORTH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARIZONA 

Mr. HAYWORTH. The Committee on Resources will come to order. Under Rule 6-F of the committee rules, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help Members keep their schedules. Therefore, if any Members have opening statements, they can be included in the hearing 

record. 

Last month's partial government shutdown effectively closed 

down the entire National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System. In the process, it locked out thousands of park visitors 

and hunters, fishermen and bird watchers seeking to enjoy their 

national parks and wild refuges. 

The economy of my State was greatly impacted by the closure of 

Grand Canyon National Park and other park units. As a result, 

Governor Fife Symington, who will testify in several minutes, made 

a common sense proposal which would have allowed Grand Canyon 

National Park to operate during the shutdown down with State 

employees. Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected by the Interior Department so visitors from around the world and across the 

Nation who came to see the grandeur were locked out. 

Arizona was not alone in its efforts to keep Federal lands open. 

The States of Arkansas and Mississippi had an agreement with 

their Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to operate certain national wildlife refuges during the shutdown down. 

Unfortunately, this agreement was rejected by the Department's 

lawyers in the Washington office. This resulted in deer hunters on 

the refuges being forced to leave their tree stands. 

Today's hearing is on two bills from both sides of the aisle, which 

would allow States to help keep parks and refuges open. H.R. 2677, 

introduced by Chairman Young, and which I am proud to cosponsor, would allow State employees to perform all authorized func-

( 1) 
2 

tions within the entire National Park System and National Refuge 

System during government shutdowns. 

H.R. 2706, introduced by Representative Blanche Lambert Lincoln of Arkansas, is very similar to Chairman Young's bill. However, it is limited to hunting activities within the National Refuge 

System. The lady from Arkansas will testify before us later this 

morning. 

[The bills may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HAYWORTH. H.R. 2732, introduced by Congressman Bob 

Stump, who we are pleased to have here with us today, and cosponsored by the entire Arizona delegation, also deals with allowing 

States to operate units of the National Park System during government shutdowns. Unfortunately, because this bill was only introduced 2 days ago, committee rules prohibited it from being added 

to today's hearing schedule. 

However, I expect that its sponsor will work with Chairman 

Young to get concepts of that bill embodied into any legislation on 

this issue which moves through the legislative process. 

I look forward to hearing from all of today's witnesses, to provide 

some common ground toward keeping our parks and refuges open 

during any future government shutdown. And accordingly, the Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority 

Member, Mr. Vento, for any opening statement that he might have. [The statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA, AND 

CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

I am pleased to convene this hearing today on my bill, H.R. 2677, the National 

Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act of 1995. 

The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that our national parks and wildlife 

refuges are not closed in the future because of a lack of Federal funding to operate 

them. 

During this past month, we witnessed the sad spectacle of the Department of the 

Interior closing our Nation's 369 parks and 504 national wildlife refuge units. 

These lands, which comprise about 181 million acres, were acquired through the 

hard work of millions of American taxpayers, who paid for them with entrance fees, excise taxes, duck stamps, and income tax payments. 

It is terribly wrong to close these facilities and to deny the American people the 

right to enjoy their beauty, splendor, and various recreational opportunities. 

In the State of Arizona, Governor Fife Symington offered to operate and keep the 

Grand Canyon open by using the State National Guard personnel. Regrettably, the 

Governor's generous request was denied by the Department of the Interior and the 

Grand Canyon, which is visited by about 8,000 individuals a day, was closed for the 

first time in its history. By so doing, the Federal Government lost up to $15,000 

each day in entrance fees and businesses in Arizona lost at least $1 million each 

day. 

In the State of Arkansas, Americans were denied the opportunity to hunt deer in 

the Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, despite the fact that they had paid for their 

lottery-based permits and the State had volunteered to manage the hunt for free. Sadly, these are just two vivid illustrations of the disaster that was caused by the 

closure of our parks and wildlife refuges. Instead of trying to avoid or alleviate this 

crisis by accepting the offers of Governor Symington and others, the Department of 

the Interior simply slammed the door in the faces of millions of Americans. 

The National Parks and Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act will require the 

Secretary of the Interior to accept the services of State employees to operate any 

parks or refuge units when the Federal Government is in a period of a budgetary 

shutdown. Under the terms of H.R. 2677, a State would not be forced to operate any park or refuge within its geographic boundaries, but would simply be given the opportunity to offer their services, like Governor Symington. 
3 

Furthermore, the term "government budgetary shutdown" has been narrowly defined to only cover those circumstances when there is a failure to enact a timely 

appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and there is a lack of temporary or continuing appropriation funds. Our national parks and wildlife refuge systems must never be closed again in the 

future. This legislation will ensure that if there is ever another budgetary meltdown, the American people will not be denied the chance to visit the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, the Grand Canyon, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, the 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, Yellowstone National Park, or the 

Washington Monument. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and I want to compliment our distinguished colleagues, Jim Hansen, Jim Saxton, Ken Calvert, and J.D. Hayworth 

for joining with me in sponsoring H.R. 2677. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter to Chairman Young from Mr. Miller, the Ranking Democrat on the committee, which expresses his concern about scheduling this bill for Floor 

consideration next week. I think the Chairman--

Mr. HAYWORTH. Without objection, that is so ordered. [The information may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this hearing today, I don't know, is 

almost like a bad joke. The fact is, it reminds me of the story about 

the Boy Scout that was so eager to earn a merit badge that when 

crisis and problems didn't occur fast enough, they went out and 

created them for him. So they found out pushing people off of dropoffs to save them from drowning, and after pushing someone over 

in the street, picking them up and taking them out of harm's way. 

The fact is that I understand the good intentions that might be 

behind some of this in terms of trying to help, but the fact is, we 

have to look at-we cannot on a step-by-step basis try to reverse 

the Antideficiency Act and the effect of not doing our job with regard to Interior appropriations with regard to the other five or six 

appropriations bills that are not being acted on by the Congress or 

resolved with the administration. 

So the effects, while regrettable and while obviously highly inconvenient and having an adverse effect on communities, is something that all of us are concerned about. The fact is that the source 

of this is not going to be remedied on a step-by-step basis by trying 

to, as it were, to farm out or to disseminate what are essential Federal responsibilities to the States or to local governments or to the 

private sector, to necessarily carry out those functions because of 

the inaction and the inability to come to agreement with regard to 

fundamental Federal responsibilities. 

These measures, I think, are really a feeble attempt to try to 

cover up the inaction or the inability of Congress, the Federal Government, to get its job done. And that job should have been done 

October 1st of this year. And clearly, if we are going to go through 

this on a piecemeal-by-piecemeal basis, what about the health programs and the education programs and many others? 

What about the passports that were not issued? What about the 

social security recipients who were unable to begin to apply, those 

that were eligible, for their benefits? 
4 

As you go through it, you can create a long list of issues and trespasses that exist with regard to the inability to fund the government. 

Now, beyond all of this, of course, there are many, many, serious 

questions in terms of the very powers of Congress. And as I sit 

here, it sort of amazes me that Congress, which has kept such a 

careful control of the monetary flow, all of a sudden is willing to 

find all sorts of excuses to let any administration circumvent the 

basic laws. Now, of course, I know many of my colleagues have raised concerns about this with regard to the executive powers and with regard to the use of the Armed Forces, but nevertheless, this is one 

more major invasion in terms of congressional responsibility and 

power that would be frittered away for what I think are not substantial enough reasons. 

Is it important? Yes. Is it national security? Does it really meet 

that particular test in terms of, again, the winnowing away of the 

powers of the United States Congress? 

Now, as you know, the Majority party, I am not in the Majority 

party. Why do I care about this? Because inherent in our Constitution is a condition in terms of powers that are not necessarily allocated to one particular individual in that situation, to the executive. 

And what you are doing by virtue of this is weakening, with all 

the best intentions, I suppose I could say, that particular role of 

the Antideficiency Act. So I think that you may say, well, this is 

a selected issue, but why not have a laundry list, then, of these 

particular issues where you can find out serious problems? 

I have already enumerated some of this in my opening statement. But that is really where you are going. There is no excuse. And when you look at the very substance of what has taken place 

here at the Interior appropriations bill, which is the subject of our 

attention or should be this morning, it has been the extraneous 

matters added to that particular bill that have no relationship to 

the appropriation process and should be the domain of this particular committee that are holding up that bill. It is the Saguaro Forest. It is the mining moratorium issues. It is many other issues 

that hold no relationship to the appropriation process. It is wrong. In other words, in doing the business and conducting 

the business of the House, it hasn't been done properly. The end 

result is that we have these types of problems with our national 

parks and serious concerns across the range, not just with parks, but with all of the various and important programs that are within 

the Department of Interior that need to be dealt with. 

And with-some which apparently have been categorized as politically correct as exempt and nonexempt, as opposed to the 

phrases that were being used before. But that is going to happen 

again. 

But the way to deal with that is to get the Interior appropriation 

cleaned up, to compromise on the issues, to remove the policy mat- ters from it and to move forward with the legislation, not to try to 

make up for the person that you throw out of the boat and then 

try to save them from drowning and claiming that you are helping 

somebody. 
5 

This is a serious mistake and I think a misunderstanding of the 

whole role that you have here. 

I don't think you are going to make up for the problems that you 

caused by trying to cover it up with this particular fig leaf. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. And I thank the Ranking Minority Member for 

his opening statement. 

[The statements of Messrs. Geren, Miller, and Saxton follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE GEREN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

share my thoughts with you on this important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have the pleasure of co-chairing the Congressional 

Sportsmen's Caucus with you. The Caucus currently boasts 201 Members in the 

House and 47 in the Senate. 

AJ3 co-chairman of the Caucus, I would like to commend both you, Mr. Chairman, 

and Congresswoman Lincoln for your leadership on this issue and for all that you 

do for the sportsmen and women of America. One of the objectives of the CSC is to ensure that Americans will continue to 

enjoy access to public lands to enjoy outdoor pursuits. Since its creation in 1989, 

the Caucus has worked to protect this right on various individual refuges around 

the nation. However, the recent government shutdown threatened this access on a far greater scale. Our entire refuge system was closed, and as a result, many Ameri- cans found that they could not enjoy the very lands that they have bought and paid 

for with their tax dollars. There are currently 508 refuges in our nation's inventory. 

Hunting is allowed on 273 of these refuges and fishing on 263. In discussing this 

issue with the Fish and Wildlife Service, I have been told that agreements are in 

place with states on less than 10 of these refuges to continue hunting and fishing m the event of a shutdown. Hunting and fishing are distinct American traditions. It has been part and parcel 

of American culture from the very be~Pnning. In my part of the world, as in many 

parts of our country, hunting and fishmg remain very much ingrained in our heritage. For many, the only opportunities that they have to enjoy these pursuits is on public lands. Unfortunately, many sportsmen recently found themselves at the 

mercy of their government. Both of these proposals will ensure that this will not 

happen again and will preserve these great American traditions. 

However, these proposals are not only important for that reason. Many Americans 

rely on the economic contribution of hunting and fishing to their local economy and 

the national economy. 

American sportsmen and women spend over $48 billion each year. These expenditures support 1.3 million jobs; $28.1 billion in salaries and wages; $4.5 billion in 

state and Federal tax revenue. In total, these expenditures have a $104 billion multiplier effect on the U.S. economy. Let me illustrate just how large this economic contribution really is. U.S. sports- men and women's expenditures exceed total U.S. exports in dollars of corn, cigarettes, soybeans, meat, lumber and metal ore combined. U.S. hunters and anglers spend more than the total gasoline expenditures of the entire Northeastern United 

States. In Texas alone, sportsmen and women spend more each year than all the 

U.S. grocery sales of beer and ale combined. And finally, more people hunt and fish 

in the U.S. than attend NFL football, major league baseball, and NHL hockey 

games combined. Preserving the right of Americans to hunt and fish on public lands is not only 

crucial because of their importance to American tradition, but also because of the 

impact that these activities have on our economy. 

Again, I applaud the efforts of both Chairman Young and Congresswoman Lincoln 

and I look forward to working with them on this initiative. 

Thank you for granting me the opportunity to share my thoughts with you on this 

issue. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. Chairman, the only reason we are here today is that the Republican Majority 

failed to do its job and pass an acceptable appropriations bill to fund our National 

Parks and Wildlife Refuges. This bill is nothing but an attempt to deflect criticism 

from the Republican failure to do its job. 
6 

H.R. 2766 has been titled the "National Park and Wildlife Refuge System Freedom Act of 1995". Freedom from what? The Republican inability to fass an acceptable Interior Appropriations Act? This bill doesn't free our Nationa Parks or Ref- uges from anything. Instead, it raises more concerns than it answers. What parks or refuges would be opened? What services would be provided? Who would be liable 

to accidents to visitors or damage to resources? If you were really serious about this, we would be better off passing a law declaring all National Park and Wildlife Refuge employees as emergency employees for the duration of a shutdown. 

I appreciate Governor Symington's interest in keeping Grand Canyon National 

Park open. The shutdown was a serious matter. It was serious for the many people 

whose social security or disability checks were at risk, the children who depend on head start, and those who couldn't get their passport applications processed. The 

American public and other park visitors were certainly inconvenienced by the Republicans failure to get an appropriations bill passed to adequately fund our National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. However, H.R. 2677 and H.R. 2706 are really pretty poor solutions to this Republican failure. Now we are going to have states determine what parks and refuges are open in a shutdown and what services will be provided. I note Governor Symington's offer to assist with Grand Canyon National Park, but what about Saguaro National Park, Petrified Forest National Park, or any of the 17 other National Park 

units in Arizona? 

Instead of proposing band-aids to deal with a serious problem, we would be better 

off focusing our efforts on getting an acceptable appropriations bill passed that the 

President can sign. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW J ERSEY 

Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2677, I am pleased that our Full 

Committee has been convened to obtain testimony on the National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act. 

Since coming to Congress in 1984, I have proudly represented New Jersey's Third 

Congressional District, which includes the 40,000 acres of the Edwin B. Forsythe 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

This Refuge, which is predominantly an estuarine marsh habitat, is one of the finest in our Nation, and over the years the size of this Refuge has increased because of broad public support. Men and women in my district have provided the financial resources to protect this barrier island ecosystem and to acquire the upland forest and fields that have enhanced the biodiversity of the Refuge. In addition, thousands 

of my constituents have enjoyed hunting and fishing on lands that comprise the 

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge for generations. 

Tuesday, November 14th, was a bad day for America and for every person who 

wanted to visit a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge unit. While my pref- erence would be to complete action on an appropriations bill for the Department of 

the Interior, there must be a fail-safe or stop-gap procedure in place to avoid an- other public lands meltdown. In my judgment, it was ludicrous that the Department of the Interior was unable or unwilling to accept the offer of Governor Symington to keep the Grand Canyon 

open by using National Guard troops. 

Mr. Chairman, this was just one example of where various State officials ex- pressed willingness to operate our National Parks and Refuges with State employ- ees. In almost all cases, these offers were rejected. 

H.R. 2677 would provide a fail-safe measure and it would help to ensure that the 

gates to the Edwin B. Forsythe are never again padlocked and shut in the faces of 

those Americans who paid for these lands with their hard-earned tax dollars. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and to 

further action on H.R. 2677. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Let me now introduce our first panel, two of my 

colleagues from the State of Arizona. Senator John Kyl, welcome 

back to the U.S. House of Representatives; Governor Fife Symington, welcome to you, sir. You have testified before this committee 

before and we are pleased to have you back with us today. 

Senator Kyl, we know you are under time constraints in terms 

of legislation that you must manage on the Floor of the other body, 

so I would ask you to begin. 
7 

And let me just remind both of you gentlemen, and indeed all of 

today's witnesses, that we encourage oral testimony be limited to 

5 minutes, but we assure you that your entire statement will appear in the record. Senator Kyl. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

ARIZONA 

Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you Members of 

the committee. Since I don't have a statement, I will try to condense everything I have to say in the 5 minutes. And it is, indeed, 

a pleasure to get back to the House and be with some old colleagues. 

I remember when I had a problem dealing with the State of Arizona, I came to Bruce Vento, then Chairman of the subcommittee, 

and Bruce Vento and I worked together and solved the problem for 

Arizona by finding a way to get it done rather than ways not to 

get it done. And I think that is the approach we need to take with 

regard to this problem here today. 

Instead of finding excuses for not taking action, I think we have 

to look for constructive and positive ways to try to solve the problem. And fortunately, the Governor of Arizona, I think has pointed 

the way for us. As the Chairman pointed out, there are a variety of bills pending, and I think it is important that the best features of all of those 

bills be combined in order to bring this matter to the Floor of the 

House as soon as possible, and we will do the same thing in the 

Senate. Both Senate McCain and I have introduced a bill in the Senate, 

which I don't think, by the way, has some of the problems that 

Representative Vento has noted. We did not seek to amend the Antideficiency Act, although we 

could have done that. We are looking for a more narrow approach 

to the problem. 

Representative Vento makes the point that there are other problems that we might try to solve as well, that this isn't the only one. 

But borrowing the words of President Clinton in his address to the 

Nation regarding Bosnia, I would say that we can do something 

about this and what we can do, we should try to do. 

There are other things that are more difficult. It would be very 

difficult to have the State operate veterans' benefit programs, signing people up for social security and so on. But it is not at all hard 

for the Federal Government to train State park personnel, for example, how to collect fees at a national park. This is not hard. 

Therefore, if Congress fails to do its job and the parks close down, 

or if the President vetoes a Continuing Resolution and the parks 

close down, the people shouldn't have to suffer. We ought to be able 

to find a way to bring those State personnel to bear on the problem 

of keeping the parks open. . Moreover, this is not exactly a new subject. There are intergovernmental agreements entered into all the time between State levels of government and between the Federal Government and the 

States. As a matter of fact, the Park Service has intergovernmental 
8 

agreements with elements of the State of Arizona, with the State 

Highway Patrol, for example, to deal with law enforcement. 

So intergovernmental agreements between the Interior Department and the States are not at all something that has never been 

done. They are done all the time and this is simply another kind 

of intergovernmental agreement. 

Now, Representative Vento makes the point that if the Federal 

Government would do its job, this wouldn't happen, and I guess I 

would say there is a converse to that. Why should people suffer just 

because we don't do our job? 

Whether it is the President's fault or the Congress' fault, the 

Federal Government has failed to get a bill, an appropriation bill, 

in place, and, therefore, we ask the American people to suffer. That 

is wrong when we can do something about it, and the Governor of 

Arizona has offered to do something about it. Why can't we take 

yes for an answer? 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee, I am going to read a 

letter to you that was sent to me, to Governor Symington, as a 

matter of fact, and to President Clinton: 

"In 1992, my husband died of cancer at the age of 41. His dying 

request was for his ashes to be distributed at Ribbon Falls in the 

Grand Canyon. This was done, shortly after his death. For the past 

3 years, his brothers and sisters and I and my children have 

planned a memorial hike so that we could all visit this special site. 

Family members from Connecticut, New Jersey, California and 

friends from Washington, D.C., and Arizona came to join us in 

what was to be an important part of our emotional healing. 

"Instead, Congress and the President have turned this into an 

emotional nightmare. My 13 year old has been crying because she 

was looking forward to visiting Ribbon Falls with family and 

friends. How do I explain to her what is happening in Washington? 

"Family members paid hundreds of dollars for plane tickets, car 

rentals and hiking gear. People have arranged time off from work. 

For some, this is their only vacation this year. 

"One teacher had to get special permission from the school superintendent to be here. We have been looking forward to being together as family and friends to celebrate Michael's life in a place 

he loved, at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Instead, we are 

stranded at the top because the President and our elected representatives in Congress didn't do their jobs. The Grand Canyon 

didn't have to close." 

Mr. Chairman, the Grand Canyon didn't have to close. And it 

doesn't have to close in the future. And neither do other national 

treasures. The States have the ability to provide the personnel to 

keep these facilities open, and I don't understand why we can't 

pass legislation that allows the Department of Interior to enter into 

intergovernmental agreements with States who are willing to pay 

the tab and accept the liability, to keep these national treasures 

operating during times of emergency, especially when that emergency is created by our inability to do our jobs. 

It seems to me to be a very reasonable approach, a very narrow 

and rational approach, and I commend Governor Symington and 

the Members of this committee who have taken the time to care 

enough about this issue to try to ensure that the problems that I 
9 

alluded to in the letter from this constituent from Flagstaff never 

arise again. 

I appreciate the committee's consideration of the legislation and 

I look forward to working with you on the Senate side on this important legislation. 

And, Mr. Chairman, because I have been asked to manage a bill 

beginning at 10:30, I am going to excuse myself part way through 

Governor Symington's testimony. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is fine. Thank you, Senator, we appreciate 

your testimony. 

Now we will call on the Governor of Arizona, Fife Symington. 

Governor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FIFE SYMINGTON, GOVERNOR OF 

ARIZONA 

Governor SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wish to openly express my thanks to our congressional delegation and to Senator Kyl and Senator McCain and you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shadegg, Congressman Stump, all Members of 

our delegation who have been so responsive regarding this issue. 

I appreciate the chance to come here today to discuss the merits 

of H.R. 2677. I have had the chance to review this bill and bills 

introduced by our delegation, H.R. 2732 and Senate bill 1451. I applaud both chambers for responding so quickly to this problem and 

I am confident that we can keep the parks open in the event of a 

second budget impasse. 

Today I would like to outline for you the importance of the Grand 

Canyon National Park to Arizona, recap the steps we took last 

month in a bid to reopen the park and underscore some of the critical questions the legislation needs to answer. 

In the wake of the Federal Government shutdown last month, 

some folks asked in jest if the news media hadn't told you the government was closed, would you have noticed? 

While this question reflects a heal thy indifference toward both 

Washington and the press, the answer unfortunately for us in Arizona was definitely yes. The administration's decision to close the 

Grand Canyon National· Park on November 15th, 2 days after the 

general government shutdown, was a jolt to many in my State. We estimate that visitors to the Grand Canyon spend $250 million a year in Arizona. This activity sustains communities in northern Arizona. It generates about $12.5 million annually in sales tax 

revenue for the State, which is roughly the cost to operate the park 

on an annual basis. 

Besides the economic consequences of the closure, I was disturbed by the way it hit a number of individuals. Visitors come to 

see the Canyon from around the country and all over the world. We 

in Arizona pride ourselves on being good hosts. Thus, I was annoyed when a couple from New Zealand, for instance, who had 

spent $10,000 to visit the park, was turned away at the gate. It is 

a little arrogant, I think, to seal off one of the natural Wonders of 

the World while our Federal Government squabbles over its continuing fiscal excess. 

In response to the closure, Arizona asked the Federal Government to let us reopen the park using State resources. We backed 
10 

up our offer by going to the park the next day with the manpower 

necessary to do the job. The caravan that I led on November 17th 

included State park staff, employees from our Department of Public 

Safety and unarmed National Guardsmen. We had come to work, 

not to fight. 

Upon arrival, I met with Park Superintendent Arenburger. He 

was somewhat uneasy about our campaign. However, he relaxed 

enough to point out to me a fact that clearly illustrates the absurdity of this episode. He mentioned there is evidence of human habitation in the Grand Canyon that goes back 4,000 years. So while 

mother nature could not in 4 millennia keep people out of the Canyon, the Federal Government managed to drive them out last 

month. While we were at the park, the administration declined our offer 

to reopen it. They cited several concerns. I urge you today to view 

these as legitimate but surmountable obstacles. I think we can 

craft legislation to keep the parks open that addresses these issues. Please consider these points as you go into mark-up. The first hurdle cited by the Interior Department in rejecting my 

offer involved the responsibility of the Secretary to operate parks 

in a safe and sound manner, consistent with Federal law and regulations, and to manage their resources in such a way as to preserve 

them for future generations. 

Legislation should give States an option. Let us open parks by 

paying the salaries and benefits of Federal employees or by using 

State employees. I am concerned that the Department is going to urge you to bar 

the use of State employees by establishing arbitrary standards of 

experience or training. Don't buy into this Washington-knows-best 

mentality. In connection with this issue, please also consider the opportuni- ties we have to serve the public through partial reopenings of the 

parks. Consider, for example, the possibilities at Grand Canyon 

National Park. The Federal Government had the flexibility during 

the first 2 days of the budget deadlock to keep the park open but 

close the visitors center. In the event of a second budget impasse 

this month, the State of Arizona might at a minimum reopen 

Mather Point. 

And I would like to put the pictures up here on the easel. Please 

turn your attention to the map of the park that we provided. 

These are a few of the pictures of the park from Mather Point, 

which is the place that most people who come to the United States 

or from within the United States when they go to the Grand Canyon, this is the view that they want to see. During last month's 

budget impasse, the Federal Government blocked access to the 

road that goes out to this overlook. You can see in red where they 

put their blockade. If they had moved the blockade further to the 

west where the blue line is, Mather Point would have been available to the public without much effort on the part of the Park Service. 

Removing this roadblock and allowing visitors to enjoy perhaps 

the best view of the Canyon , as shown in this picture before you, 

would not have been hard. It would not entail putting the full contingent of 200 or so nonessential park employees back on-the-job. 
11 

It would require only a handful of employees in relatively simple 

positions. 

A second objection raised by the Interior Department involves 

the Antideficiency Act. Under this law, the Federal Government 

cannot obligate funds that have not been appropriated. On the 

basis of this, the Department rejected our offer to reopen the Grand 

Canyon because we did not discuss covering the incremental cost 

of things such as power and water supplies arising from an expansion of park operations beyond the essential level. Well, we can 

cover these items and correct that deficiency. And finally, I would just like to say with regard to the liability 

issue, I believe we can work those issues out. One acceptable solution that I understand is taking shape would involve indemnification of a State for any liability to the United States arising from 

the actions of a State employee. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the opportunity to say 

these words to you today, because we in Arizona do never, ever 

want to see the Grand Canyon National Park closed to the public 

again. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Governor Symington may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Governor, I thank you for your testimony. 

Reminding the Members that the committee Rule 2(i) imposes a 

5-minute limit on questions, the Chair will now recognize Members 

for any questions of the first panel. 

Governor, again, thank you for your testimony. And we have 

heard and seen in letters some concerns from some within this institution and about the financial and technical abilities of State 

governments to administer park facilities. But doesn't Arizona have 

park employees with similar duties and missions as National Park 

Service employees? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We have an 

extensive park system in our State, well-trained personnel. It 

would be not difficult at all for them to supplement national park 

activities in times of crisis. And, in fact, when the Grand Canyon was in trouble about a 

year and a half ago, after a major flood event, many of our people 

went in to help clean up the park. Our Conservation Corps was actually contracted for by the National Park System to rebuild the 

pipeline that had broken that goes from the North Rim to the 

South Rim. 

And so we actually have a lot of experience in the park. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Governor, since last month's shutdown of the 

Grand Canyon, has the State of Arizona come any closer to reaching an agreement with the National Park Service to operate the 

park during a future shutdown? 

Governor SYMINGTON. We really have had no constructive negotiations under way at this time. And, of course, that is my biggest 

concern that with another shutdown looming, we do not seem to be 

any further along than we were when they closed it in November. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Could you characterize the position of the other 

governors you talked with last week at the Western Governors' As-
12 

sociation meeting regarding park and refuge closures in their State 

during last month's shutdown? 

Governor SYMINGTON. The Western Governors' Association, 

which is a bipartisan organization, passed a resolution supporting 

this effort to keep the parks open in times of crisis by the States 

coming in with supplemental aid. And in the West, where we have 

these tremendous national assets, most of them, there is great concern on the part of the governors and the States that they will be 

adversely impacted by this type of arbitrary action. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Governor, you documented here an interesting 

episode in the entire closure of the park. And I guess it is sympto- matic of an entire set of instances and incidents that occurred during the shutdown. To you and in your capacity as chief executive 

of the State of Arizona, what was the most surprising or most frustrating incident surrounding the shutdown of the Grand Canyon? 

Governor SYMINGTON. The most frustrating aspect of the shut- down was, as you can see on the chart, the fact that the blockade 

of the park was done right at what we call the "T", when just to 

the West is Mather Point, which is a very easy area to police and 

patrol. In fact, the Coconino County Sheriff in Arizona has an 

intergovernmental agreement with the Park Service and sometimes 

is up there helping them when they have a real crunch in the summer. All they had to do was move that blockade further to the West 

and not completely close the park to visitors worldwide. 

That was really disturbing, because that spoke, I think, to the 

really arbitrary nature of the closure of the park, and just disappointed the 8,000 people a day that were being turned away unnecessarily. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. During your visit to the Canyon, discussing this 

with Park Service officials on hand there, did they offer any reason 

for that particular blockade at that particular juncture? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, they said they were following guidelines. We did have a discussion with the Chief of Staff of 

the Interior Department by phone. Most of the leadership of northern Arizona was in the room, and really there was no satisfactory 

explanation given to us, except there was a comment made in that 

conversation by the Interior Department which, in effect, said: Gov- ernor, stay out of our park. And there was a hush in the room and we all thought about that 

remark and we came back and we advised the person from the Interior Department, you know, this park doesn't belong to you. This 

park belongs to the American people. Nobody should shut this 

park. Mr. HAYWORTH. Governor, what else occurred-perhaps there are 

other anecdotes you can offer us today, not humorous ones, to say 

the least, but other things that happened during this entire episode 

that perhaps would help us understand truly the impact upon 

northern Arizona and, indeed, visitors from around the world and 

people from the United States who wanted to see the Grand Canyon during this shutdown? 

Governor SYMINGTON. When you have a park like this, which attracts between 4 to 5 million visitors a year, on a daily basis that 

is a tremendous number of people coming from all over the world 
13 

to see it. And the quick and arbitrary nature of the closure just destroyed people's travel plans from all over the world. It had a huge negative impact on tourism in our State. And I 

think just created a lot of unnecessary hardship, especially when 

you consider that the park really pays for itself. That particular 

park generates sufficient revenue to cover more than its operating 

expenses on an annual basis. So it was not an economic decision 

to close that park. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. And we should note, although we are talking 

specifically about the Grand Canyon, there are many other nations! 

parks within the State of Arizona that felt the brunt of this shutdown. 

Governor SYMINGTON. That is correct, but I believe that the 

Grand Canyon is considered to be the crown jewel of the parks, 

something that people come from all over the world to see on an 

annual basis, both in winter and summer. And it was a very distressing event for our State. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Governor, I thank you. 

And now I turn to the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Vento, for 

questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Welcome, Governor. 

Last time, I think you were looking to take over the BLM, now 

it is the park system this time; right? The BLM lands-the people's 

lands, and we certainly agree with that from Minnesota, as you 

know. We certainly agree with that from Minnesota, Governor. 

It is a pleasure to see you here, and my good friend and colleague 

Jon Kyl, who we did work with in expanding Saguaro and dealing 

with other problems in Arizona. As a matter of fact, we have got 

quite a few sites based on the Udall legacy down there in Arizona, 

of parks and monuments, almost 2 dozen sites, including 

Tumacacori and a lot of other smaller sites, that might not be on 

the national radar screen but may be important. There may be 

someone from who knows where, from Switzerland or New Zealand, coming to Tumacacori. 

Are we worried about that, too, Governor, keeping it open? That 

would be an easy one; wouldn't it? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, Congressman Vento, of course, in Arizona, we worried about any effort to close any of the parks because 

we are a great tourism State, and I think we really are a wonderful 

symbol for the world in terms of the quality of the environment in 

America. So I share your deep concern as far as keeping the parks 

open. 

Mr. VENTO. I am glad to see that bipartisan support with the 

Udall's in terms of that State, and of the special lands and places. 

I agree they are. I worked a long time on it, and I know, Governor, 

you have expressed an interest here today. 

I don't know if I would fight it with the enthusiasm in terms of 

whether or not-or the agreement whether or not the Grand Canyon pays for itself these days. I didn't see the particular budget 

numbers. I would like to think we could make it on just entrance 

fees, but I think that if you look at that more closely, we probably-maybe the way that you are computing it, it does it. But I 

don't think that the way that we look at it, it makes the-the numbers, the numbers don't quite add up that well. 
14 

But certainly I think we are aware that there was great inconvenience visited on a major attraction to the State by virtue of the 

close-down, the failure to pass the appropriation matters through 

either the House and the Senate so the President could have the 

opportunity to sign or veto the bill. 

One of the issues here, though, is that, you know, for instance, 

some of the employees were exempt from- and worked and continued to work, and others were nonexempt, and those are the ones 

we are concerned about. But the issue is, for instance, just from a 

law enforcement standpoint, do you have joint jurisdiction in the 

Grand Canyon these days? 

Governor SYMINGTON. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. And so you could actually go in there and provide 

that service. Were you providing services on that basis? Were you willing to 

provide that service? 

How many police officers do they have in the Grand Canyon or 

squads do they have right now? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, Congressman Vento, when we went 

up there, we had 14 squads of Department of Public Safety officers. 

We had more than sufficient individuals. 

Mr. VENTO. How many-for instance, I know they have almost 

400 employees, over 300 on the South Rim. And how many State 

park employees do you have totally? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Actually, I don't know the specific number 

of State park employees. 

Mr. VENTO. I have a number here, Governor, that says that the 

State of Arizona has 24 operating parks and 2 more that are going 

to open. Apparently, you like parks enough to designate your own 

in Arizona and that you have 200 total employees, including administrative employees. Here we have 200 employees for the entire State of Arizona. The 

South Rim has over 300. Some, of course, are public safety employees. Some are maintenance employees. You know, this-! mean, I 

don't know. Maybe the Park Service has more people than they 

need there. But I don't think that--

Governor SYMINGTON. That is probably a good point I think you 

just made. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think that--

Governor SYMINGTON. Congressman--

Mr. VENTO. That is sort of the--

Governor SYMINGTON. Congressman--

Mr. VENTO. That is sort of the attitude that exists if you are 

going to serve people, I mean, you know, but that is sort-that is 

fine. Probably the State of Arizona has too few. But I mean, the 

point is that the issue is one of whether or not what you are going 

to do and how you are going to run that park. How it is going to 

be treated. How you are going to interpret it. Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Vento, I 

think I can answer those questions given the chance. The force that we had up at the Canyon included 60 to 100 highly skilled National Guardsmen that were part of the Special Police 

Operations in the Guard, and they were meant to be involved in 

the traffic control issues so that we could basically open up Mather 
15 

Point, which was at issue-let me finish-and also we had some of 

our top State park personnel there who could lend assistance. 

In addition to that, we had 14 squads, Department of Public 

Safety officers, who are very skilled at crowd control and helping 

in critical areas. They were all at the disposal of the National Park 

Service. Mr. VENTO. Were you going to run the concessions, too? I mean, 

how were the concessions going to be functioning? 

Governor SYMINGTON. The concessions-excuse me, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Vento, the concessions are run by private individuals and really aren't operated by the park personnel. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you have a contract with the private individuals? 

I mean, they weren't there. 

Do they have reservation systems, computer systems? You know, 

they have all sorts-are you going to run the concession programs, 

too? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Vento, as I 

was saying, like the El Tovar Lodge, for instance, is run by a private company. They were shut down basically. Mr. VENTO. Who is going to oversee that? Do you have someone 

in your government, in your group there, that was going to be the 

administrator and run the Visitors Center and run these concession contracts, or do you think that they can just amble along by 

themselves? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Congressman, hotel operators usually 

know how to run hotels and the people who run the El Tovar Hotel 

are capable of doing that. 

Mr. VENTO. They are capable people, but there is an oversight responsibility of the park within the park. For instance, there are 

contracts that are ongoing, for instance, cleaning up trails in the 

Grand Canyon. There are maintenance contracts. There are maintenance personnel that have to keep the power systems going 

there. Do you have boilermakers and engineers in that group that 

went up there with you that understood the systems of the Grand 

Canyon? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Congressman Vento, we find it very interesting that when the park gets in trouble they usually call on the 

State, like our State Conservation Corps which bailed them out of 

trouble a year and a half ago. If your insinuation is that the park 

is autonomous and can only be run by Federal people, I would beg 

to differ with you, because the State for many, many years has 

been in the business of operating parks. 

Mr. VENTO. I am not insinuating anything. I understand the cooperation of the State and Federal Government on a range of activities on law enforcement, fire, safety and health; and I commend 

you, Governor, to continue that cooperation and collaboration. I am 

just asking questions based on the fact that you have 200 park employees statewide and are going to take over an operation where 

they have at least 300 of them on the rim. 

Governor SYMINGTON. The Grand Canyon.National Park and the 

Park Rangers had, about, I think 120 people still on duty in the 

park. We were there with sufficient individuals, with the capability 

to fill in, to at least open up Mather Point, which is nothing more 

basically than a traffic policing operation. 
16 

I think that what concerns me most is the arbitrary nature of 

this closure and the fact that we have a history of cooperation with 

the Park Service. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, we haveGovernor SYMINGTON. Excuse me, Congressman, but I would like 

to make this point. 

The State of Arizona is drastically impacted when you close 

something like the Grand Canyon National Park. There is no need 

to do that in the future. We are willing to help. We are willing to 

give money. We are willing to lend people. We are willing to set 

out parameters to protect the United States Government from liability. 

And so I don't quite understand how in the face of that kind of 

a generous offer, our country at the national level could spurn that 

good-faith offer on the part of the sovereign State of Arizona. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think my time has expired. 

But I mean, I certainly understand how they could still havereserve questions. And I don't question your good faith. I just question the feasibility about a piecemeal basis trying to keep the government operating, when you have this type of shutdown in terms 

of no funds. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota who correctly noted that his time has expired. I would also pause here in my capacity as the Chair today to acknowledge that Representative Lincoln, one of the sponsors of the 

bill coming up next, has joined us in the audience. We look forward 

to her testimony. 

Now, the questions from Governor Symington will continue. 

We will yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Cooley. Mr. COOLEY. Governor, I don't have any questions to ask you. I 

am just going to make a comment. 

I think it would be to the benefit of the State of Arizona, and also 

the Federal Government, if we just turn this park over to you to 

manage. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Cooley. We would be 

pleased to accept. 

Mr. COOLEY. I wish we could. In your previous statement, you 

talked about arrogance put forth by people in the Federal Government. The 104th Congress is here to downsize and change government-get rid of some of the arrogant bureaucrats. One way to do 

this is by giving it back to let you run it. I would certainly support 

such a effort. 

Thank you much for your time here. Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cooley, 

thank you. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Now, the Chair would recognize my colleague 

from the great State of Arizona, a gentleman who also serves on 

this committee, and I am pleased to serve with him in this country, 

Mr. Shadegg from the Fourth District. Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

I have got to tell you, Governor, that I am absolutely awestruck, 

and my colleague from Oregon used the word that I think is appropriate here. To me, it is the absolute height of arrogance to insinu-
17 

ate that for an American or a foreigner, anyone from around the 

world, who comes to the United States to see one of the Seven 

Wonders of the World, and to conceive that they cannot do that, 

they cannot absorb the beauty and take in the beauty of the Grand 

Canyon if they don't have a Federal bureaucrat standing at their 

side, that is unbelievable to me. I happened to be here during the shutdown because we remained 

in Washington. I spoke by telephone to an audience in Phoenix, and it was the day you were pursuing your effort to open up the 

park both for the visitors who had come from around the world to 

visit and around the Nation, and for people who have established 

businesses and have economic lives at stake there. 

And when I made that comment to that audience, I got a rather 

loud, loud round of applause. They seemed to agree with me that 

they didn't feel they needed a Federal bureaucrat standing beside 

them in order to enjoy the Grand Canyon. 

It also kind of amazed me, because I am a boater, that at the 

same time the Federal Government also shut down Lake Powell. So 

if I understand this, one cannot safely boat on Lake Powell unless 

you have a Federal bureaucrat somewhere nearby to ensure that 

you can do it properly. I guess the other point of arrogance is the arrogance that I hear 

that only the Federal Government can do this and that clearly the 

State of Arizona, because it has fewer employees in its park, must 

be doing it wrong and the Federal Government must be doing it 

right. 

I have to tell you that I believe Senator Kyl's letter illustrates 

that this is not an issue of us rushing in to solve a problem that 

doesn't exist or a problem that is being created so we can solve it. 

I think that letter powerfully and dramatically and somewhat sadly 

illustrated the pain that was suffered. 

I also noticed in-I wasn't able to make an opening statement, 

but in Mr. Vento's opening remarks, he talked about a couple of 

things I want to deal with. One of them was-and he used the 

words twice-he said this is an essential Federal Government responsibility and then he said it is a fundamental Federal responsibility. I pulled out a copy of the Constitution, which I learned has 

certain enumerated powers. 

I can't find this as an enumerated power in there. It may well 

be there. I did just a quick survey. But it is somewhat shocking to 

me to believe that during such a break, at least the States couldn't 

assume this responsibility because it is so essentially Federal in 

character. 

One of the points that Mr. Vento brought up goes to the issue 

of the Antideficiency Act. I want to go to that. As I understand it, 

Governor, what you are saying to us is that you are willing to enact 

legislation in which the State would assume all responsibility for 

the operation of the park, all cost for the operation of the park, if 

that is what we have to do in order not to cross the Antideficiency 

Act, and all liability. 

Is that correct? 

Governor SYMINGTON. That is correct. 

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. 
18 

If you do all of that, I don't believe there is a problem with the 

Antideficiency Act, and I think that is a very important point. 

Let me ask a second question. One of the issues that is in the 

two bills, and one in the delegation bill that we have written and 

the other is Chairman Young's bill, I understand that the State 

would be willing to have the language of the bill provide that you 

would assume all responsibility, all costs and all liability, and also 

not provide for any reimbursement. You would be willing to assume the cost. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shadegg, 

that is correct. It is about-we estimated about $40,000 a day in 

total expense, and we presumed that the shutdown wasn't going to 

go on forever, but we were willing to bear that burden. 

Mr. SHADEGG. One of the ideas that I have mentioned to you is 

perhaps what we ought to do with this issue of cost is to allow the 

States to operate the parks during this time period and assume the 

responsibility and the liability and the cost and allow them to 

charge a fee or not charge a fee, but keep the fee. That is certainly 

something that would be of some interest to you or some 

attractiveness to you? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Yes, Congressman, that would be. But, 

again, we were trying to take the path of least resistance. We were 

trying to make an offer which was really very much in favor of the 

Federal Government, where we would come to their aid in this 

time of budget impasse. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Vento went into the issue of contracts with 

concessionaires. This legislation would allow you to enter into an 

intergovernmental agreement with the Federal Government and 

under such an intergovernmental agreement you could, for example, assume the responsibility of supervising those concessionaires 

during the time period that the Federal Government was not operating the park but rather the State was; couldn't it? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shadegg, that would 

be correct. The point I was trying to make about the concessionaires is that the reason they are there is they know their business better than people who work for the Federal Government, so 

they are fully capable of operating a first-class operation with minimal supervision. Mr. SHADEGG. I am really sorry that Senator Kyl had to leave 

us because he brought us some important information. 

On this issue of legislation which would have the States assuming all liability, all responsibility and all cost, it is my understanding that Senator Kyl had a conversation with Mr. Leshy, the solicitor for the Interior Department. I believe Mr. Leshy may be hereis he here? He is here. Mr. Leshy, how are you? 

Perhaps we could ask you to--or ask the Governor to reiterate 

Senator Kyl's conversation. My understanding is that Senator Kyl 

said that a bill which had those provisions would, as I understand 

it, and Senator Kyl reported to us, not be a showstopper, there 

wouldn't be any reason why that couldn't be done legally? 

Was that your advice, Mr. Leshy, to Senator Kyl? 

Mr. LESHY. I am going to accompany Mr. Frampton, who is going 

to testify in a minute. 
19 

Mr. SHADEGG. You will be testifying through Mr. Frampton in a 

few minutes? 

Mr. LESHY. Yes. 

Mr. SHADEGG. OK. Then I will ask the question at that time. I just know that the Governor and I were present when Senator 

Kyl reported that and it is an important fact. 

My time has concluded. I thank the Chairman. Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and he is 

correct in that statement. Governor, with your indulgence, we realize you have a travel 

schedule that will require your departure at 11:15, but there may 

be a few more questions. Again, we are glad to see our colleague from Minnesota representing the Minority today, and I believe he has a couple more 

questions. So, again, we would recognize the gentleman from Minnesota. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thought you wanted to ask some 

questions. I will be brief. We all have travel plans. But I appreciate 

the Governor coming here before the committee. 

Obviously, one of the problems with this, and I might just say 

for the Governor and others, is that you talked about the fact that 

we are going to have a chance in committee to work on the legislation, but plans right now are to offer something on the Floor to another bill without any amendment process or further deliberation 

or consideration, and so that obviously is going to leave us in the 

lurch. 

Now, I don't doubt that we could probably write this so that it 

could work out on a narrow basis and we could deal with the 

Grand Canyon, but what about the parks in your area, Mr. 

Shadegg, like Saguaro, what about Tumacacori, what about the 

Petrified National Forest National Park? We have got a lot of parks 

in Arizona and other places. We have got some that are split up 

among States like Yellowstone. Mr. SHADEGG. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I would in a minute, but I just think trying to 

say well we can open up that- move that roadblock just a little further back, people can get in there, we can get a view of the Grand 

Canyon, we don't need 311 employees to run a park that has 4 million people a year that come into it-which I don't think is the case 

in most parks in Arizona. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think it 

is the case, Governor. I mean, this park has a lot of problems. You say well, we will 

indemnify any action by a State employee of any particular problem that they have. Well, is one of their actions going to be if somebody makes a mistake and slips and injuries themselves seriously 

or some other particular physical feature of the park where there 

are steps or other things-! just read in the morning paper, one of 

our colleague's spouse had a serious accident and all of a sudden 

we have got court cases that flow out of it and, you know, these 

things happen because this topography isn't obviously regular in 

terms of its makeup. 

So there are a lot of issuP ~ t'h_at go on here for us to say we can 

step in the place of the Federal Government and we will just ab-
20 

sorb all of that particular responsibility. I mean, I think it seems 

to me you are very guarded in what you are doing. 

Oh, we can make an agreement to take over the concession contracts, run them with a minimal amount. After all, I agree the concessionaires and most of the folks there are expert. They know 

what they are doing in terms of running some of these facilities. 

But on the other hand, I think you give too little credit to the 

expertise and the management ability, the interpretive ability, and 

some of the other professionals in the National Park Service. These 

aren't Democrats or Republicans, you know. They are professionals 

that have been trained and hired and have decades of experience 

in terms of what they are doing. 

And today we sit here and make a mockery of the fact that they 

have got 300 employees. I think that is a real mistake to do that. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. VENTO. I yield to my colleague. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you very much. 

Quite frankly, I don't have any national parks in my district. I 

wish I did. Saguaro National Park is not in my district. Mr. VENTO. Well, that is enough to claim credit and bragging 

rights, I expect. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, actually, Saguaro National Park is near Tucson. My district is metropolitan Phoenix. It is hundreds of miles 

away, almost as far away as the Grand Canyon. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, OK 

Mr. SHADEGG. It is neither here or there. Let me simply respond to the point, and that is that I believe 

that each of these issues is conceptual and that is if we can authorize, simply authorize the Federal Government to enter into these 

agreements and give the Park Service or the Interior Department 

the leeway to negotiate those provisions they think are necessary, 

I see no difficulty. Indeed, I believe Mr. Leshy has said that could 

be done. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't think he has. 

Mr. SHADEGG. On the issue of liability, if I might, the bill specifically provides that the State would assume all liability, including 

the liability to which you just adverted. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I just think it is a tremendous 

amount of energy being expended on the predicate that we are 

going to have, you know, shutdowns of government, that this is 

going to be a regular-the regular order around here and somehow 

we are going to have to deal with this. This is something that has 

happened a couple of weeks in the last 20 years. 

Now, of course, if it is your objective that you are going to haver mean, if it is your interpretation, then I suppose we ought to 

spend lots of time on this because this is going to be the normal 

manner of operation. I just think it is sort of looking through the 

looking glass, back through the looking glass the wrong way in 

terms of what we are doing and where we are going. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, I think the family whose letter Senator Kyl 

read--

Mr. VENTO. I would be happy to yield further to my colleague. 

All right. 
21 

But my concern is that, you know, you are trying to solve these 

problems and you are going to get further and further into this, 

and what are you solving in the end? I mean, the issue is there is 

nothing in this bill about indemnifying the Feds, incidentally, on 

liability, the bill that we have here right now. So, I mean, it isbeing we are going to be responsible for what Federal or State employees are doing isn't quite-doesn't quite meet that particular 

test as an example. 

And as far as the Antideficiency Act, I mean, I am raising these 

questions because I think there is a whole range of them. I mean, 

I think you just scratched the surface here in terms of the types 

of problems that you are dealing with in the legislation. 

It just boggles-! mean, you know, the questions are very severe, 

very significant in terms of-in terms of this type of action. And 

they are not-they haven't been answered by the Governor. 

The Governor, you suggest that you would-would you curtail operations at the State parks in lieu of this, in terms of taking your 

employees from the State parks to run this? 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Vento, the answer to that is definitely 

not. And that is why we brought an augmentation force up to the 

Canyon to help, through a temporary crisis at the Federal Government. 

You seem to resist the idea that we came with aid to help the 

Park Service keep the park open. I thought that it was an extremely generous offer. 

For some reason, at the Federal level you seem to resist the fact 

that the State can actually make generous offers to the Federal 

Government to keep one of the crown jewels of the park system 

open, and I sit here absolutely amazed at that answer. 

Mr. VENTO. I am surprised at the misunderstandings and the 

sort of shallow view or understanding. That is what amazes me. 

I have been working on this subject for 10 years and I have a 

Governor of a major State that has tourism and has a lot of other 

good intentions, but I am surprised at the lack of understanding 

of what the park system does. 

Governor SYMINGTON. I think the people in Arizona are very surprised at the lack of understanding by someone such as yourself of 

the impact of the closure of the crown of the National Park System 

in the State of Arizona and the impact that has on tourism in our 

State and around the world. I don't think the Federal Government 

should ever do that and that is why I am here testifying today. 

Mr. VENTO. I think it is very serious. I think the closure and the 

failure to pass legislation is very, very significant, Governor. I regret the inconvenience in the economy. 

I don't usually sell parks, as I have worked in this area for many 

years, on the basis of their economic impact, but it is there. It is 

very, very important. It is very important to your State and that 

is why I think it underlies the importance to pass it. If we were, 

for instance, to completely facilitate this process through the looking glass the wrong way sort of, so to speak--

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Vento, just because--

Mr. VENTO. We would-it would just take away any type of motivation, in many respects, to get the legislation passed. 
22 

Governor SYMINGTON. You know, I want to make this comment. 

There isn't some sort of mystical transformation that takes place 

that just because you become a Federal employee or you wear a 

Park Service uniform that you have developed some sort of mystical standard of ability in managing an asset like the Grand Canyon 

National Park. 

There are many people in our State who would be well-qualified 

to pitch in and help in time of an emergency. We were there to 

offer our support, I thought a good-faith offer, and it appears to be 

rejected out of hand. And this just doesn't need to happen in the 

future and I regret that people on the other side feel that for some 

reason this is an incorrect offer, to come to the aid of the Federal 

Government when it has a budget impasse. 

We are prepared to help. We came offering help. So if you want 

to turn it down, that is your prerogative. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. VENTO. The program of volunteerism and help, and help is 

fine, but you have to answer the questions. The questions aren't 

being answered today. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has 

expired. 

I would return to the gentleman from Oregon. 

Mr. COOLEY. Governor, I want to give you some information that 

you might find very interesting. 

Our good gentleman from the other side of the aisle introduced 

a bill in 1990 called the Minnesota Public Lands bill, H.R. 2783. 

It became Public Law 101-442. He stated, when he was Chairman, 

that he thought the State of Minnesota could better manage their 

public lands than the Federal Government. 

I think that the gentleman agrees with you in principal, since he 

thought the lands within his State, when he was Chairman of this 

committee, could be better run by the State of Minnesota than by 

the Federal Government. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Mr. Cooley, I always knew that in his 

heart he had the right spirit. Mr. CoOLEY. I don't think much has transpired since 1990---€xcept perhaps, the Federal Government has become less responsive 

to State issues. Therefore, we should encourage the gentleman and 

get him involved in the dialog. Then, maybe we can allow the State 

of Arizona to run their property. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield, since he used my name? 

Mr. COOLEY. Yes, you may. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I appreciate it. 

It doesn't bother me so much what the gentleman thinks is correct. It is what he thinks is correct that isn't the fact that is the 

concern of mine. And the issue here is, of course, some small tracks 

of BLM land that remained in the State. 

Mr. CooLEY. No, no, no. It is my time, sir. The small tracks is a minor issue. It is the idealism of the situation. You felt the State of Minnesota could better manage their 

lands than the Bureau of Land Management which is a Federal 

Agency. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it wasn't that land. It was BLM public domain 

land and there were scattered tracks arranged. 
23 

Mr. COOLEY. Let's get down to the philosophy. 

I think that the Governor of Arizona should be able to manage 

the land in Arizona. Mr. VENTO. I don't want to get in the way of the gentleman's torture. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Well, you know, Mr. Cooley, the Grand 

Canyon has sometimes been referred to as a sort of a lengthy scattered track also. It is a rather large chasm. 

Mr. COOLEY. Right. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. CooLEY. I think, in principle, the gentleman agrees with 

you. Maybe we can introduce legislation to allow the State of Oregon and the State of Arizona to manage their public lands as they 

see fit. I think that is consistent with his past legislative history. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Thank you. Mr. COOLEY. You are welcome. Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Oregon. We have been joined by our good friend and colleague from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie. 

Mr. Abercrombie, do you have any questions for Governor Symington. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No. Mr. HAYWORTH. OK. 

We thank you. And we turn to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. 

Governor, I want to commend you for bringing this bill forward. I have a little speech that I give to all prospective employees, and 

it goes like this, it says that you have got people in this world, 

those who look for excuses for why you cannot get a particular task 

or assignment or project done and those who look for ways to 

achieve or get the project passed or assignment done. And it really 

breaks into that. 

And I like to hire those that say, wow, I have just been given 

this task. I can do it and they think of six different ways around 

the box to ultimately get the job done. I don't really like to hire employees who when given an assignment say well, I really can't do 

it for this reason and we shouldn't do it for that reason, and this 

is a bad idea for that reason, and I really shouldn't do it for that 

reason, and I asked somebody and they say no. So I see an attitude 

here, an attitude that we shouldn't be doing this because it might 

require some bill. You might have to work on the bill and rewrite 

it. 

It seems to me that there is the issue of whether or not the Park 

Service should have accepted your offer some time ago. I think it 

is extremely responsible for you to have come forward, to have 

sought legislation so that the next time this occurs, which could be 

at any point, not only in this budget cycle but in budget cycles for 

the remainder of the history of the Nation and perhaps for other 

reasons. And it seems to me most appropriate that you are taking 

that action. I think, again, the letter written by the family who wanted to 

visit the Canyon during the shutdown and the emotional trauma 

that they went through illustrates the point beautifully. 
24 

I commend you. I happen to have the, "yes, we can get it done 

attitude." 

I would ask you, Governor, the delegation bill, which we-is not 

before us here today for a technical reason, does allow liability to 

be assumed completely by the State, does it not? 

So we get beyond the liability issue. I appreciate that very much, 

Governor, and I thank you for coming. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. We thank the gentleman from Arizona. And with 

that, Governor Symington, we thank you for your appearance here 

today and look forward to rejoining you back home at the conclusion of the business day. 

Governor SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Governor. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. The Chair would now call our second panel forward, two of our colleagues from the great State of Arkansas, the 

Honorable Blanche Lambert Lincoln and the Honorable Tim 

Hutchinson, in bipartisan fashion, on H.R. 2706, authorizing the 

Secretary of the Interior to accept from the State delegation State 

employees for the purpose of hunting management. 

With that, the Chair would recognize the gentlelady from Arkansas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS 

Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your gracious welcome to my colleague from Arkansas and myself, and I 

thank you very much for allowing me to testify today before your 

committee on my bill, H.R. 2706. I appreciate the quick response 

to the events surrounding the recent Federal Government shutdown and taking up the bill so expeditiously. 

I would also like to add my special thanks to the Federal Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 

and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for 

working with me on this bill to resolve any of the problems that 

we have, and I certainly want to say that I am looking forward to 

continuing to work with them as we work through some of the 

glitches that we may have but to make sure that we come through 

with a bill that is going to be good for everyone. 

Although many Americans did not directly experience the effects 

of the shutdown, the inability of Congress to complete its housekeeping chores certainly touched the lives of many Arkansans. We 

have just heard from Governor Symington that tourists in Arizona 

were turned away from the Grand Canyon and other National 

Parks. 

In Arkansas, the Government closure prevented hunters from entering our national wildlife refuges during deer season. Hunting is 

one of Arkansas's favorite pastimes. People take time off from 

work, and families plan their vacations around hunting trips. It is 

very much of a family event, and a part of our heritage that we 

are very, very proud of. 

Prior to the recent shutdown, refuge managers had scheduled 

deer hunts at two of Arkansas's refuges. Hunting permits for these 

hunts were sold under a competitive lottery system. Hunters in the 
25 

Congressional District that I represent went through an extremely 

competitive permit process. They paid $12.50 for each permit. 

Many of them took days off from work. They drove up to 6 or 7 

hours only to be turned away at the gates of the refuges. Needless 

to say, the budget crisis in Washington was not of their choosing 

and they were not happy about the results. 

Weeks before the actual shutdown, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

had worked with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission on an 

agreement to try and allow the State employees to volunteer their 

services on the Federal wildlife refuges. This agreement was signed 

and ready to implement in the event of a Federal Government 

shutdown. 

However, days before the actual shutdown, the Interior Department determined that this agreement violated the Antideficiency 

Act and would not be allowed to go into effect. 

My bill very narrowly tried to codify this type of an arrangement 

between the Federal and State governments. It is a very narrow 

bill that only allows the States to manage hunting activities on 

wildlife refuges during times of Federal Government shutdowns. 

While I don't advocate such shutdowns, I do support the creation 

of a contingency plan to protect our constituents from our action or, 

better yet, sometimes our inaction. 

Additionally, under H.R. 2706, States can only step in the shoes 

of the Federal Government where they have entered into such 

agreements. This is a purely voluntary action and only permitted 

when certain criteria are met. 

I believe that what happened in November should never happen 

again. People at home who have played by the rules continually 

should not be punished by Washington's inability to pass its annual 

appropriations bills. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with me to address this 

situation, and I certainly look forward to moving this issue forward. I am available for any questions after the statements are 

made, and I may apologize if I have to excuse myself early to catch a flight. Mr. HAYWORTH. Quite understandable. We thank the gentlelady 

from Arkansas. 

Now we would call our colleague, Mr. Hutchinson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HUTCHINSON, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first say I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you today in support of H.R. 2677 and H.R. 2706, and I would particularly like to thank you, Chairman Hayworth, and the other 

members of the committee who have worked so diligently on this 

legislation to move it forward quickly. 

I commend Congresswoman Blanche Lincoln and sympathize 

with what she went through during the shutdown. Short of a constitutional amendment prohibiting shutdowns during deer hunting 

season, her legislation is desperately needed. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2677, the National Parks and Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act of 1995, is what we in Arkansas would 

refer to as just plain common sense. As has been stated, this legis-
26 

lation would require the Secretary of the Interior to accept the 

services of State employees to operate any national park or refuge 

within its boundaries during a Federal Government shutdown. 

It is important, I think, to point out that H.R. 2677 would not 

force or require any State to operate a park or refuge but would 

simply grant the State the option of keeping its parks and refuges 

open during a shutdown. 

This legislation is important to the State of Arkansas for a number of reasons. It would not only allow the State to maintain operations at Pea Ridge National Park in my district and the Buffalo 

Flat River in my district which are located in the beautiful Ozarks, 

but it would also permit operations to continue at Fellsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, which I think is in Congresswoman Lincoln's district, and the Hot Springs National Park in Congressman 

Jay Dickey's district. So it has a great impact. 

The State of Arkansas has a very rich tradition in the parks and 

conservation business. We have almost 104,000 acres of flat park 

land in our State, and the Arkansas Department of Parks and 

Tourism oversees an additional 50,000 acres of State park land. 

Our parks and facilities enjoy over 7 million visitors a year. It 

might not be the crown jewel of the Grand Canyon, but it has a 

tremendous economic impact upon our State. They contribute in 

the neighborhood of $220 billion to the State and local economies. 

Shutting down the parks during a Federal Government shutdown 

is one area in which a dramatic ripple effect occurs, touching the 

lives of many times more than the number of park employees who 

might be directly impacted. 

Mr. Chairman, while I commend you and the other members of 

the Resources Committee for bringing this matter before the committee and hopefully the House, I must be honest and tell you that 

I think it is very unfortunate that we are forced to solve this problem legislatively. 

I was disappointed to learn that the Department of the Interior 

did not-denied Governor Symington's offer to operate the Grand 

Canyon by using State National Guard personnel. It is one thing 

not to have the resources available to keep the parks open. If the 

resources are offered and refused, as was the case in Arizona, it 

simply defies logic, at least to me, and compounds the cost and 

problems associated with a shutdown. 

So while I join Congresswoman Lincoln in hoping that we don't 

have another shutdown, in desiring, as we all do, an agreement on 

a real balanced budget with honest numbers will be reached very 

soon, a December shutdown would be averted, I think history 

teaches us that these kinds of shutdowns will occur in the future. 

They have occurred over the last decade. 

There is a history of shutdowns, however brief they might be occurring. It is not, I don't think, extraordinary to think that we may 

have a shutdown of some length at some point in the future and 

that the legislation that you are considering and that you are 

bringing forward is wise and prudent for us to address that possibility in the future. 

Your legislation will alleviate such problems in the future, and 

I am glad to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and look forward to 

its expeditious consideration by both the House and the Senate. 
27 

I thank you for the opportunity to be with you today. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. And we thank both of our colleagues from Arkansas for their testimony on both pieces of legislation. 

We would turn now to the paneL Does anyone have a question? 

Mr. VENTO. I thank them, and I understand the concern, you 

know, about only about 3 or 4 percent of the people that go to the 

refuges are in fact going to hunt. About 96 percent are there for 

other reasons, for recreation, for, you know, picnicking or whatever. 

So you propose that they-that we stand at the entrances of these 

refuges and complexes to see if somebody has got a duck stamp, or 

what, to make this determination? 

Mrs. LINCOLN. Well, in most cases there are those Federal officials out there checking duck stamps and hunting permits, quite 

frankly. We only have four--

Mr. VENTO. I am talking about, see, the whole problem is, you 

are going to have all these other folks there that aren't going to be 

hunting. So hunting becomes essential, and the other activity-! 

shouldn't say essential. That is politically incorrect. It is it exempt 

or not exempt. 

Mrs. LINCOLN. Well, one of the biggest caveats for that is that 

most of the hunters pay actual dollars for their permits, and they 

plan for it ahead by going through, in our case, a lottery system. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I appreciate that. I mean I hunt, I am an active sports person in a variety of different ways, you know, and so 

I understand that. 

The question is of course here whether or not the refuge is going 

to be open, closed, or how it is going to be managed, and how you 

are going to deal with it. I am just trying to present to you questions that are going to arise. 

Mrs. LINCOLN. And that is one of the reasons that in my bill it 

does mandate that there be a prior agreement made ·between the 

State and the Federal--

Mr. VENTO. If we are just going to open it up and exempt the 

parks and say the parks are all going to be exempt from this if we 

don't pass the legislation. 

But I mean obviously what you have here with the refuges or the 

parks is a differential system than you have, you know-Governor 

Symington was here, who is eager to take over the public domain 

lands. You have got my friend from Oregon who is eager to give 

away the national parks. I might say, Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of debate, you 

know, about where all of these notions come from with regards to 

the shedding or stripping park designation or turning it over to the 

States and others. Well, they come from right here, from the members of this committee. 

Earlier in the year Chairman Young had a committee hearing on 

stripping park designation from Voyageurs, today we have got 

statements again about sending the Grand Canyon back, and so if 

you want to know where these ideas are coming from, they are 

coming right here from this committee. 

Now I understand that H.R. 260 took the brunt of it, and I am 

a cosponsor of that bill, but I want to tell you where these notions 

are coming from. They are coming from the mouths of the members 

of the committee here. I just want to make that point, which is on 
28 

a different matter than the-but I think the-my concern here is 

that this isn't the regular way, Mr. Hutchinson, that we do business and have in the past. In fact, there haven't been that many 

days of shutdown; this is a very unusual circumstance. 

You know, obviously if you want to have more of it, the way to 

do it-I mean there is an argument here as legislators where we 

are giving up our responsibility and handing it over to the executive or to the States so that they can-you know, they will be able 

to continue to operate. We have some concerns about that with regards to, for instance, some of the national security interests. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If I may respond to that. 

Mr. VENTO. Surely. Why don't you respond to that. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, I think clearly as I listened to your questions to Governor Symington, there is a very clear, fundamental, 

philosophic difference in the role of the State, how we view the role 

of the States and the capacity of the States. 

I mean I simply agree with many on the Majority side who express the concern about the arrogance that all wisdom and all ability, all expertise, flows out of Washington, D.C. 

We are simply-this legislation giving the States the option. I 

think the State of Arkansas has the capacity to understand what 

they are capable of handling and what they are not and where 

their economic impacts will be, and if they should make an offer 

with proper safeguards, as is included in this legislation, then I 

think they ought to have the option to do that. 

In fact, there have been-though those shutdowns have been 

short, they have been fairly frequent over the years, and that it is 

not unimaginable, that there will be shutdowns somewhere 10, 15 

years down the road that will be of a greater length. What is, it 

seems to me, the prudent thing as legislators is to prepare for 

those kinds of eventualities. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I don't know if I could quite-you know, I obviously disagree with you because I am asking questions, if that 

translates into, you know, arrogance. I don't know that that does. 

I don't necessarily believe that. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I did not mean to imply that necessarily to 

you. I think that that is a mentality in Washington, D.C. 

Mr. VENTO. It is a good argument, but I think the thing is that 

these questions have to be answered. They are real questions. They 

weren't answered by Governor Symington. They are not being answered right here, right now, in terms of how you are going to 

manage it, when you are going to manage it, which refuges are 

going to be open, which are not, are all of them going to be open? 

are all States equally capable of doing that? I don't think so. You 

are going to open it just for hunters and not for others? I think 

those are real questions. 

Mrs. LINCOLN. I would love to address that, and I would just simply say that in my bill we do address that. That would be taken 

up in the agreement that would be agreed to prior to any shutdown. 

So I think it is important to know that there are precedents that 

have been set from State agreements that have been made, as well 

as I think it is important to note that there has been a very longstanding and traditional relationship between the local game and 
29 

fish commissions on the State level and the Federal Fish and Wildlife; they work very closely together. Mr. VENTO. I agree. I think that is absolutely correct, Blanche. I think that much of what has passed as being Federal arrogance, 

really, when you begin looking it on the ground, whether it is in 

law enforcement--

Mrs. LINCOLN. Well, you would probably be very much in favor 

of my bill with those prior agreements. 

Mr. VENTO. With regard to fish and game management, with regard to land management, with regard to fire fighting, all of this 

is intergovernmental. In fact, it is much more efficient in terms of 

what the American people-but I think now you are taking it to 

a different level. You are taking it to the absolute administration 

of parks and wildlife refuges. You are taking it to a different level, 

and I think it gets-if you have those agreements all set up ahead 

of time ready to go, it would be one thing. Mrs. LINCOLN. That is what my bill addresses though. I want to 

make sure that is clear. 

Mr. VENTO. What frustrates me, we ought to be working more on 

the other policies in this committee rather than preparing for a disaster which might not occur. That is very frustrating to me in 

terms of what this committee has done this year. So your bill only deals with hunting, not with any other use, incidentally. It doesn't deal with the 97 or 96 percent of the uses, as 

I pointed out in my opening comments to you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, whose 

time has expired. 

The Chair will also note, just to offer empirical data from the 

Congressional Research Service, lapses in appropriations to fund 

the Government are not uncommon. From fiscal year 1962 to fiscal 

year 1981, the two decades immediately preceding the Civiletti decision, the CRS found that interruptions in agency funding took 

place 32 times. Such lapses appear to be the rule rather than the 

exception. 

So we offer that from Congressional Research to lend empirical 

evidence to the observation by our friend from Minnesota. 

Mr. VENTO. Will the chairman yield? Maybe to put this in the 

record or share it, I mean 32 times for the agency's situation, it 

may be 1 appropriation, 2 hours or 1 day, or whatever it is for 

those. Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, if you would like that included in the 

record. Mr. VENTO. I think we ought to, for the record. Mr. HAYWORTH. I am very happy to accommodate my friend from 

Minnesota as we will accommodate other Members from the Chair. 

If anyone else has questions of our colleagues from Arkansas. 

The gentleman from Hawaii. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Just an observation, Mr. Chairman, because 

I am sure each of us could bring something to the table with respect to someone who is inconvenienced. 

We had a situation in Hawaii in which people were unable to 

bury veterans because of the National Cemetery being closed, so I 

think it ranks at least up there with whatever inconvenience the 
30 

governor of Arizona might have experienced, at least as far as 

those people were concern. They came probably as great a distance 

as most people. 

My concern here is not the good faith either of the governor or 

of yourself, certainly, but, having served on local government bodies myself, what I can foresee in this situation is a local taxpayer 

being upset. 

And, parenthetically, I want to say I am not trying to make your 

life more difficult or the thrust of your legislative offering here 

more complicated than it need be. But having gone through the 

agony of trying to get a park, a small local park, open, baseball diamond, area communities that didn't have a park before and have 

grown up where no one lived before, new communities, and just 

trying to get a ball field open, I can see, Mr. Chairman, where you 

would find local taxpayers saying, look, you are taking county 

funds, State funds, village funds, city funds, to open up a national 

park and expending money there when you don't tak~when you 

are not expending those funds where they should be expended on 

county or city or State parks and/or other recreational facilities 

that we have been denied because we have been told there wasn't 

sufficient funding. Now, I think that I don't-1 have no idea, Mr. Chairman, what 

the legal ramifications of that would be, whether someone would 

actually go as far as to go into court and say, look, this isn't right, 

because it may be the decision of an executive of a State or the legislative body in Arkansas or any place else. 

But I do think that ifthat does happen-and this is not so much 

a question but an observation-! hope that would be pondered before we pass legislation like this, that we think seriously about 

what the implications would be if local taxpayers felt that they 

were being shortchanged when they had made a legitimate effort 

on a community-wide basis to get funding and were told at that 

point that there maybe wasn't sufficient funding or that the economic interest was not great enough to be served. So I think it might be more useful for us to find ways to deal 

with funding our Federal agencies for the purposes under law for 

which they were established than it would be, at least at this 

stage, to concentrate on finding exceptions that might end up with 

all taxpayers feeling themselves unfairly slighted. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii. 

We will turn to the Majority side. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, can we respond? 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Absolutely, indeed. 

Mrs. LINCOLN. I would just say to the gentleman that I don't disagree. I think it is most important to look at a very fiscally responsible way to fund the Government, to do it in a way that we can 

balance the budget. 

I myself have worked hard at putting together an alternative 

budget that does that with a group that I work hard with, the Coalition. We have offered a plan, and we think it is a good one. So 

I don't disagree with the gentleman, and I also do realize that 

there are places where we have got to work out in terms of liability 

schemes and also in terms of enforcement authority. 
31 

This is not to supersede what is most important, and that is putting the Federal Government back into action. All it simply is, in 

my bill, is to set parameters to put prior agreements together that, 

in the event that a shutdown does happen, that there is a contingency plan. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And I would just like to say that, in my opinion, we are not compelling the State governments to do anything. 

We are giving them an option. If State officials would determine 

that they could operate or should operate a park or a refuge to 

keep it open, they then will be accountable, must be accountable, 

to their constituents, and I think they are going to make those decisions with great care, realizing that they have to face the wrath 

of the voters should they misuse those State funds. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you very much. 

The Chair did want to move this along in an expeditious fashion, 

and the Chair apologizes, though, and thanks the gentleman from 

Arkansas for his entreaty to respond to the points made by the 

gentleman from Hawaii. 

Keeping that in mind, we will turn now to the Majority side for 

questions. 

Mr. Cooley, do you have anything for our colleagues from Arkansas? 

Mr. COOLEY. No, Mr. Chairman, I don't. Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Oregon and turn to 

our good friend from Puerto Rico for any comments or questions he 

would care to make. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I would just like to make a question to 

Mrs. Lambert. 

Is there any reason why-I was not here for the whole testimony, 

so I must excuse myself if I am asking something that was already 

said. 

Mrs. LINCOLN. That is quite all right. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. But is there any reason why there is a 

formal requirement instead of a formal request? In other words, 

the proposed bill says "the Secretary shall accept" instead of saying 

"the Secretary is hereby authorized to accept." Is there a reason for 

making it a requirement? 

Mrs. LINCOLN. It is voluntary. Only if there is an agreement. 

The whole premise of what my bill does is, it allows the States 

to set up an agreement with the Federal Government. These agencies have traditionally worked hand in hand anyway, the State 

game and fish with the Federal Fish and Wildlife. If they choose 

to set up an agreement, put it into place in the event of a shutdown, they can then put it into application. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Let me suggest perhaps you should consider changing the wording. Instead of saying "the Secretary shall 

accept" as to something that "the Secretary is hereby authorized to 

accept" in the beginning of the bill, the first section 2(a ) says "requirement." It says "the Secretary shall accept." 

Mrs. LINCOLN. It basically gives, though, tl:ie Secretary the option 

of denying the agreement if, in fact, the State does not meet all the 

requirements. One of the things that I feel is very important in my bill is that 

the States have to meet several requirements. The State employees 
32 

must ensure resource and visitor protection. The State employees 

must have adequate safety training. The State employees must 

have knowledge of the terrain. They must have knowledge of and 

adhere to Federal regulations, which I think is very important because we are dealing with Federal lands. 

So basically it gives the Secretary the ability to deny the plan 

from the State that is presented if they so choose and don't feel like 

it meets the criteria. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Right. That is what I am suggesting, perhaps you should consider changing the wording, instead of "shall 

accept." "Shall accept" seems to be mandatory. When you read, 

"The Secretary shall accept," which is the first sentence in the proposed bill--

Mrs. LINCOLN. Right. I understand what your suggestion is. I 

think if you look down in-under the agreements in general, it does 

say that the Secretary may enter into the agreement. So in other 

words, it behooves the Secretary, and they shall look at the agreement that the State presents. 

They still have the capability to deny the State if the agreement 

does not meet the Federal regulations and the criteria that they 

feel comfortable with in applying to Federal lands. But I do think it is important that the Secretary at least enter 

into negotiations of an agreement and take a look at what the 

State has to propose. Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Thank you. 

Mrs. LINCOLN. But I would definitely take into consideration and 

love to work with all the members of the committee to improve the 

bill if we can. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

Now I turn to my colleagues. Any questions for our friends from Arkansas? 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First I simply want to commend you for bringing this legislation 

forward. I do have to say that I made a comment earlier about how 

I will look for people who figure out how to solve a problem, not 

for excuses for why you can't solve it. I think your legislation is a step in the direction of how we solve 

a problem. I am certainly willing to work on it. Obviously it is not 

perfect. No bill is perfect when it is first introduced. I am not certain any are perfect when we finish enacting them. 

I simply do want to make one other comment. That is, I listened 

to my colleagues on the other side. I heard Mr. Vento avert to the 

fact that, well, you know, this legislation assumes that States could 

actually operate these parks, and it diminishes the expertise of the 

Federal Government, and there was this thread of superiority in it 

that, well, we have to decide whether or not the States can do it. 

And now, with all due respect, the second line I hear is that, before we pass this legislation, we ought to decide whether or not 

State officials ought to do this and spend State dollars to do it 

since their constituents might get angry with them. 

Well, you know, I guess I got elected too late in the cycle in 

American politics, but I have this view that if the governor of the 

State of Arizona or officials of Arkansas want to step in and solve 

this kind of problem, you know, they got elected by people too. 
33 

They know what those people think. They have a sense of whether 

or not this is a priority and whether or not it is appropriate to 

spend State and local dollars, and they are also, you know, adults, 

and they can make these decision for themselves. 

The notion that we shouldn't authorize it because some State official might spend local dollars and then get his or her constituents 

mad at him, once again, reflects this superiority that bothers me, 

troubles me somewhat. I really think we have adult officials at State and local levels. I 

think we ought to trust them and maybe decentralize some power 

in this country and recognize that the Federal Government doesn't 

do everything perfectly or isn't always-doesn't always have the 

right answers. 

So I hope we will continue to look at Federal legislation with the 

notion that others in America have judgment and can make proper 

decisions for their own lives, including, gee, State and local officials 

are even citizens. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will give back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I Thank the gentleman from Arizona. If there are no further questions of our friends from Arkansas, 

we thank both of you for your testimony. And just in conclusion, 

as we bid you farewell, and you have your travel plans, we just 

simply ask you to visit with your fellow Arkansan at the other end 

of Pennsylvania Avenue in your capacity of sharing the same home 

State and perhaps prevail upon him to come to an expeditious conclusion of some of these questions that are still out there. 

Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We want another shot. The Razorbacks want 

another shot at Arizona before the end of the season. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. That may come next year in something we all 

know as March madness. 

Thanks to both of you for trying to help us end some of the madness that has accompanied some of the recent occurrences in American history. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. With that, we thank our friends from Arkansas, 

and we call now upon our third panel, Bruce O'Connell of the National Park Hospitality Association in Waynesville, North Carolina, 

and our friend George Frampton, assistant secretary of fish and 

wildlife and parks, U.S. Department of Interior here in Washington. 

Again, gentlemen, we appreciate the fact that you are here this 

morning. The Chair would urge you to limit your comments to 5 

minutes commensurate with the rules, and of course you have our 

assurance that your full testimony will be entered into the record. 

With that in mind, Mr. O'Connell, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE O'CONNELL, NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION, WAYNESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. O'CONNELL. Thank you. 

My name is Bruce O'Connell, and I am general manager of the 

Pisgah Inn, a National Park concession operation on the Blue 

Ridge Parkway near Waynesville, North Carolina. Our visitors 

services consist of a 51-room lodge, 2 restaurants, a campground, 
34 

a camp store, a gas station, a gift shop, plus we house 60 employees in the park. We are members of the National Park Hospitality 

Association. This is the organization that represents concessioners 

in the National Park System. So I am also giving this testimony 

on behalf of this association and its many members. It was truly regrettable that the recent Government shutdown 

resulted in the closure of not only our National Parks but also privately operated concession operations. I am not appearing here to 

assess blame, but I do feel that the full weight of this experience 

may not have fully been assessed and evaluated by the Park Service nor the Congress. Let me describe for you what occurred at the Pisgah Inn during 

this period of shutdown so you can better understand the problems 

it presented. 

Like most people, we were aware that the Government was shut 

down. Being a concessioner in a National Park, I had a particular 

interest in this situation. Even though the Pisgah Inn is a privately 

operated facility, I knew that the Blue Ridge Parkway was federally maintained. Therefore, I was prepared for some reduction in 

service; i.e., ranger patrols, maintenance, and visitor interpretation. But never in my wildest dreams did I consider the possibility 

of the Federal Government telling me, a private businessman, "Shut your doors; Close." 

It was Wednesday, early evening, when I got a call from my concession specialist who officially directed me to, quote, cease all operations effective 6 p.m. the following Friday. That was 2 days 

later, unquote. 

In a state of shock, I asked him what would happen if I refused 

to close, and he replied jokingly that a Federal marshal would be 

sent to ensure my compliance. As we have a great relationship and my concession specialist 

went on to explain for me that the safety and security on the parkway could not be maintained, thus we were being directed to cease 

operations. 

I went on to ask him when I could expect to reopen for business. 

He could not give me anything definitive. At this point, I began to meet with my department heads in an 

effort to formulate a plan based on several different scenarios. One 

scenario was that we were closed for the remainder of the season, 

never to reopen; another scenario is that we would be able to re- open soon for the upcoming Thanksgiving holidays; and the final 

scenario was that we could reopen immediately, that I would get 

a call and we could open right away. Based on these possible scenarios, we then discussed the impact 

on the visitors and the best course of action to take to reduce the 

visitor inconvenience. Next, my department heads and I discussed 

the impact on our employees who were out of work and likely to 

quit their jobs if the shutdown was prolonged. Finally, we discussed operational problems such as perishable food stuffs in the 

restaurants, fixed costs, and other uncertainties. We were obliged ultimately to call all incoming guests who had 

reservations for the upcoming weekend and offer them blanket refunds. Luckily, we were able to reach most of these guests in time 

for them to make other arrangements. 
35 

We had a small conference booked from the University of Tennessee as well as a small wedding group booked. To say the least, 

these two groups were the toughest to deal with, with the mother 

of the bride being extremely difficult. 

Our scramble continued with offering free room and board to all 

of my employees who would hopefully hang in there in the hopes 

that the Government would eventually reopen and we could reopen 

soon. 

Our purveyors assisted us by picking up all the perishable food 

and taking it back, and then our operation basically ground to a 

halt. Now the waiting game started. 

When and if we were told we could reopen, how fast could we get 

back up and running? Would the employees still be here? How long 

would it take to rebuild all the restaurant food items? What effect 

would the shutdown have on our previously made Thanksgiving 

reservations? Would those guests have made other plans? How 

many turkeys would you cook if you were in the restaurant business? 

I believe it was on Monday morning that I got official notice that 

we could reopen, but it would take us until Wednesday at 5 p.m. 

to gear back up just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday weekend. 

Though we did reopen, it turned out that many of our reserved 

guests had covered themselves and made reservations elsewhere. 

The financial impact was felt by Pisgah Inn as well as by all my 

employees who hung in there. My employees will not get any back 

pay nor any other form of reimbursement. Pisgah Inn will not be 

compensated for their loss. How can we concessioners be expected to maintain visitors services in the parks under this type of uncertainty? 

The scenario of Pisgah Inn was probably repeated many times 

throughout the National Park System with other concessioners. Because of the short time for preparation for this hearing, it has not 

been possible to compile a comprehensive description of the problems the closure presented, but many of our experiences were probably happening elsewhere with similar effects. 

National Park Concessions, Incorporated, operators of the concession services at Big Bend National Park in Texas, has compiled a 

summary of economic effects of the closure on their operations, and 

it is attached as exhibit A to my statement. You will notice that 

the revenue losses clearly show the devastating effect of the concession operation this year. Other concession operators have suffered 

similar losses from the closure. 

Knowing that there may be other budgetary uncertainties in the 

future, which unfortunately might also require a shutdown of Government services, I would suggest some guidelines which might 

make such experiences easier and more fairly handled. 

Number one, in order to determine what visitors services must 

be cut off and what might be continued, there should be an evaluation of the type of services rendered, such as lodging, food , gift 

sales, et cetera, and its relation to the loss of Government services. 

For instance, many of the concession services enjoyed by park 

visitors are dispensed with little or no involvement with Government personnel, but with an across-the-board shutdown all services 

are cut off. 
36 

Number two, if the shutdown of all or a certain part of visitors 

services must be done, then as much notice as possible should be 

given to concessioners so that adequate notice to visitors can be 

made who have reservations, may be involved with tour operator 

programs, may have scheduled family events, such as weddings, involving many others with complicated arrangements, et cetera. 

Number three, the fact that we are vulnerable as concessioners 

to Government shutdowns gives us an unfair disadvantage with 

our comparables. Nervous guests tend to book elsewhere, future 

reservations book elsewhere, et cetera. We should expect our rates 

to be based on the risk factor of a Government shutdown plus the 

intangible cost of visitor perception that their vacation plans may 

be tentative and that they cannot rely on a concession being open. What we deserve are rate approvals that factor in the possibility 

of a Government shutdown. These rates will compensate us for the 

risk and, at the same time, net the Government higher revenue 

from franchise fees based on sales. Further, realizing that such shutdowns have a devastating economic effect on concessions operators and their employees, the NPS 

should be prepared to grant reductions in franchise fees and/or in 

other ways to assist in offsetting such economic losses that always 

accompany such experiences. 

Four, the NPS and its concessions operators should mutually 

work toward a cooperative program which would consider a number of contingencies in the event of a Government shutdown for 

budgetary or even other emergency reasons. This plan could anticipate various possible scenarios or circumstances and what procedures would then be employed to deal with such happenings. 

With reference to H.R. 2677 and H.R. 2706, addressing services 

of State employees to assist the National Park System and the 

Wildlife Refuge System in terms of shutdowns, it would seem that 

such authorizing legislation would be helpful and maybe that the 

State employees could be helpful in such situations, and there 

should be some procedure adopted to make that possible in the future. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have and thank 

you for the opportunity to testify. [The exhibits to the statement of Mr. O'Connell may be found at 

end of hearing.] 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. O'Connell, we thank you for your testimony. 

The Chair would simply note and especially sympathize with the 

experience in the wedding. 

Mr. O'CONNELL. Yes. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. And the distress of the mother of the bride. I 

think it scarcely helped to ensure domestic tranquility, which of 

course is one of the missions found in the Preamble of the Constitution. 

Thank you, Mr. O'Connell. We will have questions for you later. 

Now we call on our friend, Mr. Frampton, for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. FRAMPTON, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
37 

The Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service are in business to keep the parks and the refuges open for the American people. We want to keep the parks and the refuges open for the American people. But when the Congress fails to appropriate any money, 

any funds, for the Department of the Interior, the Park Service, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, to operate these systems, then we as 

Federal employees have absolutely no choice. We are obligated by 

Federal law, other laws passed by this body, to close these system 

or at least to bring them down to the minimal point at which personal safety and protection of properties are at least safeguarded. 

We don't have any choice in that matter. We follow the law. 

Now, I heard Governor Symington say he felt that the closure of 

Grand Canyon was arbitrary. Mr. Shadegg said he thought it was 

the height of arrogance to close the park system. 

You know, if Federal employees, doing their best to follow Federal law, including Federal laws that have criminal sanctions in 

them, such as those in the Antideficiency Act, if that is arbitrary 

or arrogant, then you gentlemen have a different idea about the 

role of law in society than I do. 

We want to keep the parks open. There are some perfectly available straightforward strategies for preventing this from happening 

again, for keeping all the parks and refuges open, and the Congress 

can help us with those strategies, and I want to outline those in 

a minute. 

But unfortunately, we don't think that Chairman Young's bill, 

H.R. 2677, is a way to go. We have fundamental objections to that 

bill. We believe it can seriously compromise visitors' safety as well 

as the management of resources for which the Department of the 

Interior is responsible. Each of these areas really does have unique 

management problems, unique problems in keeping infrastructure 

running, unique hazards. 

The fact of the matter is that to be forced to turn over these 

areas to State employees who are not trained in running these 

areas, who are not familiar with them, poses some very serious 

visitors' safety problems. 

The idea that a transportation unit of the National Guard and 

a few State policemen and some State park supervisors in Arizona 

could protect the hundreds of thousands of people visiting Grand 

Canyon every day I would suggest to you is a very hazardous assumption. 

Moving beyond the serious problems of visitor safety are the issues that relate to resource management. State and Federal areas 

and systems and wildlife areas have different missions and a different set of problems than National Parks and National Wildlife 

Refuges. Protection of those resources is a national responsibility, 

and if you have State employees exercising State responsibilities on 

State standards for doing things like permitting, making compatibility decisions, making resource protection decisions, there is no 

way that the Secretary of Interior can exercise any responsibility 

or hold those people accountable for managing these resources for 

the American public pursuant to fundamental Federal law. 

There are some other issues here that are not really addressed 

in the Young bill. Liability is one of them. Under the Antideficiency 

Act as we read it, not only can we not pay salaries or other ex-
38 

penses to keep the parks operating but we cannot assume liability. 

So it is not really a matter of whether liability would be assumed 

by the State for State employees. You know what happens the first time a National Guard flatbed 

truck rolls over some kid? Does the Federal Government get sued 

for that? It is the liability for Federal functions as well during the 

period from which there is no appropriations. 

And issues like what happens with fees and who collects the fees 

are also not addressed in the bill. Under current Federal law, fees 

go-Park Service fees go in the General Treasury, and there is no 

legal provision for the State to assume those fees. If the State 

doesn't collect fees, does the Federal Government sue the State for 

failure to collect fees? These are some of the issues that are not addressed in Mr. Young's bill, H.R. 2677. 

But we don't have to face these, Mr. Chairman, because there are 

perfectly available ways to keep the parks and refuges open. Strategy number one is get us a bill. We are two and a half months into 

a fiscal year, and Congress still has not sent an appropriations bill 

for the Department to the President. 

If the Congress cannot get us a bill, then get us a CR, a clean 

CR that the President can sign and continue to provide the money 

to keep these units open. 

If neither of those strategies is going to be adopted, then there 

are other strategies available to keep the parks and refuges open. 

The most obvious is that we are prepared to try to work out, under 

existing law, procedures in which States could deposit money in an 

account for all of the expenses of the operation of a particular park 

or refuge and indemnify the Federal Government for liability, and 

we would go ahead and continue to operate the park or refuge with 

those funds and that assumption of liability. 

Indeed, I was a little bit surprised to hear Governor Symington 

say-and I wrote down what he said-that they were prepared to 

assume, Arizona was prepared to assume, all the costs and liabilities of running Grand Canyon National Park, because in fact when 

he made what he characterized as his original good faith offer, which we received in the form of a letter and press release, that 

he was taking a National Guard unit to Grand Canyon to take over 

the park, we made sure that, by the time he got there, a letter was 

delivered offering on behalf of the administration to work out, sit 

down and work out, with the State a system in which they would 

pay the operational costs of the park on a day-by-day basis and assume liability, indemnify the Park Service, and we would continue 

to operate the park. 

That was two and a half weeks ago, and there were some discussions back and forth in which we offered to sit down on that basis, 

the basis he said this morning he was willing to accept, and there 

are a lot of details to try to work that out , and we have had radio 

silence, Mr. Chairman, from Arizona for two and a half weeks. So 

we have been waiting to sit down and work that out. 

Now, Senator Kyl and I have seen his bill, at least in draft form. 

He testified that he believed that the Federal Government should 

be allowed to enter into agreements with-for States that are willing to assume-pay the entire tab and assume liability to continue 

to keep parks or refuges open. Now, that is very much along the 
39 

lines of what we offered to try to work out on Grand Canyon and 

have received no response to it. 

I think that is-again, that is a basis on which this Congress 

could help us, in the event of a shutdown, keep parks and refuges 

open. Write legislation that would authorize the Secretary to receive money from the State for the costs on a day-to-day basis and 

assume liability, and we would continue to operate these units with 

our own well trained people, keep people safe, and avoid all the 

problems of the Antideficiency Act. You know, there are several strategies, with or without legislation, that are available. You could help us to do that without requiring the Secretary to take whatever State employees or National 

Guard units show up in a National Park and try to protect visitors. 

Let me just close by saying a word about Congresswoman Lincoln's bill, which is H.R. 2706. That is not, Mr. Chairman, very 

similar to Mr. Young's bill. It is much more similar to what Governor Symington described this morning that he is willing to do, if 

he is really willing to do it, and much more similar to what the legislation that Senator Kyle, I understand, has introduced or is about 

to introduce. 

Her bill basically authorizes the Secretary to enter into agreements to--not to manage whole units but to manage hunts for 

State employees who are qualified, trained, and familiar with the 

area, to manage hunts at State expense in the event of a shutdown. 

Now, we do that already. Fish and Wildlife Service does have 

about 20 percent, 15 or 20 percent, of the hunting that might have 

been otherwise curtailed during the shutdown several weeks ago, 

in fact, were hunts managed by State employees pursuant to cooperative management agreements, and we did keep those open, and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service would like to negotiate more of those 

agreements. 

In fact, it is not absolutely clear that H.R. 2706 is necessary and 

that I think we pretty much have the authority to do that now. It 

is not that easy. I am not sure it would be a sensible use of resources to do that for every one of the 272 refuges on which there 

is some kind of hunting in the system, which is a little more than 

half the system. 

But we would be very interested in exploring and would hope, 

you know, that we could support a bill that made more specific the 

authority of the Secretary to enter into these kinds of agreements, 

and we would certainly look favorably at the possibility of supporting a bill such as Senator Kyl's or bills along the line that I suggested in which you authorize the Secretary to accept money and 

indemnities in order to keep park and refuge units open in the case 

of States that want to do that for, let's say, a big park that generates significant tourism revenues. 

So we are eager to try to explore those kinds of possibilities, but 

that is very different from being required to accept untrained people who are not knowledgeable, who may be State employees, who 

know nothing about parks or park management with-on a totally 

mandatory basis, and then impose liability oh the Federal Government for actions of State employees. That is a formula in H.R. 2677 

that we think takes us in the wrong direction if we really want to 

develop ways to keep these units open during shutdowns. 
40 

Now, I am here this morning with John Leshy, who is the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, and he and his office have 

had the principal discussions with Governor Symington, and so he 

is here both to answer questions about some of the legal aspects 

and provide any additional information on that. I don't know 

whether he wants to supplement my comments with respect to the 

Grand Canyon or not. 

Mr. LESHY. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence I could take 

about one minute and rehash the discussions we have had with the 

State of Arizona. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. That would be fine. 

Mr. LESHY. Thank you very much. 

To respond to a couple things the governor said, let me just give 

you a very quick chronology. On November 16th, which was the 

day after, I believe, the Government shutdown, we received a letter 

from Governor Symington. 

Mr. COOLEY. The 14th. 

Mr. LESHY. The letter from Governor Symington was addressed 

November 16th, to the Secretary, and made an offer which would 

have the Federal employees stay at the Grand Canyon and essentially become State employees under some sort of arrangement. 

The letter didn't specify what kind of arrangement. It did not 

specify anything about liability, and it said that the Federal employees would become State employees, would collect money, and 

keep half, and give half back to the Treasury. It was a very vague 

letter. 

The next thing, we immediately put a team of people to work to 

explore that, to see if there was a basis where we could go forward. 

The next thing we knew, we understood the governor was heading for the Grand Canyon with some National Guard people. We 

accelerated our work on how we could respond to the governor's letter and on the next day handed the governor a letter, when he arrived at the Grand Canyon, from me which outlined the problems 

with the governor's proposal, and there were a number of them. 

The letter speaks for itself. 

At the same time, I had a conversation with the attorney general 

of the State of Arizona. The attorney general of the State of Arizona had written a short opinion which pointed out some legal 

problems with the governor's proposal under State law. Of course 

the park then reopened a couple of days later. 

We had some further conversations with the governor's office 

about proceeding on the basis of what I outlined in my letter, 

which Mr. Frampton has talked about as a basis we might be able 

to reach some sort of agreement to go forward. 

The last conversation we had with the governor's office was November 22nd in which we said we need to talk about the conditions 

as outlined in my letter. We have had a deafening silence since 

that time. We identified the basic problem as a concern about liability, and 

since November 22nd we have heard absolutely nothing from the 

governor's office until this morning, when we hear the governor basically say that he is prepared to meet and talk about the conditions that we outlined in terms of the State assuming total cost 
41 

and liability. This is absolutely the first time we have heard that. 

We have lost nearly three weeks in this process. 

This is not something that we have ever done before, and, as my 

letter of November 17th pointed out, we are in some uncharted territory, and this has to be very carefully done, and we have lost an 

awful lot of time waiting for the Governor of Arizona to get back 

to us. That has really been a great concern to us. 

I just wanted to set the record straight on what the discussions 

had been back and forth. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Frampton may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Leshy. We also thank Mr. 

Frampton for his testimony. 

And, indeed, as we begin the questions, Mr. Leshy, on an unrelated matter, Chairman Young, who is unable to be with us today 

but of course whose presence we all note even when he is not physically here, wanted to know the status of an official request he gave 

you regarding Alaskan land conveyance. When will that information be sent to the Chairman? 

Mr. LESHY. I reviewed that this morning, and we have kept the 

Chairman's staff informed of the progress. That letter should be to 

him today or Monday. 

It is easy to ask questions and difficult to answer them. There 

are about 40 pages' worth of answers that he will get very shortly. 

I signed off on it last night, and now it is just really a question of 

putting it together and getting it to him. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you very much. I know he looks forward 

to receiving that information and he thanks you for those answers. 

Now, Mr. Frampton, I appreciate your testimony today, especially in your closing remarks about the notion of cooperation and 

some positive things to say about the Kyle legislation, which of 

course we are constrained from fully discussing here because of the 

rules of this committee. 

I would just like to note for the record that you made what I will 

interpret, I believe charitably, to be a request rather than a demand or an order when you said that we in the Congress should, 

quote, get us a clean CR, end quote. I would simply note for the record that it certainly is historical 

fact that we provided the President with a clean CR that he chose 

not to sign, and I know that you in fact were requesting rather 

than demanding or ordering the Congress of the United States to 

provide a clean continuing resolution. 

Now, Mr. Frampton, if a Government shutdown occurred on December 16th-and we all hope that can be averted, but if it were 

to occur, and, again, it affected your Department, what changes 

will you make in your shutdown policy and procedures regarding 

units of the National Park System and the National Refuge System? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Mr. Chairman, I can get you detailed answers to 

that question. 

I know that the original shutdown plan which began to be developed in July by OMB and resulted in a guidance and a departmental plan and changes in that plan, and which was the plan that 
42 

we followed the last time around, that there have been some minor 

changes to that based on the experience we had. 

But as far as I know, the overall thrust of our shutdown would 

be the same, and that is that we would try to-depending on what 

the prospects were for how many days it would be, we would have 

to bring the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Park System and 

Fish and Wildlife Refuges basically to the point where we were reducing employment by 80 to 90 percent, which is about what it 

took to get to the point where all we were doing was protecting personal safety and property. So as far as I know, there would not be major changes in the approach that we used, but I would have to-to the extent that the 

plan has been tinkered with, I would want to get back to you on 

that. 

We tried to use sort of a rule of reason with respect to visitors 

who were staying in campgrounds and concession facilities in the 

hopes that if we didn't, you know, we gave people some time, we 

didn't really start to try to move some of those people out for a day 

or two in many of the parks in the hopes that perhaps something 

would happen and we would get a CR. 

What we have learned about whether we would apply the same 

guidelines or somewhat different guidelines, I would have to get 

back to you. [The information was not received at time of printing.] 

Mr. HAYWORTH. So for all intents and purposes, to paraphrase, 

aside from perhaps tinkering around the edges or nibbling around 

the edges, basically there would be no fundamental change in a 

broad philosophical sense from what transpired in November. Mr. FRAMPTON. Not as far as I know, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. And, Mr. Frampton, were you relatively pleased 

with the actions in the wake of the shutdown and think that was 

the way to go? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. I was very upset to have the parks closed. Contrary to, I think, the suggestion that you made in terms of Government funding has been interrupted in the parks, I don't believe 

there has ever been a time in the history of the National Park System when the parks were shut down across the system for any significant period of time. Previous shutdowns, my understanding is, have occurred for, you 

know, overnight or a few hours at a time, and we sort of waited 

a day to start closing parks or occurred over a weekend. So I don't 

believe there has ever been a time when the gates were really shut 

across the park system for a number of days and visitors moved 

out, and I would very much hope that that doesn't have to happen 

again. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Frampton, I understand that the Atlanta regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service negotiated 

agreements with the States of Arkansas and Mississippi that allowed States to keep hunting programs open on certain refuges. These States were surprised when this agreement was rejected by 

officials here in Washington. I guess my final question would be: Why was this agreement, 

which was negotiated by your career professionals in the field, rejected by officials here in Washington, D.C.? 
43 

Mr. FRAMPTON. I am not familiar with that agreement, Mr. 

Chairman. You know, the guidelines and the guidance that we are 

operating under basically come from OMB, and it may be that that 

agreement, if there was something in draft that was negotiated, 

didn't meet Federal law or didn't meet those guidelines. 

The approach that we followed with respect to keeping hunting 

open, hunts ongoing, was as follows: Of the 506 refuges in the system, there are 272 that are open to hunting in one way or another. Of those 272, hunting was only restricted or hunts were canceled 

in situations where they would have had to be managed by Federal 

employees who could not be employed; so there was a safety issue, 

or a resource issue, and that is about half. About 130 of the 505 

refuges had hunting adversely affected. In roughly the other 140 refuges in which there was some hunting, hunting was not impacted during the shutdown, either because 

we had preexisting agreements with States to-for State employees 

to manage the hunt or because the hunting really wasn't managed 

very much by the Federal folks anyway. 

In other words, if it was a matter of somebody climbing over a 

fence, we didn't shut down hunts that weren't managed, we only 

shut down hunts that required active management and salaries to 

be paid. And then there were some of those refuges where there 

was no hunting season. So where we had preexisting agreements with the States, those 

allowed us to keep the hunting open, and where the hunting really 

was not very insensitively managed, we left the hunting open. It 

was only where we could not administer the program, and that is 

some way or another on about 130 refuges, where hunting was adversely affected. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Frampton, I thank you for that and also acknowledge your admission at the outset that you were somewhat 

uncertain of the reasons but offered your conjecture. 

I would ask for a written response for the reasons that this 

agreement was fundamentally rejected, and I am sure you will be 

happy to provide that to the committee. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. We will, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information was not received at time of printing.] 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Frampton. Turning to our friends on the Minority side, I am glad to see my 

good friend from Michigan is here. But we will defer, based on a 

time-honored custom, to our colleague from Hawaii for his questions in his five minutes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Frampton, I presume you have been here for all of the testimony and observations and commentary to this point? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Yes, Mr. Abercrombie, I have. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I would just like to say for the record that 

Hawaii is one State that is very, very happy to have Federal employees in the Federal park system operating. As a matter of fact, 

the State of Hawaii considers that it is a real advantage and opportunity made available to us, both in terms of the scope of the activities and the quality of the employees that are in the National 

Parks in Hawaii. They are uniformly excellent. 
44 

If there is any complaint about Federal employees, park system 

employees, in Hawaii, I am unaware of it. On the contrary, frankly, 

what we receive are compliments that should be rightfully shared 

with the Department of Interior and the Park Service, I think we 

get credit. 

Most people are not really aware of the difference between the 

State and the park system with respect to areas like Volcanoes National Park, if you had the opportunity to be there-I don't know 

whether any of you have had that chance-or Haleakala, even 

Kalaupapa, which as a matter of fact we saw as a distinct-again, 

a distinct advantage. 

For those who are not familiar, Kalaupapa is where Father 

Damien carried on his work among victims of Hansen's disease. 

And we would simply be incapable, very frankly, as a State, with 

dealing with the implications of what is likely to be the impending 

designation of sainthood for Father Damien. He is a short step 

away from that. Pilgrims coming from all over the world to a remote corner of the island of Molokai, virtually inaccessible except 

by air and a difficult trail. 

These kind of things make us recognize how important the work 

is that Federal employees do and Park Service employees do. 

Now, I put that forward not only by way of compliment in an atmosphere which I think has not been seen that way, I also want 

to establish the context that I am very distressed at the rather occasionally seemingly cavalier expression of-of reflection on Federal employees, particularly in the park system, so that we are 

looking upon balkanizing, in effect, the park system in this country; that somehow at the village or county or State level there are 

excellent parks with wonderful employees, always well funded, able 

to carry out all of their functions with no fiscal difficulties but 

when we reach the Federal level suddenly there is a different kind 

of employee apparently. I don't accept that, and I presume that you 

do not as well. 

In that context, I would say-and I will ask you to comment on 

this-I don't think you can just simply take State or local employees, thrust them into a National Park situation, and expect the 

same kind of service to take place. 

What I mean by that is not that people would be unwilling, but 

if you are in Volcanoes National Park, you can't just walk in there 

and, simply because you have been trained in another context, take 

over the administration or management of that park. Neither can 

you do it with Haleakala. We have the most rare species in the 

world, silver swords, for example, in Haleakala; the city of Refuge, 

with its Hawaiian history and Polynesian history there. 

Would you agree that National Parks do not necessarily lend 

themselves to interchangeable personnel management and administration on the spur of the moment? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. I would agree. That was the point. You made the 

point much better than I did, that I was trying to make earlier, 

that National Parks work well because you have dedicated people 

with decades of training and familiarity not only with visitor services and safety, protection of health and safety, but with the infrastructure and the management of a park; the radio systems, the 

water treatment systems. 
45 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If you are taking a park-I don't want to take 

all the time. In other words, you agree with my observation, I take 

it, in general? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. I do. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. All right. In fact, to give as an example, Volcanoes National Park, I would hate to be accepting guidance from 

somebody as to where it was safe to walk in Volcanoes National 

Park from somebody who was brought in for the day from the National Guard. That is not what the National Guard is trained for 

in Hawaii, at least as far as I know. I hope they are not. I am on 

the National Security Committee, and I would hope that their 

training takes them into a little bit different area. Otherwise, we 

may be wasting our money at this end. 

May I then take it from your comments and from Mr. Leshy's 

comments that, rather than proceeding with lengthy legislative activity, am I correct in my conclusion that you believe you have sufficient executive authority right now to be able to conduct at least 

a dialog at this stage as to whether or not the park system can be 

operated under duress-financial, governmental, administrative or 

otherwise-and that if you would like to explore that opportunity 

before we move to the legislative level? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. That is correct. 

As Mr. Leshy said, we have never done this before, and there are 

certainly a lot of details and issues. But we believe that we probably would be able to enter into an arrangement, without legislation-we would hope to be able to enter into a relationship with the 

State in which we estimated the total daily costs of running even 

a big park, if the State deposited that-those funds in advance for 

several days in the account, and work out the liability issues, and 

go forward to continue to keep the park open. 

We are optimistic that under that-without any legislation, that 

we could find a way to deal with the problems in the Antideficiency 

Act and other legal problems to do that. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. 

Could you grant me one more minute, Mr. Chairman, so Mr. 

Leshy could comment? I think he does want to. I realize I am at 

the end of my time. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. The Chair would be happy to agree to one more 

minute. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. 

Could you do it in 30 seconds so I can conclude, Mr. Leshy? 

Mr. LESHY. Sure. Nobody has challenged the limitations that we 

see. The State of Arizona has not challenged the problems that we 

have identified with moving forward. 

I would point out the reason that we think we can do something 

like this is that the Park Service is unlike almost every other Federal agency in that it has the authority to accept cash gifts. Most 

agencies do not. That is the lever here we are trying to pull. This 

is high political drama, but there is a very simple principle at the 

bottom of it. Congress has made it a crime for a Federal employee 

to spend money or incur any obligation where there is not an appropriation to cover it, and that is the problem we are trying to 

deal with through this sort of cash contribution. 
46 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Keeping that in mind, and in conclusion, Mr. 

Chairman, I conclude from the conversation that we have had so 

far today that the Department of the Interior, through its Park 

Service, is prepared, without having to go to legislative-the legislative area, it seems to me they are prepared to negotiate an agreement that might be satisfactory, would meet Mr. O'Connell's very 

real difficulties, and others. 

And I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the State of Hawaii 

takes no back seat to anyone in terms of the recognition of how important tourism is. Our economy is utterly, totally, completely dependent upon it, and I think that anything that can be done on the 

part of Mr. Frampton and his associates to conclude this, short of 

the legislative grind, would be most welcome. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. The time for the gentleman from Hawaii has expired. 

We thank the gentleman for his point of view on tourism in his 

home State, and we should also note for the record that the proposed legislation does not force States into the action, it simply offers an option to the several States. 

With that in mind, we turn to the Majority side, and the gentleman from Oregon is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Frampton, I wish we had done this under oath; 

I really do. It seems like we are getting on the same trail that we 

did when we had your testimony on the Endangered Species Act. 

Are you familiar with the Volunteers and Park Guideline, one of 

your own publications? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. I am not intimately familiar with it, no. 

Mr. COOLEY. That's interesting. It has a section which says, 

"What can volunteers do? Volunteers can be utilized in any and all 

parts of the park management system. All levels and types of skills 

can be utilized, and almost any type of work can be performed as 

long as the work that would not otherwise get done during a particular fiscal year because of funding and personnel limitations." 

Would you please define to me what a ranger is, for the record? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, a ranger is a series of job classifications 

within the National Park Service. 

Mr. COOLEY. So when you say a man is a chief ranger, what do 

you mean? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, in a park, the chief ranger is the supervisor 

of a portion of the park employees, other rangers in the park. 

Rangers provide a variety of services, including visitor protection, 

interpretation, and other management functions. In a given large 

western park, for example, there could be a large division of rangers, a separate maintenance division, a natural resource management division, and an administration division. 

Mr. COOLEY. And they all have chief rangers? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. No. The chief ranger is the person who is the 

head of the ranger division within the park. The maintenance people, the natural resource management people, in most parks would 

report through a slightly different reporting chain ultimately to the 

superintendent. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK The shutdown occurred on the 14th, and it ran 

through the 18th. Agreed? 
47 

Mr. FRAMPTON. That sounds right to me. I am not sure those are 

the correct dates. Mr. COOLEY. You don't know when the shutdown was? You are 

the deputy director of the Department of Interior, and you don't 

know when the shutdown was? Come on. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. I will take your word for it. I don't remember the 

exact days. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK. Congressional staff called the Park Service and 

talked to the chief rangers of each one of these parks. These staffers asked about the staffing level during the government shutdown. 

We found that there were 134 operating rangers on duty during 

the shutdown compared to 138 the day before the shutdown. 

It is surprising to me that we didn't cut back on our personnel. 

Rocky Mountain: On the 13th we had 6 rangers, and on the 18th 

we had 6 rangers. This was during the shutdown period. Chattahoochee River: We had 5 on the 13th and 6 on the 18th, during 

the shutdown period. The Golden Gate: The 13th, we had 16 rangers and 54 park police. On the 18th, we had 13 rangers and 41 

park police. Death Valley: We had 12 on the 13th and 13 on the 

18th. One more. Yosemite: We had 17 on the 13th and 16 on the 

18th, one less. 

Grand Canyon: We had 12 on-now, this was on the South District. We had 12 on the 13th and 15 on the 18th. Yet we couldn't 

let anybody in, but we had more rangers. 

Hawaii Volcanic: We had 3 on the 13th, but we dropped to 2 on 

the 18th. Blue Ridge Parkway: We had 21 on the 13th and 20 on 

the 18th. Everglades: We had 13 on the 18th-! mean 21 on the 

13th and 18 on the 16th. And Cape Cod National Seashore: We had 

9 on the 13th and 8 on the 18th. And Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore: We had 3 on the 13th and 3 on the 18th. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Do you want me to explain why that is? 

Mr. CooLEY. No. I just want to point out to you that--

Mr. FRAMPTON. I certainly hope we had more rangers than--

Mr. COOLEY. We have almost more rangers in half of the 

parks--

Mr. FRAMPTON. That is correct. Mr. COOLEY [continuing]. after the shutdown has occurred. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. That is correct. Mr. COOLEY. We couldn't pay anybody, we couldn't let anybody 

in, but we had more rangers there. Mr. FRAMPTON. No, that is inaccurate that we couldn't pay anybody. 

Mr. COOLEY. No, I said you didn't let anybody in. You shut the 

parks down. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Let me explain why I hope your numbers are correct. 

Mr. CooLEY. My numbers are correct. We can have all of the 

chief rangers contacted to verify their accura..cy. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Of the total--

Mr. COOLEY. This is necessary, to--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order. I don't think it is necessary to imply to a witness-twice I have 

heard so far-imply that they are subject to perjury charges in just 
48 

answering a question. I think we can assume good faith answers 

here. Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii for his 

point. 

The time of the gentleman from Oregon has expired. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to that? 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Certainly. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. It seems to have been raised perhaps that we 

didn't really close the park system. Overall, of the 19,000 employees in the park system, about 3,200 were considered to be employees who needed to stay on the job to exercise shutdown functions, 

and that means basically the protection of personal safety and 

property; 3,200 out of 19,000. Of those 3,200, about 700 were park police, as far as I know, all 

of whom, or almost all of whom, continued to work, and many of 

the rest were rangers, because it is the ranger corps in the Park 

Service that almost-it is a requirement for a ranger to have law 

enforcement training and public safety training. They go to the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Institute, along with the FBI 

and the Secret Service people. 

So naturally, if you are going to try to reduce your work force 

to a skeleton staff, with the goal of protecting personal safety and 

property, what you are going to do is put-keep on the job every 

single person in the organization with Federal law enforcement 

training. So I am sure that not only was everybody who had law enforcement training who was there the day before asked to continue on 

duty, but people who may have been on vacation or people who 

may have been on leave the day before were asked to come back 

in order to fulfill shutdown functions. So I would certainly hope that the Park Service did its best to 

make sure that the skeleton staff included everyone within the organization who was well trained and had experience in law enforcement, emergency medical training, and property protection. 

Mr. COOLEY. You actually increased people in some places. If you 

have no visitors, you have no obligations or liabilities, with no--

Mr. HAYWORTH. With all due respect--

Mr. COOLEY. And you add people to it. I don't see any justification for that. But that is a matter of management. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. The first two days, we had tens of thousands of 

people in the park. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has expired. We thank the gentleman testifying for his response. 

Now we will turn to our friend from Michigan for his five minutes. 

Mr. K.rLDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize for being late, but this is a Catholic holy day. Having 

been to church, I am in a very gentle, kindly, charitable mood this 

morning toward everyone on the committee and those testifying. I have great respect for Mr. Frampton, and to imply that because 

you might want to check on this, the 14th or the 18th or the 19th 

is something neither incompetent nor being cagy, as a matter of 

fact, I think they went back to work on the 20th. I have great re-
49 

spect for you and those whom you direct, Mr. Frampton. I have 

great respect for those who serve in the Park Service in Michigan. In Michigan, the Park Service employees are not only respected, 

they are revered, and I can't quite understand some of the strong 

feelings expressed here. I know we want to seek the truth, but I 

have always found you to be one who is very cooperative and candid with this committee, and I have always appreciated that. In the Grand Canyon there are 380 employees, 88 emergency employees. 

Have a good day, Mr. Cooley. 

Mr. COOLEY. You too. 

Mr. KILDEE. God bless you. We have 88 emergency employees, law enforcement employees, 

and those who are responsible for protection of the resources and 

facilities, and I can understand there can be-some were on 

leave-I can understand the situation there very well. 

I think the Park Service did very well when Congress did not 

complete its responsibility. I think we put a great burden on all the 

agencies of government. I think that the agencies of government 

should be commended for responding as well as they did. It was us 

who didn't do our duty, and I appreciate you not mentioning that. 

I can mention that, Mr. Frampton. 

But I just want to say that I respect those whom you supervise. I think they do a great job, and I think they did a very fine job 

under circumstances created by the Congress of the United States. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my Michigan friend for his words. 

Any response that the gentlemen here would care to give? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. No. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. OK Thank you. And in that spirit of charity and 

accuracy, I would simply point out to my friend from Michigan that 

during his-perhaps before he arrived there was a clean continuing 

resolution offered to the other end of Pennsylvania that was turned 

down. So perhaps we have a difference of opinion on where the responsibility may lie. 

With that taken into account, I would turn to my colleague from 

Arizona for his allotted five minutes. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In that spirit of charity, let me just try to set the record straight. 

Mr. Frampton, you quoted that I had said that it was arrogant 

to shut the park, and that is not what I said. What I said is that 

it is arrogant to presume that you must have a Federal bureaucrat 

standing by your side in order to enjoy the park, and there is a significant difference. I would not and did not insinuate that Federal employees ought 

not to abide by the law. Indeed, they should. I am simply saying 

that we ought to, I think, create a structure which clearly we are 

in agreement on, where, if the State or somebody other than the 

Federal Government wants to step in and allow people to enjoy the 

park, we ought to try to do that. Mr. FRAMPTON. I apologize if I misunderstood you. Mr. SHADEGG. Sure. I do also applaud you for your clear supportive remarks regarding the bill that Senator Kyl, the Chairman, myself, and other 

members of the Arizona delegation have all introduced or cospon-
50 

oored, and I assume from your remarks and from what I heard Mr. 

Leshy say, that the essence of the conversation which Senator Kyl 

has related to the Arizona delegation and to Governor Symington, 

which is that if the bill does provide that the State would pay the 

entire tab and assume all liability, those are the terms on which 

we could in fact legislate and solve this kind of problem. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. I was referring to his description of the bill. My 

recollection of seeing a draft is that it offered a choice or an alternative of payment or accepting State employees, that the problem 

with using State employees poses many problems that receiving a 

donation of mcney does not. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I think also-my time is limited. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. My recollection is that the draft of the bill at 

least, or the final version of Senator Kyl's bill that I saw, provided 

that the State would assume liability for the actions of State employees, or would indemnify the Federal Government for the ac- tions of State employees. What we have-that may or may not--

Mr. SHADEGG. Let me clarify that point if I might, and I don't 

want to cut you off, except my time is limited, and the Chairman 

iS going to cut me off, and we all have to get on airplanes, or some 

of us do. We did chat with Senator Kyl on that very point this morning 

and recognized, well, there are two issues of liability. There could 

be liability committed by a State employee who, while operating 

the park, ran over somebody. There could also be an issue of an 

existing negligent condition that the Federal Government had left. 

And how do we deal with those two? I think clearly we have to address both of those. Mr. Leshy, I think given Mr. Frampton's answer, maybe I need 

to ask you directly. Senator Kyl has told us that he had a conversation with you over the outlines of this bill. Obviously you did not 

have text in front of you, although maybe he did bring you the bill; 

I am not sure. 

But the essence of what he related to us was that if the statute 

provided that the State would pay the entire tab-and maybe that 

does mean Federal employees; I am not certain that I care-and 

the State assumed all liability, that there were-what he related 

to us was, no show stoppers; that is, there is no conceptual reason 

why such legislation couldn't work. Is that correct? 

Mr. LESHY. That is basically what I said, although let me make 

a couple of cautions. Number one, I didn't have the text of the bill 

in front of me. He later shared a draft of the bill. I understand the 

bill, as introduced, is actually changed from the draft, and I haven't 

had an opportunity to study it. 

Of course, that bill, let me remind you, is not before this committee, and we can't speak to the administration position on the bill. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I am not sure it will be before the Congress. 

Mr. LESHY. Third, I would note, just in passing, that the Attorney General of Arizona has, in commenting on the original Federal 

Government proposal, said that the liability issue was a significant 

one and recommended-and I quote-that "the State seek indemnification from the United States for any claims or damages that 

might accrue to Arizona as a result of the arrangement." 
51 

So at least the governor's chief lawyer is telling him that liability 

ought to shift to the United States, and I am a little surprised that 

the governor this morning said that he was willing to assume liability. Mr. SHADEGG. Liability is a touchy issue. As a matter of fact, I 

discussed that with the Arizona delegation in my remarks this 

morning, saying liability questions are always difficult. I was the 

one who raised the issue of, well, clearly the State can assume liability for its own employees. Is it also going to assume liability for 

Federal employees or for acts of negligence by the Federal Government? So we are indeed in unchartered territory. I think we are 

trying to chart it. 

There is a very important point I want to bring out here, and 

that is, Mr. O'Connell, have your concessions ever been shut down 

in the past as a rule? 

Mr. O'CONNELL. Never due to a Government shutdown. We have 

been shut down due to hurricanes and other bad weather. Mr. SHADEGG. As a matter of fact, if I told you that in the 32 

times that the Federal Government has shut down in the last two 

decades, that the National Park Service had never shut down a private concessionaire, would you have any reason to dispute that? 

Mr. O'CONNELL. No. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Would you, Mr. Frampton? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. No, except that I don't think the Park Service 

has been shut down in the last 20 years. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, the Federal Government has had, in the last 

two decades, 32 shutdowns. 

Mr. FRAMPTON. But the Park Service has always managed to 

keep most of the parks open. Mr. SHADEGG. I understand your explanation. 

As I understand your explanation of that point, it is that the 

Park Service, because those shutdowns have been more brief than 

this one, 2 days, let's say, the Park Service has essentially fudged 

that issue. And I guess my question is: How is it that you fudged 

it in the past when it was 2 days and you couldn't fudge it now 

because it is 3 days? 

I mean, where--and maybe I ought to ask, and I only want to 

make a point here--where in the Antideficiency Act does it say 

that you can fudge for 2 days but you can't fudge for 3 or 4? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, I think my understanding of the way the 

administration read the Antideficiency Act was that, you know, we 

were entitled to engage in an orderly shutdown. That is the reason, 

for example, why people came to work on a morning for which 

there was no appropriation to get their orders to shut down rather 

than simply walk out, and, in effect, the Park Service made a decision that the orderly shutdown of concession operations might take 

a day or two, that you can't rouse everybody up from midnight 

from hotels in the middle of nowhere and tell them to get on the 

road. So this was part of our interpretation of what an orderly shutdown amounted to. But I don't think you can have a 5 or 6-day orderly shutdown. 

Mr. SHADEGG. In Arizona we have had-because we are constitutionally mandated to have a balanced budget, we have had shut-
52 

downs, and what the governor, this governor, has done in Arizona 

1s to anticipate those shutdowns because you have knowledge of 

thr:m in advance-and Mr. Leshy has been in Arizona when this 

:·1as occurred-and prepare the Government and begin phasing of 

the shutdown so that you don't continue to operate past the budgetary authority you have. 

I want to turn to a different point. Mr. O'Connell's business is 

a pcivate business. It occurs to me here that I am a little confused 

about what rules we apply to private businesses. There is an Attor11ey General's opinion, which I am looking at here, which goes at 

this i.ssue, and it specifically says that, with respect to short-term 

.:,},-utdowns, a short-term lapse in appropriations, the practice of 

pJ.st administrations has been to assume the continued operation 

vf the private economy. 

Tbey say, for example, "We assume that private airlines are 

gn~ng to continue to fly. Therefore, air traffic controllers are essentiaL and therefore we keep them at work." 

"'illd the opinion goes on to say, "we"-they give another example 

of meat inspectors. They say, "Well, we assume meat packing 

pl2nts are going to continue to operate. They are part of the private 

economy. Therefore, we must keep Government employees who are 

meat inspectors at those plants." 

I gu.ess my question is-and it is a question which has some sym-

(Jathy with Mr. O'Connell-why is it that the Government assumes 

that the private economy within the park, i.e., a concessionaire, is 

going to close and, therefore, it withdrew park employees, versus 

taking the opposite assumption? 

I mean it seems to me, why wasn't it exactly the same as the 

other examples here? And that is, well, we are going to assume 

that a private concessionaire such as Mr. O'Connell is going to contt!lU£:; to operate, like the private airline industry continued to operate like the private meat packing industry continued to operate, 

and, therefore, at least those employees of the Park Service which 

are essential within the park to enable that private economy to 

continue-and I am quoting directly out of this opinion-why was 

thE- opposite assumption made in this instance? 

Mr. FRAMPTON. Well, I am not familiar with the opinion, but I 

assume what it addresses is the basic assumptions you have to 

make to determine what services the Government is going to provide to protect health and safety. I mean, you-it is-it may be necessary to-you know, if you have a Government shutdown and the 

Government withdraws air traffic controllers or starts letting contaminated meat go on the market, that is arguably, I guess, a different business than whether the Government is obligated to continue to run all of its operations for the benefit of private businesses. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Yes, that might be a valid point. The opinion-and 

I will refer to Mr. Leshy and I guess ask him or you to give me 

a written response, since we are probably going to run out of time. 

It is an opinion dated August 16, 1995. It is a memorandum from 

the Department of Justice for Alice Rivlin, director of the Office of 

Management and Budget. It was written by Mr. Walter-from Walter Dellinger, assistant attorney general. 
53 

And I guess my only point on that last issue is, it says-it says 

nothing about safety. It makes a reference to air traffic controllers, 

meat inspectors, and then says "other similarly situated personnel." And I guess Mr: O'Connell would say-and it specifically uses 

the words, "the practice has been to assume that the continued operation of the private economy". 

Mr. O'Connell is the private economy. If we assumed his continued operation and ran it parallel to these other instances-and it 

does say "other similarly situated personnel"-it seems to me there 

is an argument that the Park Service had to keep personnel there 

to allow him to continue the operation of the private economy that 

he was running. 

With that, I will yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. Leshy, do you have any comments? 

Mr. LESHY. We will be happy to give you a written response on 

that point. 

I just would briefly say that I think the difference here is, you 

know, if it were a Federally-owned meat packing plant, it would 

shut down. The Federal Government provides ancillary services 

that makes private meatpacking go. On the question of the parks, it is really the flip side of that. That is, the concessionaires provide ancillary services that enable 

the people to experience the parks. Because of the shutdown, the 

people could not experience the parks. So I think that is the distinction, but I would be glad to elaborate on it in writing. 

[The information was not received at time of printing.] 

Mr. SHADEGG. Well, it is not set forth in the opinion, and I don't 

think-! mean you can make the argument that the Federal Government does control and operate the air traffic control towers, and 

so I am not certain the point holds, and I am certain the park concessionaires would like an explanation. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his 

time. Moving along, let me turn then to our friend, Mr. O'Connell, who 

is here and quite patiently listened to the exchange. What about this situation for you in a private business setting? 

What is your evaluation of the course of action that should be followed? 

Mr. O'CONNELL. Well, I understand the issue of safety and security in the park, but the reality of the situation is that I am a private businessman trying to make a living. I have 100 employees 

working for me, trying to make a living. We are just trying to every 

day make ends meet. All of a sudden, the Government shuts down, 

and 3 days later I am asked for an explanation and I am told safety and security. It may or may not make a lot of sense, depending 

on the parks. 

Parks are different. Each park needs to be looked at individually, 

I would say. Certainly, in my situation there is concurrent jurisdiction with local law enforcements. So there was no loss of law enforcement coverage in the park. Also, given the nature of the park that I operate in, there was 

no reason why we needed to be closed at all, flat out. 
54 

Now, granted, there are some parks this may or may not hold 

true, but certainly it is-a blanket shutdown was not the proper 

course of action. 

Every park is different. The Blue Ridge Parkway is different 

from Yosemite, different from Big Bend, different from Yellowstone. 

The Statue of Liberty is different from Acadia can't. Every park is 

different, and they require different services to maintain safety and 

security, and my stand is that they should be looked at individually 

and different courses of action should be taken as appropriate. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, let's pursue that with reference to the 

business which you operate. You mentioned earlier, and we spoke 

parenthetically, about the dilemma of the wedding, which gave us 

all a chuckle in retrospect but certainly wasn't funny for the folks 

involved in it. You also talked about the challenges of Thanksgiving Day, and again there is a tendency to kind of get tongue in 

cheek about this, although I am certain that it had business consequences for you. Let's pursue the business consequences. 

If the Government shuts down, which of your services would be 

directly and, I dare say, adversely impacted by that decision? 

Mr. O'CONNELL. Well, strictly speaking, when the Government 

shuts down, it has little or no effect on my operation as far as Government employees are concerned. 

Granted, in theory, there would be no rangers patrolling the 

parkway. All right. I very seldom see rangers except when there is 

an accident, and in that case, as I said, there is concurrent jurisdiction in our area, which means we would have the local county sheriffs or the other law enforcement agencies. 

Visitor interpretation: Due to budget cutbacks, there is very little 

visitor interpretation left anyway, so it would be hardly missed. 

Other administrative functions that the Blue Ridge Parkway provides: For example, the superintendent's office, the concession specialist, all of the secretaries; if they are sent home, it really doesn't 

affect my business in the least, certainly not for-in the short-term 

it wouldn't, certainly the Government would be expected to reopen 

within a week, I would hope. 

And I can't see any effect on me, and why I couldn't have been 

allowed to operate for a week makes no sense. There would have 

been no adverse effect on the visitor and certainly no risk to the 

environment. 

We are in a partnership with the Park Service, you have to remember that. It would not behoove me to damage or in any way 

abuse the park environment. That is not what I am here to do. And 

whether there is a Federal agency here to oversee and protect the 

park or not, I like to look at it as, we are in a partnership, and 

I will bail out the Federal Government, I will bail out the Park 

Service. When they are forced to go home because of a budgetary 

shutdown or a budgetary limitation, then I will offer as a concessioner, in their stead, to watch over the park resource. I have no 

desire to abuse it at all. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Connell. 

Mr. Leshy, a question for you, sir. Do the States which manage 

hunts on National Wildlife Refuges assume all liability for the activities on those refuges? 
55 

Mr. LESHY. Mr. Chairman, I am not actually sure of the answer. 

To some extent, this area is covered by statute; to some extent, it 

is covered by individual agreements; and I just would have to look 

at those. I am happy to look into it and get back to you. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, we thank you very much for your willingness to take a look at it and to get back to us with your findings. 

[The information was not received at time of printing.] 

Mr. HAYWORTH. With that in mind, I again turn to my good 

friend from Michigan for any questions or comments he might 

have. 

Mr. KrLDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I better go back 

to church. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think that is an observation that we all could 

use in these times. And thank you very much for your comments. 

If there are no further questions, I want to thank the witnesses 

for their valuable testimony and, of course, the Members for their 

questions, many of whom have had to vacate the premises to catch 

airplanes, and my good friend from Michigan for his closing observation. 

If there is no further business, the Chairman again thanks the 

members of the committee, and this committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
56 

104TH COXGRESS H R 2677 ]ST SESSIO:\ 

• • 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to accept from a State donations 

of services of State employees to perform, in a period of Government 

budgetary shutdowu, otherwise authorized functions in a ny unit of the 

Xational Wildlife Refuge System or the Xational Park System. 

IX TilE HOUSE OF REPRESEXTATIVES 

:\OVE~IBER 20, 1995 

l\lr. YOC:'\G of Alaska (for himself, :vir·. lL\..'\SE!'\, l.\'lr. SAXTO:\, Mr. CALVERT, 

and Mr. IL\YWORTII) introduced the follo"ing bill; which was referred to 

the Committee 0 11 Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to accept from 

a State donations of services of State employees to perform, in a period of Government budgetary shutdovvn, 

otherwise authorized functions in any unit of the ~ationa! Wildlife Refuge System or the ~a tiona! Park 

System. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives ofthe United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Kational Parks and 

5 Xational Wildlife Refuge Systems :B.,reedom Act of 1995" . 
57 

2 

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

2 TO ACCEPT STATE DONATIONS OF STATE EM· 

3 PLOYEE SERVICES. 

4 (a) REQUIRE:.\IEl'\T.-The Secretary shall accept from 

5 any State donations of services of qualified State employ6 ees to perform in a Unit, in a period of Government budg7 etary shutdmvn, functions otherwise authorized to be per8 formed by Department of Interior personnel. 

9 (b) LDIITATIOl'\S.-An employee of a State may per1 0 form fimctions under this section only \vi thin areas of a 

11 l~ nit that are located in the State. 

12 (c) EXCLUSIOl'\ FROM TREATl\IEl'\T AS FEDERAL EM13 PLOYEES.-A State· employee who performs functions 

14 under this section shall not be treated as a Federal em15 ployee for purposes of any Federal law relating to pay or 

16 benefits for Federal employees. 

17 (d) DEFil'\ITIOl'\S.-In this seetion18 ( 1) the term "Government budgetary shut19 duwn" means a period during which there are no 

20 amounts available for the operation of the X ational 

21 Wildlife Refuge System and the ~ational Park Sys22 tern, because of23 (A) a failure to enact an annual appropria24 tions bill for the period for the Department of 

25 the Interior; and 

•HR 2677 lll 
58 

3 

(B) a failure to enact a bill (or joint rcso2 lution) continuing the availability of appropria3 tions for the Department of the Interior for a 

4 temporary period pending the enactment of 

5 such an annual appropriations bill; 

6 (2) the term "Secretary" means the Secret ary' 

7 of the Interior; and 

8 (3) the term "Unit" means a unit of9 (A) the )."ational Wildlife Refuge System, 

10 or 

11 (B) the Xational Park System. 

0 

•HR 2677 Ill 
104TII CONGRESS 

1ST SESSIOK 

59 

H.R.2706 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to accept from a State donations 

of services of State employees to perform hunting management functions 

in a ~ational Wildlife Refuge in a period of Government budgetary 

shutdown. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBEH 5, 1995 

Mrs. LIXCOL:-.1 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to accept from 

a State donations of services of State employees to perform hunting management functions in a National Wildlife Refuge in a period of Government budgetary shutdown. 

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 "National Wildlife Ref5 uge Management Contingency Act of 1995". 
60 

2 

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO 

2 ACCEPI' STATE DONATIONS OF STATE EM3 PLOYEE SERVICES TO PERFORM HUNTING 

4 MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall accept from 

6 any qualified State donations of services of State employ7 ees to perform in a National Wildlife Refuge, in a period 

8 of Government budgetary shutdown, hunting management 

9 functions otherwise authorized to be performed by Depart1 0 ment of Interior personnel. 

11 (b) LIMITATIONS.-An employee of a State may per12 form functions under this section only13 (1) within areas of a National Wildlife Refuge 

14 that are located in the State; and 

15 (2) in accordance with an agreement entered 

16 into by the Secretary and the Governor of the State 

17 under subsection (c). 

18 (c) AGREEMENTS.-

19 (1) IN GENERAL.-For purposes of this section, 

20 the Secretary may enter into an agreement in ac21 cordance with this subsection with the Governor of 

22 any State in which is located any part of a National 

23 Wildlife Refuge. 

24 (2) TERMS CONDITIONS.-An agreement under 

25 this subsection shall-

•HR 2706 IH 
61 

3 

1 (A) require that each individual performing 

2 functions under the agreement shall have--

3 (i) provisions to ensure resource and 

4 visitor protection acceptable under the 

5 standards of the United States Fish and 

6 Wildlife Service; 

7 (ii) adequate safety training; 

8 (iii) knowledge of the terrain in which 

9 the individual will perform those functions; 

10 and 

11 (iv) knowledge of and adherence to 

12 Federal regulations relating to those func13 tions; and 

14 (B) specify other terms and conditions 

15 under which a State employee may perform 

16 such functions. 

17 (d) EXCLUSION FROM TREATMENT AS FEDERAL EM18 PLOYEES.-A State employee who performs functions 

19 under this section shall not be treated as a Federal em20 ployee for purposes of any Federal law relating to pay or 

21 benefits for Federal employees. 

22 (e) DEFINITIONS.-ln this section23 ( 1) the term "Government budgetary shut24 down" means a period during which there are no 
62 

4 

1 amounts available for the operation of the National 

2 Wildlife Refuge System, because of3 (A) a failure to enact an annual appropria4 tions bill for the period for the Department of 

5 the Interior; and 

6 (B) a failure to enact a bill (or joint reso7 lution) continuing the availability of appropria8 tions for the Department of the Interior for a 

9 temporary period pending the enactment of 

10 such an annual appropriations bill; 

11 (2) the term "qualified State" means a State 

12 that has entered into an agreement with the Sec13 retary in accordance with subsection (c); and 

14 (3) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary 

15 of the Interior. 

0 

•HR 2706 m 
Hon. Don Young 

Chairman 

Comminee on Resotirces 

1324 Longworth 

By Haad 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

63 

~.6. J;ouse of l\eprdmtatibtt 

£ommitttt on 1\tfourm 

autJingtan, K 20!115 

December 7, 1995 

Your staff has informed the minority that you are seeking to bring H.R. 2677, "The National Parks 

and National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act," to th~ floor next week under Suspension of the 

Rules. By this lener, I am informing you and the Republican leadership that it would be premature 

to schedule this bill -- which will be subject to a hearing only tomorrow, when the House will not 

even be in session -- for the floor. 

All Democratic Members are aware of the significant inconveniences caused by the recent closure of 

many parks, refuges and other federal sites during the recent government shut-down. Many of us had 

sites and constituents who were affected by the closures which were occasioned by the failure of the 

Congress to pass the necessary appropriations bills that are required to fund these functions of 

government. 

Hastily passing a bill like H.R. 2677, however, is an inappropriate response. Many serious questions 

have already been raised about this legislation concerning the financial and technical capability of 

states to administer federal facilities, questions of liability, impacts on the ability of states to maintain 

their own parks if personnel are diverted to federal sites, and many more. The need for the 

legislation has also been called into question since most government shut-downs have occurred for 

very short periods of time, generally a day or two. 

Of course, when a federal shut-down occurs, far more than the parks and refuges are affected. Is it 

the Republican plan to permit states to take over other areas of federal responsibility as well? In 

addition, some have raised concerns that this legislation may be the first step in a broader plan to 

remove parks and other lands from federal management and turn them over to the states on a 

permanent basis. Indeed, some Republican members of this Committee have proposed just such a 

divestiture of federal assets to the states, few of which have the fiscal or personnel resources to 

manage these federal lands. 
Page 2 

Hon. Don Young 

December 7, 1995 

Page Two 

64 

Some Members are also expressing dismay at the suggestion that H.R. 2677 would be brought to the 

floor after a single perfunctory hearing, with no ability to seek additional witness comments, to 

develop amendments, or to participate in mark-ups at the subcommittee or even the committee level. 

Treating this complex subject in this fashion may be designed to suggest this is a simple matter, but 

it most certainly is not. Your staff is already aware of multiple legal, operational and policy 

concerns that have been raised by the Department of the Interior concerning this legislation. 

I would hope there is no suggestion, because we are recommending the normal legislative 

consideration of an untested and unsupported change in federal policy, that Democratic Members are 

less concerned about the impacts of parks, refuge and other closures on federal employees, our 

constituents or oiher citizens, because we certainly are concerned and committed to acting to 

minimize the chances that such closures will occur again. 

Accordingly, we will strongly object to any effort to bring H.R. 2677 to the floor under a Unanimous 

Consent request or a Suspension of the Rules until such time as the Committee on Resources has had 

an opportunity to give this proposal full legislative consideration. This legislation is not a simple 

proposal but rather a radical departure from federal resource management practices that could place 

the taxpayers and federal resources at serious risk and that, therefore, deserves full committee 

scrutiny. 

Copies: Members of the Committee on Resources 

Hon. Richard A. Gephardt 

Hon. Richard Armey 
65 

Testimony on HR 2677 for House Resources Committee 

Governor Fife Symington, Arizona 

8 December 1995 

Thank you for the chance to come here today to discuss the ments of HR 2677. I've 

had the chance to review this bill and the bill drafted by Arizona Senators Kyl and 

McCain. I applaud both chambers for responding so quickly to this problem, and I 

am confident that we can keep the parks open in the event of a second budget 

impasse. Today, I'd like to outline for you the importance of Grand Canyon 

National Park to Arizona, recap the steps we took last month in a bid to reopen the 

park, and underscore some of the critical questions the legislation needs to answer. 

In the wake of the federal government shutdown last month, some folks asked in 

jest: if the news media hadn't told you the government was closed, would you have 

noticed? While this question reflects a healthy indifference toward both 

Washington and the press, the answer unfortunately for us in Arizona was yes. 

The administration's decision to close Grand Canyon National Park on November 

15th, two days after the general government shutdown, was a jolt to many in my 

state. We estimate that visitors to the Grand Canyon spend $250 million in 

Arizona each year. This activity sustains communities in Northern Arizona and 

generates about $12.5 million annually in sales tax revenue for the state, roughly the 

cost to operate the park. 

Besides the economic consequences of the closure, I was disturbed by the way it hit a 

number of individuals. Visitors come to see the canyon from around the country 

and the world. We in Arizona pride ourselves on being good hosts. Thus, I 

really was annoyed when a couple from New Zealand who had spent $10,000 to visit 

the park was turned away at the gate. It's a little arrogant I think to seal off one of 

the natural wonders of the world while our federal government squabbles over its 

continuing fiscal excess. 

In response to the closure, Arizona asked the federal government to let us reopen 

the park using state resources. We backed up our offer by going to the park the next 

day with the manpower necessary to do the job. The caravan I led on November 

17th included State Parks staff, employees from our Department of Public Safety, and 

unarmed National Guardsmen. We had come to work, not to fight. 

Upon arrival, I met with Park Superintendent Rob Amberger. He was somewhat 

uneasy about our campaign. However, he relaxed enough to point out to me a fact 

that clearly illustrates the absurdity of this episode. He mentioned that there is 

evidence of human habitation of the Grand Canyon that goes back 4,000 years. So 

while Mother Nature could not in 4 millennia keep people out of the Canyon, the 
66 

federal government managed to drive them out last month. 

While we were at the park, the administration declined our offer to reopen it. 

They cited several concerns. I urge you today to vtew these as legitimate but 

surmountable obstacles. I think we can craft legislation to keep the parks open that 

addresses these issues. Please consider these points as you go into mark-up. 

The first hurdle cited by the Interior Department in rejecting my offer involved the 

responsibility of the Secretary to operate parks in "a safe and sound manner, 

consistent with federal law and regulations, and to manage their resources in such a 

way as to preserve them for future generations." Legislation should give states an 

option. Let us open parks by paying the salaries and benefits of federal employees 

or by using state employees. I am concerned thanhe Department is going to urge 

you to bar the use of state employees by establishing arbitrary standards of experience 

or training. Don't buy mto this Washington-knows-best mentality. 

In connection with this issue, please also consider the opportunities we have to 

serve the public through partial reopenings of various parks. Consider, for 

example, the possibilities at Grand Canyon National Park. The federal government 

had the flexibility during the first two days of the budget deadlock to keep the park 

open but close the visitors' center. In the event of a second budget impasse this 

month, the state of Arizona might at a minimum reopen Mather Point. Please 

turn your attention to the map of the park we've provided. During last month's 

budget impasse, the federal government blocked access to the road that goes out to 

this overlook. Removing this roadblock and allowing visitors to enjoy perhaps the 

best view of the canyon, as shown in the picture before you, would not be hard. It 

would not entail putting the full contingent of 200 or so "non-essential" park 

employees back on the job. It would require only a handful of employees in 

relatively simple positions. 

A second objection raised by the Interior Department involves the Antideficiency 

Act. Under this law, the federal government cannot obligate funds that have not 

been appropriated. On the basis of this, the Department rejected our offer to reopen 

the Grand Canyon National Park because we did not discuss covering the 

incremental costs of things such as power and water supplies arising from an 

expansion of park operations beyond the "essential" level. This objection highlights 

only a minor flaw in our original proposal, as non-salary expenses account for only 

about 10 percent of the park's operating budget. I propose that you consider adding 

these infrastructure costs to the definition of essential services, so the Interior 

Department can keep paying them. Alternatively, at least let states cover these 

costs along with salaries when making a bid to keep a park open. 

The third problem the Department had with Arizona's offer concerned liability at 

times when a state would provide services to the federal government. I think we 

2 
67 

can deal with this by clarifying the issue in legislation. One acceptable solution 

that I understand is taking shape would involve indemnification of a state for any 

liability to the United States arising from the actions of a state employee. In any 

case, I think our society is eventually going to paralyze itself with fears and threats 

about legal liability. When God gave us the Grand Canyon, I don't think he ever 

intended for the lawyers to rope it off and secret it away. 

In addition to addressing the Administration's concerns, I would ask you to consider 

m legislation the issue of compensating states for expenses. This could be done 

through a fee sharing arrangement as we had proposed or through reimbursement 

once the federal government resumes normal operations. 

Last week, at a meeting of the Western Governors' Association, we passed a 

resolution in support of your efforts to keep the parks open. Because the west is 

home to most of the key holdings of the National Park System, we need to be heard 

on this issue. In our view, the decision to close the parks was a good sign of the 

need to transfer responsibility for important matters closer to home. 

I urge you to move this bill forward promptly, so we can be prepared to keep the 

parks open in case budget talks again deadlock. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to testify. 

3 
68 

RESOLUTION RECEIVED AFTER THE DEADLINE 

Western governors' Association 

Proposed Resolution 95 - D 

SPONSOR: Governor Symington 

December 1, 1995 

Las Vegas, Nevada 

SUBJECT: National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act of 1995 

A. BACKGROUND 

1. The federal government was shutdown during budget negotiations between 

the President and Congress in November 1995. The federal government 

faces the potential of a second budgetary shutdown later in December. 

2. The budgetary shutdowns closed the National Parks and National Wildlife 

Refuge systems to the citizens of this country. These unnecessary closures 

represent a significant economic threat to the western states. 

3. The State of Arizona. during the November 1995 budgetary shuldown, 

offered to supply temporary funds or state personnel to keep the Grand 

Canyon National Park open to visitors. 

4. The Secretary of Interior is prohibited under current statutes from delegating 

or allowing the responsibilities for operating the National Park and National 

Wildlife Refuge systems to the states. The Secretary, further believes that 

if there are no lawfully appropriated funds lo operate the Park and Wildlife 

Refuge systems, the Department of Interior is precluded under the 

Antideficiency Act from entering into any arrangement with a state that would 

have the effect of obligating funds, regardless of the conditions. 

5. The National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act of 

1995 was introduced to address these issues and to require the Secretary 

of Interior to accept state donated services of qualified state employees 

during a period of government budgetary shutdown to perform authorized 

functions. 

B. GOVERNORS' POLICY STATEMENT 

1. The Western Governors believe that the closure of the National Park and 

National Wildlife Refuge systems is avoidable in the event of a federal 

government budget impasse if the Secretary of Interior has the authority to 

accept state donations of personnel to perform necessary functions. 
69 

2. The Western Governors support the intent and immediate passage of the 

National Park and Wildlife Refuge Systems Act of 1995. 

C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 

The Western Governors ' Association shall convey this resolution to the 

President, the Secretary of Interior, and appropriate members and 

committees of Congress. 

2. The Western Governors' Association staff will continue to monitor 

congressional activities in this area and report back to the Governors as 

necessary. 
70 

STATEMENT BY 

BRUCE 0' CONNELL 

PISGAH INN - BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY 

ON BEHALF OF 

NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION 

December 8, 1995 

EXHIBIT A 
. \(l ;·"" ·· ~ .. , 

!l.;:..v ;••u 

J .. · ' , : • J .v. .. :...:,·. ..,. • • ~1 ..... ~ ~~ -- :u~ r .. 

.... ,, ... . • • • .-·."!. .., • .,, "• ' I .o r.-t 

•r·.n•.· · 

it. '· ".l ·:.~ , .•. ,_,.·., ... 

, .. -.. , · .. · ~- ""q· r 

: . ....! i -...!.!\• . . J" · >.lt">. .• 

, .. )U: ·· 

• • i.t\,:jJ"( •",. ~~ 

'Cr ~rJ! r 

U"l~ 

;·;o ro sut1•..s•" <;"JWk.""'l ~, ... , ;o .. 

•>Cl..)S(..r.r. • O(~P l>. C;;, · • 

...,.Hlw ... ..-. ilt\)<.1. ~JA I~ 

~.- 'lrl.~~> wr·. n: . ..,._._,.Ill ~'11 ' 

71 

National Park Concessions, Inc. CirNF"rttll (lfll(L~

MM1MOTII CliVe .. ht f'it(JCK\' 4??',q (1(>2/ 

(f,Ui') 1D7l?l 

r~Ol l ; l)·2Un 

••• <•Ol t ., '131.t)tt 

N.l.l ion,, 1 t'11rk Conc(',:;,:;i ,·.nt- , h a:. h .:u ; cc:t. lt:ulate-d the lo&!> u! revenue 

tJirt•( tl y )al d tl'"l the dir E":c tlvt' o f the tl&tional l' al'lt. Serv ic-e t c c lof>e 

Ul~ Hrn c1 N~~tt nill t~ rk, cx~s • 

Tht- N11t il\n:l l t' ,uk Sender: c)o~t=d fijy, Bc- nd Nall t•n a l r 01 rlc. 011 Novcn hc ~ 

1'•· J99S and !l"l=llld ;atpd National )'(Irk l:onccssi u~, Jn r. t O('I clos ~ tdl 

tt f i ls optr 3 tions o n No vemlu.:r 17, 1995 . pie~; uJ tbc tvo (Jlfjc:J :tl 

letters NovcwLL'r 'J, 1995 aut! uv rr hr:r 14 , 1995 cu e Al:l.ath('d . lu 11dditi1 

th.-rt't o tclC'f•l•()nJc c-ommunic;'lt1 vt•u wer e CCCl~t>d by Nat lvU(l} l':11k 

Cont solou~, loc . tu •iHA mtut fror1' lh(· NtHion.,l Patk St.'rvicc. 

It :16 ('t~)culatt:d tJ,:H N~tlNH:~l ,...,,dt. <.: ouc ~totd ns, lnc. f' ll ffC't"Cd 

l<•:.;.lo ( ".!> of tC"ve nut .:1~ a result o { lh~ CJ.OSUNJ:: 1n th<" ru&o \Junt uf *"' ,200. 71. 

S1· 1· tht- sttachcd (' ,Jcu lfH iuu hlil'l'l6. 

In ~tdc11.ttC\n to th~ rtirrct losj:; of rC'venuf'. lti< •~ l l'ttrk C:om·c6F iOI 

l nr. s u ffe r ed ad<1Hion,, l o~st:,... B1~ Bt-ud Nati0nal l'a ri.. ' 6 )ocatPd 

al>u ul 100 mil t~ irnTtl ;.my t owu and ns such VTU ~; t hou &C' u nd !et::ll jt 

t:cpluycc,:;, lt 1~ t.':~l i.Alo:tl l·rl tl o.:at tbe ndnilrt\1111 ~.:x pt' ..: c ji1IIO]V(!d t o hnu:ooc 

and fcr1\ tlu· t~ff ,\urln)', th1!; pcri()d .. .:a~lt.'d t n $'• ,550. 0 0. 

Jlad Wt' DOl kept Ot•r ~t~:~Cf du rju~ tLl!> yeriod of timt' we t;J;~p) y 

wuul d have ct~ t a lt~rK c po rt lllll of tbo"l' C'll.lpl(l)'t't-s . Payroll c ost t u 

r rtr h.1 t l•utoc vy ·('~; i,:; Cf:t 11n.otf·d l "' miniftUIDl Cl( $ 21,7!>0.00. Our 

uti lit y CX"f' <'H~es nmt in\lrd d1.1r l u[: th~ 'f'hut tloowu' pcri {ld, the io uro.~n, · 

c: o !; l t:d nt1ouE·d 1lurlng this ' shut dovn' pn·l od, alon g ..,ith the co.- t o f 

<:oJ llinK N lt &\lt' l w\,u h('ld rt-~ t'rvt~ll onE. , 1~1 tt-rs, o1. nd <•t ber C'Or. l " 

c:uutJ nupd At1d we hav(; UN at tt-mvtt-d l <' c al cu late aJ .l of tbe ~~ dud (llht·r 

tl\ pt'n6r6 at tlds pttjut ill t i.D:tf" 

Till·: TOTAl. ESTIHATf.T> LOSS C>F H>:HNUl, TilL li11'WYEE COMPENSAT ION I'AID 

Al-1 0 THE T:XYEN SF; 1 NCU AI!"¥.1 1 'J 0 UOUSJ-. 1'\NU n :f.O TilE SThfY J S $84 , !>00. 7-~~:. 
72 

Th~ n.onth c,{ Novt"mber :1(, Otn u( l11t.' h"-·~v if'st \d6ilatiC\n rc-riod!. al tijg 

Rcnrl N.:1t i ona} }'.lt-k . Th.- N,H.t :lunal I'~J k Srorvicc tl i."•t:lL•d Nat j nn,,l Y~rk (;onct::;~>j ons, 

Inc. lu iu t:: P ft!~i6l.Cl"<'d i;UCbl lC'I ]C".1VC· ~· ur lndlrr l'c1rl< t-vcn thm•r.h flat'!)' held 

rt>MHVfHic,n!.; {or a longL-r period " ( l~c. 

Th<' NcHh,ual P4:trk St'rv.icc rlin•(·l"•d u~; to ft,l"(t:· our rt>~i~>tCrfd £,tlt"Sl in the 

Lod~P overnight .'tC'C"OI111HOd,,t jonb lc.1 chcC'k 0~1t t'Yt'H thou~h the-y held rc-=:crvoHi<•ns 

tc' ~t.<\)' Additiou:J] nit~htJ;. 

1'hE> (.;uesl were very unh.,ppy, "'ncJ wt:o hnvc lE'Ceived wrJ tt.C'n anc.l tel~phom· 

threRt!'i u{ legal :s.ctinn for our {allurt> to COIDply vith ti ronfirutd re .. crvntion 

t·ont rHct. 

~~~ C'r(..-:1/ / - . (:x'~-?C-~,7(/ 

C;Jrn - U. H:mson. C.UA 

?rf'~>id('nt & Gc-nPrlll thuu:1~cr 
:: ;: .. 

I 1/ I', 

l i /} 1, 

11 /l/ 

I l ,· 1 ~ 

1 i ! .' U 

l i t:•l 

'ftJ I /\\ -'_; 

73 

:\ \'ERA(:f 

REVENJii:: 

' I 1 ,I~$ : 

11,11111.11) 

I J • I tilt. h J 

I I , 1(11: . •: 7 

I: , I ~H ..• , 

J J 'tf;)j. f;i 

II . ~~.!< 7 

; '. ~· .. 

/,Cfh\1 

l<ti'EJ>li £ 

J , ~(Jf\. ~o 

:. , H ~. JO 

J (\ 0 1 i 1(l. ( ; I 

:1-VI-.~ il: 

_(L_ns,;~-

9,(>;,COi' 

li>,I 'JI,.',(l 

!(J, (,J : •. ?il 

}(l ,(;J}.f.. :J 

~~·1,?00 . 74 
74 

15 NOVi;.~lRt:R 1995 

TO: KONiJFLJ (~. Stii\IJ! l{.;:i 

FRON; (;J:ItALD K, WlLLlS 

ll!ilL[ PASSIN,. <'Ul CIJT'll.:; OF ~AT[11:<AL PARK C(I~C[.SScO~:;. INC, I.E'J'HR AKII ~Allll:\A!. 

PAI(K SLKV!CE U.llr:K COI<Cf:J(Nl:~(; 'J'Hf: f'AKF CI.C•'>lKL I Hf.AHTI THE f'[lJl/lli!N(; KF.(.A'JI\'E 

CllmiENTS; 

l.) "l'VL HrJ·.N ~'AITJJ\l; 'JU C0l·1E Hll~ lS Yf-J\1.:.~ ANU Nllk 1 HAVE TO LEAVF F.i\\{L)'." 

o.)" l't: HI!:JN, JilL 'J'MII.S TclfiORRl'". !He\' CAN 'iHROW Mf: UUl IF THFY CAN FIN!• ME." 

.o.) " l>N'1 1H:S SILLY'' 1'1 ':;A SHMif (il;R f'OJ.:TICIANS Ci•N'', J(I::ACH AN Al'I(HfiE);T 

ON SOHETHJNC: I.J KL THJ S" 

1l!L.: !\L1:-iREk. l"l\'1:: ST.\'Tf.I-1.1-~N'l \-.'AS t-.Y FAF.. THF. M~·~·l l'0!·~'10l\. 

:.JJ:LL DI;J-f.i(LcaLY f\Ul J1 liAS E;:~;f:l,ilAL:.Y 'Jill:: :;AJ1l. 

l'l HAl: HAVE UI::EN \i(IRDF.!> A 
75 

NOTES 'TO I'J Lt:S 

Novemher :lO, 199~ 

HRnRgf>r, Ronnit' S!inrlcrs., l\11! l\end NarionRl T'tJrk Overati0116 of National Park 

C:C'Inc .. Fsi c•ne;, lnc.. rt:- cti vc ci •• C'flll ~t ~pprCIXithftl tl y 9 :"0 Alof (;S'J' from \..'illiAVI Conn!!ll, 

Al\orn~y oC the l"w fit'lll ~,,f CC'nn t'll 1111d lC't·, !>.l~ ;•th Av~nu~ 1 Nr.w York, N<:w )' ol"l.-, 

~:tatinr. 1~ r~:>~ rt!e>•ntc d Andn~r• C. Hc•lhl(llin(• c.•! Italy nnd tht~l Nttti<.•llal P~rk 

Concc~:;ion~ . ltH·. hrctl br~Al'l ed tt c c•nt 1·act with ldt. (:}itnt. St~ntl~rt. ,,llcmpltd l C· 

c-xploin tht situAtion tc· Hr . f.Clrmdl, l•1H wdthout suc:tef;f; :fn ~:llti1:!)'1ng Mr . Conne ll. 

Sander& re:fE"rrtd Atll•l:n..-y ComH.·ll l c• llu: T'rc-f: .id(:nt f'ltd Gtnt-t'ttl Mana g~ r <•f Nationa l 

PArk onn~ &f. ionf. , lnc., Garnlt'Y H. an ~• n :it i":<HT\moth C\lv(· , Ktntucky. 

Novcml•<• 30, 1995 

Git t'IHtr I\. Httns!.•H, Pn·sid~nt o1 1,d Gf'llt' l'i!: l l't~nf)tf'r, NAtlOI\fll Pttrk Conces~ ion s, 1nc. 

rcc-cj v c-cl n c·<11J fr..,•l•• At t orut-y , "'1) li."lnl (;C".nncll on the 5Uh ,1ect cd N.,t1on.,l. Park 

Conct-~~1(•1•!.., lu(· . ! ti i lurl..' l (' fu}fj]J ~ ~~e rvfit 1on C'C•ntrAct with hi,; <.:lit-nt Andr ~ C. 

nondol1no of Ae.t1, Jt <•ly. C!.•llllt"ll W~\llcrl N11liou.'1l PI!Tk f.ran('C·&f:.1011E-, lnc .• [.-.)': muolot-t' , 

\.'hi e!: 11~ \-' ~~ p r ovided. Mt· . Ctlllnc ll rt<:t'1Vt'd t-int~rt- bp olu~ i~~ fr("'m Htin~c-n f or the 

inC"OilVf'Ui,·nc·" hit; c-li~tlll ltAtl su( fl!l'C'd, ~·ffcrcd kondolino n f r ee n1r,hcs lodging ••t 

$('1r..c futur~ ilRtf:-, Ani.l t> >! l,t~1 11t'd th~t Nnt i on11l }',1l'~ \.c•nC'c:S~ionf., lnc-. \o.'af. ordt-r~c! l•)' 

th~ tlnil(•(l Stblt'~ lt-p~r lmt'Tit of t.h~ l ntc·dcq·, N.,t.1CJ11l1l r .,rk s~r vicl?, 1\ig )je-r.d 

NAtionAl ~Ark t o L:lo!<-t: nlH1 tl.nl W<' l.nd 11 ( ' C' h\' iC'f- i n the tnc.t.lcr. lie- IJA& etdvised that 

llif- Ali C"nAl l'f!r\1, St::.' \•l t\• ~~nt:~r;. Y.:t'l'C the Cll •C·S wh o Ylh"lnnccl the C:tHl'Y ~1 t'C S t <1 tli< 

p:11·k :lroci J' cfupr·rl \ 'if.if.t)n: t"llll'y, Nr. CC'Itltlt' l l -..·as ~dvistd th-' l: N.:\ti('n3l l'onk 

r•l~ C'f-F1~'\!l fi , )1\(', ~l t:c.l1~tt'l)' }'l (.•(.t' ~~ d ~ c:r cdil tc1 Rvnd lino'~ /un~riuq ~ Lx;>rc!..._ 

t·r...-dil t Eo.r.J tll.: t l'Ulll f1 •1' lh C' itrl\' iiiHC" r rui T• I '" ~( l'VtlliC11l df')'OS.it. ttf. a l'C'f\1\•d. 

c_-;4. ;;<fov~d Gsrntr H. lhmsc•n 
J":::.ourn"J HI\"~''; 

ASSISTAN'fS£CJIFT ... I'll' 

J\.JUEtJK'.HGA~lffi\ .. CT' 

(t!R£(101( 

~lAM~:• I I-f (A;.Il. MT'l'J ...... l <AI<> 

kJNT'\.O.Y 

bLl)[ NDOI'. PA~)(\I.A'> 

VJlCJNI,\oNOR'Tli CAAOi Jr~,o, 

TSU flOYI\.1 I. NA.'f'IOJ'V,;. f.' AN\ 

~011MN 

01.\'MF'ICNA.'!'XJNAl.fARI< 

WA..SH'J<oKITQN 

IIOTU 

LDOCn 

('('lfTIIGLS 

Ht':l\~"«:iliN'l!­

roo<>""""' am 

J'HOTOSoi.A,'\JU. "'~ 

RlrVICllm-TlON 

Accr.s..somr_c. 

,"JV..N5f'()nJII.nON 

soml!lNC 

kOWDOAtS 

"'-""DRSHIHG 

(' AMf'Voi(.T SU'f'UL ~ 

T!Wl.llllitTLS 

St'JIU'.N'TAL 

76 

National Park Concessions, Inc. GENt:RAI. OmCf$ 

MAMMOTH CAVE,IIEf'ITUCKY 422,9 0027 

!Cr ..... ~ .. c ......... 11M 

ltr.U •e.11a Ierro U 

14010 Yqllereno •'A.eU 

(A.ett), lte.J.y 

J) .. ~ l!r. ltoodollnno 

(~02) 773 2191 

1•0.21 na-•t•! 

~~=t Yi~''ft') 

Ve aineer-.17 rear•t tbet you were v:nabl• to vi•1t Vltb u• at 

CbUoo llouotoina Lodae 411• to tbo acu.,. of tbo u. a., J)opartMDt 

of tbo lDterlor, .. tic>D&l Pork Service ordodna tbe Park to be 

ClOtO..S dJoa to Judptary pro~l .... 

Certatnl7 ,. can appreciate JOG'C dl••ppoirtt.t.nt ln not kina 

alola to enter atn a...d ... tlond Pork &0 5Cbedul...S. 

•ttonal lark Cooc•••loM, IDe. 1a • private ~•u7 tUt 

o,.r•t•• tb• ctllaoe Houlltalne Lod.t• UDder • lana. tel'a c.oatract 

rith t1:1• U. 6. hpttrt..nt of the Interior, Hatlonal fat:k km.ee. 

Ve wre or4en41 h7 the OM•ranent to clo•• 01ar opartlot\8, w 1aa4 

Do choice tn the •• utor. 

1oar Mvaoc:e rooa r•••"at1oa ••po•it which VN aade •1 • cb.IITIO to y.o>r -ri.can kproo .. hu N>lf ken CHd1te4 to J'l!llf acClOUDt oo of lovnaber 21, 199S ln t'he -at of .60.42. &'copy 

of tbat cr..Slt 1a ancloo..S tor your 11\fo'l'lllltlon. 

Ve etncerely apoloai•• fox th• bc:onveuhne• the cloaur• of 

the Park h.a..- cavs;t~cf you. Vo ••r1ou•17 lloubt that tbe U.S. De:po.rt.-nt 

of t.be lntorior, htlonal Park Service, will be in a pooiUOD to Nko 

any pay.ent• to att.yooe a.a r••ult of tbefr •t:Uona to elo•• the Pet'\.J 

howvor, ve nta ooad1~ n ropy of your lottor to tbo Sopar1otondeot 

for ble 1ufoi'1Nt1on, co~•1AI•rat1on, and furth•r reeponae to you. 

llopofull7 you vill bo oblo to plon a f"tura dolt to I~ 8en4 

aod sivo ue an opportunitY to ••n• )"'00 at the Chiao• Mountain• 

Lod••· 

OJRoH o. ..... r 1 • .._, CU 

l'r .. lAI""t ' OeDoral lla ...... r 

ce• Svperhtendieat, a.J.NP. v/c lne~laa '-l.......... l"\.4 ·-- -- ,_ 
77 
78 

.11Jv-{)c £pj- .-..e /vr(Jio.X/ a_J ---~!..<.-( . a/.\ j-c- ~~£ . _ 

J.o.W '/.JJ{ .-Y.~-f1,.)_ if,· /J,l0VL /RJ~ jfl~-a4"""" -· : 

'f:J-cMJ,I) 

' .. ~, ..•.. "',."'''"''· ~~'"~:~:d:::.: ..... , . I . . _: i 

-AtJ:DerA c. '10JN.'PoLf;Jo (~) _ . 

,Stc,~ .... cJJJPflq f/cvr.n, 6~8 . 

J4olo VA-GI-/t;-t;mvo c/ '/+S''r/ 

{A5-.~T!) -~- --- ~ ·------ ·---~ . 

i'rA·Lj .; 

?, 9 · \ 4 I, ,2 oD 3 3 3 

3 <) • llt I · 538 lt S 4: 

~(J. I{,.\, 5':)6' lt- 5~) 

1. .tr'i/ r.: i R..AA._ o F 

1

>1\ 1.~-i.A fA. . CD N N t.-""1.-_ c-)>- C r• • . 

,,J 'I c :;: r ·.<.J • '/ 

i 

''I 

., 

.,, 

I 

I 

.I 

i!l 
79 

Nt, !' '-'~ ~~ ~hat; hnn1 ff1 ~1CiA til i:::. in·,ln itH:t l lt lh,lt v:ould p ruvidc u~; 

up pr(•I .. Hi~ti ons . At.:cn,dinr,ly, li(l\V thn' p in k 1et(:i!itiB;.; ete clos. eci 

.1nd .,ic:·.~tc d ~nrl ~: tu il t C:' duc cu J 1C, ~~ rninin11m·, w f'!. ·.v tl\ lH.ttlirl 

ir"i 'le" '..:n tir.g th('l fc·li('Wtno ti:Jd iti('lt Hil Ph ~n 2 c!(t Ef!ciovll"n ~-top~. i 

f'CCt:S~-c ~ ,. t <\ £:tnsurc: ti•E:t pJC,t(:~;tioll <:• f the 1 hln~ oinB visit OI s : 

1 . v ,::. ,t o t !; in H!i O\'(•J :l lph t l1 1..C ( ;n: oJ iil Jllll ~·. C1 r,d c: uru~~r C; UI!cl~. 

r• re .o t.'·:· ~Ji VGn 48 hour!•, t:1tH\I:"l U f r(llll (.; p ;·r", f~~T . VVu dn t·:.HJft\', 

h!:·vc :r",G.:r 1 G, i r1 w h1 c: h 1r' rH,•kf: (1\h r,r an~)r g& nHun~ C~nd lc ~ thr: 

p: :r~ . 1!11!i <-q :q)liCJ :-. \ 0 \"i!.:i1.:H S il'~ IJc>t h 1-.J t-'S \J r.: (JI\Ct::-;sion er 

OJH' I \t\e CI fC\Ci ii1ir.s . 

2 . /l.l/ COilC:\.l! .. C::iCH'\ <:p "'tOrl Vn·;itC'I :·f:I IVir.nr. tr··nl 1e~c ili Af. 

Cl fi \ (') ! H: clll $eCJ \.J rl 1

<: s::;: Htf!V IH(; d('Orfrt'U ~ .. scnt i,,i fr-r hulllth L' r 

~1f ~t v ur pos ~~ 0 1 " rt: llf:Cd t-t. O to bUpJ.>C•rt 0 11poirro t·~ Sttnt i; , pnrk 

opo~ At ic·ns. t,;Or.c: e~ :t r ~perntud Jll t~ ri 11ot. mP. <r hf clor. £H1 . 

R( ~~\ H~ ccu ty nHr s: h~ :n a irlf;.titrl'd . Ac.rf. .;..,!=. lt..l p riv otrdy iJ\'.' nC·d 

bo ilt ~ lift: pt:nnitt€'<L u~ u:;fl t~ r c:r ~At iunl.:l ur r. A~ VJitl 1;!1 h.~ 

·t 1r k bc•u:·. cftHy d~ r1 ie d. 

:·L l•1 l il'l>csn ,~ . ·, .. ,hilfr. thl•t f:1 it• u fltl·d t r1 c ordi nu& l u ll 

IL: w nkrc. on'lHnt C(• I7- liJ ~_,L. du~ \ r1 t/1{.: mr~bi Ji ty l l ' (:(•ntr('t/ vi ~.i 1P r 

(l(:(..:os:·., cc•rr<:ot•Si() n C\f:',(tr:t tiu ns: rn c•y l~ dlh •WP.rl tt• t.' (Jr'ltinUFI to 

ope r ~1lL.' . In thc ~c int.1nrl(.;(; :>, th~rc r:: no i<·r porcly t r.> tho 

vi>illlliJ >•uhlic:. 

4 . As r1.::~~ .. to fH r~:~·~' 11 rmd C(• fn nH~~r t~JI i1 'lho! l"i in ~s i:;; 

<.'rn·llttC ~l. h o \.Vf'V f" f. :1:...' Jc~ .: l-t •' •l •~., r u::-, J;~ . (•u t:Jif-F4 nf ill~ ir .J rolci •nn. 

Ul\ p,:.,d·. l;, ru1s r~~ tC.• 11L" !'•Cir/lliTI<:CI. 

C ... IH.~~ ~··l' ll'i::~ 1'1111 :·.\ t. ,_. ll ~J 1d t •. :f th Foq: d •.: t i(•l"lf. l' ~ll·lC 11(.t:y . ,\J~.~ . 

I \'oli l f\1. \1.· ·' <J (,: : tHI. o:.<.•tllll vf ~-! . ..,l dr.J, mr·•<: ;-~.. ~> . Gy C(l H tl'l i1J\' . 

P l l...l\' I(.Jc: ~'.' Br r~t r l, ~t'lf kr vr.1 C'l r,r •• ~rl ;, r•(jf~ ' h\ ~:\ li:.; ting (•1 

li te· rttlfl1l'f-: j 1..•f o~ ·':'·t·;, l, ,/ •'~'•P it ')'I..'E.:r . t\l::: o inl.iu<f ~ vo u• ot~! 

,,,_:JnUf:tr c·1 c: ~l< '\' kM t.. nr.1w 1..""~1"'1 ~1o :f. Rf~ io v-: your Mf'si,tn<Jt iC•fl v f 

11(~~.( · l:' l't'II•I C•VFt~ !-: 1.::alf-'. ~·rH'I m~y n \' fq\' nr·I:'Jil pt,;r.:·: l'l tfi(lO ; hnrJitl 
80 

I he situati(' ll r~. clr<1r•oin~1 rdpici!v. Vv o '.';ill r1otrf y you~~· 

L' i r c u r n f; t 8 n c c s d 1 c t B 1 1 • . 
81 

United St<ites lkpanmcllt of tltt> Jntcrior 

i\",\ J J< l~1\ 1. 1' ~\h'.l\ _.._,. I< VIC. l 

hiJ.:. ·· ·· ~ .• \ll,•ll·""··•lo. ,, (ol ,oiU II \\' d 1l . o1 ,1.f ... II'' ~~1\ < I 

)' /' g.,, ~"1 

F62 (81U-C) 1'•1:: J\o Hd '\,: '' '" ·'ll',n l I•·• " ·, ·1' " :.; .u1 . 'f 

November 14, 1995 

Mr . Ron Sander• 

Relid.ent Hane9ec Chiao• Mountain• Lo~9e 

819 Bend National Park, Texaa 79834 

On Novambar 3, we notified you that the Gove t·M'Ient waa operatin9 undct· a 

continuinq reeol uliOrl, which ~.t~ould ttxpire on Novemb&r 13, 1CJ9 S. Wo alao informed you lhal if agreement wae not reac hed, Big Bend National ParK would ba cloaed until • budget or a continuing roaolution paalled ot· thli debt ceiling 

wae lifted t.o prov ide funding for our operation . 

Unfortunately, that aituetion ha• oce urred, •nd Big Bend ~at!onal Park ie now 

cloe•d to the public aa of ll a . m. , Novan\bar 14, l99S. The two mai n entrance• to the park (US 38~ and TX 118 ) at·• cloliHitd an(j Mt&ffed by coarniaaionect 

pereonnel, who will keep the vieiting public fr om lillt~rin9 tho par)l; but will 

allow local an4 eaeential buelnlill traffic to enter . 

We hope that thiu budget imp•••• will tJe reeolved aho t·tly, and 10 we do n ot 

plan to invnediately dier~o~pt overnight vieitore. 0\Jr cloture plan call• for 

the Rio Crandv Village RV Campqround and Nationa l Park Ser v ice c&m?9rounda to 

remain open throu9h toni9hl. The Chi•o• Ho unt.ainB Lod.ge overnight Yilitore 

muat vacate the park by the morning of Noven\ber 16 ; the reet•urant and Panther 

Junction eervice etation will cloee down at t.he e nd o! bueineae on November 

16 . ~1 1 other National Park Conceeaicne, Inc . , facjliliee will cloea down at tha end o f buaineee on November l6. 

All parK backcountry roode 1 Lra~le, a nd the rlv•r are cl o eod to public a nd 

reeidenle ' UIJe. The nHlin park roa<.h will be open to r~eidential ut~. f'reigh t and. other del.lveriea. t.o your bu eineee wll l coolJ.nu~ . Y0u1· o t!l c e "peralione 

may cont ioue •• achedule<t , 

We recogni~e the many problemt that t h1t titu&tion ia poein9 for you, the 

conwnercial outfittere, and pad~ vieitore. We r•9rel that the budget in1p111e ln Waahinglon hae bro uc;,ht ue to thla cloae down . If you have any qucatione, 

throuqh thl• proceae , pl•••• contact the Jncldent Cortvnander Jtoger Moder at 

(915) 477-22~1. 

Sincerely, 

. . ~• ;(( /; · '·WJoee . Cieneroe 

Supet·i ntend111mt 

ec : Hr. Carner 8 . Haneon, Preeident and Ceneral Manager, National P•rk Conceeeiona, lnc. 
82 

llnited States lkpanmcnt of the lnterior 

!'\AIIll,'<Al 1'1\RI\ ~1·1~\'1(:1:. 

B•g lh nd N;,tic•••;,l)',ll ~ 

H>l!ti·J\"II.Htl'l'' 

)'_(I. )lnx J~'q 

P'62 (81BE-Ci 

November 3, 1995 

Hr. Carner B. Hanaon Preeident and General Man&Qer 

National Park Conceaeiona, Inc. Mammoth cave National Park, Xlntucky 

Oear Mr. Haneona 

42259-0027 

AI you probably know, the Government 1• operating under a cont1nuin9 

re1olution, which expire• on November 13, 1995. Once a9ain, we are waiting to aee if an &liJraaJnent will be reache<i to prevent a Government ehut-down. 1! 

19reement ia not reaehed, Bi9 Bend National Park will be eloeed until a budget or a continuin9 reeolution paaee1 or the debt ceilin~ lifta to provide funding 

for out· operation. 

If an agreement ie not t:eached, lar9• i'igne will be poated at Marat.hon, Study 

Butte, and 1\lpine, which re•d "Bi9 Send National 1-'u·k. may be cloeed. beginninCiJ 

Noven~er 14. Call 915-•77-2251 for in!or,r.ation.•· 'fhe worda "may be" will be 

cove rod if lhe cloeure occura. 

The two main entrancea to t.he pu·k (US 38~ and TX 118) will IJe cloaed and 

ataffvd by convnieaioned peraonnel, who will keep the vieitin9 public from enterin<jl the park and allow local and eaeential buein••• traffic t~ enter. 

Ran9era will provide t·eeponaea to eruergeney medical event.a, wildland firea, 

and at1·uctural fire&. 'I'h•}' will alao reapond to othe1· life and aafety 

eit~,~ationa that rnay affect park reeidenta and will protect 90VGt"M'enl and 

pereonal properly and natut·al and cultural reaource1 located within thQ park. 

We do not plan to invnediately dJe1·upt oven1ight. viaitor~:~. Ovarni9ht. 

acconvnoda.tione, the Chiaoa Mounlaina Lod9e, Rio Grand~ Village kV C&n1p9round, 

and National Pa1·k Service catnp!iJt·ou.ndii, will remain open inilially. If the 

cloaure extenda beyond one or tw;:; daye, how!llver, f'At"k vieito1·a will have tCJ leave. 

We hot~e t.hat aQreement about the Plit!)iu.·tment. of lntprl.or'f' Ou(1::;:-.t wi,_l h~ 

reaehl!d and that all or the •hut-down pla.nnin9 will be unneceeeary. In the 

IT•tantime, we will reroain in cloe~ contact with Reaident Mana9er Sandoz.·a to keep him informed about the on-CJOin9 bud9et proceee. 

Sincerely, 

Joee 1\. Cianoto• 

Super i nt en !lent 

CCI Mr. Ron Sandon1, Jteeidenl ManaQe1·, Chiao• Mountain• Lod9• 
83 

Unit~'d States Department of tht> Interior 

C)~t 

November l ?, )91)S 

Mr . Garn~r H~ns on 

NI\TJ< 11'\'1\1 . ]'Ill\" \]·. l<VJ( I 

M11l•r"•)ll\ l. J•·t Nato Nl ~ b.rl-. 

.'d .o~ o lnNlo (. . );("("'"·' " i:•,•; 

President and Gener~l M~nrtg~r 

Nationa l P~rk Concessionm, lnu . M~mwo th CAV~, Kentucky 422~9 

l>Nir Garner: 

· .· / .r~ 

We ure now in t.hc Udl d dd]' o1 <J part i cd (.:losuL· to c; ! the {~dct·n1 

yoV -.:!rnJnent, awaiting an 2\pprovcd bud"<~\. for· th~ opcon:stion of lh~ 

National Par~ servi c e. Accordingly, now that p~rk f~~llities arc closed and secured, and staU reduced to a minintum, W£> haV£> been 

instrueted to begin intplementinq components of l'h.,.se 11 of the 

Se rv ice Closedown Pl~n. 

All <:O!i(:es:;;ion ope rated visitor SE'l'V:'c~s and fa c:iliticf; at·c to be 

closed. Visitors in all ovE!I"night a ccommod11tions ar£> t.o bCl ask<><l to J e. a ve by thE> cloBeclo"m l:i m<• of .: oo p.m. CS'J' on Ft id~y. 

NovembC"r 17, )SI S15. Nali<,n3l Pc:u·k Conces.siol'!::-, lnc. will be· 

permitted to mointain a mintmum stMfl nccaRa~ry lo provide lor security and c=al·a 0f i t's fncilitj~s. Th is not!ce of c losttr e w~~ 

transmitted ve.rb~l ly t o Wat!onal P~rk Can<:Ms st . Inc . Resident Man~ger , Gr0g navis ~t out· noo11 I ncident Command m~et ing on 

ThurRdn y, Novc r 16 , 199 5. 

~hen an <>pprov .. cl apprc•priations bill is si<JilC'd L;• the Pl·c,ddcnt, 

National P~"lr)\ CuncessjoJJ !::>, lnc . <."'s WE!ll as no.r mnl pnrk opcrrttion$ 

wjJJ be pQ'rmitt.t'd t o r-topen. Howeve r, nll serv ic~s ... /ithin the 

park must remRin cloaed unlil auc~ lim0. The c!luHt!on can 

c:hanqe ve ry rHt··idly ar1J tlle ~l >OVl• qtlidai,Ce ~y b~ JllOd jfied. 

Si nce rely, 

M0..\?()~tc JI<Ronilld R. switZ<·r ~ l';uperintcndent 
84 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. FRAMPTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND 

WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BEFORE THE 

COMMITIEE ON RESOURCES, CONCERNING H.R. 2677, A BILL TO REQUIRE THE 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCEPT FROM A STATE DONATIONS OF 

SERVICES OF STATE EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM, IN A PERIOD OF GOVERNMENT 

BUDGETARY SHUTDOWN, OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED FUNCTIONS IN ANY UNIT 

OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM OR THE NATIONAL PARK 

SYSTEM, AND H.R. 2706 TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO 

ACCEPT FROM A STATE DONATIONS OF SERVICES TO PERFORM HUNTING 

MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS IN A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE DURING A 

GOVERNMENT BUDGETARY SHUTDOWN. 

December 8, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's views on 

H.R. 2677 and H.R. 2706. H.R. 2677 requires the Secretary of the Interior to accept from states 

donations of services of qualified state employees during a government budgetary shutdown. Under 

the legislation, state employees would assume the duties otherwise performed by federal employees 

in any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System. H.R. 2677 also 

prohibits state employees from being treated as federal employees for purposes relating to pay or 

benefits and it limits state employees to performing authorized functions only at national parks or 

refuges within the state. H.R. 2706 authorizes the Secretary of Interior to accept services of state 

employees to manage hunting in National Wildlife Refuges. The Department of the Interior opposes 

H.R. 2677. We have concerns with H. R. 2706, but we are hopeful that, with the appropriate 

amendments, we can support H.R. 2706. 

It should first be noted that there would be no need for such legislation in this or any year if Congress 

would enact an Interior Appropriations Act acceptable to the President or a continuing resolution 
85 

until such time as an acceptable appropriations bill is enacted. We realize that the recent federal 

government shutdown caused some hardship around the country, but such events are infrequent and 

temporary. 

Our objections to H.R. 2677 are fundamental. We oppose this bill also because it would seriously 

compromise our management of resources for which the Department is responsible. In many cases, 

state parks and wildlife management areas have different missions than do National Parks and 

National Wildlife Refuges. Preservation and management of the National Park System and National 

Wildlife Refuges are national responsibi6ties. These areas have been designated by Congress and are 

held and operated by the Department on behalf of all Americans. Federal law directs the National 

Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to preserve and protect these national resources for 

future generations. Each park unit and each refuge has unique management needs. 

The Secretary has statutory responsibility for ensuring parks and refuges are operated in a safe 

manner consistent with all applicable federal laws and regulations. Since the bill provides no 

restrictions on the kinds of functions that state personnel would perform, there is a possibility that 

compatibility determinations on new public uses and other decisions requiring highly specialized 

training would be made during a shutdown by state employees who are not familiar with the 

requirements for such decisions. The Secretary, who is legally responsible for such decision-making, 

would have no means to exercise control or oversight over such actions of the State employees, 

which might involve the use or disposal of Federal wildlife refuge resources. Many refuges and parks 

have no long-term management plans that are readily available to provide guidance for management 

2 
86 

decisions. The public and the resources could be put at risk if management responsibilities are 

suddenly turned over to state employees who may be unfamiliar with federal standards or regulations, 

with specific infrastructure needs or weaknesses, or with the specific management c~lenges of a 

refuge or park. The implications from a resource management and liability standpoint are immense. 

Another of our main concerns is the cost of implementing H.R. 2677. In these times of increasing 

fiscal constraint it seems imprudent to spend State and Federal taxpayer dollars training State 

employees to manage National Parks and Wildlife Refuges in case of a government shutdown and 

verifying state employees' qualifications to perform necessary duties. It would be unwise to use 

scarce financial resources to train possibly thousands of state employees who would only use their 

training during such a rare event as a government shutdown. In fact, because the Department has 

no lawfully appropriated funds to operate parks and refuges during a shutdown, any obligation of 

funds for facility operations beyond emergency costs directly contradicts the Antideficiency Act. 

We are also concerned that H.R. 2677 does not address important liability issues. For instance, it 

appears that under this legislation, the federal government could be liable for tort claims if visitors 

in parks and refuges are injured during a federal government shutdown, even if the cause of injury 

were attributable to conduct of state employees. The same problems exist with regard to claims by 

concessionaires who feel their contracts are violated. 

Moreover, although the bill says state employees are not to be treated as federal employees for the 

purposes of pay or benefits, it does not specify who is liable if state employees are injured or killed 

while working in national parks and refuges or which entity is responsible for providing workmen's 
87 

compensation. Of course risks will be higher with State employees who are not familiar with a 

particular unit. The bill also runs counter to long-standing provisions in the Antideficiency Act to 

protect the interests of federal employees by generally restricting the acceptability ~f volunteer 

services to fulfill the primary duties offederal employees. 

In addition, H.R. 2677 is silent on numerous other management issues that could cause serious 

problems in the day-to-day operation of parks and refuges. The bill gives no indication how fees are 

to be collected or whether the revenue generated from fees is the responsibility of the federal 

government or the state government. Under existing law, these fees could not be made available to 

the states, but must be deposited in the Treasury. Nor does the bill provide any guidance for cases 

in which park units or refuges are in two or more states, such as Yellowstone National Park and 

Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. It does, however, specify that, "An employee 

of a State may perform functions under this section only within areas of a Unit that are located in the 

State." Under this provision, we can foresee many management and visitor safety problems in federal 

areas that span the boundaries of two or more states. 

It might be possible to continue operation of specific parks and refuges with legislation to authorize 

the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service to accept and expend funds from states 

to continue operating federal facilities with trained and experienced federal employees during a 

budgetary shutdown. There are a number of issues to take into account, but we are willing to work 

with Congress to explore this possibility. Such legislation would have to cover all operational costs 

associated with the park or refuge during the period of shutdown and address issues of liability. 

4 
88 

HR 2706 addresses only the State management of hunting programs on National Wildlife Refuges 

during a shutdown. By conditioning the acceptance of State assistance upon an agreement between 

the Secretary and the State in question, and by specifying reasonable terms for the agr~ements and 

qualifications for State employees, the bill ensures that those replacing the refuge staff would both 

be needed and, in fact, qualified. By limiting the scope of the replacements' activities to a particular 

type of program, rather than overall management of the unit, the bill ensures that the Secretary would 

maintain control over the overall management of the refuge. 

At the same time, however, we believe the bill should be amended to address concerns we have about 

liability and cost issues. We also believe that the Secretary should have the authority to enter into 

these agreements, but should not be mandated to do so. 

We recognize that in some areas of the country, refuges represent a significant ponion of the available 

public hunting areas, and we want to do all we can to maintain or expand those hunting opportunities. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service currently has a number of agreements with State agencies for 

cooperative management of hunting and other recreational programs on units of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, and those programs did proceed during the shutdown. 

Notwithstanding the recent shutdown, for both budgetary and policy reasons, the Service is likely to 

pursue an increasing number of cooperative agreements with States and other entities in the future, 

covering hunting programs on refuges. These agreements could -- but will not necessarily -- provide 

for continuation of the program during shutdowns, depending upon whether the cooperating State 
89 

or other entity is willing to assume the liability and costs arising from the program during a shutdown. 

Importantly, these agreements result in an orderly sharing of responsibility and training. 

It must be recognized, however, that the Service and the State wildlife agencies have differing legal 

mandates. As a result, achieving such agreements for cooperative management of refuge hunting 

programs may be difficult even during the course of normal business, and not all such agreements in 

the past have been successful. We cannot guarantee that such agreements could be negotiated and 

finalized for all refuges in the foreseeable future. 

To undertake the monumental task of securing such agreements, including provisions for training 

State employees and addressing liability, for the sole or primary purpose of operating hunting 

programs during those extremely rare periods of Federal shutdowns may simply not be practical. The 

necessary resources to do this could only be made available by taking them away from other State 

and Service programs. We question whether this is a wise or even reasonable use of those limited 

resources. Certainly, it would be far more practical for the states to provide the Service with funding 

as we have proposed regarding H.R. 2677. 

This concludes my written remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to answer any questions you 

may have. 

6 
90 

National Parks 

and Conservation Association 

STATEMENT OF 

WU..LIAM J. CHANDLER 

VICE PRESIDENT, CONSERVATION POLICY 

NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

TO THE 

SUBCOMMITIEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, AND LANDS 

ON 

H.R. 2677, THE NATIONAL PARKS AND 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEMS FREEDOM ACT OF I99S 

Submitted December 8, 1995 

On behalf of the more than 450,000 members of the National Parks and Conservation 

Association, I am pleased to submit NPCA 's comments on H.R. 2677, the National Parks 

and National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act of 1995. Despite the bill's good 

intentions, NPCA opposes this legislation as the wrong way to keep the National Parks open 

during periods of government shutdown. 

NPCA believes that this bill is a response to the negative publicity and the adverse economic 

impacts to the local park communities that resulted from the recent shutdown -- a shutdown 

that could have been avoided if Congress had passed an Interior Appropriations bill that the 

President would sign. As it currently stands, Congress has been unable to send !ll!.l' bill to 

the President. In fact, the House of Representatives has twice voted to recommit H.R. 1977, 

the Interior Appropriations bill for FY 1996, to the conference committee because of an 

excessive number of anti-environmental riders. 

While H.R. 2677 is the product of good intentions, Congress could eliminate its need by 

stripping the Interior Appropriations bill of unnecessary riders so that the President would 

sign the bill. This would avert another national parks· shutdown and provide fiscal stability 

for the National Park Service. Rather than spending its time, attention, and resources on 

H.R. 2677, we urge the members of the Resources Committee to help Chairman Regula 

remove the extraneous riders from the bill. 

1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-1904 

Telephone (202) 223-NPCA(6722) • Fax (202) 659-0650 
91 

Exemplified by Governor Symington's generous offer to keep Grand Canyon National Park 

open by using state employees, this proposed legislation is likely to create more problems than 

it seeks to resolve. The most serious question is: Will these "qualified State employees" (Sec 

2(a)) be properly trained to uphold the management standards of the National Park System? 

We believe it is unlikely that state employees would possess adequate knowledge with respect 

to the myriad of relevant federal statutes, National Park Service regulations, management 

policies and plans to effectively undertake this responsibility. 

Such volunteered employees would likely require substantial training, which would cost money 

and take time, in order to develop an adequate base of knowledge to run a park unit. Without 

passing judgement on the quality of state park systems or their employees, it is fair to say that 

they have their own budgetary and personnel shortages that could seriously undermine their 

ability to properly manage a unit of the National Park System. In addition, undertaking the 

challenge of operating national park units could cripple their own operations. Not only does 

this problem exist in many states, it certainly exists in the District of Columbia which clearly 

lacks the financial resources to appropriately operate the National Mall and monuments. 

The use of stare emplo}eeS ro operate the parks also raises serious legal, saf~ty, and logistical 

questions that would need to be addressed before the proposed temporary transfer of 

management could take place. Would state employees be acting on behalf of the federal 

government, or their respective state? Would the federal government be a liable party in a 

lawsuit which resulted from the negligence of a state employee? Where would the state 

workers be housed' 

H.R. 2677 seeks only a partial reopening of the parks because it onl y applies to those units in 

which an offer of assistance is made. In this respect, it undermines one of the fundamental 

premises of why we have a National Park System. There is no doubt that the Grand Canyon 

is spectacular, but all 369 park areas make unique and important contributions to the 

preservation of our natural and cultural heritage . Congress should either support normal 

operation of all 369 units of the system, or it should not allow any operation in the 369 units 

during shutdowns. 

The good intentions of this bill could be met in a differen t, but more logical and efficient 

way·· designation of National Park Service employees as "essential." In making this 

suggestion, the line could be drawn at "those employees necessary to ensure normal operations 

at the 369 units of the National Park Service." It is our understanding that such a 

determination could be made administratively; therefore, Congress could pass a "sense of the 

Congress resolution" or report language in an appropriate bill urging that course of action. 

The November shutdown of the government, and consequently the National Park System, has 

reminded all of us of the important place parks hold in the hearts of Americans, and the 

important roll they play in the local communities near the parks. This recent experience 

should prompt Congress to focus on passing the fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations bill, 

rather then expending time and money on flawed backup strategies such as H.R. 2677. 

Thank you fo r your consideration of the views of the National Parks and Conservation 

Association on H.R. 2677, the National Parks and National Wildlife Systems Freedom Act of 

1995. 
92 

95-906 GOY 

CRS Re ort for Con ess 

Shutdown of the Federal Government: 

Effects on the Federal Workforce 

James P. McGrath 

Analyst in American National Government 

Government Division 

Updated November 20, 1995 ~ 

~ CRS 

11111111 
93 

SHUTDOWN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: 

EFFECTS ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

SUMMARY 

The partial shutdown of the Federal Government, which began at 12:01 

a.m., on Tuesday, November 14, and immediately furloughed an estimated 

800,000 Federal employees, was due to the expiration of a continuing funding 

resolution (P .L. 104-31) agreed to by President Clinton and the congressional 

leadership on September 30, 1995. The shutdown was precipitated by President 

Clinton's veto on November 13 of two bills sent to his desk, a second continuing 

resolution (H.J.Res. 115), which would have continued to fund the Government 

until December 5, and a debt limit extension bill (H.R. 2586), which would have 

raised the Treasury's borrowing limit through December 12. 

On November 19, the White House and Republican congressional leaders 

announced jointly that agreement had been reached to end the partial shutdown 

of the Federal Government. Furloughed Federal employees returned to work on 

Monday morning, November 20, 1995. 

An impasse between the Administration and the Republican-controlled 

104th Congress over passage of either permanent appropriations bills or a 

further continuing resolution set in motion a partial shutdown of the Federal 

Government. An appropriations impasse of this sort automatically leads to lack 

of budget authority to fund the Federal agencies, and taken together with lack 

of agreement on a continuing budget resolution to act as a stop-gap funding 

measure, most of the Federal Government is forced to shut down. 

The most immediate and critical outcome of such an event is the 

furloughing of Federal employees. The only exemptions from turloughs under 

a Federal shutdown situation are Presidential appointees, uniformed military 

personnel, and Federal civilian employees rated "essential." Employees 

considered "essential" are those performing duties which are vital to national 

defense, public health and safety, or other crucial operations, and who are 

required therefore to be at work regardless of any shutdown action. The. 

Administration reviewed presidential authority in a Federal shutdown and was 

guided in that undertaking by an August 16 memorandum prepared by Assistant 

Attorney General Walter Dellinger. 
94 

CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ...... ............. . ..... . .... . .. . .. . . . .. .. . 

SHUTDOWN CAUSE AND PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Appropriations Lapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Debt Ceiling Impasse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Shutdown Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND PERSONNEL . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

FEDERAL FURLOUGHS . . .................. . . . . . .. . . . ..... . . 8 

RECENT SHUTDOWN EXPERIENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

COSTS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDO'JVNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 
95 

SHUTDOWN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: 

EFFECTS ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE 

INTRODUCTION 

The continuing resolution (P.L. 104-31), which was enacted on September 

30, 1995, and which funded the Government through November 13, expired. 

The partial shutdown of the Federal Government that followed was precipitated 

by President Clinton's veto of two measures, a second continuing resolution 

(H.J.Res. 115) 1 and a debt limit extension bill (H.R. 2586)." The impasse arose 

because of extensive disagreements with the congressional Republican majority 

over provisions in the bills. On Monday, November 13, the President instructed 

agencies to begin closedown operations, and on Tuesday morning at 12:01 a.m., 

an estimated 800,000 "nonessential" Federal employees went on furlough. 

On November 19, the White House and Republican congressional leaders 

announced jointly that agreement had been reached to end the partial shutdown 

of the Federal Government, that furloughed Federal employees would return to 

work on Monday, November 20, and that furloughed Federal employees would 

be paid retroactively. Agreement was reached when the House and Senate 

passed a one-day funding resolution (H.J.Res. 123) to be followed by expected 

approval of continuing resolution H.J.Res. 122 (introduced November 15) that 

would extend funding through December 15. Agreement ending the impasse 

occurred when both sides agreed to a seven-year timetable to balance the 

Federal budget, or by 2002. 

authorized by Jaw, during a lapse in appropriatjons. It should be noted that t e 

term "shutdown of the Federal Government" is a significant misnomer since as 

the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, has pointed out " ... a 

majority of current expenditures occur under multi-year, permanent or 

indefinite appropriations that do not lapse on the expiration of the current fiscal 

year."3 

1 Second Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 1996--Veto Message From the 

President of the United States (H. Doc. No. 104-134). Congressional Record, v. 141, No. 

180, Nov. 14, 1995. p. H12238. 

2 Temporary Increase in the Statutory Debt Limit--Veto Message from the President 

of the United States (H Doc. No. 104-132). Congressional Record, v. 141, No. 179, Nov. 

13, 1995. p. H12150. 

3 U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Legal CounseL Testimony of Walter 

Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Before a Joint Hearing 

of the Senate Budget Committee and the House Budget Committee, Sept. 19, 1995, p. 4, 

(unpublished). 
96 

CRS-2 

This report examines the cause of Federal shutdowns, their implementation, 

and their effects. It describes the basic authority for closing down the Federal 

government, presents some background on "lapses in appropriations" history, 

and discusses past and present Justice Department legal opinions critical to 

enforcing Federal shutdowns. Definitions of "essential" versus "non-essential" 

Federal services and personnel during a shutdown, crucial in determining who 

reports for work and who does not are included. The impact on Federal 

compensation and the rules governing shutdown furloughs are explained. 

Finally, the report concludes with a discussion of recent Federal shutdown 

experiences, the likely number of Federal employees affected, and some cost 

estimates of past Federal shutdowns. 

SHUTDOWN CAUSE AND PROCESS 

The shutdown of the Federal Government occurred because there was: 

• Failure to pass regular appropriations bills by the October 1, 1995 

deadline; 

• Lack of an agreement on stop-gap funding for Federal Government 

operations through a continuing appropriation act/resolution; and 

• No agreement to lift the Federal debt ceiling. 

Appropriations Lapse 

The basic authority for closing down the Government because of a lapse in 

appropriations stems from an April 25, 1980 opinion of Attorney General 

Benjamin R. Civiletti prepared for President Jimmy Carter which states: 

It is my opinion that, during periods of "lapsed appropriations," no 

funds may be expended except as necessary to bring about the orderly 

termination of an agency's functions, and that the obligation or 

expenditure of funds for arl'y purpose not otherwise authorized by law 

would be a violation of the Antideficiency Act (31 USC 665). 4 

Administration implementation of the Federal shutdown essentially follows the 

same rules applied in the wake of the Civiletti ruling, except that the definition 

of what constitutes an "emergency" in a shutdown situation has been more 

narrowly drawn. 

On August 16, 1995, at the request ofOMB Director Alice Rivlin, Assistapt 

Attorney General Walter Dellinger, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of 

Justice, issued an opinion regarding the "permissible scope of Government 

4 U.S. Congress. House. Subcommittee on Civil Service. Committee on Post Office 

and Civil Service. Cost of Shutting Down Federal Government on November 23, 1981. 

[Committee Print No. 97-6] 97th Cong. 2d Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 

March 25, 1982, p. 23. (Hereafter cited as Cost of Shutting Down.) 
97 

CRS-3 

operatjons during a lapse in appropriations.''5 The Dellinger opinion updates 

thtl 1981 Cjyjlettj gpinion. It again enumerates the basic prohibitions set forth 

in the Antideficiency Act (31 USC 665) against Government spending during 

lapsed appropriations, entering into contracts or other obligations, and providing 

Government services and employees beyond those essential "to emergency 

situations, where the failure to perform those functions would result in an 

imminent threat to the safety of human life or the protection of property."' 

The Dellinger opinion points out that, since the 1981 Civiletti ruling, the 

Antideficiency Act has been amended in one key area. In 1990, language was 

added which modified the "emergency" definition for employing Federal 

personnel in a shutdown action.

7 The 1990 amendment states in relevant part: 

"as used in this section, the term 'emergencies involving the safety of human life 

or the protection of property' does not include ongoing, regular functions of 

Government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety 

of human life or the protection of property."8 

The 1990 amendment to the Act was intended to preclude an overly broad 

definition and interpretation of the term "emergency" to ensure that threats to 

the "safety of human life or the protection of property" are compelling and 

immediate and not slight, distant, or perfunctory. The example cited in the 

Dellinger memorandum to illustrate the point is: "The brief delay of routine 

maintenance on Government vehicles ought not to constitute an 'emergency,' 

for example, and yet it is quite possible to conclude that the failure to maintain 

vehicles properly may 'compromise, to some degree' the safety of the human life 

of the occupants or the protection of the vehicles, which are Government 

property.''9 

Lapses in appropriations to fund the Government are not uncommon. From 

FY1962 to FY1981, the two decades immediately preceding the Civiletti decision, 

the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that interruptions in agency 

fundin took lace thirt -two times. Such Ia ses a eared to be the rule rather 

than the exception, according to GAO, which noted t at from 1961 to 0, "85 

percent of appropriations bills for Federal agencies have passed after the start 

of the fiscal year.'' Prior to the landmark 1980 opinion, Federal agency 

managers, while cognizant of the anomaly of continuing to operate during a 

lapse in appropriations, and while concerned about the legal implications 

thereof, did precisely that. They did so under the belief that "Congress does not 

5 U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Legal Counsel. Memorandum for Alice 

Rivlin, Director, Office of Management and Budget. Government Operations in the Event 

of a Lapse in Appropriations. Washington, Aug. 16, 1995, 9p. (Hereafter cited as 

Government Operations/Lapse in Appropriations.) 

6 Ibid., p. 3. 

7 Ibid., p. 2. 

• See, 31 USC 1342. 

9 Government Operations/Lapse in Appropriations, p. 9. 
. 98 

CRS-4 

actually intend that the Federal Government shut down while the agencies wait 

for the enactment of appropriations or the passage of a continuing 

resolution."10 GAO found that Congress had "implicitly lent credence to this 

view" by retroactively passing contingency resolutions to fund the Government 

to the beginning of the fiscal year, and did not apply the enforcement feature 

of the Antideficiency Act against agencies operating during a lapse in 

appropriations. 11 The discretionary attitude of agency managers came to an 

abrupt end with the issuance of the Attorney General opinion of April 1980, 

which stated in relevant part, " ... the Department of Justice will take actions 

to enforce the criminal provisions of the Act in appropriate cases in the future 

when violations of the Antideficiency Act are alleged." 12 In the wake of the 

Civiletti ruling, there have been several brief Federal Government shutdowns, 

most of them occurring over weekend time periods. 

Once an appropriations bill for those agencies is enacted and signed by the 

President, those agencies are funded and authorized to incur obligations and 

make pal'Wents. As such, each agency is immune from any imminent shutdown 

ac~and, should this action take place after a Federal shutdown has begun, 

furloughed employees are immediately authorized to return to work. 

The Dellinger memorandum points out that significant Government 

spending is not only authorized but mandatory during a shutdown period. 

Not all government functions are funded with annual 

appropriations. Some operate under multi-year appropriations and 

others operate under indefinite appropriations provisions that do not 

require passage of annual appropriations legislation. Social Security is 

a prominent example of a program that operates under an indefinite 

appropriation. In such cases, benefit checks continue to be honored by 

the treasury, because there is no lapse in the relevant 

appropriations. 13 

The prelude to the funding impasse was the threatened veto by President 

Clinton of at least six of the appropriations bills pending in Congress. A larger 

issue is disagreement between the Republican-passed budget proposal to balance 

the Federal budget in seven years and the Administration's ten-year counterproposal, with each side presenting dramatically different blueprints, in terms 

of spending, Federal cut-back proposals, and long-term funding priorities. When 

10 U.S. General Accounting Office. Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government 

Operations. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., March 3, 1981, p. 1. (Hereafter cited as 

Funding Gaps. ) 

II Ibid., p. 2. 

12 U.S. Department of Justice. Office of the Attorney General. Letter Legal Opinion 

of Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti to the President. Washington, April 25, 1980, 

p. 6. 

13 Government Operations/Lapse in Appropriations, pp. 3-4. 
99 

CRS-5 

the continuing resolution was vetoed, President Clinton told Congress that he 

would sign a clean bill that dealt only with interim funding of the Government. 

Insofar as Congress and the legislative branch are concerned, most 

presidents have routinely signed the legislative branch appropriations act, and 

they have not had to face shutdown action because of a lapse in appropriations. 

This year, however, President Clinton vetoed it, 

14 thereby relegating Congress 

and the legislative branch agencies to a shutdown status similar to the executive 

branch. 

It should be noted that the Constitution (Article II, Section 1) forbids the 

salary of the President or of Article III judges (Article ill, Section 1) to be 

reduced while the are in office a roVIsJon that effective! arantees their 

compensation regardless of any shutdown action. However, t e un mg to cover 

the payment of the salaries16 has not been enacted and payment may be 

delayed. There is a permanent appropriation for salaries of Members of 

Co!ll:!:.ess (see 2 USC 31, note) but not for legislative staff. In general, House 

and Senate staff, although affected by a shutdown, have in the past reported to 

work. 

Bills were introduced in Congress that would greatly mitigate the effects of 

a Federal shutdown. Representatives George W. Gekas (D-Pa.), James P. Moran 

<D-Va.), and Albert Russell Wynn (D-Md.) introduced bills that would have 

permitted the Federal Government to avoid shutdown during a funding lapse by 

authorizing a permanent continuing funding resolution to take effect during 

such periods. The effect of any such authorization would be to ensure 

uninterrupted Government operations funded at the level of the preceding fiscal 

year and uninterrupted Federal employee pay. 16 Similar recommendations 

have been endorsed by the General Accounting Office over the years. 17 

14 H.R. 1854 was vetoed October 3, 1995. See: Legislative Branch Appropriations 

Act, 1996--Veto Message from the President of the United States. (H. Doc. No. 104-122) 

Congressional Record, v. 141, October 6, 1995. p. H 9741-9742. H.R. 2492, a Legislative 

Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal 1996 identical to H.R. 1854, was approved by the 

President November 19, 1995. 

16 The President's salary is funded under the Treasury, Postal Service, and General 

Government Appropriations Act, H.R. 2020. H.R. 2020 was signed by the President on 

November 19, 1995. The regular appropriations for the judiciary are in the Commerce, 

Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations Act of Fiscal 1996, H.R. 2076. There was 

no conference action as of November 20, 1995. 

16 See H.R. 2006, H.R. 2007 (Gekas); H.R. 2069 and H.R. 2184 (Moran); and H.R. 

2273 (Wynn). 

17 U.S. General Accounting Office. Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government 

Operations. [PAD-81-31) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Mar. 3, 1981, pp. 37-47. 
100 

CRS-6 

Debt Ceiling Impasse 

It was feared that Federal agencies and employees would also experience 

the negative fiscal effects of the failure by Congress and the White House to 

agree on lifting the current Federal debt ceiling. As was noted earlier, President 

Clinton, on November 13, 1995, vetoed debt ceiling legislation. The President 

had said that unless "a clean debt ceiling bill" had been offered by the Congress, 

he would be forced to take veto action. 

Secretary of the Treasury Robert E. Rubin announced on November 15 that 

he was taking action to "save the U.S. government from the first default in 

history." 18 Secretary Rubin has authorized withdrawal of the entire $21.5 

billion held in the Federal employees' thrift savings plan known as the..l!:f!!.!ld. 

He is also withdrawing $39.8 billion of the $350 billion reportedly held in the 

Civil Service Retirement Fund. 19 

Shutdown Process 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for issuing 

instructions to agencies on implementing a Federal shutdown, including the 

furloughing of "non-essential" Federal employees. Throughout the shutdown 

period, agencies are apprised of the latest developments in resolving the 

budgetary impasse. 

On July 26, 1995, OMB Director Alice Rivlin directed agencies to defer 

action on furloughs or other cutback actions pending completion of a 

government-wide plan.Z° Concurrently, White House Chief of Staff Leon E. 

Panetta requested that agencies submit contingency plans for shutting down the 

Government for possibly as long as two months."' On August 22, 1995, Ms. 

Rivlin issued a new directive to Federal agencies, which effectively rescinded her 

earlier memorandum, and instructed them to review their contingency shutdown 

plans, conform them to the Dellinger ruling, and submit them to OMB no later 

than September 5, 1995.22 On September 19, 1995, Ms. Rivlin testified before 

a joint hearing of the Senate Budget Committee and the House Budget 

18 Clay Chandler, Rubin acts to prevent default. The Washington Post, November 

16, 1995. p. A1, A30. 

19 For a discussion of the debt limit issue, see The Debt Limit, a CRS Issue Brief No. 

93054, by Philip D. Winters. Updated regularly. 

20 Information supplied by the Office of General Counsel, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

2 1 Devroy, Ann and Stephen Barr. "Panetta Asks Agencies for Contingency Plans on 

Federal Shutdown." Washington Post, July 29, 1995, p. A7. 

22 U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. Agency 

Plans for Operations during Funding Hiatus. Washington, Aug. 22, 1995. 
101 

CRS-7 

Committee that contingency plans had been received from virtually all agencies 

except the Department of Defense. 23 

ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND PERSONNEL 

A memorandum issued by OMB in 1980 defines "essential" Government 

services and "essential" employees as those 

• Providing for the national security, including the conduct of foreign 

relations essential to the national security or the safety of life and 

property; 

• Providing for benefit payments and the performance of contract obligations 

under no-year or multi-year or other funds remaining available for those 

purposes; 

• Conducting essential activities to the extent that they protect life and 

property, including: 

-- Medical care of inpatients and emergency outpatient care; 

-- Activities essential to ensure continued public health and safety, 

including safe use of food, drugs, and hazardous materials; 

The continuance of air traffic control and other transportation safety 

functions and the protection of transport property; 

Border and coastal protection and surveillance; 

Protection of Federal lands, buildings, waterways, equipment and other 

property owned by the United States; 

Care of prisoners and other persons in the custody of the United States; 

Law enforcement and criminal investigations; 

Emergency and disaster assistance; 

--Activities that ensure production of power and maintenance of the power 

distribution system; 

-- Activities essential to the preservation of the essential elements of the 

money and banking system of the United States, including borrowing 

and tax collection activities of the Treasury; and 

Activities necessary to maintain protection of research property. 24 

The Dellinger opinion basically reaffirms the definition of "essential" 

Government services and employees set forth in the 1980 OMB directive and 

serves as a guideline to Administration shutdown plans. Pursuant to it and 

White House directions to agencies through OMB, agencies are required to 

determine which jobs fit these definitions, enumerate them in their individual 

23 Testimony of Alice M. Rivlin, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Before 

a Joint Hearing of the Senate Budget Committee and the House Budget Committee, 

September 19, 1995, p. 3, unpublished. 

24 U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. 

Memorandum from the Director of OMB to the Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies: Agency Operations in the Absence of Appropriations. Washington, Sept. 30, 

1980, pp. 1-2. 
102 

CRS-8 

shutdown plans, and instruct their employees accordingly. Since the definition 

of"emergency" has been more narrowly drawn, pursuant to the 1990 amendment 

to the Antideficiency Act, the likelihood is that fewer Federal employees may be 

rated "essential." Those rated "essential," although guaranteed to be paid 

retroactively, will not receive compensation until the appropriations bill for their 

agency is enacted and signed. 

FEDERAL FURLOUGHS 

The immediate and critical effect of an impending government-wide 

shutdown is the need to place all non-essential Federal employees on furlough. 

Furloughs are the "placing of an employee in a temporary non-duty, non-pay 

status because of a lack of work or funds, or other nondisciplinary reasons.'

25 

There are two different kinds of furloughs: adverse action furloughs and 

reduction-in-force (R!F) furloughs. Furloughs occurring during a Federal 

shutdown period are essentially adverse action furloughs, although they are 

commonly referred to as "emergency" furloughs as well. They are administered 

under the same authority (5 CFR 752) as the adverse action furlough, except 

that the 30-day notice on furloughs does not apply in shutdown or "emergency" 

situations. Under adverse action/shutdown/emergency furloughs, Federal 

employees are placed in a temporary, non-duty, non-pay status for 22 working 

days, or 30 calendar days, or fewer.26 

While in furlough status, Federal employees may seek other jobs in the 

private sector (except those that would violate conflict-of-interest or Hatch Act 

statutes) and elsewhere in the Federal Government as well. They remain 

eligible for unemployment insurance, although the length of any furlough and 

differences in eligibility rules among States and localities may preclude any 

significant benefits. Federal employees may not volunteer to work for their 

agency in an unpaid status. 

Employees subject to adverse action furloughs (includes 

shutdown/emergency furloughs) have clearly defined legal rights, as follows: 

25 See 5 USC 7511. 

26 Reduction-in-Force (RIF) furloughs, on the other hand, are administered under the 

authority of 5 CFR 351. RIF furloughs last for more than 22 working days or 30 

calendar days, but not longer than a year. RIF furloughs require a 60-day notice (120 

days for Department of Defense employees), except that when a RIF is caused by 

unforseen circumstances, a notice period of less than 60 days, but not less than 30 days 

may be authorized. To mitigate their effect, RIF furloughs may be implemented on 

consecutive days or discontinuously for one or two days per week or month. Agencies can 

achieve budget savings from other agency accounts, such as travel, training, overtime, 

office equipment purchases, etc., and implement hiring or promotion freezes, or do both 

to reduce the need for RIF furloughing. 
103 

CRS-9 

• 30 days' advance written notice by agency (may be waived in 

shutdown/emergency furlough actions); 

• 7 calendar days for employee to answer orally and in writing to the 

proposed notice; 

• Right of representation by attorney; 

• A timely written decision by the agency; and 

• An appeal right to the Merit Systems Protection Board (See 5 CFR 1201, 

Subpart B.) 

Shutdown furloughs are not considered a break in service and are generally 

creditable, for retaining benefits, seniority, and for 

• Career tenure, the first 30 calendar days of each non-pay period is 

creditable service; 

• Completion of probation, an aggregate of 22 workdays in a non-pay status 

is creditable service; 

• Time-in-grade requirements, non-pay status is creditable service; 

• Retirement purposes, an aggregate non-pay status of 6 months in any 

calendar year is creditable service; 

• Health benefits, enrollment continues for no more than 365 days, 

continuously, in a non-pay status; 

• Life insurance, enrollment continues for 12 consecutive months in a nonpay status, without cost to the employees or to the agency; and 

• Annual and sick leave, an aggregate of 6 months non-pay status in a year 

is creditable service.

27 

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) benefits continue for 

a year in a non-pay status, and the Government continues to pay its share of 

the health premium costs. However, Federal employees are still liable for their 

share of their health plan premium. They may continue to pay their share 

while on furlough, or they may elect to have their premium costs accumulate 

and have them deducted in a lump-sum from their pay once they return to 

work.

28 

Federal unions play a key role in planned (though not shut-down) furlough 

situations, because agencies are required to negotiate about their terms and 

impact on employees. If the union and the agency fail to agree on furlough 

implementation, the union may take the issue to the Federal Service Impasses 

Panel, under the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 

As yet, no official figures exist for the number of Federal employees rated 

as "non-essential" and furloughed during the current shutdown. Although they 

27 U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Office of the Director. Memorandum to 

Directors of Personnel: Personnel Implications of Sequestration . Washington, Aug. 15, 

1990, p. 7. 

28 U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Interagency Advisory Group. 

Memorandum to Directors of Personnel. OPM's Updated Guidance on Furloughs. 

Washington, Aug. 1, 1995 (unpublished), p. 10. 
104 

CRS-10 

clearly number in the hundreds of thousands, they are still a distinct minority 

of the Federal workforce. In 1982, for instance, staff estimates prepared by the 

then House Post Office and Civil Service Committee showed 241,508 executive 

branch employees dismissed as "non-essential" in the Federal shutdown that 

took place on November 23, 1981, or 12 percent of total executive branch 

employment, which was 2,081,110 at that time.29 The term "shutdown of the 

Federal government" is a significant misnomer, since a majority of current 

government expenditures occur under multi-year, permanent or indefinite 

appropriations that do not lapse on the expiration of the current fiscal year, and 

a large majority of the Federal workforce may well report for duty. They 

include most DOD civilian employees (849,099) and all U.S. Postal Service 

employees (837,540), which together comprise 58 percent of the current 

Federal employment (2,929,913).

30 

RECENT SHUTDOWN EXPERIENCES 

There have been several shutdowns of the Federal Government over the 

past two decades, all related to funding lapses requiring furloughs in the Federal 

service, most of them quite brief. One, which took place on November 23, 1981, 

lasted one day; another, on October 17, 1986, lasted half a day. The most recent 

took place over the Columbus Day Holiday weekend in October 1990, and its 

effects were mitigated by the holiday. Federal facilities not otherwise closed 

over the weekend period, notably national parks and museums, were shut down, 

but agreement was reached between the President and Congress on the day after 

the holiday and a longer furlough was averted. 31 

Questions have arisen about whether Federal employees furloughed because 

of Government shutdowns would receive retroactive pay for furlough days once 

they are returned to on-duty status. There is no assurance of such 

reimbursement. However, in prior shutdowns Federal employees placed on 

furlough were paid retroactively when Congress passed and the President signed 

subsequent legislation authorizing such payment. 

29 Cost of Shutting Down Federal Government on November 23, 1981, p. 14. 

30 U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Office of Workforce Information. Federal 

Civilian Workforce Statistics. Employment and Trends as of March 1995., Washington, 

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., June, 1995. 76 p. 

31 U.S. General Accounting Office. Government Shutdowns: Data on Effects of 1990 

Columbus Day Weekend Funding Lapse. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Oct. 1990, 

36 p. (Hereafter cited as Government Shutdowns.) For a discussion of funding gaps since 

1981, see CRS Report 95-77: Continuing Resolutions and Funding Gaps: Fiscal years 

1981-1995, by Edward Davis and Robert Keith, Dec. 30, 1994. 
105 

CRS-11 

COSTS OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS 

The estimated costs of shutting down the Federal Government during a 

lapse in appropriations are sketchy at best. GAO has attempted to evaluate 

such government-wide costs, but incomplete and lack of response by various 

agencies hampered this undertaking. Certain limited costs have been identified 

over the years, however. GAO found costs of about $1 million resulting from 

having to issue split or late paychecks in October 1979 and approximately $1.1 

million from having to prepare agency shutdown plans in 1980.

32 

In 1991, GAO found that the estimated partial costs for the Federal 

Government shutdown over the Columbus Day Holiday week-end in 1990 was 

$1.7 million. GAO also prepared hypothetical cost estimates keyed to a threeday workweek shutdown and projected potential costs at approximately $400 

million. The difficulties of compiling such cost data were summarized by GAO 

as follows: 

The data provided by the agencies were prepared in a very short time 

frame (generally in less than 2 days). Thus, they can not be considered 

a complete story of the effects that delays in the enactment of funding 

legislation would have on agencies' operations and delivery of program 

services to th~ public. When actual data were not available, we asked 

the agencies to estimate. Thus, the data, particularly concerning costs 

and savings, should often be viewed as preliminary estimates by the 

agencies. 33 In addition, certain intangible costs such as lost 

productivity and adverse affects on Federal employee morale were 

widespread throughout the agencies, according to the GAO. 34 

32 Funding Gaps Jeopardize Federal Government Operations, p. I 1 I. 

33 "Government Shutdowns,'' pp. 2-3. 

34 Ibid., pp. 10-11, 18-20, 24. 
106 

NAVA-HOPI TOURS, INC. 

The Natural Resource Committee 

The House of Representatives 

House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Gentlemen: 

December 5, 1995 

FAX 202-226-7388 

The closure of the Grand Canyon National Park, as well as other Parks in Northern Arizona including Petrified 

Forest-Painted Desert National Park, Walnut Canyon National 

Monument, sunset Crater Volcano-Wupatki National Monuments, and 

Montezuma's Castle National Monument was a major economic 

impact to our company-- and for that matter, continues to be. 

In regards to the closure of the Grand Canyon 

National Park, we found the federal employees confused and 

unavailable for direction. On the first day of the closure, we began calling at 7:00 am to the East and South Gates to ascertain if we could still enter and what services were going to be ~rovided. It took until 2:30 pm that afternoon to even receive a fax reply from the Grand Canyon National Park. 

Obviously, by that time our coaches had already left. Our 

passengers were already told we didn't know what to expect upon our arrival, because the Government couldn't decide what to do. 

When the ultimate shutdown occurred, our transportation bus which has serviced Grand Canyon since 1928 

except for an interruption during World War II, discontinued 

entering the Park, but stopped at a lodge outside of the Park so that we could still provide transportation for visitors and 

employees at the Grand Canyon National Park. Our ridership 

dropped to near zero on the northbound and we were only 

carrying a few passengers, mainly employees, southbound. We 

felt it our responsibility to maintain this regularly scheduled 

service and did so throughout the shutdown. 

Pnst Office Box .1.VJ 

Flagsutl, Arizon;l Hb01l2 

(h02) 7/-l.-:1003, 1-HOO-HY2-HhH7 

FAX (W2)774-77l:'i 

s,·,· tlw (;TJnd C:uwnn 

D.1ilv Bus SnvicL· YL',H lhmnd 

fnurs of Scvnit Northnn Arizon;l 
107 

Page 2 

The sightseeing tour was permitted to continue by 

entering the Grand canyon via the East Rim Drive, which we always do on our tour. We were permitted to stop by Desert 

View and then the other viewpoints were barricaded; however, we did use wall stops for our passengers . We found that most of 

the remaining Park Service employees at the Canyon during the 

shutdown were amicable during a difficult situation; however, 

because some were not, we were concerned that after the 

re-opening our Conditional Use Permit at the Park may be in 

jeopardy. Obviously, our tour was not the caliber of our normal sightseeing tour; but at least we were able to provide an opportunity for many visitors to see at least a portion of 

the Grand Canyon. 

We totally discontinued our tours to the other 

National Parks and Monuments because these areas were totally 

closed and barricaded. 

The impact was great. Our drivers who usually drove tours to other parks were without work. We operated the tour and transportation to the Grand Canyon National Park, but with 

greatly reduced ridership -- the transportation service was down 90% and the tour at least 50%. Our costs for the 

equipment and driver remained the same -- our revenue was simply lost . 

The impact continues. Our ridership has not returned to normal yet and the travelling public is still 

concerned about the Grand Canyon National Park closing on the 

15th of December, thus many are not making plans to visit 

during the holiday season. Our December looks like the worst we have had in years. And to make matters worse -- the weather 

is the prettiest and warmest on record. The visitors were here 

until the Parks closed. 

And, no , our drivers did not get back pay as other 

government employees did for being off from work. As a small 

business, we cannot afford to pay employees for not working, as the Government is able to do! 

But, beyond the closures themselves, tied into this 

budget package is the park entry fees for 1996. We still 

don't know what the park entry fees will be next year and can't 

quote to our clients what fees should be expected in planning 

either indlvidual or group visits to Northern Arizona. Are the tees going to be individual, are they going to be based upon 

vehicle size (i.e. motorcoach); or is it going to be a combination of both? We have heard everything. This is as great an impact to our company as the closure. 
108 

Page 3 

I urge you to take defini tive steps to : 

1 . Never close our National Parks and Monuments 

again. 

2. That State Route 64 which follows the East Rim 

Drive always remains under the jurisdiction of the State of 

Arizona and that access to the Grand Canyon always be 

maintained through this route. 

Note : The Management Plan now being implemented by 

the Grand canyon National Park provides for the removal and 

relocating of this highway at a more southerly route; thereby 

eliminating the possibility of seeing the Grand Canyon during 

any Park closure by the Park Service . 

3 . That the fees for admission into the National 

Parks and Monuments be projected and determined in a more timely basis so visitors can anticipate their costs . These 

fees need to be based on individual, per person access regardless of mode of transportation. However, it would be my 

hope that those modes of transportation providing for mass transit (i.e. motorcoaches) which is assisting the parking 

problems created by private vehicles, which is also providing 

interpretive information on the Park, and which is protecting 

the resources through education and example, be provided an incentive to continue their service rather than be burdened 

with increased fees and bureaucratic red tape. 

Sincerely, 

Kerrren A. Vollmer 

Vice President/Co-Owner 
109 

southern highland craft guild 

December 5, 1995 

Don Young, Chairman 

House Resources Committee 

Congress of the United States 

1324 Longworth HOB 

Washington DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for allowing me to submit testimony relating to your upcoming 

Bill HR 2677. If you will allow me, I would like to discuss how this 

has affected our organization. 

On Thursday, November 16, 1995, Rick Wyatt, Concessions Specialist/ 

Blue Ridge Parkway, notified the Folk Art Center that our operations 

would close at 6:00pm on Friday, November 17, because according to the 

Deputy Director of the National Park Service ''no progress has been made 

or is Imminent that would provide us appropriations ". 

The Southern Highland Craft Guild, headquartered at the Folk Art Center 

on the Blue Ridge Parkway, is a sixty-five year old non-profit membership organization with over 700 members in a nine-state area. These 

are 700 plus family businesses who depend on their sales through the 

Guild, especially during the season from Thanksgiving through 

Christmas. The income lost (perhaps $18,000 during the two days ot torced closing) had a huge impact on our organization and Its members 

because It cannot be recouped. Visitation to the Folk Art Center Is 

350,000 annually. The center, built on the Blue Ridge Parkway In 1980 

through a cooperative agreement with the National Park Service, Is 

located only 1/2 mile oft Hwy. 70 and we also have another entrance 

which makes us accessible without getting on the Parkway. 

The Folk Art Center Is privately owned, not federally funded. Guild 

staff does not receive retroactive compensation atter a shutdown. We 

would Uke to encourage you and your colleagues to support legislation 

to prevent private concessionaires from needless closures In the 

future. 

Thank you tor sponsoring this hearing and tor allowing me to submit 

this testimony. 

Sincerely, 

'\ ~'\ V. ) ''f'\'·. ~'- \ .., 

Thomas B. Bailey 

Acting Director 

Administrative Offices: P.O. Box 9545 • Asheville. NC 28815 • (704) 298-7928 FAX: (704) 298-7962 

0 
ISBN 0-16-052400-8 

90000 

9 780160 524004