Appreciate the support of congress to resolve this extraordinary challenge. Thank you. Director jarvis, thanks very much. Because of the number of senators here, ill ask one question to get us started and recognize our colleagues. Director jarvis, for decades, the park service has recommended expanding the Oregon Caves National monument. And one of the primary reasons has been because the existing site is not large enough to protect the site, given the volume of visitors. So in the case of oregon caves, not expanding the site could actually increase the cost of maintaining a very unique resource. My point is that the park acquisition and maintenance costs are not always in conflict, and certainly the oregon caves raises that issue. Adding to the monument might actually hold down the cost of maintaining the site. So my question to you, dr. Jarvis, is isnt this part of the thinking that ought to go into this debate . In other words, were going to explore plenty of ideas. And you saw that with a big chunk of the senate. But wouldnt you say philosophically that we ought to try to find ways to intertwine this theory that Park Maintenance and acquisition together can be part of an effective and costeffective approach to stewardship . I would agree completely with that, chairman. Oregon caves is an example where the boundary edition that we have proposed would protect the watershed to the cave itself, as you know. And as i know, having been responsible for that great park, is that it is an active wet cave. Theres a stream that runs through the middle of it and the water from the stream comes to the surrounding lands, and we have always been concerned about the Water Quality that was resulting from the activities on those land. And so by protecting that, adding it to the park, we would actually reduce our concerns for maintaining that Water Quality that runs through the cave and then through the chateaus. Yes, buying lands can save money. Particularly in holdings in our National Park which is predominantly what were restricted to with the land, Water Conservation fund can reduce our administrative costs in terms of providing access and maintaining critical resources. Very good. Nor mccough. Thank you for being here and your leadership to parks. I think it is important to recognize we have seen some innovative things coming out of our parks. I understand what theyre doing , theyre getting the neighbors to clean up and helps us again in not only addressing the issues within our parks but again, bringing the local people in and giving them ownership, giving them pride in their parks, thats a good thing. Another thing weve got good in alaska right now is, as you know, we have some very huge parks that are very inaccessible, and if you have the luxury of owning a float plane or can pay to fly in to a place like lake clark, you have beautiful opportunities within these parks. But they are very remote and very hard to get to. Catmy, re doing out in theyre stationed right at the falls now, right as we speak, and ill do a promo to you, i hink you can go to catmypark. Com and watch dozens of bears munching on salmon and better than reality tv, im telling you. This is the real thing. Its good because it brings the parks to people when we know that far too many of our parks, as wonderful as they are, are very remote. So how we can do that i think is good. You heard the dialogue going back and forth between colleagues here and senator colbrunn, and my concern that the park service seems to be prioritizing acquisition of land over the maintenance and the maintenance backlog issues. Can you address really that issue, why were seeing the level of Land Acquisition that we are . And i think senator colbrunns statistics are really kite straightforward and i think very compelling why were putting the priority on Land Acquisition ahead of the maintenance and backlog. And at the same time you address that, the terminology that you use, i think, was Financial Sustainability test. Because one of the things that i need to understand is what evaluation the park service goes through as you look to specific Land Acquisition to make sure that we are not unnecessarily adding to this maintenance backlog, that there is a theres a process that you go through in the evaluation of what these acquisitions might mean, and i fully understand what the chairman has noted, that there are Land Acquisitions, specific inholdings that truly do make it efficient but i cant imagine the bulk that you do with these Land Acquisitions is these smaller inholdings. So if you can speak to the priority as opposed to maintenance backlog and then what analysis goes into a review prior to these Land Acquisitions. Ok. Let me clarify, the land, Water Conservation fund is available to the four federal Land Management agencies, and the National Park service, among hose four, is the only one restricted from buying land outside our park boundaries. We can do minor park adjustments on the edges but without your direct authority we cannot buy lands without your authority. Within lwcf. With lwcf. Within your budget you use funds to proceed with Land Acquisition. Only with lwcf. We basically get our funding in specific buckets and we use the land, Water Conservation fund for Land Acquisition and maintenance accounts for maintenance. Were not allowed to move money between those two. Thats basically up to you to have to grant us that kind of authority but we do not have that. In terms of acquisition because we dont get very much money in the land, Water Conservation fund, we have a robust process that predominantly is towards the key Critical Issues like threats to the resource, opportunities for visitor enhancement, hardship cases, we had one in montana recently where an individual was on their deathbed and they really wanted the park to acquire their property as well. So we go through a very rigorous process to determine what our priorities are. Right now, we are in the 150th of the civil war and weve had a priority on protecting some key components of our civil war battlefields, so theres been a strong portion of that as well. The park service also allocates the state side of the land, Water Conservation fund that goes to the states to protect habitat and provide visitor enjoyment as well. Also on the maintenance side, we have an incredibly Robust Program in determining our priorities and asset conditions. So you basically take every asset, every building, every road, every trail, every restroom. You go in and determine its existing condition and its asset priority. How important is this to the Visitor Experience, or is this president ial home is that based on the number of visitors . Is that how you set a priority . Absolutely. Thats part of it. It also might be Independence Hall is a very important building, so that would be its core to the purpose of the park as opposed to an old barn in Rocky Mountain National Park. My time has expired but you havent addressed this Financial Stability sustainability test that you referenced. How does that work . That means that once we elevate a building, lets say, from a Poor Condition to a good condition, then we require that the park put the annual maintenance into that building to keep it at that condition, and they have to demonstrate theyre going to make that priority make that investment to retain it because we do not want to fix a building up, raise its condition to a new level and then watch it decline. So what that means is they have to make very, very hard choices but some other buildings theyll have to defer the maintenance on. We do not want to lose the investment weve made in improving the condition of the facilities we have the money for. And yet as we noted from dr. Coburns chart, were clearly seeing that erode. Yes. Senator. Thanks for having this hearing. I got here a also bit late so im not sure im correct on the next statement. Im not sure i heard the word sequester. While were having this big discussion and think its an important discussion, i look at this as an Immediate Impact that my constituents are feeling and the economy is feeling because of the sequester. So while im glad to have this discussion, i look at it and say we have 13 National Parks, three of them crown jewels. We have visitors producing 261 million and thousands of jobs across our state. If the sequester continues, its Something Like 153 million impact across the country, and weve already had a Million Dollars of impact weve had to absorb from Mount Rainier since 2010 that are affecting visitor impacts. When i look at some of these gateway towns that are a part of this operation, everything from port angeles to eatonville to the north cascades, i keep thinking what is the Economic Impact this is going to be because we dont get a budget deal, i look at Something Like 227,000 jobs in Washington State that are related to the Outdoor Recreation industry. So for some of my colleagues, this conversation about the future and road maintenance and whatever is one economic question, and certainly one i have certainly a disagreement point on ill come to in a second. But my immediate question is, what is the Economic Impact of all of the sequestration having on the economy of a state where National Parks and Outdoor Recreation is a key part of our economy. I dont want to lose sight of that and i hope you would enlighten us on what sequestration is doing now and what will it do in the future to lessen really an Economic Impact that is being felt and will continue to be felt and what do you think we can do to help get our colleagues to understand this issue . The second point is, my colleague, senator alexander and i, have been sponsors of the creation of a new park. Its called the bee reactor park. Its celebrating the achievements of scientific excellence that our country achieved in preserving that is something between d. O. E. And the department and creating this. Do i think we should stop creating National Parks because somebody thinks the maintenance backlog . No, i want to commemorate what happened at hanford and various parts what weve done across the country. Im not going to my colleague from new mexico is here. I certainly am not going to have the attitude were not going to do any new park until the maintenance backlog is caught up. So, you know, i guess im just e that believes that our generations challenge is to be good stewards. And these arent our decisions forever and ever, these are our decisions to be good stewards for the next generation. So i would hope you would comment on one, the continuation of the b reactor park and the Economic Impact were seeing from sequestration on National Parks and what we can do to help our colleagues illuminate is really will impact jobs and small town economies across our country. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator cantwell. Lets start with sequestration, the 5 cut we took in march this fiscal year resulted in 130 million cut to the operations and responsibilities of the National Park service halfway through the fiscal year, and just as the Summer Season was beginning in most of our National Parks, so the net re of th on the ground, we had a hiring freeze, we withheld the hiring of 900 permanent positions and 1,000 seasonals. So there was a direct effect. Every park in the system had to take a 5 cut. I was not given the authority to take that off the top or take it out of lwcf or any other account. Every account took a 5 hit. As you know, every park in the system is aligned in the budget. There were direct effects, there were lateseason openings, there were reduced operation hours, fewer rangers, fewer rangers to fight fire, fewer rangers for search and rescue. I was in the tetons this week and talked directly to the rangers and visitation is up, rescues are up, numbers of seasonals and rangers are down. In maintenance specifically. So i gave you the number of 444 million currently available in ourdgetor maintena didnt mention that was actually reduced to 416 million by sequestration. So all of our operating accounts that would be applied to deferred maintenance actually were hit at the 5 level as well. So it was about a 27 million direct hit from sequestration. You know, my theory on new units are that, you know, history doesnt stop just because you have an economic challenge. The National Parks service has been challenged by and charged by this body for almost 100 years to take care of not only the extraordinary crown jewel such as the grand canyon and grand teton and yosemite, but historical sites that are representative of the full american experience. And that story is incomplete. And the breactor is the perfect example of that and tells an important story about this country and the leadership and the development of the atopic bomb and its role in ending world war ii. It is the same thing with rriet tubman or the story of portman rowe in virginia. What is different about the new sites is the National Park service goes into them knowing we have extraordinary economic challenges and we look for partners. With the breactor we have the department of energy and community and others to work with us. And we go in and attempt to minimize the direct responsibilities of the National Park service that would add to our maintenance backlog but recognize we also want to be a part of the stories that tell the american experience. Mr. Chairman, my time has i wanted to point out e i visited the grand teton, i was so surprised walking down the street how Little English i heard being spoken, that this is we think of these as our crown jewels but this is an International Tourist area that supposedly generates 436 million benefit to the local economy. So this is these are huge economic resources, so i hope that we will track as a committee these gateway communities, the local Economic Impact as well of what sequestration is doing because i think we have to be very, very smart about getting im not saying we cant live within our means, but just you pointed out, again, sequestrations impact is across the board and not giving you the flexibility to do something that might have less impact on those local communities. So i thank the chairman. I thank director jarvis. Thank you, senator cantwell d number of exceptionally important points. I think we all recall when another washington resident, sally jewel, was here at the committee and she pointed out recreation now is a 646 billion annually boost to the american economy. This is Outdoor Recreation, close to 650 billion a year. This is everything from guides to equipment to clothing, the list goes on and on. So your points are well taken. And one of the reasons that i asked about the oregon caves, and i think you also touch on another very important point, its not correct to say that maintenance and acquisition are always mutually exclusive, that in a number of instances, they go hand in hand and that acquisition may in fact actually lower some of the maintenance costs. As usual, you make a number of important i dont want to delay any colleagues but i think director jarvis will remember this, a Land Acquisition on the carbon river allowed us to expand Mount Rainier. Why did we do it . Because it kept getting washed out. The Entrance Point kept getting washed out and we came to congress to ask for 235,000 every four years. By doing that Land Acquisition we were able to move the entry point to a higher level and solve a problem. I certainly agree with your point. I would note by way of doing a little bit of advertising as well, that senator cantwells bill on the breactor is now part of the hotline underway. Senator cantwells bill and chairman doc hastings and senator alexander and senator hinrich. So i urge all colleagues on both sides of the aisle to clear this very fine piece of legislation. All right, senator alexander, youre next. Thanks for the plug for the fine piece of legislation. Id like to move the discussion from the west to the eastern United States where we have and id like to get the directors comments on the two areas weve been talking about, one is the appropriateness of even thinking about the land, Water Conservation fund in terms of your backlog, whether thats appropriate or not. But first, id like to talk about roads and parks. Now, ive always thought, and this goes back a long time, we dont have any business using appropriated dollars to build roads, that roads are to be paid for by user fees. So youve just told us that 3. 3 billion of your critical backlog is roads, right . 4. 2 million of it is other things. Whats your annual budget for roads . Within the parks . We get our roads money from the transportation bill, so so all your roads money comes through transportation. Federal land highway program. So the roads inside National Parks, most of them, are federal highways. And so there is a separate appropriation at about 168 million a year, map 21, out of the transportation bill, that comes to the National Park service. So youre not using other appropriated dollars to build and maintain roads in the park . Correct. Youre just using the federal transportation dollars. Good. That would be correct. So i guess theres not enough you dont get enough every year through the federal Transportation Fund in order to maintain your roads properly is what youre telling us. Exactly. So take another 3. 3 billion and you get 158 million a year . 168 million. A year. That will take about 20 years. We wont catch up at that rate. So do you how rapidly do you need to catch up . You wouldnt do all that in one or two years, you would do it if you had the money, youd do it over a period of time, right . Yes, we would, but wed like to see a significant increase in that amount of money to us. Right. One way to approach this backlog we talk about is to get rid of the roads part of the problem, right . I know in the smokies in 2005, that was 110 million of the 180 million critical deferred maintenance were roads. Roads are a critical visitor access asset that need to be maintained. Is it true it would be true in the great smokey mountains that a disproportionate number of visitors to the park are North Carolina and tennessee residents. Is that also true in other parks . What im getting is, is it appropriate to expect the states to help pay for part of these roads through their road programs . I really cant speak to whether or not thats a state responsibili. Know throughout the country, our infrastructure is challenged. The drop of the scratch river bridge is an example of the many eroding bridges and roads across our country and i really dont know whether we could saddle the states with this additional responsibility. I believe, frankly, that the roads inside National Parks are a federal responsibility. And should be appropriately funded through the federal transportation program. Ok. Now, let me ask you about the discussion we had here, you heard some of it, about the land, Water Conservation fund. As i hear you and as i remember the law, the land and Water Conservation fund doesnt have much of anything to do with maintenance of National Parks today, right . Thats correct. So if we were to try to put the two together, that would be a new way of thinking for a lot of people in the Conservation Movement and other places, right . It would. However, its also true that the Conservation Community for a long time has wanted to find a way to have fully funded land, Water Conservation fund. And if the congress were to decide that a priority for us nationally were to fully fund that and for a shorter period of time use the money to catch up on maintenance in National Parks, what would be your comment on that . Well, if i may for a moment, the land, Water Conservation fund is a Revenue Source. Its from the outer Continental Shelf oil leasing, and there are many, many billions of dollars except its not really because it goes in the general pot and its not it never goes directly to the land, Water Conservation fund. Correct. It has to be reappropriated. Except for the 1 8 of a cent senator domenici go you. You were one of the principals in the early days with the lwcf. I want to make a point, its not a tax on the American People, its a Revenue Source from the outer Continental Shelf oil and goes into the treasury and needs to be reappropriated. I also want to make a pitch for the Historic Preservation fund that is another component that comes from that same source. The concept behind this was you were taking a public asset and you wanted to give Something Back to the American People for that. Thats the fundamental concept behind the lwcf and h. P. F. I think this would have to be well debated if youre going to switch that concept that this funding that has been traditionally used for Historic Preservation funding or Land Acquisition to suddenly go to maintenance. Fair point. I do think, mr. Chairman, and senator murkowski, there is something there we can discuss , senator i think there is something there that we the land, Water Conservation fund and national Park Maintenance have never really been in the same caboose. Those are two different thoughts. But i do think its worth thinking about, that we havent had a way to fund the land, Water Conservation fund. Weve been trying for 40 years. And weve got it on the books that its supposed to come out of oil and gas drills generally but it doesnt, it goes right into the general pot and then we appropriate some money. So maybe listening to senator coburns call for focus on deferred maintenance and senator udall and yours for traditional land, water conserve Situation Fund and up Conservation Fund and upcoming celebration of the park, maybe theres a way to do two things at once. I urge we think about it and ke such a big part of this is road funding and we ought not be breaking our backs to to find other appropriated dollars to build roads in parks. That ought to be part of the road system. So those are my thoughts about it and i very much thank you for having this hearing. Its very helpful. Thank you, senator alexander and consistently because of your interest in the parks, we get these issues up for debate, and thats exactly the point of of this mornings exercise and very much appreciate all the time youve spent today. Senator hinrich is next. Chairman, i want to thank senator alexander for making clear what the issues are here and understanding the problem and the relevance between the problem and that ive heard as some proposed solution, because i dont think a moratorium on the land and Water Conservation fund is going to do anything to get at the biggest driver of the backlog at the National Parks service in terms of maintenance when you have 50 of that backlog tied up in Transportation Needs and were inadequately funding our Transportation Needs through the appropriate method of basically user fees and the gas tax, and were not meeting that need every year, and not just in the park service, were not meeting that infrastructure need nationwide when it comes to our roads and bridges and internet interstate highways and that seems to me to be a very relevant part of this conversation. I certainly dont support a moratorium on the land and Water Conservation fund, but it does seem to me we need to begin to address this issue of the backlog at our National Parks in terms of maintenance, and i think we need to attack that head on, where the biggest drivers of that are. I do want to ask director jarvis, i think its very important that were now seeing our visitor fees cloud back into the Park Service Budget itself. That is something that could expire next year. That is a critical way that we can address some of the challenges at the park service. I think its important that we reauthorize that, and i just want to ask your general views on how we make sure that our parks, which are one of the most affordable recreation and vacation opportunities for american families, most of us grew up on our summer vacations going to some of those parks, how do we make sure that we, in trying to address these challenges, we dont price that park experience outside of the reach of working families . Thank you for that question, senator. I agree with you 100 . We currently collect about 170 million in recreation fees, thats entrance, campground, and special use fees, and about another 60 million to 70 million in concession franchise fees, so youre looking at 250 million annual fees coming into the National Park service. Frankly, we have always tried to keep the fees as a component of our overall arching budget program, but we never wanted to get to the point we were pricing our National Parks to the point you are excluding any component of the american public. These are there is an expectation, i want to be clear by that, by the American People, that their tax dollars are the principal source for maintaining the National Parks. We do have the great advantage from the fee legislation that , do retain 100 of the fees and they are your fee dollars back at work to the parks and make that very visible to the american public. The vast majority of it goes into maintenance backlog and pays from everything from upgrading Water Treatment plants to improving trails and restrooms and facilities. So it is a delicate balance between how much you charge to gain entrance to the National Parks and in making sure the public understands that their dollars are coming right back to serve them. Mr. Chairman, i also want to thank senator cantwell for bringing up the manhattan proposed park. I think thats something ive heard consistently over and over again from the community of los alamos and surrounding communities how important that is to their history, and i think that director jarvis will find a very willing partner in those communities to make sure we do a good job of stewarding that resource and making sure it has making sure the park service has the resources they need and the support in the community to create that new park unit. And i want to thank senator cant well who is left for bringing up the issue of how important these recreation jobs are. In new mexico, it is not inconsequential to have 68,000 jobs tied directly to Outdoor Recreation, and certainly the impact of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, the Petroglyph National Monument in albuquerque, play places like banelier National Monument next to los alamos. These are major draws to people across the country and around the world who come to new mexico and drive our local economy. Were very glad youre on the committee, senator hinrich, and one of the areas were going to focus on is this question of the economic multiplier associated with Outdoor Recreation, and i talked about the numbers in rms of trying to offer a big figure when youre talking about 646 billion, you tend to get peoples attention but when youre out in the rural west in particular and see what this means and everything from gas stations to motels to people who sell equipment and guides and the like, it really is extraordinary. So were glad youre on this committee, and to have you particularly hammering away at the value of Outdoor Recreation is especially important. And we thank you. Senator baldwin. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And ill accept that invitation to continue on that same theme for a moment. We talk about the Economic Impact and the impact on jobs of some of the larger and premiere parks. I represent a state with two National Park units and a scenic trail, st. Cy National Scenic river way and the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is a park unit. The Economic Impact of the st. Croix National Scenic riverway is estimated to be a little over 4 million, in excess of 12 million added economic value for the Apostle Islands where i vacation every august, if i can. Youre going to get that vacation in this august. I have it marked on the calendar of when i arrive in the Apostle Islands. And throughout wisconsin, we also value the Ice Age Trail. Ive hiked quite a few of those stretches. I actually want to actually focus in on that ice age National Scenic trail. We talked a little bit about how to create incentives for private investment to help with our maintenance backlog. But it was mostly focused on private investment of dollars. Id like to dig a little deeper into private investment of volunteer hours. Let me just tell you a little bit about the experience of the Ice Age Trail. My constituents put in about 37 0,000 hours of volunteer work, maintaining the ice age National Scenic trail in calendar year 2012. And it didnt go unnoticed. The Ice Age Trail alliance was recipient of the Directors Service award last year. But in speaking with volunteers and staff on the trail, they mentioned that sequestration constrained the ability of the Trail Alliance to provide even some of the most basic tools one would use as a volunteer to maintain and expand the trails. Axe handles, shovels, work gloves, trail markers, basic things like that. Now, we know sequestration was never intended to occur. T has. But it seems to me in this vironment we have to think creatively and increase the efficiency of these federal funds. And when you can leverage this type of volunteer activity, you know, we want to do everything barriers to erect that. How can we leverage our public investments to continue this type of incredible volunteer effort and expand it beyond the example of the Ice Age Trail in wisconsin . Thank you for that question, senator. The National Park service could not do what it does without the extraordinary support of our volunteers. The latest numbers i have from fiscal 2011, is we had 229,000 volunteers in the National Park system working with us. 66. 8 million ed work hours and thats a 145 million contribution to the work of the National Park service. Volunteers require supervision and require care and feeding and supply, and that comes from the appropriated side of our organization. In order to really allow our volunteers to be the most effective as they can be. And so its critical that we have the base funding for our volunteer program. We have volunteer coordinators and in some cases the volunteer coordinators are volunteers but its best done when the work can be organized by a career staff. There are Maintenance Employees that help design the trail work and can supervise a crew on the ground, ensure that they are working with proper safety equipment. They get orientation. They drink their water and take care of themselves and, you know, the bandaids are available. All of those things. O the base funding for our maintenance trail work, to take care of Long Distance trails like ice age is critical to effect the ability of our volunteer work force to go out and get this work done. I just would make two other quick comments and observations about this. Think its especially important during tough Economic Times we pay close attention to these Outdoor Recreational opportunities that are, again, not necessarily just the big crown jewels and the park system, but the things that are close by, families that are strapped cant afford the Long Distance vacations that they might at better times economically, and yet the capacity to go and enjoy with family these opportunities locally are crucial. And then the other comment i would make especially, given the fact i picked on the example of the ice age National Scenic trail is how important continuing with the Land Acquisition is even in tough times because of the trail thats not finished yet. And you cant start at one end and, you know, yet hike all the way through it. Its in different strips, and we need to complete it and have a commitment to doing so, and that has to be ongoing before some of those lands are developed in other ways, and we cant get them back. If i may make a comment. Of course. I want to echo the senators comment about local assets for families and communities. Almost across the land, every one of those local assets was somehow enhanced through the state side of the land, Water Conservation fund, and we often forget about that. That generally running at about 40 million or so to 50 million, this is a direct Grant Program to local parks to state parks, to city parks, to state fish and game agencies to provide access, to provide boat docks for boat launching, to provide swimming areas and Outdoor Recreation sites, and its critical to the overarching american infrastructure of parks that provide opportunities, and so we should never forget about that side of the lwcf. All right. That complete your questions, senator baldwin . Thank you. Just one question on the endowment front, director jarvis. And i think you could see that a number of senators are very interested in this. Dr. Coburn talked about the idea there would be a champion for the cause of parks, and i think you can see there are going to be multiple champions of this kind of cause and theyre going to be on both sides of the aisle. Ive been especially interested in following the work youre doing on endowments. I talked, as you know, with david reubenstein who has been working with you on the washington monument. One of the witnesses on the next panel, David Mcdonald from the friend of acadia, i also believe is going to talk a bit about the endowment they manage and coordinate with you all at the park service to Fund Maintenance of the historic carriage roads at acadia National Park. My question to you is, as we get into this, what is your take on how to generate the most appeal with respect to endowments . From the seat of my pants, it makes more sense to look perhaps at maintenance projects at individual parks rather than to try to establish a large nationalwide endowment. But that may well not be the way, you know, to proceed. Do you have a judgment on that . Yes, sir, i do. And let me talk about this for a moment. The National Park service is a institution with perpetuity mission but we live on an annual appropriation. If you look at other organizations around this country that have a perpetuity mission, whether its a Major University or a major museum, smithsonian, they all have endowments. The National Park service does not. So i identified as one of my centennial goals to development an endowment for the National Park system. The second century commission, which senator portman mentioned and served on, at the close of that group, and that was sandra day oconnor, howard baker, bennett johnson, extraordinary individuals, all citizens who volunteered their time to think about the National Century of the park system said if there was one thing of all of their recommendations they felt would make the greatest impact over the long term, it was an endowment that would be benefiting this agency and its mission 100 years from now, because it would grow. So how do we do that . We have engaged our partners, such as the friend of acadia, but more largely, the National Park foundation to figure this out, how can we do this . There are two components. One is on monday of this week, the National Park Foundation Board and i interviewed three organizations that could develop a Capital Campaign with an endowment component to that. And so we will, through the foundation, not appropriated dollars, the foundation through philanthropic dollars, will be hiring a company, a firm to provide Counseling Services for the development of a major Capital Campaign for the centennial for 2016. We are also in the next two months, i will be meeting with the foundation with 10 corporate sectors to look for large corporate sponsorship for the National Park service, the automobile industry, the travel industry, the hotel industry, looking for relationships with us for the Centennial Campaign as well, to build public awareness, to build philanthropy. I think that the american public, they may only pay 80 for an annual pass and they can have 10, 20 National Park experiences, but they want to give back. Right now weve not created that opportunity for them to make a donation specifically to an endowment to the National Parks. Now, i also agree that at the individual park level an endowment can be created as well. And there are people that love the National Park service but they really love yosemite or acadia and want to give directly to that. As weve been developing these publicprivate relationships and potential donations, were also seeking to include an endowment for a specific thing, such as the carriage trails or he one of the major developments at yosemite through the yosemite fund. So were now including that in each of our donation agreements as we build this. I do believe, though, that it would be enhanced if there was some federal matching component that would the work weve done indicates there would be more willingness, as we did with the washington monument, if theres a federal component to this endowment. And we would love to work with you to figure out how that can e built. Thank you very much, director. You heard earlier in the discussion of the helium bill, were trying to start philosophically this kind of challenge approach. I think that there will always be questions of sort of how do you get started and in effect, i guess the technical lingo would be sort of funding the corpus. But suffice it to say the basic proposition that i think youre advancing in terms of trying to use this challenge concept in attracting others makes a lot of sense. Senator murkowski . Thank you, mr. Chairman. And tying in with the concept of endowment, recognizing that people do want to give back. Not only with a direct donation to the parks or their own particular park but also recognizing some would be willing to donate land. And you mentioned in your response to in of my questions that when you are looking at Land Acquisition, one of the things that is part of the prioritization is an issue of hardship, if you have somebody dying and they want to provide their land to the parks, as we think about Land Acquisition, rhaps in terms of mandating, i dont know if we want to mandate, are but have a process you certainly could provide for land donations. But also for future exchanges for future Land Acquisitions, to provide for some form of an exchange. And so as we are thinking about those ideas and how we can reduce costs and yet still ntinue to add to the treasures that we have, i think we need to recognize there are other ways to acquire land rather than just the federal dollars coming from the treasury. And i think we need to look to that. Director jarvis, we do have one more panel. And i know that the chairman has a hard stop here in about a half an hour. I wanted to ask you about the situation in gus davis with the expiring concession contract there with aromatic. Weve been working to find a resolve. Their contract ends the end of this year. The prospectous you put out didnt attract anybody and were hoping to find an extension in the meantime. The people of gus davis are y a the concession doesnt move forward, you really do have a situation where the towns economy is threatened, kind of speaks a little bit to what senator cantwell mentioned with her smaller communities. But id like to talk to you about where we are with this. I dont know. I think we need to look at whether or not this might be a situation where facilities need to be sold by the park service. If you cant make it work through these concession contracts, if were not getting anybody that is interested, it does make you wonder whether or not the best option here might be to sell the lodge there in glacier bay National Park to a private entity. We see that up in denali with he private lodges, up in cantisha with Visitor Experience and based on the quality of the facility, i think there is clear and marked difference there. So i would like to talk to you about that. I would also like the opportunity to discuss in more detail with you a situation that has recently arisen, and mr. Chairman, this is a little bit outside the scope of todays hearing, but its a critically important issue to us in my state. As you know, i sent a letter to you dated july 12 about the Park Services new policy requiring that seafood that is sold by its vendors and concessionaires have to be certified by this nongovernmental third party, it has to be certified as sustainable. Everything that i can tell is that this policy was developed thout consultation with noah with noaa, the federal agency tapped with the responsibility of managing our nations fisheries sustain abley. The n. G. O. s youre relying on here, in my view, have a troubling record of meddling with at least alaska fishermen fisheries management. Weve got some real concerns about this. So i read yesterday, i thought it was pretty good news, that this was in a seafood online site, i read that the park service is going to be pulling back on this and meeting with noaa, so then when we called your offices to confirm whether or not this was true, were told that no, not necessarily. In fact, that that may be an inaccurate statement that the National Park Service Spokesman made yesterday. So im trying to figure out whats really going on here, but you need to understand that the implications for not only the state ofat h a very strong, wellmanaged, Sustainable Fisheries is really quite concerned about the implications of this policy. It is something that i have asked to speak with you directly on. We can save ourselves both from that conversation if you just give me the assurance youve pulled back and the park service is not going to go down this road. So if youd care to comment on that, i would certainly appreciate it. I would be i dont know how much time you want to take in this hearing but would be glad to come by your office and talk in detail about this. Im not pulling our National Healthy Food Sustainability standards over this issue, because this is implying, and was developed over a yearlong consultation process. With who . With the concessioners, every one of the concessioners, with Food Service Providers was noaa involved with this . I dont know noaa was involved. Noaa is the agency that makes the determinations of what is sustainable these are guidelines, not a policy or loss or its a guideline, a recommendation to our concessioners. You said we need a certain label that is applied by some n. G. O. s based out of london that says that this is the label that you have to have on your fish. And if you dont have this, then concessionaires, you shouldnt be using it. Its a guideline. What kind of message do you think that sends . We drew from the industry guidelines for sustainable foods. What industry standards . As i said, id be glad to come by your office. We need to have a further discussion about this, because youre giving me the very clear impression that in fact your spokesman he was incorrect. Kathy cuberd, the spokesman for the National Park service was incorrect, that youre not pulling back on this. What i am willing to do is change the guidelines so it includes alaska wild caught fish. I think thats the simple fix here. The guidelines were drawn broadly to give guidance to our concessioners. Bewant the park visit to be a healthy experience. The food was the key component. I agree. You have extraordinary food in alaska. I know. I lived along the river. We want that coppa river salmon sold in the concessions. Its a simple change to the guideline, not a withdrawal to our guideline. I think we need to have further discussion about this because what im concerned about is that the parks service, and h. H. S. Doesnt understand that when you go with one certification, again, a certification by an n. G. O. That is an internationally based entity, coming in and saying that this is the label that you have to have, what that does to the alaska fisheries. As you well know, it limits heir ability to market the healthiest, best, and oh, by the way, most sustainable fishery that is out there. So we need to make sure were not crosspurposes on this because its too important to my state and quite honestly, when were talking about healthy Sustainable Fisheries, i will take second fiddle to nobody on this issue. So i want to make sure that were not locking ourselves in that is ard here simply not the right standard. So if we can set aside some time, hopefully before we go on break next recess in august, i would appreciate it. And you had a second question, that was gus davis. Yes, well visit about that, too. I thank you. All right. Very good. Director, youve been very patient, as always, and again, thank you for your past cooperation, and i think you can see there are a lot of senators this doesnt often happen on a busy day when everybody is looking towards the wrapup for the summer work period, and i think it shows the level of interest among colleagues, and also bipartisanship. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] today a look at the status of immigration for children. Today they heard testimony about the hardships of living as an undocumented immigrant. House leaders are currently working on a bill to address the status of the socalled dreamers and you can watch the hearing this morning beginning at 10 35 eastern right here on cspan. This is a website, its really the history of Popular Culture. Its a collection of stories, rather, on the history of to say pop ure, and culture, its quite more than that. I think theres what ive been trying to do at this site is go into more detail with how Popular Culture impacts politics and sports and other arenas. Its not just about pop culture. What we have on the site are stories about popular music. We have sports biography. E have some history of media entities, newspaper history, so there are a range of things. And when i formulated the site, i puposefully cast a wide net to see what would work. More with pop history dig. Com publisher jack doyle. Tonight at 8 00 on cspans q a. Coming up on washington journal well get a preview of the week ahead in congress before members leave town for the august recess, with gail russell chaddock, the editor for the Christian Science monitor. And with the city filing for bankruptcy, well look at the causes and how it will impact the city and its residents. Kim reuben is our guest. Later, Michael Doran of the Brookings Institution joins us to talk about the Obama Administration stand to step up forces for military assistance. Washington journal is next. Lindy boggs is being remembered as a crusader who blazed a trail and congress. She is described as the matriarch of a powerful washington family. She served as a louisiana democrat for 18 years. We will talk to someone who knew linda c boggs personally. Died yesterday at age 97. President obama heads to capitol hill to talk with House Democrats about healthcare and other issues. From the gop side of the aisle
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.