maintenance and other projects to directly improve the enjoyment of our visitors however the authority to collect and spend revenues expires december 2014 nfl lies and renewed the park service would lose $108 million annually. i think it's critical that the legislation passes congress of the park service and other land management agencies do not lose that particularly important revenue source. we are also looking forward to the views of national park service director jonathan jarvis. he has been talking with us about a number of different approaches and let me now recognize senator murkowski on this matter and i particularly thank her again for all of the bipartisan efforts that she has been willing to take on and is one of the reasons we were able to get 14 bills cleared in the senate, more than anyone anticipated at this early date and wouldn't have passed it without senator murkowski and i thank her for her bipartisan approach. >> thank you chairman and as you know we have been another opportune team to move perhaps 14 of these bills so i look forward to moving this process forward. thank you for this very important hearing this morning. for those of us in alaska our parks are pretty special and not that they are not special in other parts of the country, i think our search is bigger and take up more space and they are constant reminder of the national treasures that we have. i thank you dr. coburn for your interest in this issue. your interest in ensuring that we are on a path towards greater sustainability when it comes to the operation and maintenance of our national parks in our parks system. mr. chairman i do believe we are taking an important step today with this hearing and starting this discussion about how we are going to pay down the national park service is maintenance backlog which the park service estimates that approximately $13 billion. i would like to be clear right away, i don't think this is an issue that should be solved through additional federal funding. we all know around here that we are facing very serious fiscal situations so we have got to be looking at new and i think alternative ways to find funding for the parks system and also to really reassess and reevaluate our current funding priorities. one of those areas that i think we need to be looking at is what is happening within the land and water conservation fund and is very significasignifica significant increases we are seeing there. coming from a state where we have got close to 70% of our lands that are held by the federal government i always approach request to purchase additional federal land with skepticism and particularly during tough economic times so i can't imagine why purchasing more is such a priority. it strikes me as almost counterintuitive that we would be adding more lands to the maintenance list when the government already is dealing with such obstacles when it comes to the maintenance of the existing of our lands. i do think this is an area where we would have potential for an agreement that we get up at the statute making it more relevant to our current reality both from a public lands policy and budgetary standpoint. i would like to work with you mr. chairman, dr. coburn director jarvis on reforming the elk wcl so this can be a tool that the national park service and other land management agencies can use to fund deferred maintenance before we buy additional lands to add to the growing burden. i appreciate that there are at times some sensitive, time-sensitive acquisitions that need to be made. i want to make sure we have a process to include those but i think there is room for compromise and i look forward to discussion on that topic this morning. the next thing i would like to bring up is the potential for increased funding and involvement from outside imprints groups. one of the major complaints that i hear from friends groups are these bureaucratic obstacles that many of these groups face when they are trying to donate to the national park service for specific projects. we need to be looking at this and pick out a way to streamline the process and encourage folks to contribute their resources and dollars. just yesterday we got a press release from the park service and rangel saint elias and it's an advertisement, public advertisement for a cleanup event on august third and it's basically an invitation to folks in the area to come and help clean up. it's going to consist of burning scrap wood recycling and picking up trash that has accumulated. bring your sunglasses, your raincoats, your water bottle in the first 100 volunteers get a free t-shirt and a water bottle and lunch will be provided. great. i think it's fabulous. it gives people real ownership in their parks and i think that is huge for us. these are exactly the type of volunteer efforts of the park service should be using and expanding upon not only to save money but began to bring locals into their parks for a very positive experience. i also hear from privacy is not to donate alms to the national park service and specific perks that they feel that donations are not adequately recognize. i would hope director jarvis will talk about how we can work together to improve the donation and the recognition procedures. an idea that i would like to put forward his donor recognition throughout the national parks system. for example we should have recognition of private donors willing to pay for specific maintenance backlog projects perhaps the naming of a room in the visitor center at the naming of the bench. they are tell there's nothing we can bring into the park system that we need to make it worthwhile for these donors. we just passed through the house and the senate a measure that would allow for recognition of donors to the vietnam veteran's memorial. there are some ideas out there that we can look to. another thing i would like to raise before we turn to dr. coburn is looking at the current recreational fee structure. some national parks charge entrance fees, others don't. i think we need to look at this fee plan and ensure that there is some equity across the national park service. i think it's kind of unfair that my constituents in alaska have to pay to visit some of their parks but other folks around the country don't care that same burden. for the parks that do not charge an entrance fee maybe we should look at the idea of charging for parking within those parks. i'm told by the park service that the national park service started parking on the national mall. they could raise an additional $2 million per year. i don't know whether i want to pay more parking in washington d.c. but it's an idea and you could put the money back into the maintenance of the mall. so again mr. chairman i am pleased that we are at this point and i really do hope this is the beginning of a constructive dialog that allows us to address in a meaningful way the maintenance backlog of our wonderful national parks. >> thank you senator murkowski and i think as usual you offer up some ideas that certainly have to be explored. i also want to note before we go to dr. coburn that we have three colleagues who have long have long histories of being advocates for parks. chairman udall chair of the subcommittee has brought extraordinary amount of passion and expertise. senator portman who also in terms of his private sector involvement and service in the senate has a long record of supporting the parks and i think it would be fair to say senator alexander is false -- almost mr. parks because he has consistently advocated for sensible park protection in our country so i'm very grateful to my colleagues for coming. i know senator udall has to leave fairly early. after dr. coburn has given his testimony i will make sure that all colleagues who are under the gun will ask questions certainly before i do. dr. coburn i think it's pretty clear that your message is getting through that people understand that this is a very serious challenge and you can pretend to be in denial and say it doesn't exist so thank you and nobody has done more to make the point here about how important is challengechallenge s and we welcome your testimony. >> thank you and i appreciate being abided before the committee. in its monthly will release a 2013 parks report where we studied many of our parks and the problems they have, the financing of our parks, where the money goes and following it all the way down. we listed are some recommendations of things we hope the committee will consider but i appreciate the opportunity to come before you. i was born in wyoming. i love yellowstone and i love rocky mountain national park. i loved the grand teton tonight spent a lot of time in that part of the country when i'm not here so i am a critic of what we are we are doing because i love our parks. my oldest four grandkids just spent time at the grand canyon and yellowstone, and joining and taking in those magnificent parks. you know, the national park service has a little bit less than 3 billion-dollar budget and 401 units, park units covering 84 million acres of land. but with that budget they also are responsible for 27,000 historic structures, 2461 national historic landmarks, 582 natural landmarks, 49 natural -- national heritage areas and 84 million acres of land. the budget for the parks themselves is only $1.36 billion. the remaining annual funds of their budget goes towards a multitude of activities including affiliated areas program's research centers administrative expenses and additional land acquisition. congress and multiple administrations have recognized the deferred maintenance problem for years. as a matter fact president bush gave a speech in 2001 at senators administration were going to correct that and they did what year. if you look at the graph over here the deferred maintenance went down one year. and then it has continued to climb ever since. and i would make the point and i think most commonsense americans would make the point before we had additional parks we have to take care of the parks we have and we have to prioritize what our duties are. we all know. alaska has wonderful jewels and oregon and colorado, the smoky mountains. we have wonderful parks that we have to take care of them. the political process to add a park is driven 15 recognition, two by commerce because there is always the hope that commerce will follow a park but i think mature thinking would have us really look at the priorities of what we have today and want to invest and keep what we have today. before we make commitments to lessen what we have today. in 1997 national park service report based on identified maintenance rehabilitation developmental needs and potential park service does not have and never has had enough funds to care for all the resources yet we keep adding things for them to do. contributing to the fundamental problem are unrealistic expectations reflected in an them further by park planning documents, an overwhelming deferred maintenance work within the of multidisciplinary focus to set and achieve realistic goals and cooperative efforts recognizing the value of the aspects of separate parks. since 1997 we have had 26 park park -- since 1997. in april of 2013, but present administration said the following. because of the age of existing assets the capital construction backlog of the service continues to rapidly expand beyond the capabilities of the service to keep up with a chair repair and rehabilitation. within the same month reconfirming the park service doesn't have the resources to take care of what it has they added three new parks and 13,000 acres to the antiquities act. not paris for us but to the antiquities act so we are going to make this graph much worse just on what has been done in the last year. the line item budget for the national park service for $77 million. that's the lowest level since 1988 and 25 years, last year. we climbed up their construction budget was at the lowest level in 25 years. deferred maintenance is five times more costly than routine preventative maintenance and we know that. the park service can give us that. we know that's true in other areas and yet when we don't have the resources to actually resurface a road than what happens is we have to rebuild the base of the road at the cost is astronomical. so all these things are multipliers that are actually hurting this number, actually making it grow higher as we pass on cheaper maintenance that actually would reserve and then have to go to full replacement. the top 10 most visited park units in 2012 had deferred maintenance backlogs of $2.6 billion. so 20% of the deferred matrons backlog is in our top 10 most visited parks. in 201259 national park service and in the crown jewels posted 65 million visitors and they have -- that those jewels have $5 billion of that maintenance. i can give you some significant examples of deferred maintenance and you will probably hear that from a director but i will give you one example. independent national historic park in philadelphia over the last five years -- pepper salted and 15 toward claims filed with claims up to $2 million a year paid out. what i would tell you is that had we spent a fourth of that each year on maintenance none of that would have happened, so it's not just the deferred maintenance. we are spending money in other areas of lawsuits because of deferred maintenance. and i appreciate what senator murkowski said. i think the elk wcl fund ought to be reallocated. it's going to continue to grow as oil and gas offshore continues to grow. those funds are going to increase and i know we are in competition with other desires for land acquisition but it seems to me that if we were to take 75% of that fund by changing the requirements of that fund and putting it into park maintenance over the next 10 years to get us caught back up that in fact we could meet the obligations that are expected of the american people without doing anything else and actually get caught back up to a place where we are really protecting these national treasures that we have the other point i would make is that over the last decade congress has appropriated over half a billion dollars to acquire even more land well in the same period the cost of mps lance has doubled. that's just the maintaining of the national park service's situation. why don't i stop there and i will answer any question you have. i would make one final point, but top 25 most visited national parks in 2011 only eight have been approved since 1970. in comparison up to 25 least visited national parks, 20 have been established since 1970 so the priority, not only the fact that we are establishing new parks and we don't have the money to do so but the priority of what we are establishing in terms of exposure to the american public and visitation is very very low. so what we are doing is sacrificing our desire for new parks by putting at risk the crown jewels of our national park system and with that i would stop and take any questions that you you have. >> dr. coburn thank you. do any colleagues have either questions or want to be recognized at this time were a statement on this issue? if not -- >> mr. chairman of me to go ahead of anybody but if it's appropriate i don't want to question other senator but i wouldn't mind having a little colloquy with him what he said but i would be glad if he has time to say that. i would be glad to go after senator udall or anybody else. >> everybody is being so collegial. senator udall would you like to start? vi with -- agree with senator alexander. i do think senator coburn's research is worth considering. i do find it interesting that we have not fully funded lwfc at them 9 million-dollar level. it's been funding based on what the appropriators want to do. i am certainly open to taking a creative look at all of this senator coburn because the parks as you mentioned are america's best idea. there have been and i would like to get the sunday record of some greater depth that there have have been cases for example where lwfc has had a dual or threefold purpose. in colorado which i think maybe you have visited, maybe you and i can join forces and spend some time there on the ground since i know you love colorado and spend a lot of time there. the creation of the national park which was a national monument that we expanded it to a national park help the ranching economy and the ballot because their water supplies were threatened and it's an example of how lwfc was creatively focused on protecting the way of life and these marvelous natural landscapes. i think on a case-by-case basis i still think lwfc -- a lot of the maintenance needs or buildings roads and bridges and water systems and the purchase of additional land sometimes to make a national park complete and the like is relatively inexpensive and makes a management job of people like direct reserves easier so i may have a disagreement as to the utility in situations where it is warranted. see you wouldn't deny the fact that if we don't start catching up this is going to go into an elliptical curve in terms of the cost. but i would make a point for example we have had a recent purchase of the grand teton national park and the planned purchase but plus the purchase was made although maybe totally proper the amount of money paid for that small expansion would cut the backlog at grand teton and have. had you not up the additional land the backlog maintenance if you could've used that money for maintenance which is not a given ,-com,-com ma you would have cut it in half. so all of a sudden when we buy land under good intention to expand a park because something is available at a certain time it is a trade-off against the protection and the maintenance and upkeep of that park so i think it has to be balanced and i would just make the point again, as we expand government ownership of private lands and we expand park lands at the same time we are not being good stewards of what we already have the american people ought to be questioning what we are doing and how we are doing it. you know we all know it's about priorities. but i would tell you it got to be a priority to fund the maintenance of a park. that ought to be a priority. because every year we don't do it markedly increases the cost of trying to catch up the next year. its 370 million bucks in your where falling behind. >> senator coburn it is frustrating to think about the 900 million-dollar allocation of the will of lwcf monies but i think last year the appropriated something on the order of $280 million you could argue $70 million in limbo when we have left in the hands of appropriators to be directed toward other needs. there may be a sweet spot here that we all ought to continue discussing. >> and that fund should grow based on energy production. >> most definitely. we had a hearing most recently in the committee and there were dueling numbers to an extent that somewhere between six and $8 billion a year generated by offshore royalties. mr. chairman, ranking member? i think that is the number we heard. so what would be terrific to deploy these monies to the purposes previous congresses thought they should be deployed to. >> very good. senator murkowski and then senator alexander and senator portman. >> thank you for your comments and i for one will look forward to the report that you and your staff have prepared and appreciate the level of detail that you have given this issue. in your report and analysis do you look at the issue of fees as they are applied across the park system? i mentioned in my opening comments that there is a seeming inequity that in certain areas you have fees in certain areas you don't have fees. do you look at that all and where'd you come down on this? >> we also talked about in the deficit commission for less than a quarter of -- you can add $70 million a year to the maintenance budget. that's 25 cents a visitor so there are all sorts of ways. it got to be consistent. i think the park service struggles with two things. one how do you satisfy the local community in terms of this and then how do you extract enough resources to help maintain the maintenance? their all sorts of things we can do to bring that up. as a matter of fact we going to have recommendations in this report on how you increase the revenues coming into the park. there will be a part of what we are doing. i think the other thing is to try to match expenses within park service to revenues. we have a lot of parks that cost 100 bucks per visit, $100 and we have to be saying should we be putting resources there were putting resources where we have the highest level of visitors and the highest usage? >> well i appreciate that and again i will look forward to the recommendations you put forward. i do think that your proposal that we need to look to lwcf and how we might be able to carve out some of these dollars that are directed to this for parks and maintenance backlog and if we are smart it's not a permanent carve out. once we can get on top of your curve here then we should have some flexibility are i would hope we would have flexibility to move that elsewhere but thanks for your leadership on this and we will work with you on that. appreciate it. >> senator alexander. >> thinks i should chairman and senator coburn thanks for coming. i would like to make a comment and get your reaction to it. i like to work with you and turn it into some specific proposal that they might actually try to get done. senator udall talked about the land water conservation fund. i was co-chairman of the commission with his father in 1985 and six under president reagan who recommended full funding of the land and water conservation fund which is $900 million. this is the land act. it's not for maintenance. the idea that is for federal and state land acquisition but as senator udall has said only once a think has it been fully funded the idea was that the money from offshore drilling, if you intend on environment a little bit you take some of that and improve the environment over here. it's a nice balance except it has never happened and we did get through senator domenici's leadership a little bit of funding on new drilling in the gulf coast at one-eighth of a scent that goes to land and water conservation fund. it's not much money so we have had a lot of bipartisan support for long time for full funding of the land and water conservation fund at $900 million. senator burr i believe has a bill that would make it mandatory funding and we do have this prospect of increased drilling for oil and gas offshore and there is some opportunity there. now let me be localized with this problem and put it in perspective. you said that about half of this $11 billion is rhodes. its roads and in tennessee here is what we do with roads. we pay for them as we go. in other words in the 1980s we had three big road programs and we said we will borrow money? know we will raise the gas tax in charge to people who use the roads to build the roads in every single republican in the legislature voted for that because it was a conservative pay-as-you-go policy so we have zero road.. we have $900 million we collect every year in gas taxes. it's one of the lower gas taxes in the country but it all goes to build roads in zero but goes for interest on the debt. if you go to new jersey for example they spend $900 million on principle and interest and we are spending it on resume of the best roads in the country. i think it's ridiculous for us to have, to be borrowing money in the federal government that is so heavily indebted to build roads in national parks. we shouldn't be doing now. we should be having user fees of some kind to build roads it seems to me. and if you want to get at the maintenance, if the maintenance, deferred maintenance is $11 billion in five or 6 billion of that is rhodes why don't we start by figuring out how to develop if they did take care of the roads? maybe the states through their user fees sought ought to take a share of that. tennessee in the great smoky mountain roads in north carolinians do more than anybody else or maybe we take a combination of what the two of of you upset and maybe senator murkowski said and maybe in exchange for fully funding the land and water conservation fund for 10 years we do that with a mandatory funding that is derived from oil and gas revenues which is sort of of the user fee since a lot of that goes to transportation. for at least 10 years we use that to take care of the roads and to manage the parks. that knocks off half the backlog at least, $5 billion to go and while conservationists might be shocked at the thought because that money supposed to go to acquiring new lands senator coburn has been made the point we shouldn't be be doing that for me can take care of the the ones with god and we could add to that we haven't been funding the land and water conservation fund anyway. so if we were to say for a period of time we take some of this new money and use it for roads that helps the parks and that gets it your point and it gets us into a habit in this country a fully funding the land and water conservation fund which we can do, maybe more with a straight face when we do a better job of taking care of what we have got now. i would be interested in your reaction. do you think it's realistic to come up with a proposal that fully funds the land and water conservation fund for a period of time and uses some of that for roads and at least get part of that taken care of and using the revenues to do it that derived from user fees are energy expiration rather than borrowing money from the federal government? >> your committee is the jurisdiction of the best way to approach that but i was a couple of things. number one at the federal government on 641 million -- what's that going to be? in other words i was point does the lcsw -- lwcf do it by all all the land that's available out there? what happened to land that is taken by the federal government in terms of loss on the tax rolls? there's an economic death but also a loss. one other thing we have to look at is how do we endow our parks? i mean you know i can imagine that the grand teton's national park but the people that live out there and visit that, if you set up the plan to endow its future and created a recognition of those that were involved in endowing it, that you could create an endowment in the rocky mountain national park, the grand teton and several others around this country where you would create an endowment that could never touch the principle that would be totally dedicated to the maintenance and preservation of those parks. this would make them become a question anymore. where it would be a question is the parks are people really don't want to go, that don't really match the level of pristine nature that we see. that has been part of our problem. parks that don't come to the level of what we intended when we started creating parks and that is one of the reasons i have been trying not to add parks until we take care of it. because i think, i can tell you a lot of places in oklahoma that we would love to have a park but it doesn't come up. the economic benefit would be great so i will work with anybody to try to fix this but log in and i want to fix fix it permanently. i want us to try to intel. i want is to create the place where we can have people come in and invest in our parks and get small recognition for it but it created endowments over the next 20 years this isn't a problem. i think there are a lot of americans have elected to that. to participate in the preservation of what are some of our greatest assets in this country. so i think there are all sorts of ways to get there. i think we have to use a large portion of appropriated dollars from this land and water conservation fund to help on the backlog rather than buying more land right now. >> mr. chairman if i could make one comment? >> sure. >> if there were money in the land and water conservation fund i think i would agree with you. i think of the land, the great smoky mountain national park has two or three times as many visitors every year as any western part is nearly 10 million visitors a year and in 2005, 180 million backlog of the smokies was roads. i'm suggesting one way to tackle this is to get roads with user fees of one kind or another. and then let's focus on the rest of it with appropriated dollars. >> very good, yes senator udall. >> thank senator alexander alexandealexande r for his comments and i want to associate myself with us, didn't think senator coburn for his interest and passion on this question. i would point out and senator alexander was there at the beginning. your hair at the genesis of this lwcf idea. urban forest stateside funding and federal funding and we have to take all of that into account. i think senator alexander's onto an approach that may have utility and it would be a hallmark of this this committee if we could move something forward to really get and what we are discussing here today so thank you mr. chairman. >> senator portman was next. senator udall's or hardware. >> thank you chairman and i won't hesitate to ask my cully questions because he answers them so well. first of all i think this is a great discussion and i think the chairman for asking tom to join us in the great input from two members who have a lot of experience in a the ranking member who has a lot of experience. i think this is kind of exciting because there is an opportunity for us to do the right thing by our parks and i think with udall is the chair of the subcommittee having not just experience the flexibility and how you look at this differently is really important. i'm the ranking member now. we probably don't focus as much as we showed on this issue. we have to make sure as tom has pointed out that we deal with this backlog. i did serve briefly on the national commission on the centennial and i got off of that one night was in the race for the senate. my focus was on this notion of stewardship and i really think they make a mistake in focusing too much on acquisition. i will tell you we need to in my view have flexibility on this because you made a good point. mark talked talked about the zen holdings where you can actually through acquisition helped to make a park more efficient and i will give you a good example, the cuyahoga national park. park. it's topped in the country. it's not the smokies where was on my anniversary last weekend of the roads were fine. [laughter] didn't run into any potholes. we have a few potholes in cuyahoga however. it is i think one use of the land and water conservation fund but i do think this idea of using it for about what is really interesting and there is some precedence and mark udall talked about some of the uses of the fund. i think the fund is a historic preservation fund really for maintenance so that is some way in which we now use the land and water conservation fund not for acquisition but for actually maintenance of historic sites and using nonfederal historic sites as i understand it and we will hear more about that from the national parks association and national parks hospitality association because they put together this report for us that we have in our material. my question to you is one about the flexibility on land and water conservation fund. how do you get the private sector more involved? we will hear some about this later. when i was in omb we offered a budget in 2008 over five years and i figured five years but it was increased funding for the parks. there is a little bit of a flatline when congress responded to that. it wasn't a reduction but at least we flattened out for well but congress didn't take up the initiative and the initiative was threefold. the most important one i thought was the challenge in the match. we went to the private private sector and said when you put some money and every year, 100 million bucks into parks parks and we'll get congress to pass legislation to match it with 100 million bucks dollar for dollar match. that never happened in the chairman was talking about was what was done in connection with this legislation the 50 million-dollar challenge in that legislation. i just think as you indicated earlier with regard to the tetons an interest in preserving it and their philanthropic groups and they provide somewhat of an endowment that it should be more connected to what are they recognized park summit deferred maintenance which as you said is five times more concept and regular preventive maintenance so what do you think about that? does the federal government have a role to play in providing an incentive for the private sector to step up and baby with naming rights in a tasteful way like senator murkowski has talked about the to tap into the slope of of the parks of his interest in the parks and frankly the economic effects of the parks. >> i think it has a role. what you need is a champion. we had a champion for parks, teddy. and what you need is a champion to go out and say look where we are. most americans know that we are in the grips of some pretty tough financial prospects going forward in terms of art that are long-term obligations. so i can say yeah i think you could challenge that for but what you need is a champion someone to go out and say the call on those with wealth in this country and said come help us in delta parks. if we get ahead of the curve which we never do but if you think about an endowment and endowment is double saving. it means that you have income coming off the endowment which you can apply today but it also means you are not borrowing money against the future so you are saving because you are performing proper maintenance one and never two because you are not paying an interest cost on it. so it's just smart. i would say if we could develop a champion, a retired senator or congress men were -- that would go around and rally for the parks in and out the parks that we could put in motion preservation for what is really a tremendous asset for our country. but i think the conflict is everybody wants a park even when it doesn't make economic sense to have a park but the whole argument is about economic benefit. at a time when we can't take care of that very critical resources that we have today. so like i told senator alexander i will help do whatever he can but i want us to get caught up and do it anyway because it's going to save us atomic money if we do it on a timely fashion rather than a deferred fashion. >> thank you chairman. >> thank you senator portman and i think we have had something like 10% of the senate to get into this issue and i want to see what other colleagues would like to make comments. i think on this site are there other colleagues i would like to comment or ask questions of dr. coburn? senator manchin. >> i applaud senator coburn's effort but the bottom line is that he is absolutely correct. i don't have a presence of national parks in my state but west virginia has used national parks over this country and there proceeded to have that opportunity. we are all in and we are committed and we will do whatever we have to do. i agree with you someone has to go out and beat the drum on this but referred maintenance, is relevant and when i was governor every time you build something you build something he referred it to everyone wants a new park in their district. i had the college system and everybody wanted to build new buildings so before i i approved in a new buildings to be built i wanted to see what the deferred maintenance was. it was so pathetic that they didn't deserve one more penny because they hadn't taken care of what they have been if we continue down this road, you can ask the taxpayers or any of these benefactors and when we are not good stewards. i would say to have a value account on deferred maintenance and you might have gone over that senator, i don't know. do we know how much deferred maintenance is on our national parks? do we have an idea how much? the yeah. it's $12 billion. these are backlogs. but remember this is a compounding growing problem. every year you don't preventative maintenance to get behind the curve and i'm pretty soon you are replacing the road rather than resurfacing a road and so this is kind of flattened a little bit but it's going to accelerate. especially what we have done to the park service this year. >> i thought the money we are putting in for maintenance is equal. >> is half of what they need. they are running a $377 million deficit for maintenance every year so every year they get further and further behind in the degree of maintenance to catch back up the cost becomes more complex because you are not doing preventative maintenance. you are doing structural maintenance. look at the grand canyon we are dipping water or river sometimes from the water in there to run the toilets. the grand canyon national park. are we proud of that? >> well, i am committed again a state that doesn't have an awful lot of structure in our state we still benefit all us americans and i think we have to look at it as a whole not just what is good for my state or do i it apart and i will vote for this if i get something for it. this is something that has to be done and i applaud you. >> thank you senator manchin and your problem-solving approach is going to be useful as we try to take this on. senator barrasso is next. >> i want to thank senator coburn for his leadership. i agree the land and water conservation fund should be used for maintenance backlog and not acquisitions. we have the grand teton national park foundation founded in 97. partnership with park service and it worked to construct the great thomas visitor center which opened and was dedicated to craig after his death so their partnerships. i agree exactly with your comments about the land and water conservatconservat ion fund so thank you. >> any other colleagues who would like to make comments or ask questions with respect to dr. coburn? senator heinrich, center baldwin would you like to pass at this time? okay, very good. dr. coburn i think you have seen the really extraordinary interest among senators on both sides. david brooks is sitting in back of me and he is something of a guru on this whole issue of advocating for the parks. i asked him, when was the last discussion in the senate about these kinds of issues, looking at these kinds of questions and how we deal with it very real problem of the backlog and mr. brooks is basically a repository of knowledge about parks. he basically said he couldn't even remember when there was a discussion. it was pretty obvious now that we have this debate anyway. i want to tell you two things with respect to substance. first, you and i have talked about this question of trying to make sure you get the money where the need is and be more creative the better. i want you to know i'm going to work with you particularly with the respect to the issue i touched on earlier because the fee revenue expires in december of 2014. that would be one place to really look very concretely that one of the ideas that you have been there. apparently her efforts are underway to make creative ways to do it so we will look at that. on this endowment issue you basically have -- because this is an area i am am convinced where there just won't be one champion in the united states ,-com,-com ma there will be a lot of champions and we are going to pursue that very vigorously and i've already begun some of that discussion. so thank you. i think you have seen the interest among senators and we will be working closely with you in the days ahead. thank you. mr. jarvis as you come up, i also would like to express my thanks to you for the fact that you worked so closely with the committee. we could not possibly have gotten that cape hatteras seashore legislation out of the committee without your very valuable counsel. as you know that went on for years and years and i just want the public to know that i'm particularly interested in some of the efforts that you all have made to really look at technology to resolve some of these conflicts that have just gone on and on. as we all know there have been real questions and cape hatteras with respect to the turtles and now you can ensure protection for them and also be welcoming to visitors. hugh wall worked closely with the other, with companies in the private sector to look at approaches where an effective to put tags in effect on these nests so that through sensors you could know when the turtles would hatch and you would be in a position to resolve the conflict that had gone on and on, that you could add an additional measure of protection for the turtles while still doing more to welcome visitors to this wonderful treasure that the north carolina senators felt so strongly about. those kinds of fresh approaches to see if we can come up with some on the funding issue. we will put your prepared remarks into the record in in their entirety and one that you just go ahead and make your comments. i know he will get questions from senators. >> thank you mr. chairman and thanks to all of the senators that are here today. i actually really, parabolic but i have to say i really appreciate this discussion because it is critical to the future of the national park service. congress has charged the national park service with protecting america's special places in perpetuity and that is a fundamental responsibility of congress than plan to provide an annual appropriation commensurate with the responsibilities that it has given us. we have embraced opportunities to supplement the funding for entrance fees, concession generated fees and new models of public private land management however annual appropriations remain a primary means of addressing our deferred maintenance backlog. at the end of fiscal year 2012, the national park service based in 11.5 alien dollar backlog in deferred maintenance. in order to merely hold the backlog at a steady level of 11.5 we would need to spend nearly $700 million per year on deferred maintenance. in fiscal 12 we had 444 million available for that purpose which fall short of the necessary 700 million size result every part must make very difficult decisions about which facilities to repair and which ones to deferred. managing this large deficiency with limited resources required to concentrate their efforts on correcting the most serious deficiencies of all of our assets. we systematically track asset conditions and maintenance activities which gives us the ability to identify the most serious deficiencies. the total need to address the high-priority nonroad facilities is $4.2 billion for roads it's 3.3 billion. we prioritize repairs that are most critical in protecting resources ensuring the health and safety of our visitors and provide reporting visitor experiences. we also require that each maintenance project passé financial sustainability test proving the park would be able to keep the asset in an acceptable condition for the lifespan of their placement component. there've been occasions when congress has provided a one-time boost to the funding of our backlog. a recent example of course is the 700 $50 billion national park service received from the american recovery in investment act of 2009. with those funds we executed a tender projects and 260 park units the majority of which address deferred maintenance. we are absolutely open to ideas that supply additional funding and we appreciate the work of the bipartisan policy center npc and the national park hospitality association. some some of these ideas raised by the groups have been around for some time and have been pursued. we are currently reassessing concessional peace promoting the use of policing authority engaging our volunteers in investing in energy saving cost-cutting technologies. the bipartisan policy center has two proposals that have no net increase to the federal budget. one is to increase american hero to know. for example competitive pricing of our annual state in all passes using peak pricing models for a highly seasonal parks. the other is to establish a public-private partnership matching fund revenue offsets. our experience with a $25 million centennial challenge fund in fiscal year 2000 which was talked about here makes us confident that our donors will respond to the federal matching fund. already partners are stepping up to help us prepare for second century. last november in partnership with the national park foundation we kicked off the first phase of the centennial campaign that will culminate in a strategy for introducing the national park service to the net generation. the repairs the washington monument provide a visible reminder of the effectiveness of public private partnerships. the nps receives 7.5 million appropriate funds for earthquakearthquak e repairs with the understanding that a philanthropist was prepared to match that amount or by working with our partners and their friends we will be able to reopen the monument in 2015. a number of proposals in the white paper we are pursuing have practical legal and financial limitations. it's going them in a manner consistent with policies and regulations and laws in addition we are supporting legislation to authorize commemorative coins celebrating our centennial in 2016. the white paper also identify some proposals that face significant challenges. one proposal is to increase the federal gas tax by 1 cent and use the revenues. our rows represent a 5.7 billion or 50% of the backlog. another proposal is to establish an endowment which we support. there proposes to develop a model for managing concessionaires similar to that used by the defense department in its base exchanges and to pursue bonding and revolving loans. i would like to mention finally the significant impact of sequestration on the budgetary cuts to the national park service and its related bureaus. sequestration was designed to be inflexible damage in and indiscriminate and it is. it is undermining the work we need to do one or many fronts. it's increasing our backlog is eroding our workforce and differing important work. to conclude the national park service will continue to pursue new and creative ways to address its funding needs and i want to thank our many partners who are here who have come to us with these ideas and i appreciate the support of congress to resolve this extraordinary challenge. thank you. >> director jarvis thank you very much. because of a number of senators here i'm going to ask one question. director jarvis can get us started and recognize their 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 park acquisition and pigments caused are not always in conflict and certainly the oregon caves raises that issue. adding to the monument might actually pull down the cost of maintaining the site. so, my question to you dr. jarvis is, isn't this part of the thinking that ought to go into this debate? in other words we are going to explore plenty of ideas and we saw that with a big chunk of the senate. but would you say philosophically we ought to try to find a way to intertwine his theory that park maintenance and acquisition together can be part of an effective and cost-effective -- sbi would agree completely with that chairman. oregon caves is a perfect example where the boundary edition that we have opposed would protect the watershed to the cave itself and as you know l. having been responsible for that great park is that it's an active wet cave. there is a stream that runs the middle of it and the water from that stream comes from the surrounding lands and we have always been concerned about the water quality that was resulting from activities on those lands. so by protecting that and adding it to the park we would actually reduce our concerns for maintaining that water quality that runs through the the cave and into the château. ps, buying lands can save money particularly in holdings within our national park which is predominately what we are restricted to the land and water conservation fund. it can significantly reduce their administrative costs in terms of providing access and maintaining critical resources. >> very good. senator murkowski. >> thank you mr. chairman enter your jarvis thank you for being here. your leadership with the parks. i think it is important to directed guys that we have seen some innovative things coming out of our parks. i mention what they are doing is giving the neighbors involved to clean up family to see more of that. i think that helps us again not only in addressing some of the issues within our parks but again bringing the local people in and giving them ownership, giving them pride in their parks that is a good thing. another thing we have good in alaska right now as you know we have some very huge parks that are very inaccessible. if you happen to have the luxury of owning a float plane or you can pay to fly into a place like way clark you have beautiful opportunities within these parks but they are very remote and very hard to get to. what you are doing out at the webcams that are stationed right at the falls there, so right now as we speak and i will do a little promo for you but you can go to a think it's katmai park.com and you can watch dozens of pairs munching on salmon and it's better than reality tv. this is the real thing. it's good because it brings the parks to the people when we know that far too many of our parks as many -- wonderful as they are our remote so how we can do that i think is good. .. >> we have specific land acquisition to make sure that we are not unnecessarily adding to this maintenance backlog. and there is a process to go through in the evaluation there are land acquisitions that doing this more and make it more efficient. so if you can speak to you the priority homages let me just clarify that the way and water conservation fund is available and the national park service is amongst those who are restricted and we can do very minor boundary adjustments. >> you use funds to proceed with land acquisition we are allowed to move money between those two in terms of acquisitions because we don't get money in the conservation fund, we have a very robust priority setting process. they really wanted apart to acquire this property as well. so it's very important. so i think we go through a very rigorous process so i think that there has been a strong portion of that as well and let me also say on our main inside, there is an incredibly robust program and asset conditions. so you basically make every asset and every trail and he does determine its existing condition and that is and this is the core to the purpose is an old barn. >> this is a sustainability test that you referenced. so they require that the park require annual maintenance to keep it up that condition. and they have to demonstrate that they are going to make that a priority. raising this condition to a to a new level an unwanted decline. what that means that you have to make very hard choices about some other buildings that they will have to do for the maintenance on. but we do not want to lose the investment that we have made in improving the condition of the facilities that we have the money for. >> yet as we noted from doctor coburn, we are clearly seeing that the road. so i'm not so sure that i have heard the word sequester. that my constituents are feeling that the sequester is impacting us. i look at this discussion could we have 13 national parks. three of them are crown jewels. we have visitors producing $200 million in thousands of jobs across our state. we have already had over a million dollars of impacts. what we have had to absorb since 2010 that are affecting visitor impacts at mount rainier. when i look at some of these gateway towns that are part of this operation we are relating this to the outdoor recreation industry. for some of our colleagues commonest conversation about the future is one economic question. certainly one that i have a point on. the question is what is the economic impact having on the economy where national parks and outdoor recreation are keep our economy. we are trying to decide what to do to lessen the economic impact. that will continue to be felt and what do you think that we can do to help get our colleagues to understand us. the second point is that my colleague and i have been sponsors of the creation of a new park. it is celebrating the achievements of scientific excellence that our country achieved in preserving that is something between doe and the department and creating this. and to i think that we should stop is due to maintenance backlog. no, i want to commemorate what happened at various parts of what we have done. so i certainly -- excuse me, my colleague from new mexico is here. >> i certainly am not going to have the attitude that we are going to have a new park until the maintenance backlog is caught up. so i guess i am just one that believes that our generation has a challenge to be good stewards. these are decisions for ever and ever and that is the impact that we are seeing from sequestration and what else we can do to help our colleagues illuminate this. but it really will impact small town economies across our country. >> thank you, senator cantwell. let's start with sequestration on the 5% cut that we took in more. and this resulted in the 39 million-dollar cut to the operations responsibility of the national park service. halfway through the fiscal year. the summer season is beginning and most of our national parks. so the net result of that on the ground, we withheld the hiring of 900 permanent positions in the thousands seasonals. so there was a direct effect. every park had to take a 5% cut. i was not given the authority to take that off of the top. every account took her 5% hit. every park is lined in the budget. so they did have direct effects with season openings. reduced operation hours, fewer rangers for search and rescue, i was in the grand teton this week. i talked directly to the rangers. numbers of the rangers are down. in maintenance, specifically, i gave you the number of 444 million that is currently available in our operating budget for maintenance. i did not mention that i was actually reduced down to 416 million by sequestration. all of our operating accounts that would be applied to deferred maintenance are at the 5% level as well. it is about a 27 million-dollar direct hit from sequestration. my theory on new units is that history doesn't stop just because you have an economic challenge. the national park service has been challenged and charged by this body for almost 100 years to take care of not only the extraordinary crown jewel such as the grand canyon, but historical sites that are representative of the full american experience. that story is incomplete. the reactor is the perfect example of that. that it tells an incredibly important story. it tells a story about this country and its leadership in the development of the atomic bomb. as well as its role in world war ii. it is the same thing with harriet tubman and the story of fort monroe in virginia. what is different about this site is that the pact in turn national park service knows that we have extraordinary economic challenges. so we look for partners. we have the department of energy. we have the communities and others who work with us. we go on in and we attempt to minimize the direct responsibilities that would add to our maintenance backlog and recognize that we want to be a part of the story that tells the american experience. >> mr. chairman, my time has expired. but i would like to point out that the last time i visited the grand teton, i was so surprised walking down the street how little english i heard being spoken. we think of these as our crown jewels. but this is an international tourist area that supposedly has generated 136 million in the local economy. so these are huge economic resources and i hope that we will attract in turn attract these gateway communities in the local economic impact of what sequestration is doing. we have to be very smart. i'm not saying that we can't live within our means, but just as you pointed out, sequestration's impact is across the board. it is not giving you the flexibility to do something that might have less impact on local communities. i think that this is important. i thank the gentleman. >> thank you, senator cantwell. you're making a number of important points and i think that we all recall when another washington resident, sally jewell, she is here at the committee and she pointed out that recreation now is a 646 billion-dollar annual boost to the american economy. this is outdoor recreation close to $650 billion per year. everything from guides to clothing to this and not in the list goes on and on. the points are well taken. one of the reasons that i have asked about this case, and i think you all have helped to touch upon another important point. that it is not correct to say that maintenance and acquisition are always mutually exclusive. there have been a number of instances where they go hand-in-hand. and that they actually lowered some of the maintenance costs. >> i think that the director will understand this one. a land acquisition a sickly allowed us to expand, but why did we do it? because it kept getting washed out. so the access kept coming into congress and asking about 200 30,000 dollars every four or five years. so by doing that we were able to move entry point to a higher level and solve a problem. so i certainly agree with your point to i would also note by the way of doing little bit of advertising as well, that senator campbellsville is right now part of the hotline. as well as chairman doc hastings and turned hastings and senator heinrich. i urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please clear this very fine piece of legislation. all right, senator alexander, you are next. >> thank you for the fine piece of legislation. i would like to move the discussion to the eastern united states. i would like to get the comments. one is the appropriateness of thinking about the land water conservation fund and whether that is appropriate or not. and first, i would like to talk about roads and parks and i have always thought come in this goes back a long time. we don't have any business using appropriated dollars to build roads. we know much of this is low. so what is your annual budget for the roads? so there is a separate appropriation at about 160 million yuan good enough every year for the federal transportation fund in order to maintain it. >> yes. >> taking another $3.3 billion and you get $150 million per year. >> 168. >> $116 million per year. okay. >> we won't ketchup at that rate. >> so how rapidly do you need to catch up? if you have the money come you do you do it over it you do it over it. matter of time. >> yes, we would. what we would like to see a significant increase to that amount of money. >> yes. >> one way to approach this backlog of we talk about is to get rid of this roads problem. is not right? i know that in 2005 that was 110 of the $180 million critical deferred maintenance. >> roads are a critical asset that need to be maintained. >> it would be true in the great smoky mountains that a disproportionate number of the visitors are north carolina and tennessee residents. is that also true in other parts? is it appropriate to expect the states to help pay for part of these roads through their rogue programs? >> i really cannot speak to whether or not that is a state responsibility. another throughout the country our infrastructure has been challenged. the drop of the bridge is a perfect example of the many eroding bridges and roads across our country. i really don't know whether we could settle the states with such an additional responsibility. i frankly believe that the roads inside national parks are a federal responsibility and they should be appropriately funded. >> land and water water conservation fund has nothing to do with the maintenance of national parks for it is that right? >> that is correct. >> we were to try to put the two together, that would be a new way of thinking. >> the congress, if they were to decide that a priority for us nationally, if we were to fully fontenot, and for a shorter. matter of time, use the money to catch up on maintenance and national parks, what would be your comment on that? >> if i may for a moment. the land and water conservation fund is a revenue source. it is from the outer continental shelf. there are many billions of dollars. >> except it is not really because it goes into the general pot. and never goes directly into the wind and water conservation. >> that's right. >> except for the 18 that senator domenici. >> the point is, and you are one of the principals in the early days with this, i want to make the point that it is not a tax on the american people. it is a revenue source that goes into the treasury and then needs to be re-appropriated. i would like to also make a pitch for the historic preservation fund that comes from the same source. the concept behind us was that you were taking a public asset and you wanted to give something back to the american people for that. that is the fundamental purpose and concept behind this. and i think that this would have to be well debated. you're going to switch that concept that this funding that has been used for conservation funding for land acquisition to suddenly go to maintenance. >> that is a fair point. i do think, mr. chairman, that there is something there that we can discuss. >> i think that there is something that the land and water conservation fund and national park maintenance has not really been part of the same caboose. those are two different thoughts. we have on the books it is supposed to come out of oil and gas, but it does not. it goes right into the general pot and then we appropriate some money. maybe listening to senator coburn's call, the traditional support for land and water conservation -- maybe there was some way to do two things. >> i think that it was in my opinion. >> thank you, senator alexander. you have consistently, because of your interest in the parks, we get these issues up for debate. that is exactly part of today's exercise. really appreciate it. >> sciacca's chairman, it was understanding that the problem because i don't think a moratorium is going to do anything to get it to be the biggest driver of the backlog of the national park service. when you have 50% of that backlog tied up in transportation and are inadequately funding the transportation needs through the appropriate method of user fees and the gas tax and we are not meeting that need every year, not just in the park service, that seems to me the relevant part of this we need to address this issue at our national parks. and i think that we need to attack that head-on were the biggest drivers of that are. i do want to ask the director, director jarvis. i think that it is important that we are seeing this pop back into the department itself. that is something that could expire or even next year. that is a critical way that we could address some of the challenges of the park service. i think that it is important that we reauthorize that. i would like to ask you are general view on how we make sure that our parks, which are one of the most affordable recreation opportunities for american families, most of us grew up on our summer vacations going to parks. how do we make sure that in trying to address these challenges we do not price that outside of the region of working families? >> thank you, senator. i agree with you 100%. we collect about 170 million and recreation fees. that is special use fees and about another 60 to 70 million and can concession franchise fees. you're looking at about 250 million fees coming into the national park service. differently we have always tried to keep the fee is as a component of the overall budget program. but we never wanted to get the point where we were pricing our national parks to the point where we were excluding any component of the american public and there is an expectation. let me be clear about that. by the american public. that their tax dollars are the principal source for maintaining national parks. we do have the great advantage from the legislation that we do retain 100% of the fees and they are your dollars at work. so we make a very visible to the american public. but the vast majority goes into it maintenance backlog. it pays for everything from upgrading the water treatment plants to improving trails and restrooms and facilities. it is a delicate balance between how much you charge to gain entrance to the national parks in making sure the public understands that their dollars are coming right after serving. >> mr. chairman, i also want to thank senator cantwell for bringing up the manhattan proposed park. i think that that is something that i have heard consistently over and over again from the community of los alamos and how important that is to their history. i think that the director will find a very willing partner in this community to make sure that we do a good job of stewarding that resource in making sure that it has the resources they need and the support and the community to create that new park unit. i want to thank senator cantwell for bringing up the issue of just how important these recreation jobs are. in new mexico it is not inconsequential to have 16,000 jobs tied directly to outdoor recreation. certainly the impact of carlsbad caverns national park in the everglades national monument in albuquerque, places like bandolier next to the national monument and los alamos. these are major draws people from across the country and across the world to come to new mexico and driver local economy. >> we are so glad that we are on the committee. one of the areas we will focus on is this question of the economic multiplier associated with outdoor recreation. i have talked about the numbers in terms of trying to offer a big figure. when you are talking about this, you tend to get peoples attention. but when you're out and you see what this means in everything from gas stations to motels to people that sell equipment and guides and the like, it really is extraordinary. we are so glad you're on this committee. to have you particularly hammering away at the value of outdoor recreation, that is especially important. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. we accept the invitation to continue on the same theme. we talk about the economic impact and the impact on jobs and some of the larger and premier parts. i represent a state with two units in a scenic trail. st. croix national scenic river way is a park unit they are estimated to be a little bit we are vacationing in august, if i can. >> i haven't marked on the calendar. the wisconsin we also value the ice age trail. i have hiked quite a few of those stretches. i would like to actually focus in on that national scenic trail. we have talked a little bit about how to create incentives for private investment to help with our maintenance backlog. it was mostly focused on private investment and i would like to dig a little deeper into private investment of volunteer hours. me just tell you about the experience of the ice age trail. my constituents put in about 70,000 hours of volunteer work, maintaining the ice age service trail in calendar year 2012. it did not go unnoticed. the trail alliance was the recipient of the director of service award last year. they mention that sequestration has really constrained the ability of the trail alliance. >> we know that sequestration was never intended we need to create and increase the efficiency and we want to do everything we can to not write barriers. we are expanding it beyond the example in wisconsin. >> thank you for that example, senator. the national park service could not do what it does without the extraordinary support of our volunteers if you calculate those workhours against the standard pay rates, that is 145 million-dollar contribution. and that comes from the appropriate side of our organization to really allow to be the most effective volunteers that they can be. in some cases the volunteer coordinators are coordinators. but it is best vest on one or can be organized by a career staff they are supervising a crew on the ground and ensuring that they are working with proper safety equipment and drink the water and the band-aids are available. all of those things. the base funding, particularly long-distance trails, it is critical to affect the ability of our volunteer workforce to go out and get this work done. >> i think it is especially important we have opportunities that are not just part of the park system, but things that are close by. families can't afford the long-distance vacations that they might economically amend the other comment i would make, especially given the fact that i picked on the example of the ice age national scenic trail. we have a commitment to do so, and we have to do this before some lands are developed in other ways and we couldn't get them back. >> if i may make a comment, i want to echo the senator's comment about local assets for families and communities. almost across the land every one of those local assets was somehow enhanced through the land and water conservation fund and we often forget about that. that generally running at about $40 million or so, this is a direct grant program to local parks and state parks and city parks. to state fish and game agencies to provide access and swimming areas and outdoor recreation sites. it is critical to the overarching american infrastructure of parks that provide opportunities. we should never forget about that site. >> okay. as i complete your question? >> yes, thank you. >> one question on the endowment fund. i think you could see that a number of senators are very interested in this doctor coburn talked about the idea that there would be champions. i can see that there will be multiple champions and trent champions of his side of the aisle. i have been interested in following the work that you're doing on endowments and talking with david rubenstein. david mcdonald from the friends of leucadia is also going to talk about the endowment that they managed cornet with you all to fund maintenance of the historic carriage roads at the national park. a 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 nationwide endowment. but that may well not be the way to proceed. do you have a judgment on that? >> yes, sir, i do. let me talk about this for a moment. the national park service is an institution with perpetuity mission that we have to live on an annual amount. we have a perpetuity mission, many groups do, whether the university, museum, they all have endowments for the national park service does not. i identified as one of my centennial goals, to develop and endowment the national park system. the commission which senator portman mentioned and served on come up close of that group, that was sandra day o'connor and other individuals, citizens of volunteer their time, they said that if there was one thing of all of their recommendations are they felt would make the greatest impact over the long term, it was an endowment and that would be benefiting this agency and its mission 100 years from now. so how do we do that. well, we have engaged our partners, such as the friends of acadia, but the national park foundation. to figure this out. how can we do this. one was on monday of this week. there were three organizations with an endowment component to that. so we will, through the foundation, a foundation through philanthropic dollars, we will higher 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 sponsorships. the automobile industry, the travel industry, looking for relationships with us for the centennial campaign as well. to build public awareness. to build philanthropy. and to the american public, they may only pay $80 for an annual pass, and they can have 10 or 20 national park experiences, we have not created opportunity that opportunity yet for them to make a donation. they want to give directly to that we are also seeking to include an endowment for a specific thing, such as the carriage trails were one of the major developments at yosemite or the yosemite funds. we are now including that in each of our donation agreement as we build it. i think that the work that we have done indicates that there will be more willingness with a federal component to this. >> i think that there will always be questions against the technical lingo would be funding the porpoise. but suffice it to say that. >> tying in with the concept of the endowment. recognizing that people do want to give back. and you mentioned in your response to some 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 someone dying and they want to provide their land to the parks. as we think about land acquisition, perhaps in terms of mandating. i don't know that we want to mandate, but where you could certainly provide for land donations. also for future exchanges and future land acquisitions to provide with some form of an exchange. as we think about those ideas and how we can reduce cost and yet still continue to add to what we have, i think we need to recognize that there are other ways to acquire land rather than just the federal dollars coming from the treasury. i think we need to look at that. director, we do have one more panel. i know that the chairman has a hard stop your. i wanted to ask you about the situation with the concession to bear with this. we have been working to try to find a result of this. the contract runs out at the end of this year. the perspectives of not attract anybody. we are hoping to find some kind of temporary extension. in the meantime, the individuals are notably anxious and stressed. if the concession doesn't move forward, you really do have a situation where the economy is threatened. and it speaks a little bit to what senator cantwell mentioned with the smaller communities. i would like to talk to you about where we are with this. i think that we need to look at whether or not this might be a situation where facilities need to be sold by the park service. we see that intimately with the private lodges up there i would also like the opportunity to discuss in more detail with you a situation that has recently arisen. this is a little bit outside the scope of today's hearing. but it is a critically important issue to us and my state. as you know, i sent a letter to you dated july 12, requiring that seafood and vendors have to be certified and they have to certified as sustainable as policy was developed without consultation. >> we have a troubling record of meddling with these fisheries and management. we read that the park service is going to be pulling back on it. we are told that no, not necessarily. we are told that that may not be necessarily true. there is in the state of alaska, a strong sustainable fishery. it is really something that we are quite concerned about what the implications of this policy. it is something that i have asked to speak with you directly on. we can save ourselves from that conversation if you just gave the assurance that you have pulled back and the park service is not to go down this road. you care to comment on that, i would certainly appreciate it. >> thank you. the time that you want to take in this hearing come i'm so glad you want to talk in detail about this. i am not pulling our standards over this issue. because this is implying and was developed over a year-long consultation process with the concessionaires and everyone. >> i don't know whether noah was involved or not. >> it makes a determination in terms of what is sustainable. >> they need to have a label that is applied by an ngo and they have this that says this is the label that you have to have. >> what industry standards? >> you are giving me the very clear impression that your spokesman. >> what i am willing to do -- >> the guidelines were drawn to give some guidance to our concessionaires. that we want a park visit to be a healthy experience. the food was the key component. >> i lived up there. i live on the copper river. >> we want that. >> this is a simple change to the guideline. it is not a withdrawal of our guideline. >> when i am concerned about is that the park service and hhs, the certification by an ngo and one 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 their ability to market the healthiest and most sustainable fishery that is out there. so we need to make sure that we are is too important to my state, and quite honestly we're talking about healthy and sustainable fisheries, i will take second fiddle to nobody on this issue. so i want to make sure that we're not locking ourselves in to a standard here that is simply not the right standard. so if we can set aside some time, i would appreciate it. >> you have a second question? >> yes. very good. >> director, you have been so patient, as always. we thank you and as we can see, there are a lot of senators that show this doesn't often happen on a busy day when everyone is looking towards this summer work period and i think it shows a level of interest of bipartisanship. >> in a few moments, and in our home of the joint economic committee looks at funding infrastructure projects. and then the budget request that the national park service. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow. focusing on how americans are preparing for retirement. that is here on c-span2. >> the first lady reflects the united states about what we are supposed to do today. are they supposed to be the mother in chief? and so to navigate that -- we are the ideal fashion asia icon. she's going to be first helpmate, just understand what is going on in the administration and she has to understand what is going on her husband's political agenda. so you cannot really separate this and how the first lady prevent herself and the conflicting expectations that they have for working lives and working mothers. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, richard norton smith and others talk about the role of the first lady. monday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span coming up next, a discussion on medicare and medicaid and republican representative michael burgess of texas. >> i want to thank you for coming here. we are live streaming as well. at this time we have a live panel and we are talking about what is happening on the ground. i would like to thank cbs and caremark i'm here to say a few words cvs. she is the chief marketing officer. >> thank you. and good morning. welcome, everyone. we are so thrilled to see caremark sponsoring this event and to have such an esteemed group of participants on the panel. the affordable care act has been described as one of the most complex implementations in the history of the u.s. health care system. and i believe that that is why october 1 is starting to feel like tomorrow to many of us in this room. i recently heard someone say that this program is somewhat like building a bridge from two different sides and hoping that it meets in the middle. and i think that that is really an excellent description. i think that one of the things that bridge building has done is what a lot of people together from the government sector and nonprofit and corporations to try to figure out how to make it work. >> even more striking, but have those people who are in fact eligible for subsidies don't know that they are eligible for subsidies. add cvs caremark we serve over 5 million people every day and we feel very strongly about our nurse practitioners who play a very important role in helping consumers navigate all of this complexity. so we will be doing over the next couple of months is working hard to create an information outreach program, which will include ways to help customers enroll in new plans. 68% of the people that are surveyed actually expect pharmacies to be able to provide this with exchange related information. i am sure that some of our panelists would agree. it is going to be complicated and we certainly believe that they will help us figure out how to really build this bridge and make this program work for all the americans of the concert. without further ado, here is joanne kenen. [applause] >> thank you all so much. we appreciate everyone participating. we thank you for being a part of this breakfast briefing on health care. all right, without further delay come i, i would like to welcome our panelists today. representative michael burgess who is the vice chairman of the house energy and subcommittee on health. good morning. >> good morning. >> anne gauthier is the national director for the health care policy foundation and mark parkinson is part of the center for health reform marian mulkey is part of the director for the california health care foundation and the president and ceo of hca. thank you for joining us. we'll have a panel discussion. be taking questions from the audience as well. okay, let's get started okay, let's start with the overview. we're going to talk about the mechanics and what is was going well and what you're worried about. so first i wanted to ask a little bit about what the arguments are like in washington. how intense has this been back home? >> thank you for allowing us to be part of this health care briefing. >> during ob/gyn. >> yes, that is true. who canceled on you at the last minute and you got me? [laughter] >> as we watch those appearing back home, you are not seeing a lot of activity of change for the federal government to take that financial responsibility for medicaid expansion, that is not something that the governor said that we are going to do. even though from the washington perspective, where a lot of the individuals have talked about for how we get things up and running, we will tell you over and over again that everything is right on track and right on schedule. we have this little trail of debris on the affordable care act. obviously the july 2 revelations was pretty startling. but it was very startling that just a few weeks before, they said that we will need to narrow the scope. and it's like now, we will be ready at 100%. one of the most troubling things to me in the recent weeks is that since we are not collecting the data, we are just went to trust people to tell us the truth. and what could go wrong with that? it is of concern and later we will do a hearing on the subcommittee. yes, there will be a subsidy available to them. but how much money will we earn in the year ahead. there are a lot of unknowns. at the end of the year there will be subsidies and that will be paid primarily through the insurance company and the individual is responsible. it doesn't always work as advertised. stay tuned. >> leaving a trail of debris on the ground in california. >> no, i wouldn't say that. california has really embraced the affordable care act and has moved quickly to implement many of its efforts. we have strong governance and a lot of leeway as to influence the market. this includes the medicaid expansion as well. the political environment is not particularly divisive and we have a democratic controlled legislature and i think that this comment is not out of place in california. it has a lot of moving parts and wobble play out. >> secretary sebelius was an insurance partner. now we have a controversy between governor brown bock and wanted to have a lot of implementation and the government who doesn't want to go near it. so i know you are living in washington now, but what is the intensity they are? >> the politics is so incredibly interesting. i lived in kansas for 55 years and i just don't understand it. thomas frank wrote about this, what is the matter with kansas, that they have now transformed themselves and when kathleen was elected governor and served for six years, i finished off in the last two years of the term. and now it looks like thomas frank was maybe correct. the legislature has been extremely conservative. and yet there are still elements of moderate politics within the state. we have this very interesting dynamic over the last couple of years for the republican governor very strongly against the medicaid expansion in the aca in general, where the insurance commissioner was a moderate republican who actually supported the legislation unwanted foreign exchange to be implemented. that is what has happened in kansas. >> you have enjoyed this, which is hard and complicated. but it is not as technically as complicated. there are some democrats who voted and some have thought about it in washington and they went home and were not quite as emphatic about it in terms of enrollment and giving people the low-income population. so what is your -- what you worry about when you are alone? >> well, i guess i would say that it would be a pretty wide margin and i think he will vary from state to state based on states like california. we have a lot of outreach and educational activities that are already ongoing. we have not had that as much exposure for the law. we have medicare part d implementation and that philosophical and political difference about where our country should head and what that means probably for the public. that is just an issue where we do have very different views in congress and throughout the country and that will continue for a wild. we want to distinguish that from what the program actually means as it's being implemented. and i think the public really hasn't focused on this yet. that is what is this mean for me. if there will be some question, we will refer people to the resources that are available. we did a whole round of outreach and education and infrastructure building way before this point. it was like a good year and a half and we oppose this medicare modernization act that is a practical issue. and we work with them to come up with this. but i think that that is one important difference. the other important difference is medicare modernization implementation really lasted one season for early 2006. it contributed to this start up with issues that we had and we worked through them in a month or two. we have the had the time of the first enrollment vary and that is not likely to happen in this case. they're going to be a lot of people who remain uninsured after the first open enrollment. not by their own choice and because they may not have the options available. there is not always a medicaid expansion. this is going to be a several year implementation process with more opportunity and probably some modification programs along the way. >> a similar assessment. we are two months out. we have talked in the past about the difference between what the politicians are saying and what has actually happened. has that gap widened? or it may vary. they are basically doing federal exchange and it seems like what do you see when you land somewhere as opposed what we are hearing at that building over there? >> let's start with the old adage that if you have seen one state, you have seen one state. that having been said, i think that i can talk about the group spacings and the exchanges and they are working hard and going to be ready for opening in october. the directors that we work closely with, we spent time with five of the ceos and these are people who are not in it for a job, they are mission driven. it is not going to be a to .0 version that you will see over time as improvements are made. it will be offering coverage for the folks that are eligible with a lot of creativity. in terms of the outreach in the way that they are connecting with consumers. we have the partnership spaces central to the federal government. and even there while you don't have a lot of activity at the political level, you have state employees who again are civil servants and have a job to do. i so let's talk about insurance commissioners about this. i they take this very seriously and all the states when the federally facilitated exchange opens, there are many questions and they are prepared to answer those questions and feel those questions. some of them are even looking at the state of kansas for what they could possibly do to make it easier for consumers to understand their choices. the medicaid department, almost all of them either expanding or not, in order to make it through , they are looking for a better customer experience. this is the law of the land. it wasn't hard to implement. >> i want to go back there and ask more questions. you are working in the bush administration and you are an administrator, you are all of these things. when you watch and you don't agree with everything, when you are in this administration, you can get it can get very technical. when you watch what they are doing, like the evening news and something comes on, it's like, don't do that. i don't know how much advice you can get. but it is definitely interesting. >> yes, i don't have that reaction very often. but there are many metaphors coming up as part of that reaction. one is in september when you see where the policy decisions have been made and what plans are available and how much will that be and how good does it look. that has also been a very big thing. states have had a lot of adjustments and it has been a conscientious set of plans. i would point out that there are a number of people who already have individual and small group insurance coverage and are not operating under all of the rules of the federal exchanges for the rest of the law and some which will be significant premium increases. .. >> and especially for you under a and healthier people how they make decisions so i certainly have opinions but this is what i am watching for the metric to closely follow that war room function strategic actionable information. do i really have the intel on the ground is it the policy system or education and outreach and can i quickly respond? >> october 1st everybody and the syrians this is a process even when politically it was designed as a process not expect 30 million people to sign up on day number one. but there will be a snapshot quality and the first week of jay gary. it made trouble outhouse more because not everybody gets care of the first day but i would think after the first few weeks of. >> you have the serious chronic diseases did you miss your medication that day is a problem. >> texas is the most opposing governor perry has said no out reach coming you're not doing medicaid, he is symbolic of the resistance. what happens on day number one? two people signed up for they say this is the worst thing ever heard of or i'd never heard of it? >> you do get a lot of bad reaction but to pick up on the point made earlier that medicare party looked more pragmatic on je refers but this is political. you read about the people in rural america in their focus will be of the number is 7 million people about one-third has to be in the young in vincible category for the economics of this to work so i imagine they're focused very much to get to that 7 million number as quickly as they can. no one will mislead about their particular situation and but i have a large state added doing medicare expansion but will they qualify for this subsidy? >> you will be sore to death at the end of the year if they think there will be difficulties but if the only metric is the number and that seems to be the case, there is, i would expect a lot of activity in the state like mine. baby happening under the radar, the vantage is to get them signed up for insurance because we are paid her head and then we also get them on the voter rolls of us sometime in the future this could be useful information so a lot of things are happening at once but you don't see a lot of it happening you just don't read the articles of the paper to talk about the nsa. >> the politics. [laughter] so are you seeing they are just looking for the poor people to say forget about your income? >> i not saying that but that naturally would be part of the business model because we have identified success is 7 million people and you need to get there quickly. so in order to say it is working as we play and -- planned because that is with the money is. >> october 1st in california. you are doing outreach messaging, it totally different political environment you have hard to reach populations you have the farm areas, the obstacles are similar. what do you see and what happens when it starts in october? >> it is hard to say until then but we will be investing a huge amount without reach in and it'll let -- a role that although the full campaign has not launched so there are very big investments made by california to do outreach for that population also a very large campaign funded by another foundation targeting primarily or anticipated to be california medicaid program called medi-cal. they should be well focused and there will be a huge outpouring of money but how targeted? and then how receptive? is hard to say but certainly a great deal of thought and energy is put into the questions of the ethnic population to partner to give navigator assistance for state university systems for younger people with families. a lot of thought went into this but when people receive that message what do they do? they go to another source or but do they find the attractive set of options with conditions that are understandable? and to make those tax credits work that is a huge question how people in gage with that. >> what about kansas? >> let me answer in a slightly different way i realize the metric is those that are not insured right now but i really think the future or the success will be the metrics for those of already have coverage. so when i looked at the most is the cost issue in the access issue am proponents have said we can do the major expansion and you won't lose your coverage of the cost is roughly the same. and those who have said he would not get choices and coverage of the web dramatically if it does go up dramatically the dynamics are such it will be difficult in the long term but if it is correct in people king go to the same dogged it doesn't matter. it will happen eventually. it is in place long enough medicaid expansions will occur eventually folks will get enrolled and if it is successful it is not that we have to get rid of it but on the other hand, they don't care if we beat the 7 million this. >> so those 7 million previously uninsured by no means all of them the important number the administration talked about those that have coverage for the employer or have medicaid already to say you're not affected at all but 7 billion may seem like a lot in to the looby significantly affected by those choices and individual and small business exchanges and that is an important point to watch. >> is the 7,000,002 war currently uninsured or those that will go into the exchange's who are in the individual market now? >> it has not been defined it was a broad definition reduce a 7 million people will sign up but the point is correct when we have those discussions 11 months from now the unintended consequences of the impact on price which will ocher of 2012 just before the election time does have the potential. >> 2012 i cannot get over it. [laughter] 2014. people will work overtime in the insurance industry to talk about the same thing cover the cost to the individual fifth few makes the price flight significantly different. >> i would like to take us back to the focused on october 1st and a bit of a jittery first and 7 million. while the news may want to pick it up but it is important that is not the critical date. look back at october 1st is when things open and it is likely the numbers will not be met right away looked when the program went into effect 1987 its debt significantly lager for in ii have been the an originally planned. that said, i think that is more analogous ban medicare party because because of the of the population it was in to learn from that implementation but in the intervening years there is an awful lot learned how to reach the people they try to reach we have had the whole social media revolution, we had a lot that states have done to reach the target population and i excited to bring these techniques but i do want to emphasize the state of leaders that we talk without a regular basis understand it feels very multi teetered but there really is a marathon. and with of longer-term improvement of the health care system getty were people quality coverage and affordable coverage is the promise on the upside. >> when you look at the dates and someone nationally , you always knew this was not designed to be totally identical even before the medicare element or who governs that or to let the play and stay and more in massachusetts or more utah. that gap is much broader not just medicaid but countless ways how one even inducing the results will be? six months or one year from now? how different will look? >> of blakely in this country there is not likely to be one model that works perfectly there could be multiple ways the exchange's governed the way that it hits consumers the way it has version 2.0 aa similar states are looking ahead to impact the quality of the system and i think there could be positive for negative outcome with the different models did what is important is we learn the lessons of what is working and what doesn't work and spreads them quickly for those that come behind of those practices. >> just to give a couple of minutes the political focus is focused on enrollment and coverage but there is other 900 pages that you looked at. that affects how care is delivered and working with chronically ill and disabled so briefly to talk about that overlooked part of it that either would not happen with the health care law or not as advanced. >> it is also very under discussed relating to the aca rethink of it as an expansion issue but to talk about secretary sebelius at hhs they will argue vehemently this is also costing quality issue as well. in running the assisted living facilities the holy grail for providers has been lucky and we do to reduce cost and keep quality at the same level? there are parts that get to that. those that are spreading trying to take care of those that are eligible with medicare and medicaid at the same time to keep quality at the same level to try to coordinate benefits and hopefully keep cost lower. these are not discussed as much as the expansion topic but in the long run they have a very large impact to move along of higher quality at a lower cost. >> is there one specific program or when specific stage you get really excited about? >> in my position and get more worried than excited. [laughter] if we have these projects that combine medicare/medicaid and that will roll out next spring and organizations that come together to coordinate. and it is a threat and day opportunity if we can't figure how to do this right is to be a terrific thing that we can also make major mistakes with poor results. we are more focused on that. >> with the medicaid expansion in or lack there of will create more and even this in this world? >> it doesn't affect long-term care providers but in that, nobody in the broader spectrum absolutely those will have a very different outlook. >> i a rebate -- we have a microphone coming around and the question is somebody mention the campaign style question and how does it help if you may say how does it hurt? how was this concept play out? >> i do think that was a and comment but it has not been fully launched in california but it is interesting to watch but to give people a sense of scope they invest $100 million of the public affairs campaign of the next couple years and isn't it compares to use the 50 million but again the targeting or the of reach of the population that are not well informed or searching will be huge. but we will see when this is on the ground. >> there is a political connotation and you don't have people at home and in 2005 there were some democrats who did not like it or wanted to change it. but they would come here to set want to repeal an are modify it and we heard it every day but then we go home to have a proactive out reach. item note of any republican that is proactively going to take a question to say i will help you signed up. i don't know of any. >> if there is no mechanism by which you would know how to do that because the administration is so sparse but if they talk about that is will they would talk about that this week that this will be your friend down the road but there is very little information and that is in context with the way this has happened. there were governors when this was crafted. they got out of the program. and mitch j. hills cut costs by 11 percent over every two years until we spilled the beans on how he managed to do that with the health savings account model and then something magic happens when people spend their own money even if it wasn't there are many. it is not my a position to uprising administration there wouldn't take it anyway. >> a couple points about campaign and california will do the large scale public out region that is 700 million and it is just a fraction of a broad peace -- broadbased a reach efforts. there is one of baker targeting what has been happened with technological and other reasons. for the social media and internet technology did not exist. it is a way to reach people lot faster but there is a lot of information the administration and others can control and other activities occur in. >> you were relying on twitter for your educational source? our outreach infrastructure was led by those who supported the law and for those who didn't from the year before that people could make informed and actresses but but what your family members really want to know? it was not a campaign threat to identify who will welcome -- to camby a program and how can we microbe target. it is just kidding somebody out to vote. if david flick get the information they would find the honest fact based discussion is it a good idea ? that is not a typical campaign decision it is much more challenging than what is on amazon or which hotel to book something with big financial consequences and that is not a typical campaign threat that is of focus that needs to accompany any. >> that is happening did in the states and implementing their own state pays to changes and in the partnerships states with consumer assistance and that the federal level envelop being the consumer assistance so while there is campaign style trying to reach folks i don't think there is nobody that thinks that is enough without having backed important education ended is not easy to do tell people their choices everybody knows insurance is a lot different in explaining the features of the newest smart phone but there is a lot of work to make that looks simple and none of us knows that will work well or not. >> do we have audience questions? >> please introduce yourself and make it a question. >> do they really have to become insurance and what about the lifetime cap? >> they do comply with all of the requirements that they have to comply with. >> the answer is yes, they have to comply. >> starting 2014 there is a number of questions about and whether the plants can qualify for subsidies like individuals or exchange plans this is one of the many areas questions will be raised to fully comply. >> i guess i have a selfish question with august, how hot will egad? i am so organized and prepared i sent my husband out to get school supplies yesterday. i will go get the right ones next week. [laughter] it is said training process. >> i will never forget 2009 when it kicked off in the sleepy halls were attracting to thousand people but we had 2,000 show up and we had to have the you air-conditioned space into the party and on forever betty's that showed up i did not want the picture to have people pounding on the door so we opened the parking lot and talked for hours. i don't know if it is that level. it could be half of the invasion or half of interest or this would probably be lowdown on the list but no question there will be some discussion. we will absorber a lot of criticism for not embracing the affordable care act but i have been a skeptic from day one and here is the whole issue of funding the exchange's start the next day thin we have some time with the federal debt limit and that as governor perry's concern to redress the government to do everything they say they will do but what if i start the medicaid expansion in derek is nothing there with me at the end of next year and i stand on my own? so some of the questions will be more heated you were in the house and you should shut it down and that is likely the question we will get. >> what is happening this year? >> get passed on a voice vote blast weekend will pass the full committee next wednesday and at some point we will likely be wrapped up in a bigger budget battles we got input from providers for a year-and-a-half and two years they worked for months on this in the important game was to get the policy right and the good news was we could coalesce around policy no one could fix it what is the detail? what is the hardest thing for people to ask? >> with opportunity and obligation we talk about everybody evaluating this as it goes for word but of the issue is to what extent to we have that obligation not because of short-term benefits? >> you hear people of no is in that from the audience? >> but to talk about collaboration and communication but between the states in the private sector but it could go well for word. >> so back to individual signing on the issue may be one reason to get insurance does take you back up from the level what does it mean for me personally from the level at of what is society doing? they're very different views they want to make sure that doesn't mean they support this version to do that to make it a philosophical issue will be a challenge and then to get back to there are a number of people would say i would like to get coverage but i don't have that much income i used to have a policy that was cheaper but then the question in the of of i could see up a lot of people fighting the we will have to see what happens. >> but some people have told me the premiums may be high the first year because five tradition they are conservative and don't want to lose all their money? off so maybe hire the first year in summer holding back so of using not just a moment but on price safe may be the hard assessment? >> that is hard to say but the more you can convey certainty of how well it will work in competitive prices, that will work very wealth off in may bring them down further but this program some states have done pretty well with the process. especially those they don't know is shining up -- signing up but it may well look different been 2015 with those experiences that differs. >> that could be up or down. a lot of it is a mutual stock offering. >> people remember that. >> audience questions? >> i will say we will have an interesting time with the cost of the fix may be not short term but long term or permitted then the debt to ceiling limit expire bring in now a discussion in the whole portable care act could become a part of the debt ceiling debate we are gearing up for that fiscal cliff scenario with whether that government will be shut down. >> but the timing of that? they are debating with the actual time line. i think we will have a long and hot december but. >> how about funding for the new zealand -- museums seeking work and being there and they receive from the federal government? >> states are eligible to apply but those who want to have state based exchanges but after that year they have to be fully self sustaining and they all have different models they are working on for sustainability and fees that are part of the of marketplace in looking at other creative forces so they need to provide the value to their customers and to be so sustaining. >> it looks like it is on the insurer's so will not come from the treasury. >> it is time to wrap up our conversation. thank you for joining us and also to cvs/caremark take you for attending and it thank you for watching the live stream. have a great day and we will see you the next time we gather. thank you dr. mc. [applause] >> we need to understand the eject u.s. relationship we have been delayed now for more than three decades and it is changing rather rapidly. the degree of which our assistance the '70s through '90s contributed to major changes in egypt. we hope to transform the egyptian military from the reliance of soviet doctrine and weapons to that is interoperable with tarzan provides significant strategic assistance to whatever we do in the middle east and beyond. we have created a partnership with the egyptian agencies and counterterrorism agencies that has been a direct benefit to the united states and her own efforts to counter terrorism against us and our interest we helped to change the egyptian economy that mubarak inherited in 1981 to the economy largely dominated by the private sector although there are changes the need to be effective so the investment that we've made has paid off as we need to consider what we need to do in the future were in that is what we need to understand and that could help us see egypt through what some are calling a second chance to redefine this important strategic relationship. in that respect, i think it is shortsighted to cut aid to the military at this time but i do say we should have continued to on dash consider this years ago because their needs are economic having helped transform their military that is interoperable but to cut that a off now would we would lose the one part that is stable and reliable in support of our own strategic objective so we should see egypt through the crisis and by providing advice quietly. we tend to say too much publicly in this country and react to do the events and see how the trends are going so maybe that is the order of the day. i think our own actions need to we tempered knowing that the people will be defining their own future. we cannot make demands of them and expect them to follow our demand. thank you, mr. chairman. >> victory in war in this sense has helped them in a way that when the communist came down and that solidified the sense of national cohesion and identity. it is very possible from the south. >> [inaudible conversations] >> we will call this hearing to order we want to think the indian affairs committee. i like this room. it is beautiful also a witness's for being here and to discuss the critical need to strengthen and improve farinaceous infrastructure system. i will introduce our panel of witnesses that they can say a few words. the governor pencil they get 2003 through 2011 governor randolph serving two terms as the mayor of philadelphia and co-founder and co-chair of building america's future that he is the co-founder that focuses on the need for more significant need for investment of infrastructure in america. . .

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , North Carolina , United States , Texas , Alaska , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , California , Mount Rainier , Washington , Virginia , Wisconsin , Fort Monroe , New Zealand , Syria , New Mexico , Russia , Oregon , District Of Columbia , West Virginia , Washington Monument , Oklahoma , Albuquerque , Tennessee , Egypt , New Jersey , Wyoming , Massachusetts , Colorado , University Museum , Kansas , Paris , Rhôalpes , France , Utah , Americans , America , Syrians , Egyptian , Soviet , American , Jay Gary , Brown Bock , Thomas Frank , David Mcdonald , Sally Jewell , Anne Gauthier , Jonathan Jarvis , Michael Burgess , David Rubenstein , Los Alamos , Harriet Tubman , Richard Norton Smith ,