    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     H.R. 3286, PROTECTING STATES OPENING NATIONAL PARKS ACT; H.R. 3294,
      STATE-RUN FEDERAL LANDS ACT; H.R. 3311, PROVIDE ACCESS AND RETAIN
     CONTINUITY (PARC) ACT; H.R. 3492, RIVER PADDLING PROTECTION ACT; AND
                  H.R. 915, THE PEACE CORPS COMMEMORATION ACT

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS

                          AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                          Thursday, November 21, 2013

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-52

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    85-668 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2014
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                           DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
                PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
    Rob Bishop, UT                       Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Rush Holt, NJ
    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    John Fleming, LA                     Jim Costa, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Glenn Thompson, PA                       CNMI
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                Niki Tsongas, MA
    Dan Benishek, MI                     Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Jeff Duncan, SC                      Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Tony Cardenas, CA
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Steven A. Horsford, NV
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Jared Huffman, CA
    Steve Southerland, II, FL            Raul Ruiz, CA
    Bill Flores, TX                      Carol Shea-Porter, NH
    Jon Runyan, NJ                       Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
    Mark E. Amodei, NV                   Joe Garcia, FL
    Markwayne Mullin, OK                 Matt Cartwright, PA
    Chris Stewart, UT                    Vacancy
    Steve Daines, MT
    Kevin Cramer, ND
    Doug LaMalfa, CA
    Jason T. Smith, MO

                           Todd Young, Chief of Staff
                    Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
                     Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
                    David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
                                     ------

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

                            ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
                RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member

    Don Young, AK                        Niki Tsongas, MA
    Louie Gohmert, TX                    Rush Holt, NJ
    Doug Lamborn, CO                     Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
    Paul C. Broun, GA                    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Tom McClintock, CA                       CNMI
    Cynthia M. Lummis, WY                Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Steven A. Horsford, NV
    Mark E. Amodei, NV                   Carol Shea-Porter, NH
    Steve Daines, MT                     Joe Garcia, FL
    Kevin Cramer, ND                     Matt Cartwright, PA
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Jared Huffman, CA
    Jason T. Smith, MO                   Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
    Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

                                     ------
                                    CONTENTS

                                    ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on November 21, 2013................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Utah....................................................     2
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     4

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Cox, Hon. Spencer J., Lieutenant Governor, State of Utah.....    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of California..............................................     9
        Kennedy, Hon. Joseph P., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Massachusetts.................................     6
        Nelson, Dr. Robert H., Professor, School of Public Policy,
          University of Maryland.....................................    50
            Prepared statement of....................................    51
        Petri, Hon. Thomas E., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Wisconsin.........................................     8
        Pruzan, Aaron, Wilson, Wyoming...............................    42
            Prepared statement of....................................    43
        Sease, Matthew, Treasurer, Montana Lodging and Hospitality
          Association................................................    21
            Prepared statement of....................................    23
        Sheaffer, Bruce, Comptroller, National Park Service, U.S.
          Department of the Interior.................................    10
            Prepared statement of....................................    12

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
        American Whitewater, Prepared statement of...................    36
        American Packrafting Association, Prepared statement of......    39
        Letters submitted for the record by Representative Grijalva..    57
        List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
          Committee's official files.................................    70
        U.S. Department of the Interior, Prepared statement on H.R.
          3492.......................................................    68

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON: H.R. 3286 (DAINES), TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF
            THE TREASURY TO REIMBURSE STATES THAT USE STATE FUNDS TO
            OPERATE NATIONAL PARKS DURING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN,
            AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PROTECTING STATES OPENING NATIONAL
            PARKS ACT''; H.R. 3294 (YOUNG), TO ESTABLISH A STREAMLINED
            PROCESS THROUGH WHICH A STATE MAY CLAIM AUTHORITY OVER AND
            RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL LANDS LOCATED IN THE
            STATE WITHOUT CLAIMING OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND, AND FOR OTHER
            PURPOSES, ``STATE-RUN FEDERAL LANDS ACT''; H.R. 3311 (STEWART),
            TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ENTER INTO
            AGREEMENTS WITH STATES TO ALLOW CONTINUED OPERATION OF
            FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE A
            DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON TOURISM, MINING, TIMBER, OR GENERAL
            TRANSPORTATION IN THE STATE AND WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE CEASE
            OPERATING IN WHOLE OR IN PART DURING A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
            SHUTDOWN THAT IS THE RESULT OF A LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS, AND
            FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PROVIDING ACCESS AND RETAIN CONTINUITY
            (PARC) ACT''; H.R. 3492 (LUMMIS), TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF
            HAND-PROPELLED VESSELS IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, GRAND
            TETON NATIONAL PARK, AND THE NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, AND FOR OTHER
            PURPOSES; AND H.R. 915 (KENNEDY), TO AUTHORIZE THE PEACE CORPS
            COMMEMORATIVE FOUNDATION TO ESTABLISH A COMMEMORATIVE WORK IN
            THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ITS ENVIRONS, AND FOR OTHER
            PURPOSES
                                  ----------

                          Thursday, November 21, 2013

                         U.S. House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bishop, Young, Lamborn, Lummis,
    Labrador, Daines, LaMalfa, Smith, Grijalva, Tsongas, Shea-
    Porter, Garcia, and DeFazio.
        Also Present: Representatives Kennedy, Farr, Petri and
    Stewart.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. Noting the presence of a quorum, we
    will call this subcommittee hearing together and assume I just
    banged the gavel because I have no idea where it is. Oh, there
    it is. Who cares? Bang.
        The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental
    Regulation is meeting today to hear testimony on five bills.
    Under the rules, opening statements are limited to the Chairman
    and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent to include
    any other member's opening statement in the hearing record if
    submitted to the Clerk by the close of business today.
        And hearing no objections, that will be ordered.
        Today's bills will include H.R. 3286 by Mr. Daines, to
    protect States and Open National Parks Act; H.R. 3294 by Mr.
    Young, the State-Run Federal Lands Act; H.R. 3311 by Mr.
    Stewart, the PARC Act provides for continuous operation of
    parks by States during a Federal shutdown; H.R. 915 by Mr.
    Kennedy, to authorize the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation
    to establish a commemorative work; and H.R. 3492 by Mrs.
    Lummis, the River Paddling Protection Act.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Bishop. If I may begin, before we call the first panel,
    in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell down, and the entire world
    realized that large, centralized, bureaucratic entities do not
    work. They do not move us forward.
        Everyone has understood that. The Entrepreneurial work has
    learned that as large companies were succeeded by lean and
    aggressive companies to provide product. Eastern Europe
    understood it. They all recognized the free market principles
    were the best. Everyone understood that, except for Washington,
    DC, where most of our agencies intended to become more
    centralized, more bureaucratic in an effort to try and enlarge
    their particular role.
        Throughout this year we have had hearings which have
    illustrated that leaner, smaller entities are much more
    effective. We had a hearing that illustrated how the State of
    Idaho and Native American tribes in the Northwest were far more
    effective in their management of forestlands than the Federal
    Government was.
        We had testimony in here on how the National Park Service
    has harmed individuals in Washington by prohibiting church
    groups because they are too loud; in Nevada in prohibiting
    individuals for searching for the remains of their dead
    relatives; and we have had a hearing of individuals from New
    Mexico to Montana and all points in between of how they had
    been bullied, and that was the proper word, and harassed by the
    Interior Department.
        In the 1990s, without legislation, the Interior Department
    was able during that shutdown to open parks, accept money from
    States, and then return those funds. We are going to ask why
    that should not be the case again today with certain bills, and
    why if the Park Service is now claiming that they have already
    spent $1.5 million of those donations from the States and they
    now have their CR funding in place, which should supplant that
    original $1.5 million, what are they doing with the extra cash
    laying around here?
        If obviously this Park Service and the Interior Department
    find it difficult to solve these kinds of initiatives on their
    own, Congress needs to step in with a template for future
    situations that may or may not develop.
        We will also hear bills that simply tell us once again this
    large, centralized, bureaucratic entity is not listening to
    people; that the experts in these agencies have become large
    and lethargic and simply unaccountable. They have ignored what
    people want to do on public land and have forgotten the idea
    that a national park that is not visited is of no value
    whatsoever to anyone. Tradition has trumped responsibility.
        We will have also shown in the shutdown that States are
    capable and competent to continue on. In my State, the Sand
    Flats recreation area was an area the Bureau of Land Management
    could not and would not regulate until a near riot broke out.
    Since that time, with the statutory law already on the books,
    they have contracted with the county so that that recreation
    area is now run and managed in an effective and efficient way
    and at a profit.
        Coral Pink Sand Dunes or something close to that in
    southern Utah is Federal land managed by the State and has been
    recognized by national publications as one of the most
    efficient and effective parks in the Nation. As one of our
    witnesses will testify, many Eastern States have a significant
    portion of their State already owned, managed, and controlled
    by the State itself. They do so efficiently, and at the same
    time want to deny Western States for that same kind of
    opportunity.
        This kind of Soviet era mindset has become unfortunately
    the norm. About a decade ago there was another publication that
    I think was entitled ``Outside its Time,'' and the question has
    to be what do we do with agencies who are simply outside their
    time. There have to be some new concepts we are talking about.
        And the last bill we will talk about is specifically
    allowing those States, those lower entities, those leaner
    management associations to take over and provide those types of
    services. We are talking about new ideas going forward to us,
    which should be based on the lessons we should have learned in
    the past. The world has learned those lessons. The free market
    system has learned those lessons. Government in Washington has
    simply not learned the lessons. In fact, some of the testimony
    that we will hear today is outstanding in its degree of
    arrogance.
        We also have a bill, and we will start with that one first,
    that deals with the commemorative effort to recognize the Peace
    Corps, which will not, as I understand, be on the Mall, but
    will be using the leftover mesh tapestries from the Eisenhower
    Memorial to try and build it by itself.
        [Laughter.]
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
     Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, Subcommittee on
                   Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
        Today we will consider several pieces of legislation that will
    empower the States against the whims of Federal land managers. During
    the lapse of appropriations in October, several States offered to pick
    up the tab to keep popular national parks open. Understandably, States
    were concerned that the closures would have damaging impacts to local
    businesses and would prevent the American public from enjoying their
    parks--in many cases, unnecessarily. However, almost as soon as these
    offers were made, the Obama administration rejected them.
        When States inquired why their Federal partners did not want the
    funds to open National Parks, the answer was about as clear as
    heathcare.gov. The responses varied from ``we can't,'' to ``it wouldn't
    be appropriate,'' to ``it's too complicated.''
        It didn't seem to matter that the Park Service accepted their
    donations in the previous shutdown and even took third party funds just
    this year to keep a visitor center open. So what was different about
    this shutdown? I don't understand the hostility toward cooperation with
    the States.
        After 10 days, the administration finally relented and accepted
    donations from the States, but with the strict understanding that the
    Park Service would not commit to making reimbursements and the States
    had to fork up not just enough money to keep the gates open, but a much
    higher rate that would fund a park completely.
        I'd like to hear from the Park Service why they are sitting on the
    States' money even though the continuing resolution funded them from
    the start of the shutdown. Do they think the States' money is some sort
    of bonus? This is the sort of accountability, or lack of accountability
    that makes Mr. Young's legislation timely. It is beyond time for us to
    explore ways in which State governments can take a more active and
    invested role in improving the management of the Federal lands within
    its borders.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. With that, I wish to yield to the Ranking
    Member because (a) he is one of the most thoughtful and nicest
    guys we have on this panel and (b) it is the rule. If it was
    not that, otherwise you would be----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Bishop. With that I recognize Mr. Grijalva.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        That is kind of cold on the tapestry thing though, you
    know.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Grijalva. I do want to thank you and the full Committee
    Chair and the Ranking Member of the full Committee for
    considering H.R. 915 today for a hearing and hopefully moving
    it rapidly to committee action. It has been a 5-year process
    and a wait, and we do it at a very appropriate time today, and
    I think it is a fitting tribute in many ways to the fine work
    the Peace Corps has done and to a legacy of public service and
    I think we need to acknowledge, and so thank you for that, Mr.
    Chairman.
        You know, the National Geographic channel has a show called
    ``Doomsday Preppers,'' and it chronicles people who go to
    extreme preparation for cataclysmic events. Obviously it is
    extreme behavior that is always worthy of a reality show.
        Today I feel like we are bringing ``Doomsday Preppers'' to
    Capitol Hill. The bills before us today are variations of
    extreme behavior regarding the past and now the projected
    future government shutdowns and our beloved National Park
    system. I welcome the discussion about the value of public
    lands.
        I am glad to see the Majority acknowledge that our national
    park and wildlife areas are economic engines in our rural
    communities and to their economies, but like so many of the
    Majority's bills considered by this committee, the legislation
    we will discuss today takes those shared values and twists them
    into divisive partisan extremes.
        First I want to address the legislation H.R. 3286. During
    this irresponsible Majority-led government shutdown, my
    colleagues on the other side must have had an epiphany. Guess
    what. National parks are part of the Federal Government, and
    when you shut down the government, you also shut down the
    parks.
        And guess what. Americans love their parks, and they gave
    those responsible for the shutdown more than an earful. When
    Secretary Jewell allowed States to open national parks, she
    made it pretty clear--there was no guarantee that these States
    would ever get reimbursed. Governors of States who signed these
    donation agreements knew they would need to come to a cash-
    strapped Congress and argue that the Federal Government should
    cut their State a check.
        What troubled me about the agreements and what troubles me
    today is that the States want to have their cake and eat it
    too. Both the Utah legislature and the Arizona legislature
    passed legislation requiring the Federal Government to turn
    over Federal lands to the State. Governor Herbert signed the
    legislation. Governor Brewer did not, citing correctly concerns
    with constitutional issues.
        From what I can piece together, the State of Utah has
    already dedicated at least $2 million to implementing that
    legislation, H.R. 148, which is more than they are asking for
    today.
        If that is not enough, we have another bill that prepares
    for perhaps another future Majority-led shutdown. H.R. 3311
    would automatically allow States to take over national parks if
    there is another shutdown.
        Then, the icing on the cake is H.R. 3294. This legislation
    just turns over control of the lands. It not only turns over
    control of the lands, but treats Uncle Sam like a sucker.
    First, the bill would allow State law to overrule Federal
    statute.
        Second, it does not appear that the State assumes any
    liability for Federal lands. The States are not required to
    waive their sovereign immunity. So the States would take over
    control of our Federal lands, but the Federal Government would
    be on the financial and legal hook if something were to go
    wrong.
        Finally, the Federal Government has limited recourse to
    take back control of the lands if the States are poorly
    managing their assets. On the other hand, States are given
    authority to end any agreement if they no longer find it
    beneficial.
        From what I can tell today this hearing is about creating
    cover for Members who finally felt the sting from voters upset
    that their views were not being represented in Congress. A
    recent Hart Research Poll found that the American public had
    very negative feelings about the government shutdown.
        More relevant to today's hearing is that over half of the
    electorate believed that closing national parks and public
    lands during the shutdown was a big, major problem. As for
    members of this committee who advocate for turning over Federal
    lands to the State, the polls showed overwhelmingly that the
    forced shutdown of national parks served to remind people of
    the importance of their national parks and public lands.
        We should not be funneling Federal money to States that are
    actively trying to take over Federal lands. We should not be
    coming up with doomsday preparations for the next shutdown. And
    we certainly should not be turning over public lands, economic
    assets that belong to all Americans, to individual States,
    especially if the Federal Government will still hold all of the
    liability. This is not right. We should view this hearing like
    people view the Doomsday Preppers, for its entertainment value
    only.
        And with that I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Now, we are going to deal with each of these bills, bill by
    bill. So we will start first with the Peace Corps commemorative
    work.
        We welcome Mr. Kennedy. We also welcome Mr. Petri. I am
    assuming you want to talk to this particular piece of
    legislation.
        I would also ask the committee for unanimous consent that
    anyone who is a presenter of a bill who wishes to stay for the
    rest of the hearing would be allowed to join us on the dais.
        Hearing no objection, we will do that. So you will have an
    open invitation to stay with us if you would like to. No one
    has yet taken me up on that offer, for which I am deeply hurt.
        I am also aware that even though we try and organize things
    so that we have the morning for committee work, there will be a
    vote on the Floor that will come roughly within 40, 50 minutes.
    So as much as I hate to have people just sit here and wait till
    votes are done, that may, indeed, be the case.
        With that I am going to call up the first panel to talk
    about that particular bill. I understand Ms. Tsongas wishes to
    introduce the sponsor of the bill, and I will recognize you for
    that.
        Ms. Tsongas. Yes. It is my honor to be here to introduce my
    newest colleague from Massachusetts, although we are soon to be
    joined by yet another who has gained a seat held by our
    longstanding Ranking Member here, Mr. Markey. But it has been
    my honor to serve with Representative Kennedy, and I very much
    appreciate the legislation that he is introducing today and I
    am strongly supportive of it.
        To give you a sense of history, my husband Paul was in the
    first group that went to Ethiopia after the Peace Corps was
    formed. My daughter Ashley went to Madagascar in early 2000,
    and their experiences changed their lives.
        So, yes, we have had over 200,000 Peace Corps volunteers
    make their way into the developing nations and have added great
    value, and I think increased our moral standing as a result of
    it, but it is no denying that it also changes the lives of
    those who serve, who come back to seek to find many ways to
    contribute to our country.
        And I know that is the case for Representative Kennedy, and
    I introduce you.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kennedy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank, Congressman Tsongas, for the extraordinary introduction.
        I want to thank the Ranking Member and the Ranking Member
    of the full Committee as well and my colleagues for making the
    time for me this morning and for this bill this morning. I
    cannot promise that it is going to be as entertaining as maybe
    you had hoped or perhaps certainly not speaking of the doomsday
    scenarios that we might be envisioning, but nevertheless, an
    important piece of legislation in my mind.
        I also want to thank Congressman Petri for his
    extraordinary history of service, a former fellow Peace Corps
    volunteer, and his dedication to public service throughout his
    career.
        I think we might be joined by some other Peace Corps
    brethren at some point over the course of the hearing.
    Congressman Farr, Congressman Honda and Congressman Garamendi,
    I know also expressed their interest and they might try to stop
    by.
        H.R. 915, otherwise known as the Peace Corps Commemoration
    Act, is a bipartisan piece of legislation that seeks to
    authorize to erect a small commemorative here in our Nation's
    Capitol in honor of the Peace Corps. The modest memorial will
    be funded completely through private contributions and require
    no taxpayer funds.
        I appear before this committee today as 1 of over 210,000
    return Peace Corps volunteers who have served collectively in
    139 different countries across the globe for the past 52 years.
    I think like many of my fellow volunteers trying to find the
    right words to sum up over 27 months of service is always
    difficult, and I will spare you the long stories, but I hoped
    to share a brief one with all of you that, I think, illustrated
    my time and the effect it had on me.
        About a year into my service in the Dominican Republic, I
    was on a bus, kind of a larger minivan called a ``guagua'' on
    the way back to the capital, Santa Domingo, to have some
    meetings at our Peace Corps office. The minivan was meant for
    about 8 or 10 and there were probably about 18 people in it. I
    was in the second to last row with a backpack on my lap, and I
    got a tap on my shoulder. The gentleman behind me, an older
    gentleman, asked, [speaking in foreign language], inquiring if
    I was a Peace Corps volunteer. Apparently I did not blend in
    quite as well as I had hoped.
        I said yes, and he went on to tell me that decades before
    when he was growing up, he lived in a small village on the
    outskirts of Santa Domingo in the mountains that did not have
    access to running water until a Peace Corps volunteer arrived,
    and he with the community helped construct a set of pipes to
    bring drinkable water to the village to save them hours of
    treks each way every day.
        Without ever asking my name or offering his, he then
    thanked me not for my work, but for the work that other
    volunteer had done all of those decades before whom as a little
    boy he never got the opportunity to say thank you to.
        A couple moments later, he got off the bus and I never saw
    him again. That to me is what I believe Peace Corps is all
    about, not about the accomplishments of any one person or
    volunteer, but about the way the combined contributions of
    service comes together to tell a story of a country that is at
    its very best version of itself, a country that might be an
    example and a beacon for the rest of the world.
        Tomorrow this country remembers a young American President
    that called a Nation to serve, a constant dreamer with a
    distinct Boston accent who put his faith in a country that at
    the time was struggling to keep faith in itself. In spreading a
    missive of service and citizenship, President John F. Kennedy
    moved a generation of civil soldiers to get off the sidelines
    and put their talent to work for this Nation. Today you can
    find those men and women in the Peace Corps, in our Armed
    Forces, in a soup kitchen in Chicago, a community health center
    in Georgia, and a legal aid clinic in California. You can find
    them right here in the halls of Congress, a generation inspired
    to change their country by a President who knew that they
    could.
        But as the years pass, the distance will grow between the
    current day and those that bore witness to that time in our
    history. So we will have to work harder to remember not just
    President Kennedy's individual accomplishments as we do any
    leader of our great Nation, but the faith and the fearlessness
    that he brought to a people who were in need of someone to
    cheer them on, and that unshakable belief that he held that if
    we could export the fruits of our labor and the fruits of our
    land, then we could surely export the most fundamental and
    precious commodity of all, our values.
        That is the conviction at the very heart of the Peace Corps
    and the legacy that this legislation hopes to help commemorate
    in its own simple and modest way, not the achievements of one
    man, but the potential of a people who are challenged to change
    the world.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Mr. Petri, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS E. PETRI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

        Mr. Petri. Well, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I
    am here to demonstrate broad support for my colleague, Joe
    Kennedy's bill, H.R. 915.
        I was in the Peace Corps. I actually would have been in
    Paul Tsongas' group but decided to go to law school, and then
    was in Somalia. When I was there, we were taught that we were
    representing the American people, not necessarily the American
    Government, and I think a memorial to mark some 50 years of
    service by our fellow Americans that is paid by voluntary
    contributions is an appropriate indication of the public
    support for the volunteers who are representing them in many
    different societies all around the world.
        It has always been my hope over time, as you had indicated,
    that rather than it being sort of a bureaucratic thing that
    over time it could evolve to being supported by, and it is
    gradually happening, by voluntary contributions and support
    rather than necessarily by being a government-centered
    institution. We are nowhere near there yet, but institutions
    have been developing that support individual volunteers as they
    do their efforts all around the world, and I think my other
    colleagues will testify to the impact the Peace Corps had on
    them as individuals and actually their ability to communicate
    our role in the world as a result of that experience.
        So I strongly urge that this be dealt with in the spirit in
    which it is offered, which is as a legitimate memorial and
    commemorative effort rather than any sort of partisan football
    and urge that the committee give it favorable consideration.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Petri.
        I notice that Mr. Farr has joined us here. Mr. Farr, you
    came right on time. You are recognized for 5 minutes on this
    bill.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members.
        I am very excited about this bill, and I think it is an
    appropriate historical moment to be considering it when you
    think that tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of John F.
    Kennedy's assassination.
        I will just tell you I was 22 years old. I was in graduate
    school studying Spanish because I already knew I wanted to be
    in the Peace Corps. I think when Kennedy made that call of, Ask
    not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for
    your country, it really stimulated young people all across
    America to thinking about service.
        I initially thought about military service. I wanted to fly
    planes but my eyesight would not allow me to do that. I think
    the flying of the planes was also related to Kennedy's call to,
    you know, compete with the Russians in space and that we were
    going to go into space.
        I thought about it later, and it was really interesting. I
    think the Peace Corps was sort of go where no person has never
    gone before because what we ended up doing is sending these
    Americans to all the places of the world where nobody had ever
    seen anybody from this country, and certainly what I learned
    from my African friends. I went to South America as a Peace
    Corps volunteer and lived in a very poor barrio. I lived in a
    place without water, without lights. I grew up in Carmel,
    California. We had plenty of water and lights. It was really
    kind of a cultural shock to do this, but, boy, what a change,
    what a change.
        My sister came to visit me and was killed, not killed, but
    she died from an accident in a hospital there because they did
    not have adequate medical devices to determine her head injury.
    It was just the most dramatic time, but most rewarding time in
    my life.
        And I just came back, going through a lot of anger and a
    lot of despair because my mother had also died of cancer while
    I was a Peace Corps volunteer, but it had nothing to do with
    being Peace Corps. The Peace Corps woke me up as to when I went
    going back, thinking about, well, why am I doing this. Why am I
    going back to this country?
        And it was, well, did you not realize that there were
    places in the world where you do not get access to health care
    and you do not get access to education and you do not have
    access to essentially a safe place to sleep? That is what the
    culture of poverty is about, and if you are going to bust the
    culture of poverty, you are going to do it through trying to
    empower people to provide education for themselves, provide,
    you know, access issues, all of the things here you and I
    joined Congress to do, why we are in public service today.
        So I think what is interesting about this moment, and I
    think we are going to begin reflecting on it is this call to
    service. You all answered that call, and I want to thank you
    for being in public service, and I want to thank all of those
    in service, whether it is the military or Peace Corps or all of
    the War on Poverty, the domestic programs we have.
        And this bill just allows us to sort of rethink that at a
    time when I think it is really important that our Nation
    recognize this kind of service, and I want to say that I just
    looked up the number of Peace Corps volunteers that you
    represent just on this subcommittee alone. It is 422 people
    serving around the world that you as Members of Congress
    represent, and I think the largest is Congressman Daines, but
    also Jared Huffman and Peter DeFazio represent an awful lot,
    you know, over 35 Peace Corps volunteers.
        So I ask of you as a colleague, as it is with Dom Petri,
    and we have become really close friends because of our common
    backgrounds of being young folks going overseas, is that we
    pass this bill in the spirit of a call for service and a
    recognition that that service is important to this country and
    to the world.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        I appreciate our colleagues joining us. Once again, you all
    three have the invitation to stay with us if you wish, though I
    realize that you have a busy schedule. So I will understand if
    you just blow me off like that and go away.
        Unless there is a specific question that any member has for
    these witnesses, then we thank you for your testimony and
    appreciate your time being here.
        This concludes our discussion on H.R. 915.
        We are now going to go and take two bills. So I want to do
    H.R. 3286 and H.R. 3311 together. Both of them deal with park
    lands and potential shutdown.
        I would invite Bruce Sheaffer, who is the Comptroller from
    the National Park Service in the Interior Department, if he
    would come forward, and also I would ask Lieutenant Governor
    Spencer Cox from the State of Utah, newly sworn in as
    lieutenant Governor. We welcome you here to your first dealing
    with Congress. You will find that Utah is much better than us.
        And also Matt Sease--did I pronounce that properly?--the
    Treasurer of the Montana Lodging and Hospitality Association.
        If they would come forward with this next panel.
        Mr. Sheaffer, what I would ask you to do, and especially as
    we are running out of time, could I ask you if you would give
    your testimony to cover not only these two bills, but the
    Lummis and the Young bills as well, but if I would then ask you
    to stay at the dais so that you could be available for
    questions on the other bills as they come up?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. You are now recognized for 5
    minutes.
        For those of you who have never been here before, the timer
    is in front of you. The green light means you are free to go.
    Yellow light means you have got a minute left. At the red
    light, I wish you to stop in midsentence if possible.
        Mr. Sheaffer.

        STATEMENT OF BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK
                SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Sheaffer. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
    to present the Department of the Interior's views on the four
    bills under immediate consideration.
        I have a full statement for the record and will summarize
    my view here or the Department's views here in a quick message.
        The Department will not be presenting its views today on
    the fifth bill, as I am not sure if it is even under
    consideration at this time, regarding Wyoming paddle use issue.
    Protecting Parks, 3286 directs the Secretary of the Treasury to
    reimburse States for funds expended for activities conducted
    during the government shutdown that were necessary to operate a
    national park.
        Under the terms of the agreements that funded National Park
    Service personnel to reopen specific national parks, the States
    donated to the National Park Service lump sum payments in
    advance to cover the cost of operating the parks for a specific
    number of days. When Congress passed a continuing resolution
    providing appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014, the National
    Park Service was able to stop charging employees' time against
    that account and has returned the unused donated funds.
        The Park Service immediately began the process of
    reimbursing, and we did so very quickly, a total of $1.6
    million as expended. However, the National Park Service does
    not have the authority to reimburse States for the portion of
    funds that was expended. An act of Congress is needed for that.
    H.R. 3286 would provide that authority.
        We estimate this legislation would cost the U.S. Treasury
    approximately $2 million.
        H.R. 3311, Access and Retain Continuity, the other bill you
    would like to consider at this time, would require the
    Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements with States
    to allow them to conduct Federal Government activities that are
    necessary to operate facilities or programs that have a direct
    economic impact on tourism, mining, timber, and general
    transportation.
        The agreements would be for activities a State conducts
    during a time when the Federal Government was not conducting
    the activity due to a partial shutdown resulting from lapse in
    appropriations. The Department strongly opposes this bill.
        We have a great deal of sympathy for businesses and
    communities that experience a disruption of activity and loss
    of revenue during last month's government shutdown and that
    stand to lose more if there is another funding lapse.
        However, rather than only protecting certain sectors of the
    economy from the effects of a shutdown of this nature, it is
    the position of the Administration that Congress should protect
    all sectors of the economy by enacting appropriations on time
    so as to avoid any future shutdowns.
        In addition, the proposed legislation would be a poor use
    of departmental resources to prepare what would be an enormous
    number of agreements with State governments just for the
    possibility that a funding lapse might again occur.
        Furthermore, similar to H.R. 3294, this bill would
    undermine the longstanding framework established by Congress
    for the management of Federal lands under the stewardship of
    the Department of the Interior by aligning States to carry out
    activities that are inherently Federal in nature.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sheaffer follows:]
      Prepared Statement of C. Bruce Sheaffer, Comptroller, National Park
                    Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
       concerning h.r. 3286, to direct the secretary of the treasury to
    reimburse states that use state funds to operate national parks during
            the federal government shutdown, and for other purposes
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today to provide the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 3286, a
    bill to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse States that
    use State funds to operate National Parks during the Federal Government
    shutdown, and for other purposes.
        H.R. 3286 directs the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse any
    State for funds expended for an activity conducted in fiscal year 2014
    during the government shutdown that was necessary to operate a national
    park located within the State. Reimbursement would be provided only for
    activities authorized under Federal law and conducted in a manner and
    at approximately the same level in scope and cost as they would have
    been conducted by the Federal Government.
        From October 1 through October 16, 2013, the National Park Service,
    along with other bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior,
    implemented a shutdown of our activities due to a lapse in
    appropriations. Under the closure determination and notice issued by
    the Director of the National Park Service, and consistent with
    applicable law, the National Park Service closed and secured all 401
    national parks across the country, suspended all activities, and
    furloughed more than 20,000 National Park Service employees.
        In response to the economic impacts that the park closures were
    having on many communities and local businesses, as the shutdown
    entered a second week, Secretary Jewell announced that the Department
    would consider agreements with Governors who indicated an interest and
    ability to fully fund National Park Service personnel to reopen
    specified national parks in their States. Six States--Arizona,
    Colorado, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah--signed donation
    agreements with the Department to open a total of 13 park units that
    are all significant contributors to tourism in the States where they
    are located. State donations through these agreements totaled
    approximately $3.6 million. Once these agreements were signed and the
    funds were transferred, the National Park Service reopened the national
    parks in accordance with the specific agreements.
        Under the terms of the agreements, the States donated to the
    National Park Service lump sum payments in advance to cover the cost of
    operating the parks for a specific number of days. The employees who
    returned to work in these parks during the shutdown were paid for these
    days out of the funds donated by the States. When Congress passed a
    continuing resolution providing appropriations for the first 3\1/2\
    months of fiscal year 2014 on October 16, the National Park Service was
    able to resume operations on October 17 and stop charging employee time
    against the funds that had been donated by the States.
        Once the shutdown ended, the National Park Service immediately
    began the process of reimbursing the six States for the portion of
    donated funding that was not expended to operate the parks, which
    totaled approximately $1.6 million. However, the National Park Service
    does not have the authority to reimburse States for the portion of
    funding that was expended; an act of Congress is needed for that. H.R.
    3286 would provide that authority.
        We estimate this legislation would cost the U.S. Treasury
    approximately $2 million and would be subject to Pay-As-You-Go
    requirements.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to
    answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
    concerning h.r. 3294, to establish a streamlined process through which
     a state may claim authority over and responsibility for management of
     federal lands located in the state without claiming ownership of the
                          land, and for other purposes
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide the views of the Department on H.R. 3294, a bill
    to establish a streamlined process through which a State may claim
    authority over and responsibility for management of Federal lands
    located in the State without claiming ownership of the land, and for
    other purposes.
        The Department strongly opposes H.R. 3294. This bill would
    seriously undermine the longstanding framework established by Congress
    for the management of Federal lands under the stewardship of the
    National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. The lands managed by
    these bureaus belong to all Americans, not just the residents of the
    States in which they are located, and therefore should continue to be
    managed in accordance with laws established by the Federal Government,
    not individual State governments.
        H.R. 3294 would allow a State to submit a petition to enter into a
    cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary
    of Agriculture (Secretary) for purposes of managing certain qualifying
    Federal lands located in the State. The bill would require the
    Secretary to approve or deny such a petition not later than 90 days
    after the date on which the Secretary receives the petition if the
    Secretary determines that the petition meets certain criteria
    identified in the bill. The bill provides conditions for the submittal
    of a petition by the State, and for the denial of a petition by the
    Secretary.
        The bill provides that State laws shall supersede Federal laws on
    the qualifying Federal lands administered by a State under a
    cooperative agreement to the extent that such laws are more restrictive
    than the corresponding Federal laws. The bill also provides that the
    United States shall retain all right, title, and interest in and to
    such lands, and provides for conditions under which a cooperative
    agreement authorized under this bill shall terminate.
        The Department has a number of concerns with H.R. 3294. Our
    fundamental concern is that the bill would erode the idea of a Federal
    system of public lands, and the system of laws, regulations, and
    policies that govern the management of those lands. The management of
    Federal lands involves the exercise of inherently Federal functions and
    decisionmaking by land managers to make decisions for the long-term
    benefit of all Americans. State governments have very different
    responsibilities for the management of State lands than the Federal
    Government, and are accountable only to residents within their
    particular States. Accordingly, each State would be under strong
    pressure to manage according to local rather than the national
    interest.
        H.R. 3294 would allow a State to take over the administration of
    lands that are currently managed by four separate bureaus with
    different missions. Each of these land management bureaus is governed
    by different laws, regulations, and policies, and they are responsible
    for managing resources for different purposes. It would be virtually
    impossible for a State to fully carry out each of the individual
    missions of these bureaus, and to provide for the long-term management
    of these Federal resources for the benefit of all Americans.
        For example, many National Wildlife Refuges were established as
    stopover and wintering habitat for migrating birds. They are managed as
    a system so that the location and timing of food and cover are
    available to waterfowl and other migratory birds where and when they
    need it--during spring and fall migrations and breeding and wintering
    seasons. Ensuring the coordinated management of these migratory species
    across multiple States and even international borders is most
    effectively coordinated by the Federal Government.
        This bill would not only compromise the statutory protection that
    Congress has provided to these lands, but may also cause legal
    confusion for Federal agencies, partners, and stakeholders. State
    management of Federal lands would eliminate consistency and
    predictability for companies and partners that invest resources in
    long-term or large-scale projects on Federal lands, or that rely on
    Federal laws that authorize partnerships, business services and uses
    related to these lands, such as lease-holders, miners, ranchers, right-
    of-way holders, commercial guiding operations, concessions, cooperative
    associations, and non-profit educational institutions. It may also
    introduce a new risk of potential liability for the Federal Government,
    States, and others conducting activities on Federal lands during the
    interim.
        While the Department opposes being required to enter into
    agreements with States to manage Federal lands, we recognize that it is
    productive to have some discretionary authority to enter into
    agreements to share management responsibilities with States and
    localities, where it is appropriate. Land management agencies already
    have the necessary authority to enter into cooperative agreements with
    States to carry out legally authorized activities for a public purpose.
    In addition, other authorities exist that promote shared
    responsibilities.
        The National Park Service, for example, has authority to enter into
    cooperative management agreements with States where the sharing of
    resources provides for more effective and efficient administration of
    the park lands. But the law that permits cooperative management
    agreements for park lands specifically prohibits the transfer of
    administration responsibilities for National Park System units to other
    entities. Similarly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has authority
    to enter into agreements with States under the Fish and Wildlife
    Coordination Act of 1956, but is not authorized under the National
    Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act to transfer administration of
    the Refuge System. And, the Bureau of Land Management also has broad
    authority, under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, to enter
    into cooperative agreements related to the management, protection, and
    development of public lands. The Bureau of Land Management has a
    variety of agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies,
    including contracting with a State law enforcement agency to provide
    dispatch services and supplemental patrols on public lands during high-
    use periods.
        In addition, there may be individual cases where it makes sense to
    have a cooperative management arrangement between a Federal land
    management agency and a State. For example, the city of Rocks National
    Reserve, which is federally owned, is cooperatively managed by the
    National Park Service and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation.
    That management arrangement was authorized by Congress specifically for
    that site. The Department believes these types of management
    arrangements should continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may
    have.
    concerning h.r. 3311, to direct the secretary of the interior to enter
    into agreements with states to allow continued operation of facilities
    and programs that have been determined to have a direct economic impact
    on tourism, mining, timber, or general transportation in the state and
     which otherwise would cease operating, in whole or in part, during a
         federal government shutdown that is the result of a lapse in
                     appropriations, and for other purposes
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide the views of the Department on H.R. 3311, a bill
    to direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements with
    States to allow continued operation of facilities and programs that
    have been determined to have a direct economic impact on tourism,
    mining, timber, or general transportation in the State and which would
    otherwise cease operating, in whole or in part, during a Federal
    Government shutdown that is the result of a lapse in appropriations,
    and for other purposes.
        The Department strongly opposes H.R. 3311. We have a great deal of
    sympathy for the businesses and communities that experienced a
    disruption of activity and loss of revenue during last month's
    government shutdown and that stand to lose more if there is another
    funding lapse in the future. However, rather than only protecting
    certain narrow sectors of the economy (and only the portions of those
    sectors associated with Department of the Interior activities) from the
    effects of a government shutdown in the future, Congress should protect
    all sectors of the economy by enacting appropriations on time, so as to
    avoid any future shutdowns. In addition, the proposed legislation would
    be a poor use of already strained Departmental resources to prepare
    what could be an enormous number of different types of agreements with
    State governments, just for the possibility that a funding lapse might
    occur in the future. Furthermore, this bill would seriously undermine
    the longstanding framework established by Congress for the management
    of Federal lands under the stewardship of the Department of the
    Interior by allowing States to carry out activities that are inherently
    Federal in nature.
        H.R. 3311 would require the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
    agreements with States to provide for those States to conduct Federal
    Government activities that are necessary to operate facilities or
    programs that have a direct economic impact on tourism, mining, timber,
    or general transportation. The agreements would be for activities a
    State conducts during a time when the Federal Government was not
    conducting the activity due to a partial shutdown resulting from a
    lapse in appropriations. The bill sets out a process for States to
    petition the Secretary to enter into an agreement and for an agreement
    to be approved whether a Federal Government shutdown appears imminent
    or not. It also requires the Secretary to reimburse a State for
    activities conducted by the State within 90 days after the funds are
    made available to the Secretary.
        The lapse in government funding that resulted in a partial shutdown
    of the Federal Government from October 1 through October 16, 2013, was
    the first such shutdown to occur in 17 years. As the shutdown entered
    its second week, the National Park Service entered into donation
    agreements with six States to accept from those States the donation of
    funds necessary to allow the National Park Service to temporarily
    reopen 13 national park units. In these cases, the States were
    concerned enough about the loss of economic activity associated with
    certain national parks to use their own funds to alleviate the impact
    of park closures.
        These agreements did help a select number of businesses and
    communities. However, even as we appreciated being able to help those
    few businesses and communities around the parks that were reopened, we
    recognized the unfairness of the situation across the country. These
    agreements did not begin to address the impacts of the closure of all
    401 national park units, let alone all of the other activities managed
    by the Department or the Federal Government. These agreements should
    not be held up as a model of how the Federal Government should do
    business. They were designed to be temporary, emergency measures for
    some individual situations, and would not necessarily work for other
    Departmental activities associated with the four industries identified
    by H.R. 3311, nor could they come close to ameliorating the many
    negative impacts of a shutdown. Such agreements are not an appropriate
    solution for allowing appropriations to lapse and causing a shutdown.
        Additionally, the types of temporary, emergency measures
    contemplated by H.R. 3311 would introduce further uncertainty for
    businesses that rely on Federal land activities, as the entity
    responsible for managing the lands could change depending on the status
    of appropriations. Furthermore, the variety of activities which occur
    on these Federal lands, including mining and timber harvest, would be
    particularly difficult to manage on an interim, individual basis. It
    may also introduce a new risk of potential liability for the Federal
    Government, States, and others conducting activities on Federal lands
    during the interim.
        Finally, H.R. 3311 would allow States to carry out activities,
    including the operation of facilities or programs, which would
    otherwise be conducted by the Federal Government. The management of
    Federal lands involves the exercise of inherently Federal functions and
    decisionmaking by land managers for the long-term benefit of all
    Americans. State governments have very different responsibilities for
    the management of State lands than the Federal Government, and are
    accountable only to residents within their particular States.
    Accordingly, each State would be under strong pressure to manage
    according to local rather than the national interest.
        The recent Federal Government shutdown had terrible impacts for
    American citizens, businesses, communities, States and the economy as a
    whole. These impacts are summarized in the report released by the
    Office of Management and Budget this month entitled ``Impacts and Costs
    of the October 2013 Federal Government Shutdown'' (November 2013). The
    report makes clear that the economic effects of the shutdown were felt
    far beyond the tourism, mining, timber, and transportation sectors. Any
    change in law to try to address the impacts of a shutdown on these
    particular industries, or on any sectors of the economy, in advance of
    a future Federal Government shutdown, is not a responsible alternative
    to simply making the political commitment to provide appropriations for
    all the vital functions the Federal Government performs.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may
    have.
    concerning h.r. 915, a bill to authorize the peace corps commemorative
        foundation to establish a commemorative work in the district of
               columbia and its environs, and for other purposes
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to H.R. 915, a bill to
    authorize the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a
    commemorative work in the District of Columbia and environs, and for
    other purposes.
        The Department supports H.R. 915, which would authorize a memorial
    commemorating the formation of the Peace Corps and the ideals of world
    peace and friendship upon which the Peace Corps was founded. This
    proposal provides that no Federal funds be used for establishing the
    memorial.
        Although this proposal does not seek any exceptions to the
    Commemorative Works Act (CWA), it should be noted that this proposal to
    honor the ideals upon which the Peace Corps was founded does not fit
    the typical mold for commemoration. The concept of establishing a
    memorial to ``ideals'' is not explicitly described in the CWA. When
    testifying on H.R. 4195, a similar bill introduced in the 111th
    Congress, we identified our concerns that a bill such as that could set
    an unwelcome precedent for any and all future concepts identified only
    as ``ideals,'' resulting in an untenable influx of memorial proposals.
    However, there is precedent for such commemoration: specifically, the
    National Peace Garden, which Congress authorized in 1987, and the
    Memorial to Japanese American Patriotism in World War II, which was
    authorized in 1992.
        Our support for this proposal is based upon our understanding that
    this memorial will recognize the establishment of the Peace Corps and
    the significance of the ideals it exemplifies, not the organization's
    members. The CWA precludes a memorial to members of the Peace Corps as
    the commemoration of groups may not be authorized until after the 25th
    anniversary of the death of the last surviving member of a group.
        The Department notes that H.R. 915 reflects suggestions made to
    strengthen the language in this proposal as recommended in our
    testimony on H.R. 4195 in the 111th Congress, and by the National
    Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) at its meeting on April
    21, 2010. The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission has not
    reviewed H.R. 915, but in their June 23, 2011 review of the 112th
    Congress' H.R. 854, which is almost identical to this bill, they
    expressed support for the concept of a memorial to the ideals of the
    Peace Corps. NCMAC found that the provisions of H.R. 854 connect the
    ideals to the exceptional aspects of American character that are
    exhibited in the ideals of the Peace Corps. We share the Commission's
    support for the idea of commemorating volunteerism and international
    cooperation as worthy ideals and practices of the Peace Corps.
        That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to
    respond to any questions from you and members of the committee.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. I thank you.
        And then once again, I would ask you if you would stay
    there at the panel through all the succeeding bills we deal
    with.
        Let me go first and we will talk specifically about H.R.
    3311. So what I would like to do is recognize Mr. Stewart as
    the sponsor of that bill, then Lieutenant Governor Cox. You
    would have time after him, and then we will go to H.R. 3286. I
    will recognize Mr. Daines and then Mr. Sease.
        So Congressman Stewart.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for holding the
    hearing and for allowing us to participate.
        I am pleased to appear before your subcommittee to
    introduce H.R. 3311, ``To Provide Access and Retain Continuity
    Act,'' or the PARC Act as it has become known, and again, thank
    you for considering this legislation, and to the witnesses,
    thank you for participating as well.
        When the Federal Government shut down in October of this
    last year, it seemed as if the administration used all of the
    lessons, frankly, from years of Chicago land style politics to
    do what they could to make this shutdown as painful for as many
    people as possible. It is estimated that Utah tourism suffered
    something like $30 million losses due to the Federal shutdown.
        Now, tourism provides roughly 40 percent of the employment
    in southern Utah, which I happen to represent, and as a side
    note, I would recognize that the reason that it is such an
    important employer in that part of the State is--one of the
    primary reasons is due to the fact that the Federal Government
    has shut off nearly all access to the invaluable resources that
    are available in those lands.
        Because of this, businesses and communities were hard hit
    by the government shutdown. In Utah there are five national
    parks, seven national monuments, two national recreation areas,
    six national forests. In fact, 70 percent of my State is
    controlled by the Federal Government, as I am sure the
    lieutenant Governor may mention in his testimony.
        The State of Nevada is 84 percent controlled by the Federal
    Government. In Idaho, Alaska and Oregon, the Federal Government
    controls something like 50 percent. In California, Wyoming,
    Arizona and New Mexico, it is over 40 percent.
        Now, all of this is to say that if the administration wants
    to make a shutdown painfully felt, it is very easy for them to
    do that. In the West where there is so much Federal land, it is
    detrimental not only to tourism, but to other industries such
    as mining and timber and transportation and cattle production.
    All of them are impacted by this as well.
        This is not a situation that we welcome in the West. You
    know, to be very honest, we wish we controlled more of our
    land, such as they do in the East, but that is not the case.
    But whether you are from the West or the East, the recent
    Federal shutdown with its closure of public lands constitutes a
    loss of billions of dollars in business revenue around the
    Nation.
        And I have proposed the PARC Act to allow States,
    territories and even the District of Columbia to enter into
    agreements with the Department of the Interior to keep
    economically important Federal facilities open during a
    potential shutdown in the future.
        Now, I note that some have called this a doomsday scenario,
    but I think it is wise for us to prepare for an eventuality
    such as that. If we keep savings in our personal finances as
    families, that is not because we are doomsday. That is because
    we want to be prudent and careful, and I think this is a
    similar situation.
        These agreements would be in place and could not be altered
    as a result of just political vicissitudes, and they would
    allow for continued operation of public lands and for an avenue
    for which the government has reopened and States can be
    compensated for expenditures on behalf of the Federal
    Government.
        And finally, let me just end with this. If you love the
    national parks as I do and if you want to keep the national
    parks open as I do, and if you think it is a good idea to
    prepare for an uncertain future, if you want to protect small
    businesses and rural communities as I do, and then finally if
    you think it is a bad idea for the Federal Government to have
    such power over the States as I do, then this is a good bill.
    It does all of these things, and for that reason I ask for your
    support and I encourage its passage.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back my time.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        We would now like to turn to Lieutenant Governor Cox in the
    State of Utah and recognize you for 5 minutes to talk
    specifically about the Stewart bill.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. SPENCER J. COX, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR,
                             STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, Mr.
    Grijalva. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the State of
    Utah. Governor Gary Herbert sends his apologies. He would
    prefer to be here but is otherwise engaged at the time.
        Congressman Stewart has very eloquently stated the position
    of the State of Utah, and I do not wish to tread upon his
    remarks in any way, but I would like to maybe pull back the
    curtain just a little bit if I could in the happenings that
    kind of led to this.
        During the shutdown, as has already been stated, the
    results were devastating for the small rural towns and cities
    surrounding our national parks, and we felt that very severely
    throughout the State. When we were reaching for solutions to
    that, Governor Herbert made a call to Secretary Jewell, and I
    really cannot state forcefully enough the importance of that
    personal relationship, two people who do not always see eye to
    eye, but have worked very diligently to have a personal
    relationship.
        So when that call was made, the Secretary was very willing
    to talk. I can tell you that at the end of the day this was on
    a Wednesday after the parks had been closed for several days.
    We were coming up on Columbus Day weekend, which is one of the
    biggest weekends in the fall time of our national parks, and we
    were very concerned about the economic devastation that was
    taking place.
        At the close of the day on Wednesday, we thought there was
    no way a deal could be done. On Thursday morning, Secretary
    Jewell called back and said, ``I think we can make this
    happen.'' By Thursday night, we had a deal in place. It was a
    real testament, again, to personal relationships. It was a
    testament to what can happen when we put aside our personal
    prejudices and work together. It was, I believe, a real
    triumphant example of leadership within a Red State and with
    Secretary Jewell.
        I am very pleased with the results of that as we have seen
    the positive effects of that effort. What this bill is
    attempting to do, I think, is just to lay the groundwork for
    what has already been done. It worked. We have proven it can
    work. It can be done. It makes sense. It is something that the
    American people, the citizens of my State would hope would
    happen in the future so that we do not run into this again:
    again, a $30 million loss to the economy of Utah.
        One business in particular estimates $2 million alone. We
    had several businesses that were literally on the verge of
    closing for the year, and some on the verge of bankruptcy.
        Now, during that negotiation, the initial negotiation was
    that the State would be paid back as soon as the government was
    reopened. We felt like that is what we were negotiating toward.
    We were told that that would happen, and then as things kind of
    wound down, we were told that the attorneys said that that was
    not possible because of the Anti-Deficiency Act, but that they
    fully expected that we would have no problem getting Congress
    to get us the money back when that was over.
        I realize the joke was on us, right? In fact, The Interior
    told us they would draft the language to make sure that that
    happened. So there was a real spirit of collaboration, and we
    sincerely hope that that spirit will continue forward.
        I know I appear to be speaking a little bit to 3286. That
    was not my intention, but again, the benefits of 3311, the
    bill, are that the next time we will not have to worry about
    getting paid back. That would be in statute. We would be able
    to make sure that that happened.
        I would just close with a little story, if I could. I had a
    young man that I was very close to who found himself in some
    financial trouble. He hesitantly asked me if I could help him,
    and I did that, told him not to worry about paying me back.
        A few months later he came with the money in hand. I said,
    ``I told you not to worry about it.''
        He said, ``No.''
        And I said, ``Well, why?''
        And he said, ``Because it is the right thing to do.'' I
    know that may be asking a little too much of this Congress, but
    it is the right thing to do, and we would surely appreciate
    your support.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Spencer J. Cox, Lieutenant Governor of the State
                                    of Utah
    concerning h.r. 3311--providing access and retain continuity (parc) act
        Good morning, I am Spencer J. Cox, Lieutenant Governor of the great
    State of Utah. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva,
    for holding this important hearing. I appreciate you inviting me to
    speak to you and members of this subcommittee regarding the ``Providing
    Access and Retain Continuity (PARC) Act''.
        Utah paid approximately $1.67 million ($166,572 per day) to operate
    Utah's national parks and monuments until the budget crisis was
    resolved. The intent of the State of Utah in allocating State funds for
    the operation of these Federal facilities was meant to be a temporary
    solution until the budget impasse was resolved and the funds could be
    repaid. The important principle is that when States agree to help in a
    time of need, they should be fully compensated for this assistance in a
    timely fashion.
        Utah's national parks and monuments were severely affected by the
    recent Federal government shutdown. These national treasures are
    estimated to add $100 million per month to Utah's economy. This money
    goes to support Utah's rural communities, like Moab, Hanksville,
    Panguitch, and Springdale, whose economies are symbiotically tied to
    the tourism dollars brought in by the domestic and international
    visitors who come to Utah.
        When the Federal Government partially closed on October 1, the
    effects were immediate, and they were dramatic. Local hotels went from
    being full to virtually empty in a matter of days and bus companies
    shut down. Many outfitters received cancellations that threatened their
    entire season and supporting businesses were facing the prospect of
    going bankrupt because of actions out of their control.
        However, the State of Utah and the Department of the Interior were
    able to quickly negotiate an agreement in which the State would upfront
    the money to the National Park Service in order to operate Utah's
    national parks and monuments until Federal budget crisis was resolved.
    The State committed approximately $1.67 million ($166,572 per day) to
    operate these facilities for 10 days. The Federal budget crisis was
    resolved 6 days after the State began subsidizing the operation of
    Utah's national parks and monuments.
        Ultimately, the Federal budget crisis was resolved 6 days after the
    State began subsidizing the operation of Utah's national parks and
    monuments. As of today, the Department of the Interior has refunded the
    unused portion (approximately $666,000) of the money that the State
    wired to the Federal Government. However, Utah has not yet received the
    remaining $1 million that it committed to operate these facilities.
        There are several reasons why the State of Utah should be
    compensated for this expenditure:

      1.  The National Park Service continued to collect all fees and
                profits generated from the national parks and monuments
                while the State of Utah paid to operate these facilities.
      2.  The National Park Service receives an annual budget allocation to
                operate these facilities, and this money was not reduced to
                account for the amount funded by State funds.
      3.  In the continuing resolution passed by the Congress, which
                reopened the Federal Government, section 116 instructs that
                when States use State funds to continue carrying out a
                Federal program, the State shall be reimbursed for expenses
                that would have been paid by the Federal Government during
                such period had appropriations been available.

        The intent of the State of Utah in allocating State funds for the
    operation of these Federal facilities was meant to be a temporary
    solution until the budget impasse was resolved and the funds could be
    repaid. It is also clear that the intent of the continuing resolution
    passed by Congress was to fully reimburse States for State funds used
    to operate Federal programs. I support a Congressional solution in
    which the Interior Department is instructed to reimburse States for
    these expenditures as stated in the ``Providing Access and Retain
    Continuity (PARC) Act''
        However, the important guiding principle that must be upheld is
    that when States agree to help in a time of need, they should be fully
    compensated for this assistance.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Daines, I would like to recognize you now to introduce
    your legislation.
        Mr. Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this hearing on H.R. 3682, the Protecting States and
    Opening National Parks Act.
        I want to also thank the 26 bipartisan co-sponsors on this
    legislation, many whom are representing States who stepped up
    to the challenge as Utah did to open up our parks while the
    Obama administration refused access during the partial lapse in
    appropriations.
        It is rare we see much bipartisan agreement in this town.
    It is nice to see seven Democrats joining already as co-
    sponsors on this bill on the House side. In fact, H.R. 3286 has
    a Senate companion bill already, Senate Bill 1572, sponsored by
    Senators Alexander, Hatch, Udall, and Bennett.
        Because we need to support our States who stepped up to the
    challenge during this most difficult time with this strong
    bipartisan support, and I urge passage of this solution to make
    these States whole for the expended costs due to inaction in
    Washington. That is what H.R. 3286 will provide.
        Nobody wanted to see the shutdown. It is important that
    when we see DC fail in its most basic responsibilities to
    govern, it is imperative we have contingency plans when the
    government cannot do its job, and this is what will help to
    remove the uncertainty because many families are planning
    vacations well in advance to our great national parks.
        I grew up an hour away from Yellowstone National Park. I
    went from kindergarten through college in Bozeman, Montana. We
    love our national parks. We love going up to Glacier Park in
    the State of Montana. They are truly treasures for this
    country, and when DC fails to do its job, we do not want the
    people to suffer, and when the States are willing to step up
    and be part of the solution, in fact, most folks back in
    Montana will tell me we would like to see DC look more like
    Montana, not the other way around.
        I come to Congress with a degree in engineering. I do not
    have a law degree. So I guess I am one of those endangered
    species up here. I am not a lawyer. I am an engineer. You are
    trained in engineering to identify a problem and then find a
    solution. In Montana, we get up early. We go to bed late. We
    work hard. We want to get the job done.
        And during the month of October, we knew that Washington,
    DC had a problem. However, the implementation of the partial
    shutdown when the administration forcefully prohibited access
    to public lands, it seemed that the administration was seeking
    to avoid a solution and only increase hardship.
        We saw that with the Department of the Interior responding
    on day one by barricading the veterans from the World War II
    memorial. The Department had signs prepared and displayed right
    away to ensure the public could not access public lands, even
    where there was normally no presence of Department officials
    whatsoever.
        I spoke to hunters in Montana who were seeking to cross
    some sections of Federal land, of public lands, and suddenly
    these signs were erected saying these public lands are closed,
    and for many in Montana it was a realization that these are not
    public lands. These are government lands with the government
    keeping the public out of their lands.
        This partial shutdown demonstrated almost too clearly what
    many have grown to understand, the fact that our public lands
    are anything but that. They are controlled by the government.
    During those 17 days, Montanans could not enjoy Yellowstone and
    Glacier Parks and other public lands, including many of our
    favorite places to hunt and fish.
        This year Yellowstone and Glacier lost over 50 percent of
    their visitors for the month of October as the administration
    did everything it could to make clear to the public that our
    parks were not open for business. Mr. Matt Sease, General
    Manager of the Super 8 in my home town of Bozeman--we are
    thrilled to have you here today--will testify on behalf of the
    hotel and lodging industry. He will describe the financial
    hardships our local economies endured during those 17 days that
    cost millions of dollars to our gateway economy.
        Teddy Roosevelt established the first national park, and
    that is Yellowstone National Park. On top of the Roosevelt Arch
    at Gardiner, Montana, are the President's words: ``for the
    benefit and the enjoyment of the people.'' During those 17 days
    the Obama administration failed to even try to uphold President
    Roosevelt's mantra.
        The administration's posturing during the partial shutdown
    had devastating effects on Montana and other States reliant on
    access to public lands. Luckily those several days into the
    shutdown on October 10, the administration finally allowed our
    States to provide what the Federal Government said it needed to
    allow access to our parks. While I am disappointed Montana did
    not take advantage of this flexibility, six States did step in
    and rose to the challenge of solving the problem of allowing
    the public back into their lands.
        These States deserve to be made whole, and that is why I
    introduced H.R. 3286 and urge its passage. I yield back my
    time.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Mr. Sease, we are happy to have you here. It is always
    tough to be the last one on the panel, but your testimony is
    still great.
        You have 5 minutes. Please go for it.

      STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SEASE, TREASURER, MONTANA LODGING AND
                        HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Sease. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
    distinguished members of the Natural Resources Committee, I
    would like to thank you as well as Representative Steve Daines
    for inviting us to today's hearing.
        Montana has more spectacular, unspoiled land than anywhere
    else in the Lower 48. For those of us who call Big Sky Country
    home, we consider the mountains, rivers, and public lands a
    cherished part of our heritage. We take very seriously our
    inherent duty to balance, for both our residents and our
    millions of annual visitors, the responsible use of land and
    the unfettered access to it.
        It is with great interest and some trepidation that we, who
    call Montana home and depend heavily on the tourism that
    springs forth from the visitors to our Federal lands, are here
    today to support the Protecting States and Opening National
    Parks bill sponsored by our own Representative Steve Daines.
        The recent government shutdown essentially barred the
    people from their land. We hope this bill along with other
    congressional action will work to prevent this from ever
    happening again. Neither Montana's residents nor the thousands
    of tourists visiting at the time could access our two national
    parks. They had limited to no access to about a dozen wildlife
    refuges and were blocked from hundreds of fishing access points
    along our many rivers.
        The last item hit too close to home. Many Montanans had
    observed little or no Federal presence in the wildlife refuges
    in the months following the sequestration, but were astonished
    to see small armies of them the days leading to the shutdown
    and placing concrete barriers to block fishing access sites
    along rivers and warning locals not to trespass.
        Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks by all accounts are
    the crown jewels of our State's tourism industry. Nearly two-
    thirds of our first time visitors come to Montana to visit one
    or both of the parks, and though a passion is ignited among
    many first time visitors to return and explore Montana, it is
    undoubtedly Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks that drive
    our industry and in large part our State's economy.
        In 2012, almost 11 million nonresident visitors traveled to
    Montana and spent $3.25 billion. Yellowstone country, the area
    of southern Montana bordering Yellowstone Park accounted for
    almost one billion of those dollars. Glacier country in the
    northwest part of the Montanas surrounding Glacier National
    Park accounted for over $700 million of that year's revenues.
        Those of us who live in Montana know that without the two
    national parks we could still spend our time in State parks,
    forests, rivers and trails, lakes and ski and wilderness areas,
    as well as the vibrant and charming gateway towns that we call
    home. But have no doubt the government shutdown had an
    incredible impact on our State's economy and our Montana brand
    because for millions of visitors across the world, the parks
    are Montana and Montana is the parks.
        It is incredibly important to understand just how far
    reaching the effect of the shutdown has been to our State's
    brand. For many of us when the shutdown ended on October 17,
    the impact did not. Dozens of hotels lost hundreds of
    reservations for the entire month of October and November as
    guests decided not to wait until the shutdown ended and then
    canceled their trips.
        Just this past weekend, local news in the Flathead Valley
    and Glacier Park reported that the park had a 52 percent drop
    in visitation for October compared for the same month in 2012.
    This is the single largest drop since the National Park Service
    has kept records since 1979.
        In the gateway town of West Yellowstone, Montana, a single
    business lost over $200,000 and closed two of its three
    properties, resulting in layoffs far ahead of those anticipated
    with the annual winter downsizing.
        It is also important to debunk a common myth that the
    shutdown had little impact on business because it happened in
    October. Admittedly, there is a change in Montana's business
    cycle following the peak summer season. For many of our small
    businesses who depend on nonresident travelers as their largest
    customer base, they depend heavily on the peak summer season
    not to make a profit but to make up the losses from the first
    two quarters of the year.
        The months of September and October proved to be the pure
    profit months. That is when the visitors and families who are
    not tied to a school calendar can visit the parks, attractions,
    and when winter begins to close them down, people drive forth
    in the thousands.
        Another small business owner who continues to suffer long
    after the shutdown is in Cooke City, Montana, on the scenic
    Beartooth Highway. She and her husband depend wholly on the
    profits made in October. These profits enable them to get
    through the end of the year until the snowmobile season begins
    in mid-January. Though their profits for that month might
    average less than $220,000 annually, it is these September and
    October revenues that allow them to make payroll in November
    and December and also reinvest for the future in their
    infrastructure.
        Though we will have to wait until the end of the current
    quarter to understand the full impact of the parks' closures
    through indicators like the monthly unemployment claims or
    drops in resort and bed tax revenues, we do not think anyone
    can argue the impacts are significant. Many hotels and tour
    companies are already getting phone calls from nervous booking
    agents concerned that the next government deadline in January
    will have a comparable impact on snowmobile tours and groups.
    Understandably these tour agents are hesitant to confirm
    bookings and reservations.
        In closing, Federal lands belong to the people. We are
    encouraged by this committee's hard work and Representative
    Daines' proposal to ensure access to these public lands.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sease follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Mr. Matthew Sease, Treasurer, Montana Lodging and
                            Hospitality Association
        Chairman Rob Bishop, Ranking Member Raul Grijalva and distinguished
    members of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and
    Environmental Regulation. I would like to thank you and thank
    Representative Steve Daines for the invitation to attend today's
    hearing.
        Montana has become known for having more spectacular unspoiled
    nature than anywhere else in the lower 48 States. For those of us who
    call Big Sky country home, we consider the mountains, rivers, and
    public lands a cherished part of our heritage. We take very seriously
    our inherent duty to balance, for both residents and our millions of
    annual visitors, the responsible use of the land as well as unfettered
    access to it.
        It is with great interest and some trepidation that we, who call
    Montana home and depend heavily on the tourism that springs from
    visitors to our Federal lands, are here today in support of the
    ``Protecting States and Opening National Parks'' bill sponsored by our
    own Representative Steve Daines.
        The recent government shutdown essentially barred the people from
    their lands. We hope this bill, along with other congressional action,
    will work to prevent this from ever happening again.
        Neither Montana's residents, nor the thousands of tourists visiting
    at the time, could access our two national parks. They had limited to
    no access to about a dozen wildlife refuges, and were blocked from
    hundreds of fishing access points along our many rivers. The last item
    hit too close to home. Many Montanans had observed little or no Federal
    presence in the wildlife refuges in the months following sequestration,
    but were astonished to see small armies of them in the days leading up
    to the shutdown, emplacing concrete barriers to block fishing access
    sites along the rivers and warning locals not to trespass!
        Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks are, by all accounts, the
    crown jewels of our State's tourism industry. Nearly two-thirds of our
    first time visitors come to Montana to visit one or both of the parks.
    And though a passion is ignited among many first-time visitors to
    return and explore more of Montana, it is undoubtedly Yellowstone and
    Glacier National Parks that drive our industry and, in large part, our
    State's economy.
        In 2012, almost 11 million non-resident visitors traveled to
    Montana and spent over $3.25 billion in our State. Yellowstone Country,
    the area of southern Montana bordering Yellowstone Park, accounted for
    almost a billion dollars of that revenue . . . Glacier Country, the
    area of western and northwestern Montana surrounding Glacier Park,
    accounted for over $700 million of that year's total revenues.
        Those of us who live in Montana know that without the two national
    parks you could still spend a lifetime exploring our state parks,
    forests & trails, rivers & lakes, and ski & wilderness areas, as well
    as the vibrant & charming small towns we each call home.
        But have no doubt the government shutdown had an incredible impact
    on our State's economy and the Montana brand; because for millions of
    our visitors, the Parks are Montana . . . and Montana is the Parks.
        It is incredibly important to understand just how far-reaching the
    effect of the shutdown has been to our State's brand. For many of us,
    when the shutdown ended on October 17th, the impact did not. Dozens of
    hotels lost hundreds of reservations for the entire month of October
    and November as guests decided not to wait out the shutdown and
    canceled their trips.
        Just this weekend, local news in the Flathead Valley near Glacier
    Park reported that the park had a 52 percent drop in visitation for
    October compared to the same month in 2012. This is the single, largest
    drop since the park service began keeping records in 1979.
        In the gateway town of West Yellowstone, MT, a single business lost
    over $200,000 and closed two of its three properties, resulting in lay
    offs far ahead of those anticipated with the annual winter downsizing.
        It is also important to debunk a common myth that the shutdown had
    little impact on business because it happened in October. Admittedly,
    there is a change in Montana's business cycle following the peak summer
    season as we transition into winter.
        For many of our small businesses who depend on non-resident
    travelers as their largest customer base, they depend heavily on the
    peak summer season not to make a profit, but to offset the dismal
    revenues from the first two quarters of the year.
        The months of late September and October prove to be the ``pure-
    profit'' period. That is when the visitors and families who are not
    tied to a school calendar can visit the parks' attractions before
    winter begins closing them down . . . and they do so in the thousands!
        Another small business owner who continues to suffer long after the
    shutdown ended is in Cooke City, MT on the scenic Beartooth Highway.
    She and her husband are wholly dependent on the profits made in
    October. These profits enable them to get through the end of the year
    until the snowmobile season begins in mid-January. Though their profits
    for that month might average less than $20,000 annually, it is these
    September and October revenues that allow them to make payroll in
    November and December, as well as to make small reinvestments in their
    infrastructure.
        Though we'll have to wait until the end of the current quarter to
    understand the full impact of the parks' closure through indicators
    like rise in monthly unemployment claims or drops in resort and bed tax
    revenues, we don't think anyone can argue the impacts will have been
    significant.
        To make one final point about the continuing impacts of the
    shutdown, I mentioned the snowmobile season. There are over 4,000 miles
    of groomed snow machine trails in Montana, predominantly on Federal
    lands, in addition to those trails maintained in Yellowstone National
    Park.
        Many hotels and tour companies are already getting phone calls from
    nervous booking agents concerned that the next government deadline in
    mid-January will have a comparable impact on snowmobile tours and
    groups. Understandably, they are hesitant to confirm bookings and
    reservations.
        In closing, Federal lands belong to the people. We are encouraged
    by this committee's hard work and Rep. Daines' proposed bill to ensure
    access to those lands.
        This concludes my public statement. With the Chairman's permission,
    I would ask to submit these and the rest of my prepared remarks, in
    writing, for the record.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
        Unfortunately, as you heard by the bell, the votes have
    been called. Members have about 9 minutes left to make it to
    the Floor. So we are going to suspend this hearing. I hate to
    do this to you. I apologize deeply. We will go take the votes,
    and then we will come back.
        For those of you who are planning, I would estimate, well,
    it depends on if the other side is going to do a motion to
    recommit. It could be a lot faster if they do not, hint, hint,
    hint.
        Mr. Grijalva. Probably.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. So it is going to be longer. But I
    would estimate at the minimum it is going to be 45 minutes
    before our return; probably more likely to be closer to 12.
    Well, that clock is off. It would be closer to 12 o'clock. It
    will be about an hour anyway.
        So I apologize for this. We do not like to do that, but I
    appreciate your patience with us. When we return we will take
    up questions on these two bills and then go to the other two
    bills that are still on the agenda.
        We are suspended.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Bishop. We will begin our panel again. I appreciate our
    three witnesses for joining us again at the podium. I know some
    of the other members will be making their way briefly here, but
    for those of you who have not experienced the joy of the
    elevators in Longworth, you realize that that experience by
    itself will consume an eternity.
        We appreciate the testimony. We will pick up from that
    point with questions at this time. At this time, Mr. Grijalva,
    do you have any questions of these witnesses on these bills?
        Mr. Grijalva. I do, but let me defer.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. DeFazio, would you like to go first on
    questions for these witnesses on these two bills?
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sheaffer, what is the National Park Service budget
    today in relation to Fiscal Year 2011?
        Mr. Sheaffer. In relation to Fiscal Year 2011?
        Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
        Mr. Sheaffer. It is down.
        Mr. DeFazio. Is it down 12 percent since Fiscal Year 2011?
        Mr. Sheaffer. That is correct.
        Mr. DeFazio. So we have this donation by the States. If we
    repay, mandate donation repayment, where does it come from?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Well, as the bill is written, it would come
    out of the Treasury, not out of the National Park Service
    appropriation.
        Mr. DeFazio. It is my understanding that Appropriations
    would take it out of the Interior account.
        Mr. Sheaffer. Oh, that is possible. At the scoring level I
    supposed it could be.
        Mr. DeFazio. Right.
        Mr. Sheaffer. It could, yes.
        Mr. DeFazio. But at a 12 percent reduction, you are not
    really at a place to reimburse it yourselves.
        Mr. Sheaffer. I would say not. It would be difficult to
    find yet another $2 million.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. There is a third bill which is not yet on
    the table. I mean if you sort of compare the three bills, we
    have one bill to reimburse the States for their donations, a
    second bill which is 3311 which says that we will just set up a
    system proactively to deal with this, and I am a bit puzzled by
    it. Mr. Cox, you testified in favor of it, and I am wondering
    your interpretation because it appears to me that the States
    would immediately take over the parks and run them.
        Is your State equipped, say, if you are notified on January
    15 that on January 16 the parks are going to be shut, to bring
    in a mass of well trained and already oriented State employees
    or contractors to run the park?
        Mr. Cox. I believe that we would contract with the parks as
    we did with this previous shutdown.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Well, the language then in the bill, I
    think, needs a little tightening because it says that the State
    seeks to conduct, and it is a very broad language, not to just
    contract.
        Now, during this last shutdown, you did not ask for the
    Park Service to reopen all of the parks in Utah. I believe it
    was 12 of 18; is that right?
        Mr. Cox. That is correct.
        Mr. DeFazio. And so if you were looking at future proactive
    agreements in case of another one of these self-inflicted
    wounds, would you endeavor to reopen all 18?
        Mr. Cox. Yes, I believe we would. The time constraints and
    the financial restraints because we were not sure exactly how
    this would work out, we tried to get the biggest bang for our
    buck from an economic standpoint.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. And we did see some pretty high numbers
    from you about revenue that was lost to, I guess, tourism. I
    assume that is all categories, small businesses, et cetera.
        Mr. Cox. Correct.
        Mr. DeFazio. But some percentage of that probably would
    have flowed to the State in tax revenues. I do not know what
    your tax system is like.
        Mr. Cox. Yes, that is correct. Our taxes are lower than
    many States, but that is also correct.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. So, Mr. Sheaffer, can you envision how
    much time it would take? I mean, how many units of the Park
    Service are there around the country?
        Mr. Sheaffer. About 400.
        Mr. DeFazio. Four hundred.
        Mr. Sheaffer. Yes.
        Mr. DeFazio. So if all of the Governors in all of the
    States wanted to have proactive anticipatory agreements, this
    would probably take some fairly substantial amount of
    resources, particularly if they varied their requirements or
    requests or specified things.
        Mr. Sheaffer. Absolutely.
        Mr. DeFazio. All right. I would note that I think that (a)
    the language would need tightening and (b) for something that
    has happened twice since I have been in Congress for 27 years
    and hopefully will never happen again, I would think that this
    would be really a waste of taxpayer money to enter into these
    proactive agreements with the States.
        So, you know, I would not support legislation, and the
    third bill, which is not subject to this panel but the next
    panel, would allow States to basically take any asset of the
    Federal Government under their management, still be reimbursed
    by the Federal Government for half the cost.
        So what do you think about that one? I mean, take Denali
    and Alaska takes it over. We pay them 50 percent of what it
    takes to run it. I mean, do our gate revenues provide what
    percentage of the cost of a park like that?
        Mr. Sheaffer. It varies by park, some higher than others,
    but I believe it is in the 7 to 8 percent range service-wide.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Stewart, do you have questions?
        Mr. Stewart. Yes. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Make sure your mike is on and you are talking
    into it.
        Mr. Stewart. Yes. Is that better?
        Mr. Bishop. Better.
        Mr. Stewart. Is this even better?
        Mr. Bishop. Personally I like it.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Stewart. Mr. Sheaffer, if I could spend just a little
    time with you, sir, recognizing that you represent the National
    Park Service. I guess to attain your position you have been
    with the parks for many years; is that true?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Over 40, yes, sir.
        Mr. Stewart. Over 40 years, and I am guessing you have
    spent some time in Washington.
        Mr. Sheaffer. All 40.
        Mr. Stewart. All 40 years.
        Mr. Sheaffer. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Stewart. I did not expect that. Well, that tells me you
    know a little bit about politics then, and in your 40 years
    here, you have seen a number of government shutdowns, true?
        Mr. Sheaffer. I have seen two of consequence, and then
    there was a very brief one in 2011, but the ones that affected
    us were 1995-96 and the most recent one.
        Mr. Stewart. And this one, yes. I appreciate that, and they
    were the ones that most people remember. There is no doubt.
        But I am sure that you know, and I will not ask the
    question because I know you know this, but you know, some of
    those were caused by Republicans when Republicans were held in
    power, but some of them were caused by Democrats when the
    Democratic Party was the party in power.
        And I will ask you a rhetorical question, but I would like
    your response. Would you be willing to bet your life savings
    that the government will never shut down again?
        Mr. Sheaffer. I would not.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
        Mr. Sheaffer. Under these circumstances I would not. I
    thought you said it was a rhetorical question.
        Mr. Stewart. Yes, I do not think any of us would be willing
    to bet that because we hope that it does not, but politics
    being what it is, it has happened before more than once or
    twice. It has happened more than a dozen times, and it might
    happen again as much as many of us would like to avoid that.
        And I guess the essence of my question then is: if that
    were to happen again and, in fact, not if, but when it happens
    again I think many of us would say, would we not want to be
    prepared to keep our national parks open in that eventuality?
        And as I read your testimony, I have to tell you that I am
    not convinced by the reasonings the National Park Service has
    put forward in their objections to this bill. In fact, I am
    kind of puzzled by it because it seems to me that our
    objectives in this are the same. You would like to keep the
    parks open. I would like to keep the parks open. We are trying
    to find the best way to do that, and it seems to me, and I
    would like your answer to this; it seems to me like the Park
    Service is saying we do not want to do it because it is hard or
    because it is going to be expensive.
        But in comparison to the cost and the cost not just in
    dollars but in, you know, human costs, it seems like it is
    worth doing. Could you give me your thoughts on that?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Well, first of all, to be clear, the position
    represented here is the Administration's position on the issue,
    and that is, I think, a reflection that they do not want to
    have one-off solutions to stopgaps in the event of another
    lapse of appropriation, and I think that was reflected in
    decisions that were made throughout this past shutdown.
        Mr. Stewart. Right.
        Mr. Sheaffer. So it is not solely an issue regarding the
    National Park Service, but raising it to a higher level.
        Mr. Stewart. OK. And I understand that, and I understand
    and will concede the point. This is not a perfect solution, but
    it is a much better solution, in my opinion and in the opinion
    of many of us, than doing nothing or not preparing for this
    eventuality, which most of us agree will come.
        Mr. Cox, if I could turn to you for just a minute, sir,
    would you elaborate just a little more on some of the benefits
    that you think occurred to the States and particularly to the
    rural communities many of which are stressed? And many of them
    are stressed because of the point I made in my opening
    statement about the fact that the Federal Government has in
    many cases cut off access to just enormous slots of land, and
    the resources and the jobs that would be created from that, and
    I have left you nearly a minute, but help us understand what
    good benefits came because your Governor and you and the
    Administration, and to her credit the Secretary, and I am so
    grateful she was willing to do this, to her credit working with
    the State in a fashion to reopen the national parks very
    quickly.
        Mr. Cox. Thank you, Representative Stewart.
        Prior to serving as lieutenant Governor, I had the
    opportunity to serve as a County Commissioner for 4 years and
    am deeply knowledgeable when it comes to the impacts that our
    Federal lands have on small local rural communities. I come
    from a town of 1,200 people where I am raising my family.
        And the impacts are very serious. We are, again, talking
    about 70 percent of the State of Utah is covered with Federal
    lands and public lands, and so this was one instance where we
    were able to work together. The impacts were very real, were
    very severe, to the tune, again, of millions of dollars
    impacting very small communities that do not have that type, as
    Mr. Sease has said, that do not have those types of margins.
        For southern Utah especially as the weather starts to cool,
    this was the time when people spend their time in our national
    parks, and not just the citizens of Utah, not just the citizens
    of the United States, but across the world.
        Mr. Stewart. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Grijalva.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
        Let me, if I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sheaffer, under the
    cooperative agreements that are articulated in H.R. 3311, would
    State employees, just to go over that point, be allowed to
    operate and staff the national park units?
        Mr. Sheaffer. I, frankly, as Mr. DeFazio said, think it
    appears that that is true. It appears that that is the
    authority that is granted there, yes.
        Mr. Grijalva. Is there any precedent for this arrangement
    that we know of?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Where the States perform Federal functions?
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
        Mr. Sheaffer. I am not certain that I know of any, no. I
    mean, we have cooperative agreements with States where we are
    collocated or located closely together.
        Mr. Grijalva. And each unit of the National Park Service is
    unique. They have unique sets of rules and regulations that
    guide the management of those units in each individual park; is
    that correct?
        Mr. Sheaffer. And legislation guiding that as well, yes,
    sir.
        Mr. Grijalva. And does the Park Service right now, just to
    get the information for us, have the authority to allow States
    to manage or co-manage units in the national park system?
        Mr. Sheaffer. No, sir.
        Mr. Grijalva. During the shutdown, how many employees did
    the National Park Service have to furlough?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Roughly 16,000.
        Mr. Grijalva. If I may, Mr. Lieutenant Governor, let me
    jump ahead to the legislation that has been signed by the
    Governor in Utah, H.R. 148, which has similarities to the
    legislation that was introduced by my colleague, Mr. Young, and
    it also ties into this question of a cooperative arrangement in
    preparation for the worst.
        A 2012 report, Mr. Lieutenant Governor, issued by the
    Utah's Constitutional Defense Council, recommends that the
    State of Utah increase funding for existing State parks to
    further demonstrate Utah's commitment to conserving and
    protecting its natural landscapes. This suggests that previous
    funding had not been sufficient to maintain those State parks.
        Given complete management prerogative by the State over the
    13 national parks, how does the State intend to fund the
    operation of those 13 additional national parks that would then
    become, given the legislation the Governor signed and is being
    litigated at this point or is going to be litigated, how do you
    fund that?
        Mr. Cox. I am sorry. I am not sure I understand the
    question. There were lots of subplots in that question.
        Mr. Grijalva. Well, the one subplot is that the
    Constitutional Defense Council said the operational budget for
    the national park units in Utah is $40.8 million in 2011. If
    Utah is successful in its bid to take over this Federal land,
    would Utah expect Congress to give a direct appropriation to
    that amount or half that amount in order to operate the parks,
    or would Utah now having complete authority over those lands be
    in a position to fund it itself?
        Mr. Cox. OK. So, again, trying to parse the portions of
    that question, so as it refers to H.R. 3311, we would set aside
    funds in the eventuality that there was another shutdown
    sufficient to, again, just like we did in the past shutdown, to
    pay for the operations of the parks, to contract with the park
    and their employees, and then we would expect to be reimbursed
    upon reopening of the parks.
        Mr. Grijalva. In a full takeover of the lands--you are
    talking about H.R. 3311--in a full takeover of the land
    consistent with the legislation that passed and was signed by
    the Governor in Utah, how would the States deal with issues
    like suppressing wildfires?
        Is a legislative framework in place to provide protections
    for all the laws and the mandates that are on Federal land now?
    Would they be similar to----
        Mr. Cox. Yes.
        Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. Six thousand abandoned mines in
    Utah.
        Mr. Cox. I am not sure how that is germane to the bills at
    hand, but I would say that the legislation passed by the State
    of Utah specifically excluded national parks.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sheaffer, my question, you are testifying on behalf of
    the National Park Service today; is that correct?
        Mr. Sheaffer. That is correct, but some of these bills
    reference the other land managing agencies as well. So I am
    representing the Administration's position on those bills.
        Mr. Smith. OK. But in regards to H.R. 3286, you are
    testifying on behalf of the National Park Service?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. OK. And let me get this straight. The taxpayers
    of the United States pay your salary as a Federal employee?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Correct.
        Mr. Smith. And you are testifying against them having
    access and availability in more ways for their lands to be
    open?
        Mr. Sheaffer. I do not understand the question.
        Mr. Smith. Is the National Park Service in your testimony,
    you are opposing H.R. 3286? You are opposing that, correct?
        In your testimony you said that the National Park Service
    was opposed to H.R. 3286.
        Mr. Sheaffer. That is correct. I believe I have the right
    number.
        Mr. Smith. And H.R. 3286 apparently to the language is
    providing another avenue of keeping our Federal parks open to
    the public, correct?
        Mr. Sheaffer. I believe that is its intent, yes.
        Mr. Smith. And you all are testifying to limit the parks
    from being open to the public.
        Mr. Sheaffer. We are testifying we are opposed to the
    language as written, yes.
        Mr. Smith. You know, I hope the committee sees the direct
    irony in this case of where the National Park Service is trying
    to limit access to the people that pay for the National Park
    Service to even be in existence. I think that is absolutely
    unacceptable, and whether it is the Administration or whoever
    it is that is advising the National Park Service, it needs to
    be addressed and looked into.
        With that I will yield the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Mrs. Lummis, do you have questions to these two
    specifically or do you want to hold on?
        Mrs. Lummis. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will defer until
    later. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Let me ask what may be the last round of these
    questions, and, Mr. Sheaffer, I appreciate you being--
    ``Shaeffer'' or ``Sheaffer''?
        Mr. Sheaffer. ``Shaeffer.''
        Mr. Bishop. ``Shaeffer.'' I appreciate you being here. I
    realize you are the Comptroller, which means you have expertise
    on some of the questions we are going to ask, and I realize you
    do not have policy decisionmaking power down there, and you are
    not essentially responsible for the testimony that has been
    given to us, but I hope you would take back the message that
    some of the testimony that is presented on these three bills
    are some of the most atrocious testimony that we have actually
    heard in this particular committee.
        Now, let me go with a couple of the elements that are just
    being given. It is the testimony of the Department that
    legislation is necessary to actually give this money back to
    the States that was donated. Yet in the 1990s, you were able to
    work out agreements in which you actually accepted money and
    returned the money without legislation.
        Is that actually what the Park Service and the Department
    of the Interior is testifying today?
        Mr. Sheaffer. The distinction, if I may, Mr. Bishop,
    between the two is that the money that was given to us in 1995-
    96 was very late in the shutdown operation and no charges were
    ever made to the donation account. That is very different from
    what happened here.
        Mr. Bishop. This has been very late in the shutdown process
    situation as well. So let me ask you: who initially rejected
    the offer of help from the States? Who in the Department made
    that decision to initially reject their States' offers?
        Mr. Sheaffer. I do not know who was on the phone with the
    State at that time, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. Do you know whose decision it was to close the
    parks despite the offers from the States?
        Mr. Sheaffer. To keep the parks closed despite the offers?
        Mr. Bishop. Yes.
        Mr. Sheaffer. I do not. I know that there were
    conversations between the Governor's Office and----
        Mr. Bishop. Then do you know who made the decision to
    change the policy to accept the money?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Ultimately I think the Secretary was engaged
    in all of those conversations and Director Jarvis and maybe
    others. I do not know.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. Let me go back to something which
    you should definitely have control over. The $2 million that
    has been expended for money sent to the States that you do not
    want to give back, that $2 million was covering what was
    suspended that could have been given you had the CR gone
    forward, correct? In lieu of not having the money because there
    was no CR.
        You now have the CR, which means you have the original
    amount of money. What the States gave you is in addition to
    that money. Where is that extra $1\1/2\ to $2 million floating
    around in your Department?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Well, at this time, the money that was spent
    by the State and then replaced, spent by the individual parks
    that was later replaced by appropriations, the answer to the
    question is the money would be in those parks.
        Mr. Bishop. So you still have the $2 million there. You
    have an additional roughly $2 million that is floating around
    in your budget that was not appropriated and you were not
    planning on when you originally had the appropriation.
        Mr. Sheaffer. Well, that is correct.
        Mr. Bishop. And you still do not want to give that $2
    million, which is still a surplus that you have, back to the
    States that originally gave it to you, even though now your
    budgets are whole. Is that the testimony, once again, of the
    Department?
        Mr. Sheaffer. Mr. Bishop, it is not an issue of want. We do
    not have the authority to return money that has been obligated
    from a donation.
        Mr. Bishop. Did you have the authority in the 1990s to do
    that?
        Mr. Sheaffer. The money was not used, just as we return
    money that was unused this year, Mr. Bishop.
        Mr. Bishop. Oh, so just because you actually gave a check,
    you do not have the authority to fix it.
        Mr. Sheaffer. I do not have the authority to----
        Mr. Bishop. Which would indicate why it would be essential
    for somebody like Congress to come and give you that authority
    and give you the plans so you do not have to face this kind of
    ludicrous situation in the future, would it not?
        Mr. Sheaffer. The authority to repay them?
        Mr. Bishop. Yes.
        Mr. Sheaffer. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. If you are not willing to do it even though you
    have done it in the past by finding some condition of
    technicality, then obviously Congress needs to step up and do
    it for you since the Department is not willing to do it on
    their own account.
        Mr. Sheaffer. We need congressional authority to repay
    money.
        Mr. Bishop. How long did it take to make this deal with the
    States?
        Mr. Sheaffer. It took a very short time actually. We worked
    it through in a----
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Cox, how long did it take for you to make a
    deal with the Park Services?
        Mr. Cox. Less than 24 hours.
        Mr. Bishop. Your testimony is you took in less than 24
    hours the concept to do here, but if you were to do future
    planning so this situation was avoided in the future, the
    testimony of the Department is it would take you too long to
    actually work through that?
        The workload to actually make prior preparations for what
    could happen is too onerous that the Department cannot actually
    spend the time and effort to do that, when you were able to
    solve this problem in less than 24 hours? Is that really what
    this Department is testifying?
        Mr. Sheaffer. I think part of it is. I think part of it is,
    as was said by Mr. DeFazio, is that it depends on the
    conditions under which they would be willing to sign an
    agreement. If they were as straightforward as these, it
    probably would not take very long.
        Mr. Bishop. So would it not be wise to do it now in
    legislation? Why is the Department so adamantly opposed to
    solving the problem ahead of time?
        Mr. Sheaffer. I can only say, sir, that the Administration
    is opposed to solving one problem in one Federal program under
    the conditions that might present themselves in the future.
        Mr. Bishop. I do have other questions, but I want to allow
    others to go forward before I do because I have run out of
    time.
        Mr. Grijalva, do you have more upon this bill?
        Mr. Grijalva. I will go after him.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Stewart, do you have more questions on this
    one?
        Mr. Stewart. No, I am enjoying listening to you.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Grijalva.
        Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Sheaffer, you made a point, and I think
    it is a valid point because this whole discussion is about, and
    appropriately so, a value judgment, that the parks are a value,
    economic, aesthetically, to the States. I think it was
    mentioned in Montana, that it is part of our brand. Part of our
    marketing is the national parks, and that because of that brand
    and that marketing, and when it is not available to the public
    we lose money. So it is a value judgment that we are making
    here.
        There are equally compelling value judgments of the people
    that, because of the shutdown, were hurt in other areas other
    than the parks. So the consistency point that you brought up,
    that why does one area get spared when you set up legislation
    for reimbursement and for cooperative agreements with the
    States around the issue of parks, but we do not set them up
    around the issue of Head Start. We do not set them up around
    the issue of our public schools. We do not set them up about
    the issue of cancer treatment centers and other places that
    depend on Federal funding, Meals on Wheels, our defense
    industry in a variety of States.
        So, you know, while this is an appropriate value judgment,
    there are across the board value judgments. I wondered if the
    State of Utah or Arizona would be willing to sign a cooperative
    agreement that if we shut down again, the Head Start centers
    are going to stay open and that Indian Health Services is going
    to continue to function at the level that it should.
        I wonder if they are prepared to do those kinds of
    agreements. I would suggest they are not. This is a neutral
    feel good, and it should be a feel good issue because our parks
    are about the American people feeling good, but you know, this
    whole shutdown did not just linger here at the parks. It
    lingered in every other funding area in this country, and
    everybody suffered from it.
        You know, if we want to be consistent, then bring us
    cooperative agreements and legislation that ties States to
    continuing funding in all areas affected by a shutdown, not
    just this one.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. I do appreciate what Mr. Grijalva has just
    said, and I would like simply to point out that while the
    shutdown was going on, the House did vote to open up all of
    these. We did vote to actually do that kind of stuff, and I
    actually would not be opposed to that, but unfortunately, the
    tenor of this committee is only dealing with public lands, and
    what we are dealing with is public lands.
        Mr. Sheaffer, I want to correct one of the statements that
    you made, and once again I understand you are not a policymaker
    in the Department. However, there are Federal lands that are
    being managed by State and local government by an agreement,
    and, yes, you do have the power to do that. We do them in Sand
    Flats, Coral Pink Sand Dunes in Utah, and, yes, that does mean,
    to answer one of the other questions that was brought up, that
    State employees do the same function that Federal employees
    would do. It is just a matter of who actually signs the
    particular check.
        Mr. Sheaffer, I want to say, well, two other things here,
    and then we will move on to the other pieces of legislation.
    The question has been made of whether the State is willing to
    actually fund any obligation. Mr. Cox, you stated clearly that
    the State Law 148, which was referenced, does not ask for
    taking over the parks or wilderness and several other areas.
        Is the State prepared if this bill were passed to actually
    pony up and pay for these things?
        Mr. Cox. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. Which simply indicates that if the Federal
    Government has a backlog that in Alaska itself is $121 million,
    States certainly could do no worse than what the Federal
    Government is doing in ownership and management of these
    particular pieces of land and actually should be given the
    opportunity.
        Mr. Sheaffer, when you go back what is so galling to me
    about the testimony the Department gave is ultimately--and you
    can correct me if I am wrong--but you ultimately are saying the
    Administration opposes these two pieces of legislation because
    there should not be a shutdown at all. That is the bad point.
        You are strongly opposed to it because it would take too
    much work to try and implement a solution ahead of time. That
    testimony is the indication of some entity that has simply
    spent too long in bureaucratic excess and not actually trying
    to do things that help people.
        Mr. Cox, I will ask one last question and I will be done
    with my time. If what we are hearing now in the Department's
    testimony is they do not want to work with States and they do
    not want to have solutions in the future, what in the hell does
    that tell your businesses that work around these parks? I mean,
    you open it up because of the business activity. What are you
    now going to tell those businesses that simply say the Park
    Service strongly opposes any type of effort to solve this
    problem in the future?
        Mr. Cox. Well, I must admit we were really surprised and
    shocked at the testimony that was submitted by the parks
    because the reaction has been so incredibly positive.
    Everywhere we go we just hear, ``Thank you so much for working.
    Thank you so much for not being dysfunctional. Thank you for
    making this happen. Thank you for reopening the parks. We
    realize that people actually care about us.''
        And it would seem that we would now have to tell them that
    that is not necessarily the case.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        I will ask one last question of you, even though I did not
    mean to. Can you tell me your hometown, so that somebody whose
    roots go back to Mount Pleasant----
        Mr. Cox. I am from Fairview. My wife is from Mount
    Pleasant, and we are Sanpete County kids.
        Mr. Bishop. I do that for my staff and my staff only.
        Mr. Cox. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Let me say one last thing. I am actually at the
    end of the questions. Then on these two pieces of legislation I
    wish to appreciate your being here, Mr. Sease. We did not
    actually have a chance to go into much more detail, but I
    appreciate the testimony you have given. Your written testimony
    is in the record.
        There may be other questions that will be asked by
    committee members. We would ask you to be responsive to those
    in writing in the period of time.
        Mr. Sheaffer, we would ask you to stay on the panel for the
    rest of it.
        May I state just before we go on to the other things
    because I am going to be even nastier as we come forward, I
    recognize you are the Comptroller. You did not write the
    testimony, but this is the testimony. My problems, my
    complaints are not necessarily for you and what you are doing
    with the counting of the money. It is with the testimony that
    was submitted by the Department of the Interior.
        I apologize that you are having to face the brunt of that
    testimony.
        With that we will dismiss the Lieutenant Governor, Mr.
    Sease. We appreciate your time and effort of being here.
        Let me bring both of the witnesses and we will do these two
    bills again together here. We have H.R. 3294, Mr. Young, and
    also H.R. 3492, which is going to be extremely difficult if you
    are dyslexic, for Mrs. Lummis for that.
        So I would like to bring Robert Nelson, Dr. Robert Nelson
    from the University of Maryland, who is parenthetically a great
    author. I have enjoyed reading his books, and also Aaron
    Pruzan, if I have pronounced that properly, from Wilson,
    Wyoming, who will be talking about these two particular bills.
        Let me for the sake of continuity, did you mind which order
    we go in these things?
        Mr. Grijalva. Either one.
        Mr. Bishop. Well, that is kind of you. All right.
        Mrs. Lummis, I would ask you if you would introduce your
    bill that deals with activities in wild and scenic rivers, and
    then we will turn to Mr. Pruzan if he would like to testify for
    5 minutes about this particular piece of legislation. Then we
    will go to Mr. Young to introduce his legislation, and then,
    Dr. Nelson, if you would bat clean-up on that particular
    legislation, and then we will see if there any other questions
    that could be applicable to all three of you.
        Mr. Sheaffer had the opportunity of commenting on all of
    these bills in his opening statement.
        So, Mrs. Lummis, 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I really do appreciate the opportunity to present
    legislation to provide for paddling in Yellowstone National
    Park, Grand Teton National Park, and the National Elk Refuge.
        H.R. 3492 would remove from the Code of Federal Regulations
    a 60-year-old ban on paddling. Now, that ban was put in place
    after World War II to limit fishing. This bill's intent is to
    vest river management decisions in the Superintendents of the
    park where they can be properly considered.
        This legislation is in response to the Comprehensive River
    Management Plan environmental assessment that was published for
    public comment under the Craig Thomas Snake Headwaters Legacy
    Act of 2009. Requests to increase paddling access were denied
    by the Park Service and labeled an alternative considered but
    dismissed from detailed evaluation, and the reasoning for that
    was it conflicts with existing regulations.
        Mr. Chairman, I just believe the paddling community
    deserves a seat at the table. Organizations like American
    Whitewater have tried to engage the Park Service on this issue
    for decades, and groups like the American Packrafting
    Association were founded in Wyoming to represent this
    recreational community.
        At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
    to include their comments and testimony on the River Paddling
    Protection Act in the record.
        Mr. Bishop. Without objection, so ordered.
        [Testimony of American Whitewater and American Packrafting
    Association on the River Paddling Protection Act follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Kevin Colburn, National Stewardship Director,
                     American Whitewater, Missoula, Montana
                    h.r. 3492--river paddling protection act
        l am writing to voice my appreciation for the introduction of H.R.
    3492, the River Paddling Protection Act, on behalf of American
    Whitewater and our over 5,500 members. Founded in 1954, American
    Whitewater is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to conserving
    and restoring our Nation's whitewater resources, and enhancing
    opportunities to enjoy them safely. Our members are primarily non-
    commercial and conservation-oriented kayakers, canoeists, and rafters.
        Americans are prohibited from canoeing, kayaking, and rafting on
    hundreds, or likely thousands of miles of exceptional rivers and
    streams in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. These paddling
    bans have had a profound personal impact on many Americans. Standing on
    the bank looking at a river is just not the same as floating down it,
    interacting with each current, watching the landscape unfold around you
    and above you. Paddling requires an intense focus not just on your path
    through a rapid or pool, but on the landscape, the weather, the arc of
    the sun--literally everything around you. The act of paddling creates
    rich, vivid, memorable experiences that are unique to each river, each
    day, and each landscape. For paddlers that live near or travel to these
    parks, the paddling bans have prevented them from establishing this
    unique connection with one of the most iconic and beautiful landscapes
    on earth. Many simply avoid the area. For many Americans, the paddling
    bans make the region a less attractive place to live, raise a family,
    start a business, or vacation for many Americans.
        The paddling bans are based on outdated regulations from the 1950s,
    and have denied three generations of Americans the outstanding
    experience of paddling the rivers in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. These
    regulations were aimed at stemming rampant over-fishing, a concern now
    easily managed by other means without impacting those that simply want
    to float downstream. Today we know that both fishing and paddling can
    be managed in an environmentally sustainable manner with common
    management tools. On the vast majority of rivers across the country, no
    special management of paddling is needed at all. Paddlers simply park
    at existing parking areas, launch at bridges, hike on existing trails,
    and silently float downstream. With that said, American Whitewater
    fully supports reasonable limits on paddling and other forms of
    recreation to protect natural resources and their enjoyment.
        It is well worth noting that the paddling prohibitions run counter
    to modern National Park Service policies and priorities. These policies
    are perhaps best summarized in the following quote from Section 8.1.2
    of the National Park Service Management Policies manual:

            To provide for enjoyment of the parks, the National Park
            Service will encourage visitor activities that: are appropriate
            to the purpose for which the park was established; and are
            inspirational, educational, or healthful, and otherwise
            appropriate to the park environment; and will foster an
            understanding of and appreciation for park resources and
            values, or will promote enjoyment through a direct association
            with, interaction with, or relation to park resources; and can
            be sustained without causing unacceptable impacts to park
            resources or values.

        Paddling meets all these standards perfectly, and is indeed
    supported across the National Park System. The National Park Service is
    an outstanding partner in river management and protection. The issue
    addressed by H.R. 3492 is endemic to only Yellowstone and Grand Teton
    National Parks, and is distinct from the otherwise largely exemplary
    management of paddling throughout the National Park System.
        American Whitewater recently requested that Grand Teton and
    Yellowstone national parks consider allowing non-commercial paddling on
    several newly designated Wild and Scenic Rivers that are within their
    borders. The parks refused, stating that paddling was prohibited by
    Federal-level regulations that were beyond their control. These parks
    claim to not have the discretion to manage paddling commensurate with
    other activities. As far as we are aware, all other parks have this
    discretion, and these antiquated Federal-level prohibitions are a
    regulatory anomaly.
        The River Paddling Protection Act, under Sections 2(a)(1) and
    2(a)(2) would restore management authority over paddling to the park
    managers. We believe that this is a worthy and necessary goal that
    would set no precedents nor in any way limit the National Park
    Service's authority. In fact, we believe it would eliminate a bad
    precedent and restore standard National Park Service authorities. We
    fully support this language.
        American Whitewater believes that outdoor recreation and
    conservation are two sides of the same coin. Our Nation's great
    conservation leaders each had a direct connection to the outdoors
    through recreation; be it hunting, hiking, mountaineering, paddling, or
    something else. Future leaders will also without a doubt draw on these
    same experiences for inspiration. Direct experiences on wild and
    natural rivers forge a strong stewardship ethic among paddlers. In
    short paddlers care about rivers and want to see them protected. It is
    thus imperative that the authority of the National Park Service to
    preserve the natural resources of Yellowstone and Grand Teton national
    parks remain unaffected by this legislation. If Congress determines
    that H.R. 3492, as written, affects these authorities we welcome the
    opportunity to discuss and endorse friendly amendments.
        Specifically, if the statement ``and the Secretary of the Interior
    may not issue substantially similar regulations that apply to hand-
    propelled vessels'' in Section 2(a) is determined to limit the National
    Park Service's ability or authority to manage paddling commensurate
    with other similar uses, using the full suite of management tools and
    following Agency protocol, then we ask that the language be struck,
    modified, or clarified to meet the interests described above.
        It is no secret that past park managers have valued the paddling
    bans as part of the unique tradition of managing Yellowstone and Grand
    Teton. Paddling rivers through these iconic landscapes has a long and
    storied history involving early explorers as well as famous
    conservationists like Olaus Murie. It is not a new use; it is an old
    one, and the 60-year ban is but a blink in the cultural history and
    future of Yellowstone. The paddling bans are not a tradition of the
    American public, and the American public needs opportunities for a
    direct connection with nature more than ever.
        We trust that the current park managers, in the absence of the
    Federal-level prohibitions, will prioritize healthy and sustainable
    outdoor recreation, and restore Americans' opportunities to float
    rivers within the parks. We believe that Yellowstone Superintendent Dan
    Wenk and the incoming Superintendent of Grand Teton will be up to this
    challenge, and look forward to working with them to implement positive
    changes in the management of the parks they oversee.
        As a final matter, National Elk Refuge managers have recently
    decided that paddling is not compatible with the purposes of the
    Refuge. We question this decision, and the Refuge offered no analysis
    to support their position. H.R. 3492 seeks to remedy this arbitrary
    determination by declaring that paddling is one of the priority
    ``wildlife-dependent'' activities on the National Elk Refuge. This
    declaration however, would alter or subvert system-wide organic
    legislation and have no practical effect. Subject to governing rules
    and laws, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may choose to prohibit
    paddling or allow it whether they view it as a wildlife-dependent
    activity or not. Their regulations allow for non-wildlife-dependent
    recreation, including paddling, under many circumstances. While we
    believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is arbitrarily excluding the
    public from floating rivers in the Refuge, we can see no appropriate
    legislative remedy for this unsupported Agency perspective. We ask that
    Section 2(b) be struck or substantially modified based on these
    concerns.
        The River Paddling Protection Act is an essential step in restoring
    the same management authorities and mix of potential recreational
    opportunities that exist in other National Parks to Yellowstone and
    Grand Teton. We recognize that the bill will be discussed at length,
    possibly improved upon, and fully vetted. We look forward to being an
    active participant in this process. I welcome questions and feedback
    regarding this testimony.
        Thank you for considering the interests of the many Americans who
    deeply value the opportunity to paddle wild rivers.

                                     ______

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5668.001

                                     .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5668.002

                                     .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5668.003

                                     .eps__

        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        These groups, of which many were instrumental in designing
    the Snake River Headwaters as wild and scenic, expected the new
    management plan for those rivers to include a public discussion
    on the benefits of paddling. What H.R. 3492 would allow for is
    simply that discussion.
        This bill does not prohibit Park Superintendents from
    proposing park management plans on paddling or restricting
    access in their annual compendiums. It does, however, remove
    the Federal regulatory prohibition on paddling that has been
    cited as a reason for not doing a detailed evaluation.
        Now, there may be ways to improve on this bill as written,
    and I will continue to work with the Park Service and the Fish
    and Wildlife Service to clarify its provisions. I can attest
    that local rafters like Aaron Pruzan, our witness today, are
    looking for a balanced solution to river access.
        And I want to welcome Aaron to Washington and to this
    panel. Aaron is the owner of Rendezvous River Sports and
    Jackson Hole Kayak School. He is a long time advocate for
    stewardship of the rivers and one of the community leaders on
    the Craig Thomas Snakehead Waters Legacy Act. He loves paddling
    as an outdoorsman, as a business owner, as a guide, a coach,
    and as a father.
        Aaron, I look forward to hearing your testimony today.
    Thank you for being here. Welcome.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Mr. Pruzan, you are recognized for 5 minutes as well to
    give us your testimony.

               STATEMENT OF AARON PRUZAN, WILSON, WYOMING

        Mr. Pruzan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member Grijalva. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and
    speak before you, and thanks to the rest of you who are here as
    well.
        Representative Lummis gave me a great introduction. So I
    will not go on further, and I have submitted testimony. So you
    are welcome to read all of that.
        You know, over the years I have introduced thousands of
    people to the sport of paddling. It has been my life, and I
    will say that the river running community and paddlers in
    general are great stewards of the resource that we enjoy, and
    my own work on river stewardship in the Jacksonville area is
    extensive. I was one of the founding board members of the Snake
    River Fund, which is the river stewardship organization in
    northwest Wyoming, and we created one of the first nonprofit
    and public partnerships that exist and one of the only
    nonprofit partnerships that exist where we actually help the
    U.S. Forest Service manage the Snake River through Jackson Hole
    with private donations and funding from outfitters.
        I was also instrumental in taking a leadership role in the
    Craig Thomas Snake River Headwaters Legacy Act, which protects
    over 400 miles of the upper Snake River Watershed. It was a
    groundbreaking Act in that it took a watershed approach to
    conservation.
        And you know, when the management plan came forward, we
    thought this was a great opportunity to look at paddling again.
    I will note that even though I am in the commercial outfitting
    business and I do have a retail store, I am not here
    representing my own commercial interests or any commercial
    interests. I am here representing the thousands of paddlers
    from our region and tens of thousands of paddlers beyond that
    are interested in paddling in Yellowstone National Park.
        And the fact is that this boating ban as Representative
    Lummis pointed out is extremely outdated. It was initially
    intended to prevent overfishing. They did not want float
    fishing on these rivers because the fishery in Yellowstone was
    in trouble in the 1950s.
        And it did not really look at the unforeseen consequence of
    the fact that these are great recreational rivers for paddling
    and other low impact uses, canoeing, small rafts, et cetera. So
    it is outdated, and it really needs to go.
        When we have tried to have discussions with Park Service
    people at the regional and local level, we have pretty much
    been stonewalled by the fact that this paddling ban exists. So
    if it is gotten rid of, then we would at least be able to have
    that discussion.
        And we know because there are many great examples
    throughout our region that paddlers can access these rivers and
    enjoy this resource without any harm to the resource. Many
    other rivers in the region are managed successfully. For
    instance, the Selway River only allows one launch a day during
    the season, but paddlers understand that, and they realize that
    access to that river is very special, yet you can get access.
    Whereas the rivers of Yellowstone are completely shut off to
    access and many of the rivers of Grand Teton are as well.
        So we are not asking for any additional facilities to be
    built. Parking areas, trails to the rivers already exist. This
    could be done in a very inexpensive fashion, would not cost a
    lot of money, and is a great form of recreation, again, human
    powered recreation.
        When you look at Yellowstone, I mean, it is a sad fact most
    people enjoy Yellowstone from the seat of their cars. I mean,
    they just do. It is a roadside park. Very few people ever get
    away from the boardwalks, and you know, here we have from the
    highest Federal levels a mandate to get people outside, get
    people recreating, get people enjoying the outdoors.
        I have taken part in listening groups in the past with
    Forest Service and Park Service personnel saying, ``What are
    the impediments to outdoor recreation?'' Well, this is a big
    one that is outdated and it would be easy to get rid of. It is
    a great way to enjoy the outdoors. It is a healthy activity
    that is extremely low impact to the environment.
        We understand and I have had many conversations with my
    colleagues in the conservation community about this bill
    already, and we understand that the language needs to be
    tightened up, and I will say it is vitally important that the
    final language of this bill be very specific to ending the
    antiquated boating ban in Yellowstone and Grand Teton and this
    bill not be misconstrued or set a precedent that may apply to
    other parks or other uses in the future.
        We are not looking to take away management responsibility
    from the Superintendents of Yellowstone and Grand Teton. We are
    looking to give it back to them, and by passing this bill, that
    is exactly what it will do.
        And I just want you to know if you do not have one of these
    currently in your wallet, if anybody in the room does not have
    one of these in their wallet, it is an incredible value. For a
    very low cost and no interest rates, you can get a National
    Parks pass, which gets you into all 400 parks in the Nation,
    and look at what is on the cover of the pass. It is a kayaker
    going through rapids. So it is an accepted activity in most
    parks and many wilderness areas.
        Thank you very much.
        The prepared statement of Mr. Pruzan follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Aaron Pruzan, Wilson, WY
              concerning h.r. 3492, river paddling protection act
        I am Aaron Pruzan and I live in Jackson Hole, Wyoming with my wife
    Tamsen and our three children, Noah, Nate and Neve. As a retailer,
    instructor, guide and coach I have introduced thousands of people of
    all ages to the joy of paddling rivers since I began my career in 1993.
    In 1995 I started Rendezvous River Sports and Jackson Hole Kayak
    School, a retail sales and outfitting destination which quickly became
    the hub of paddling activities in Wyoming. I am very fortunate that I
    have turned my passion for river running into my career and can share
    that passion with so many people from all walks of life.
        In 1996, in response to the youth skiing community wanting more
    summer activities, I founded the Jackson Hole Kayak Club to give the
    opportunity for kids in the Jackson Hole area to understand and
    experience the waterways of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Since
    that time I have taken generations of young kayakers--now including my
    own kids--to rivers throughout the West to enjoy healthy outdoor
    recreation.
        In 2009 I began working with Teton Adaptive Sports to provide free
    adaptive paddling opportunities for special needs kids and adults. In
    addition we provide free paddling and rafting programs for Honoring Our
    Veterans, which facilitates outdoor experiences for returning veterans
    and wounded warriors. We have worked extensively with the City Kids
    Wilderness Project which gives inner city kids from Washington, DC the
    opportunity to experience the rivers and mountains of Wyoming.
        Over the past three decades I have enjoyed paddling in many
    spectacular places as a team member on numerous whitewater expeditions,
    exploratory descents and in individual kayaking competitions. This
    includes exploratory river running in Wyoming, British Columbia, Chile,
    Argentina, New Zealand and Siberia.
        Paddling has fostered in me, as it has in others, a deep sense of
    stewardship for the rivers I experience. I have worked extensively for
    river stewardship as a founding board member of the Snake River Fund
    and a board member of American Whitewater. This work included being one
    of the leaders of the Campaign for the Snake River Headwaters. Through
    this 6-year process I worked with numerous conservation organizations,
    hosted planning meetings at my store, met with landowners, presented
    the campaign at public forums and helped build lasting partnerships
    between different river users and political affiliations. This
    culminated in 2009 with the passage of the Craig Thomas Snake River
    Headwaters Legacy Act, which protects 400 miles of the upper Snake
    River and was one of the largest conservation measures in Wyoming in
    many decades.
        In 2010 I spearheaded the special excise tax funding proposition
    which was approved by voters in Teton County and provides funding to
    facilitate the transfer of riparian lands from the Bureau of Land
    Management to Teton County for river access and preservation. I am
    currently working to complete this process with the addition of private
    lands and the creation of riverside parks and access points at South
    Park, Wilson and Hoback Junction on the Snake River in Jackson Hole.
        As a current member of the Jackson Hole Travel and Tourism Board I
    am working to promote outdoor recreation and sustainable travel.
    Jackson Hole and the Greater Yellowstone Area are a national treasure
    and we are working to be a world leader in sustainable tourism as well.
        I have traveled to Washington, DC twice before. Both times were to
    meet with our Wyoming Members of Congress to advocate for the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund. LWCF funding is very important to Wyoming as
    LWCF funds have been used to acquire valuable lands in river corridors,
    with more riparian lands targeted for purchase via LWCF in the upcoming
    year.
        While I make my living sharing rivers with people, I am not
    testifying on behalf of my own or anyone's commercial interests. I am
    testifying on behalf of the many people that cherish the opportunity to
    experience rivers and special places in their kayaks, canoes, and
    rafts. This is a community of people that have a deep land and river
    stewardship ethic and a strong connection with the natural world.
    Through nearly every aspect of my life I am part of that community, and
    it is an honor to testify on their behalf.
        The rivers of Jackson Hole are one of the main reasons many
    visitors come to our area. This is part of a long tradition; river
    running was one of the original and primary means of travel throughout
    the West. Today, whether using traditional hard shell kayaks,
    inflatable kayaks or pack rafts (small one-person rafts that fit in a
    backpack) paddling down a river is still one of the most enjoyable and
    low impact ways to experience the outdoors. A day paddling on the river
    offers an almost magical connection with the landscape and the water,
    and different stretches of river offer something for everyone, from
    floating tranquil waters flowing through quiet canyons to the rush and
    roar of rapids and the challenge of paddling whitewater. Paddling
    teaches skills and awareness, fosters an appreciation of nature and
    protected areas, and is truly a lifetime activity enjoyed by all ages.
        There is a current push from the highest levels of government to
    get more people outside and involved in fitness activities and
    specifically outdoor recreation. My staff and I are actually doing that
    all summer long by getting kids and adults away from their computers,
    tablets and smart phones and out on the water paddling. In this over-
    stimulating era, rivers require kids and adults alike to focus on
    natural forces and the natural world, to calm their minds, and exercise
    their bodies. It is exactly the type of activity that our National Park
    System was set up to support.
        In the late 1920s the great conservationist Olaus Murie embarked on
    a canoe trip on the Upper Yellowstone River with his two sons.
    Reflecting on the experience in his book Wapiti Wilderness, he wrote:
    ``When you go into country by pack train the streams are only for
    crossing, or to camp beside. To know a stream you travel on it,
    struggle with it, live with it hour by hour and day by day.''
        I am very fortunate to have gotten to know many rivers while
    kayaking with my own family, my 6- and 8-year-old boys in their kids
    kayaks, my 4-year-old daughter in the front seat of my tandem with me
    and my wife paddling alongside. River running is an incredible family
    activity, it provides endless excitement and is something real we all
    share together that is an experience far beyond anything that a TV,
    video game or amusement park can offer. Unfortunately though, I am
    forbidden from replicating Olaus Murie's trip, or taking my family on
    any river trip in Grand Teton or Yellowstone National Park except for
    on portions of the Snake and Lewis rivers. The National Park Service
    forbids floating all other rivers in these parks.
        As someone who has paddled many of the world's most formidable
    whitewater rivers, as well as many that are perfect family floats, I
    can attest that Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks offer some
    of the best paddling opportunities in the World for all abilities. Not
    only would the rivers themselves offer wonderful rapids, currents, and
    pools, but floating quietly though these areas and taking in the unique
    scenery would be an experience of a lifetime for many people. It would
    give Park visitors a truly wild experience of a very special place.
        Visitors to our area often ask incredulously why these rivers are
    closed. The history of the boating ban in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
    dates back to the 1950s and was solely intended to curb the overfishing
    the plagued the Parks. This resulted in the unforeseen consequence of
    banning future access to rivers and streams for enjoyment by paddling.
    Even though rivers like the Yellowstone had been paddled, the high
    value of the river recreation resource that exists in both national
    parks was not envisioned 60 years ago. This ban lives on, while in
    other national parks and wilderness areas paddling is a regular
    activity (check out the kayaker on the latest National Parks Pass) that
    is managed in a simple and sustainable manner.
        To live so near to these amazing rivers and yet be unable to
    experience them is a constant frustration for me, many other residents
    of the area surrounding the Parks, and many visitors. Many of our
    students and kids that I coach strive to be able to run rivers like the
    Yellowstone and have trouble understanding why the boating ban still
    exists. They simply can't understand why floating a river should be a
    crime in these parks, while it is supported as a great way to
    experience the natural world virtually everywhere else.
        Despite efforts over the years by American Whitewater to have
    boating managed like other similar activities in these parks--the ban
    persisted. With the 2009 Wild & Scenic designation of the upper Snake
    River and its tributaries--which includes several rivers in Yellowstone
    and Grand Teton National Parks--a new river management plan was
    required and thus a new opportunity to consider suitable uses for the
    resource. Again despite a flood of comments in favor of paddling,
    including recommendations by river stewardship organizations that
    paddling be considered, and the requirement by law that all kinds of
    use be looked at, paddling was explicitly excluded from the draft
    Comprehensive River Management Plan. The authors of the plan cited the
    unusual 1950's Federal regulations that ban paddling, claiming that
    these rules made considering paddling a moot point, since they were
    forbidden from allowing the activity. Park managers do not have the
    discretion to manage these Parks consistent with modern National Park
    Service policies, priorities, and practices because of these outdated
    and unusual Federal rules.
        It is clear that these 1950's regulations are outdated and the
    National Park Service needs to manage with modern methods and
    standards. Yellowstone visitors no longer watch the bears at open
    dumps, the National Park Service no longer stock exotic fish or engage
    in other outdated management practices. Changes to park management can
    improve visitor experiences and natural resource protection. The
    paddling prohibitions in the Park need to change.
        While I do not feel that opening every river all the time in both
    parks is the correct course of action, I support the active management
    of paddling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton and feel there are many
    stretches that can be opened with minimal impacts. There is already a
    boat registration system in place for both parks and all non-motorized
    boats are required to have a permit. Boat registration requires a fee,
    is a source of revenue for the parks and provides boaters with the park
    boating regulations. Backcountry use is already tightly controlled and
    paddlers would need to adhere to current regulations as hikers and back
    packers do. There are also numerous simple templates for river
    management from other western rivers that flow through sensitive areas
    which would allow paddlers to be easily, cheaply, and sustainably
    managed just as hikers are.
        It is important to recognize that managers have many tools to
    manage paddling and other forms of recreation. This is not an all or
    nothing issue. The paddling community appreciates and supports well-
    supported limits on river use and here again, there are many great
    examples of river management from popular rivers in the region like the
    Middle Fork of the Salmon, the Selway, Yampa or Green. Furthermore
    there is no need for additional infrastructure to facilitate paddling.
    Trails and parking already exist for access and kayaks or pack rafts
    can be easily carried.
        I realize that legislation regarding management issues, like
    litigation, is a last resort and it should only even be considered when
    there has been a dramatic failure in the administrative process. The
    60+ year paddling ban, and recent refusal to consider paddling, is
    evidence that just such a failure has occurred in Yellowstone and Grand
    Teton. I do not like the idea of legislating this issue, but given that
    antiquated Federal rules are preventing modern management planning, the
    paddling community is at a loss as to how else to move forward.
        In this case, the NPS feels they are constrained by roughly 60-
    year-old Federal regulations that are no longer serving their purpose.
    It makes sense to grant the Parks the discretion to manage with the
    full suite of modern management tools. By getting rid of the boating
    ban, an old regulation that ties the hands of the current park
    managers, it is not taking away the authority to manage but rather
    restoring it. We greatly appreciate Representative Lummis for seeking
    to remedy this problem with the River Paddling Protection Act, and
    would likewise consider any ideas the National Park Service may offer.
        In discussions with my colleagues in the conservation and paddling
    communities about this legislation, it is evident that regardless of
    what Congress does concerning this issue, the National Park Service
    must retain their typical discretion to protect the natural resources
    of the Parks through fair, reasonable, and well justified limits on all
    forms of recreation, including paddling. The paddling community is not
    seeking special treatment. Paddlers simply want to be considered like
    other similar low-impact, human-powered, wilderness-compliant visitors.
    Likewise, we do not seek priority over the preservation of natural
    resources. Quite the opposite, we feel strongly that the conservation
    of natural resources should be granted priority over all forms of
    recreation. We are confident that the parks can support sustainably
    managed paddling opportunities in concert with other existing similar
    uses.
        It is also vitally important that the final language of this bill
    be very specific to ending the antiquated boating ban in Yellowstone
    and Grand Teton and that this bill not be misconstrued or set a
    precedent that may apply to other parks or other uses in the future.
        When we consider human-powered recreation, particularly in a Nation
    that is currently striving to improve the fitness of our citizenry, it
    is a sad statement that the vast majority of all visitors to
    Yellowstone experience the park only from their cars, as a roadside
    attraction. Most rarely venture beyond the boardwalks. Getting people
    outdoors and out of their cars is important. Whether it is this
    legislation, a modified version, or NPS action, it is important to
    encourage the sustainable and healthy exploration and enjoyment of our
    Parks via ancient, fun, and low-impact means.
        Both Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks have highly adept
    land managers as their Superintendents. Both the departing Mary Gibson
    Scott of Grand Teton and Dan Wenk of Yellowstone have years of
    experience dealing with challenging management issues. I ask that you
    help them with this issue by ending the boating ban and allow both
    parks to welcome Americans to once again experience two of our Nation's
    most prized National Parks through sustainably managed paddling.
        I encourage you to move forward with the River Paddling Protection
    Act. The bill would address a very real problem that has hindered
    healthy outdoor recreation for decades. I hope this bill continues to
    be vetted, discussed, and if needed improved to meet the conservation
    and recreation goals I have outlined in this testimony.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and to
    appear before this subcommittee. Please feel free to contact me if you
    have any questions.

                                     ______

                Letters Submitted by Aaron Pruzan for the Record

                                         Teton Adaptive Sports,
                                                       October 1, 2013.
    Aaron Pruzan
    Rendezvous River Sports
    P.O. Box 9201
    Jackson, WY 83002

        Dear Aaron,

        Thanks so much for your support again this summer of Teton Adaptive
    Sports' Adaptive Paddling Program. Your donation of instructors,
    kayaks, stand up paddleboards, and accessories for our 2 adaptive
    paddling days on String Lake was a value of $2800.00. Your generous
    gift provided boating opportunities for over 35 individuals with
    disabilities, along with family members, and volunteers. Your
    continuing commitment to our community is greatly appreciated. TAS
    Adaptive Paddle Days are by far the most popular outings we offer. We
    could not offer these experiences without your help. No goods or
    services were exchanged for this donation.

                Best regards,
                                                    Kurt Henry,
                                                    Executive Director.

                                     ______

                                         Honoring Our Veterans,
                                                     Moran, WY,
                                                     November 18, 2013.

        Honoring Our Veterans has been offering OEF/OIF combat wounded
    veterans rehabilitative/recreational therapy in Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    since 2008. To date, we have helped 106 combat wounded Marines,
    Soldiers, and Navy Seabees heal and move forward with newfound
    confidence and hope. We are able to offer these programs through the
    partnerships we have built with businesses and organizations that have
    expertise in outdoor recreation. The instruction and guidance of
    Rendezvous River Sports is critical to our ability to operate.
        We offer four weeklong sessions each year. One of the most popular
    is the Water Sports Therapy Session. Rendezvous River Sports/Jackson
    Hole Kayak is the key player in the creation and implementation of this
    program. Each Water Sports Therapy session consists of seven to ten
    combat wounded warriors. Through the generosity of Rendezvous River
    Sports, we offer our most popular activity; an instructional rafting
    day on the Snake River. In addition to rafting, we also offer an
    instructional paddle day on String Lake in Grand Teton National Park.
    The special use permitting process enables us to utilize Grand Teton
    National Park in this manner. Rendezvous River Sports does such a good
    job caring for our important water resources, and with the quality of
    their instruction, the Park is always happy with how we conduct our
    sessions.
        We find the wounded veterans we can help by working with the
    different VA Medical Centers from across the country. We also work with
    Brooke Army Medical Center's Warrior Transition Unit and the Marine
    Corps Wounded Warrior Battalion Detachment West.
        Honoring Our Veterans is grateful to have the support of Rendezvous
    River Sports. Without their involvement and continued dedication to our
    wounded veterans, we would not be able to offer these important healing
    programs to our Nation's heroes.

                Thank you!
                                                Sandra Bockman,
                                                    Executive Director.

                                     ______

                               Jackson Hole Kayak Club,
                                                   Jackson, WY.
        To Whom It May Concern:

        The Jackson Hole Kayak Club is very excited about a potential lift
    of the historic ban on boating in both Grand Teton National Park and
    Yellowstone National Park. The Jackson Hole Kayak Club is a non-profit
    organization based in Teton County Wyoming that provides youth the
    opportunity to safely enjoy the waterways of the Greater Yellowstone
    area through youth programs, competitive events, conservation and
    education. The JHKC has been teaching youth how to paddle since 1996,
    and the hundreds of alum will attest that the JHKC programs teach more
    than just learning how to kayak. The programs teach a love of the
    outdoors, a passion for conservation, and a deep respect of both the
    power and beauty of our natural rivers.
        Our coaches and athletes are all enthusiasts who have dedicated
    part of their lives to follow their passion for paddling. This passion
    has taken many of our athletes and coaches around the world to explore
    new rivers, yet we are not allowed to explore the two national parks
    with amazing whitewater opportunities in our backyard. The historic
    boating ban is outdated, It is time to update the regulations so they
    reflect the actual impacts of paddling on the rivers.
        Paddling is a very low impact activity used by the first explorers
    to the Greater Yellowstone region. It is potentially the least
    impactful way of traveling through an environment because boaters leave
    no trace on the water. The Jackson Hole Kayak Club feels strongly about
    conservation, and wants to protect the natural state of the rivers in
    all of the National Parks. That is why we feel it is important for the
    NPS to manage each river based on its potential user impacts and
    regulate use based on these impacts.
        The Jackson Hole Kayak club believes that paddling is a healthy
    activity that deserves the same management plan considerations as any
    other recreational activities in the park. We hope to see the outdated
    ban lifted and new science-based regulation put into place. The youth
    of our community and the country will greatly benefit from these
    decisions. Thank you for your consideration in passing the bill to
    remove the boating ban in GTNP and YNP.

                Sincerely,
                                               Jonathan Souter,
                        President of the Jackson Hole Kayak Club Board.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        I suppose he gave the fish back when he got done with his
    kayaking, right?
        Mr. Young, I would ask you if you would introduce to us now
    the other number that was the same except the numbers reversed,
    H.R. 3294, if you would please.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and
    the Ranking Member for holding this hearing and this
    legislation, and all of these pieces of legislation.
        The purpose of this legislation is to jumpstart a
    discussion about the failure of our Federal land management
    agency to officially manage our public lands. Further, this
    bill suggests an alternative management regime that would
    provide State management agencies an opportunity to do better.
        Time and again before this committee we have heard
    testimony from Governors' State managers about their continued
    ability to outperform their Federal counterparts. States have a
    proven record of success in managing public lands. For example,
    Alaska manages an array of wildlife resources and their
    habitat, as well over three million acres of State parks,
    forests, historic sites, and networks of trails and public use
    cabins, et cetera.
        Regardless of the perspective of my proposed solution, I
    think we can all agree that Federal management is both
    expensive and it is not working well. H.R. 3294 would allow the
    Federal Government the ability to manage Federal lands through
    cooperative agreement with the States after they provide 50
    percent cost share of the management cost.
        Again, I thank you for this, Mr. Chairman. May I say
    respectfully for the Park people, you run your parks terribly,
    especially in Alaska. You run them for the tourists and the
    Park Service people. You prohibit Alaskans from using the parks
    for what they were originally intended for: hiding, not without
    a permit; hunting, definitely not; canoeing, paddling, no,
    because you cannot get a permit.
        And you have money being spent, and we are working on this,
    money being spent by the billions of dollars on the Park
    Service for Taj Mahal tourist centers, for big park
    headquarters, for workers who do nothing but prevent Alaskans
    from enjoying that land that was God-given to them, and the
    Forest Service is equally as bad. The Forest Service is
    probably one of the worst.
        Our forests are in the worst condition they have ever been
    because of the Forest Service action of not managing forests:
    fires, pollution of the air, no management, loss of fiber, all
    related to the Forest Service.
        Yet when I drive by a Forest Service parking lot, I see 27
    brand new, Mr. Chairman, Chevrolet trucks sitting there. I see
    six boats, big boats, with 250 horsepower motors on them. Then
    I see 27 kayaks in the Forest Service's parking lot.
        They are running these forests now as, I would say
    respectfully, as parks, that do no management at all. The Park
    Service has outlived its time if you keep managing it the way
    it is. It is for the people. It is not for the Park Service
    agency, wearing their uniforms with SWAT jackets on, pistols on
    their hips now, walking around like they are the Gestapo.
        Mr. Chairman, I can say respectfully I see this government
    today as King George and his lords around him. Forget the
    servants and the serfs. American people have become the serfs
    because we have to respond to the agencies, and the Park
    Service and Fish and Wildlife, the Interior Department are
    fraught with not considering the people, the people that
    deserve a right especially in the States.
        This will give the opportunity for the States to manage
    lands efficiently for not only tourists but for the State
    people that live there.
        I know you are just a lower lying person here right now,
    but you tell your Park Service people they stink, and they have
    gotten worse over the years, and I have been here 40 years. I
    have seen what has happened to the agencies: non-acceptance of
    people individually. Do not bother me. I am the Park Service.
    Do not bother me. I am the Fish and Wildlife. I am the
    government. You have no right to ask me. In fact, I am going to
    refuse to listen to you.
        That is not right. That is not the America we were built
    on. That is not the thing that we originally established the
    parks for. Go back through the history of all our parks and
    Teddy Roosevelt. We said on those parks we would preserve it,
    but hunting was allowed. You do not allow hunting on parks
    anymore. That is bad. You do not allow any activity by the
    individuals. That is bad.
        But we can have our airplanes, and we can have our snow
    machines, and we can have our boats because we are the
    government. That is what is wrong with our government today.
    You have forgotten the people because you live within the
    castle walls, the castle walls of King George, the President of
    the United States who believes he is a monarch.
        Shame on America. Let us wake up to really what has
    happened to us. With that I yield back.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Other than that, you do not have a strong opinion.
        Mr. Young. No, I do have a strong opinion.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Dr. Nelson, I appreciate you being here. I
    am perhaps giddy because I have enjoyed reading your book, but
    you are now recognized for 5 minutes to present your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT H. NELSON, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC
                     POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

        Dr. Nelson. My name is Robert Nelson. I am a professor in
    the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, and
    a Senior Fellow of the Independent Institute.
        From 1975 to 1993, I worked as a Senior Economist in the
    Office of Policy Analysis within the Office of the Secretary of
    the Department of the Interior, and based on this experience
    since the 1980s, I have written three books and many scholarly
    and also many more popular articles about the system of public
    land management by the Forest Service and the BLM. So it has
    given me a perspective that this particular piece of
    legislation is obviously, from the comments we have already
    heard, raising fundamental questions about the whole management
    regime in contrast to some of the other bills, which are quite
    particular in their orientation.
        I am encouraged by the introduction of H.R. 3294, the
    State-Run Federal Lands Act. There has been a virtual consensus
    since the 1990s among public land experts on a bipartisan basis
    that the Federal land management system is not working well.
    The inability to deal effectively with forest health and
    Western wild land fire in recent years is only the most visible
    symptom of a wider set of public land management dysfunctions.
        Major change of some kind is, therefore, desperately
    needed. The relationship between the Federal Government and the
    Western States for the management of the public lands is based
    on outmoded ideas that are now 100 years old. This relationship
    needs to be rethought in light of contemporary realities. If we
    can avoid partisan acrimony, H.R. 3294 can valuably help to
    open the discussion.
        I specifically like the idea in the bill of developing a
    Federal-State relationship for significant areas of public
    lands in which the Federal Government retains the underlying
    land ownership and certain broad guidance responsibilities, but
    the main management function is devolved to new administrative
    units at the State level and in some cases, which is not made
    clear in the legislation but I think it would allow for it,
    even to lower levels of government, such as counties and
    municipalities.
        I would also recommend in other cases additional forms of
    devolution that would make provision for giving new
    administrative responsibilities to non-governmental groups
    organized at the local level that would have a Board of
    Directors. This would build on the widespread development in
    recent years of self-organized, local advisory groups in the
    West seeking to work with the Forest Service and BLM. This past
    advisory role might now shift from being merely advisory to
    taking on suitable direct administrative functions.
        Seeking to respond to increasing evidence of public
    discontent, the Congress in the 1970s enacted a wave of major
    public land legislation, including the Resources Planning Act
    of 1974, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the
    Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The Congress
    failed, however, to resolve the large tensions between the
    progressive era ideal of management by government experts that
    still retains significant influence in a new, post-1990s
    concern to give non-government organizations and popular
    democracy a much larger decision role.
        The mandated Federal land use planning from the 1970s
    legislation soon became bogged down in public controversy and
    widespread litigation. As has been the case in many areas of
    American governance in recent decades, the Federal judiciary
    stepped in to fill the vacuum. This increasing judicial role
    was a major factor in a radical 1990 shift in the goals of
    public management, the move to a new philosophy of ecosystem
    management focused on environmental goals, such as
    biodiversity, replacing the previous longstanding public land
    management philosophy of multiple use and sustained yield.
        Ecosystem management has been no more successful, however,
    in providing a clear direction for public land management than
    the ineffective land use planning spawned by the 1970s
    legislation. By the 1990s, the 1970s management framework was
    judged a failure on a bipartisan basis at conferences and other
    meetings of public land experts to describe the workings of the
    Forest Service and BLM land management.
        The most important role for the Congress at present is to
    create a statutory basis for opening up a much wider range of
    devolved land administrative alternatives and to set the terms
    for review and approval and subsequent oversight of these
    alternatives as they are put into place. There should be ample
    opportunities not only for State governments, but also local
    governments and local citizen groups to propose initiatives
    that involve devolved public land administration arrangements
    and a process by which these proposals can be fairly and
    expeditiously reviewed.
        H.R. 3294 is an important step in that direction.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Nelson follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Robert H. Nelson, Professor, School of Public
                         Policy, University of Maryland
           concerning h.r. 3294, the ``state-run federal lands act''
        My name is Robert H. Nelson. I am a professor in the School of
    Public Policy at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow of The
    Independent Institute. From 1975 to 1993 I worked as a senior economist
    in the Office of Policy Analysis within the Office of the Secretary of
    the Department of the Interior. Based partly on this experience, since
    the 1980s I have written three books and many scholarly--and also more
    widely accessible--articles about the system of public land management
    by the Forest Service and the BLM.
        I am pleased to be able to testify today on such an important
    subject. The public lands are an important part of the history of the
    United States, dating to the Louisiana Purchase, the Homestead Act and
    the railroad land grants in the nineteenth century and then to the
    creation of the Forest Service, the Minerals Leasing Act, and the
    Taylor Grazing and Grazing Service (a forerunner to the BLM) in the
    first half of the twentieth century. The Federal lands still represent
    today 28 percent of the land area of the United States, including
    around 50 percent of all the land in the western States.
        I should say at the outset that I am encouraged by the introduction
    of H.R. 3294, the ``State-Run Federal Lands Act.'' For reasons that I
    will briefly review, there has been a near consensus since the 1990s
    among public land experts that the Federal land management system is
    not working well. The inability to deal effectively with forest health
    and western wildland fire in recent years is only the most visible
    symptom of a wider set of public land management dysfunctions.
        Major change of some kind is therefore desperately needed. The
    relationship between the Federal Government and the western States for
    the management of the public lands is based on outmoded ideas that are
    now 100 years old. This relationship needs to be rethought in light of
    contemporary realities. H.R. 3294 can valuably help to open the
    discussion.
        Especially promising is the proposal for a Federal-State
    relationship for significant areas of public lands in which the Federal
    Government retains the underlying land ownership, and certain broad
    oversight responsibilities, but the management function is devolved to
    the State level--and in some cases probably even lower to the local
    government level. I would also recommend in other cases making
    provision for devolving management responsibilities to non-governmental
    citizen groups organized at the local level and including a Board of
    Directors of the group. This would build on the widespread development
    in recent years of self-organized local advisory bodies in the West
    seeking to work with the Forest Service and BLM in hopes of overcoming
    some of their large management problems.
        At this point I review briefly some of the history that has brought
    us to our current state of such deep dissatisfaction with public land
    management. In this long history, the management objective of the
    Federal Government has changed radically three times. In the nineteenth
    century, the goal was to dispose of the Federal lands which resulted in
    the transfer of 1.3 billion acres to private parties and to the States.
    The States themselves received a total of 328 million of these acres.
        In the progressive era around the beginning of the twentieth
    century, the Federal goal shifted to one of making the management of
    the lands more efficient in the service of the public interest. As it
    was believed at the time, this could best be accomplished by retaining
    the remaining public forests, rangelands and other lands in Federal
    ownership for their management by government experts.
        By the 1970s, there was ample evidence that this progressive-era
    vision was failing. Mostly trained to maximize the uses of the lands,
    the government experts were paying insufficient attention, many people
    thought, to the environmental amenities of the lands. Partly owing to
    the politicization of the management of public lands, leading
    economists such as Marion Clawson, a former director of the BLM, then
    located at Resources for the Future, sharply criticized the economic
    inefficiency of Federal land management. Others pressed for a more
    democratic system of decisionmaking that would include a greater role
    for public participation.
        Responding to these public concerns, Congress in the 1970s enacted
    a host of major public land laws including the Resources Planning Act
    of 1974, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and the Federal
    Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. At the heart of the new
    legislation were requirements for a more comprehensive and effective
    systems of land use planning for the national forests and the BLM
    lands, including both the writing of formal written plans and
    environmental impact statements.
        The Congress had failed, however, to resolve the large tensions
    between the still influential progressive ideal of management by
    government experts and a new post-1960s concern to give non-government
    organizations and popular democracy a much larger role in management
    decisions. Federal land use plans soon became bogged down in public
    controversy and litigation. As they emerged after many years frequently
    in their preparation, they typically failed to provide an adequate
    basis for decisionmaking to address the most pressing current public
    land problems.
        As has been the case in many areas of American governance in recent
    decades, the Federal judiciary stepped in to fill a vacuum. This
    increasing judicial role was a major factor in the third radical shift
    in the goals of public land management, the move to a new philosophy of
    ecosystem management focused on environmental goals such as
    biodiversity, replacing the previous longstanding public land
    management philosophy of multiple use and sustained yield. This shift
    occurred after 1990 and was closely associated with the spotted owl
    controversy in the Pacific Northwest and the large changes in land
    management that occurred there on the national forests and BLM lands.
        Ecosystem management was troubled, however, by an inability to
    resolve fundamental tensions between the environmental goal to preserve
    nature in a wild state and continuing strong public demands to put the
    lands to good use. By the 1990s, the word ``dysfunctional'' was
    increasingly being heard at conferences and other meetings of public
    land experts with respect to the workings of Forest Service and BLM
    land management. The strong criticisms in those days were heard on a
    bi-partisan basis including many Democrats such as Frank Gregg, the
    former director of the BLM in the Carter administration, Jack Thomas,
    the first chief of the Forest Service in the Clinton administration,
    and Daniel Kemmis, a prominent western public intellectual who had also
    served as a Democratic Party leader at the State level in Montana.
        Congress, however, failed to address the large management problems
    on the public lands that were becoming evident by the 1990s. No major
    public land legislation has passed since the 1970s. The courts
    continued to play an active role but the slow and cumbersome judicial
    procedures often merely aggravated the public land management problems.
        The Forest Service in 2002, almost in desperation, pleaded to
    Congress for relief from its troubled circumstances, as described in an
    agency published document, The Process Predicament, declaring that it
    was operating ``within a statutory, regulatory, and administrative
    framework that has kept the agency from affectively addressing rapid
    declines in forest health,'' including the development of explosive
    wood fuel buildups on many western national forests. Writing about the
    Forest Service, Sally Fairfax, a leading student of the public lands at
    the University of California at Berkeley, would ask in 2005 about
    ``what to do when an agency outlasts its time.''
        As recently as an October 2013 report, Professor Jay O'Laughlin,
    Professor and Director of the College of Natural Resources Policy
    Analysis Group at the University of Idaho, wrote that ``large areas of
    Federal lands in the western States are currently at high risk of
    severe wildfire and have many insect and disease problems, indicating a
    significant decline in forest health and resilience,'' recommending
    more active management measures but wondering how they might be
    accomplished under the existing public land management regime.
        As noted, H.R. 3294, the subject of the hearing today, offers an
    opportunity to revisit the historic Federal-State relationship for the
    management of the public lands in the West. I have long proposed that
    the Federal lands be divided into three categories. Some public lands
    are of clear national significance where a large Federal role is most
    appropriate but I would estimate these as probably no more than 20
    percent of the national forests and BLM lands.
        A much larger area of public lands is of primarily State and local
    significance, most heavily used by hikers, ranchers, hunters and other
    people from the surrounding area. These are the lands for which a basic
    rethinking of the Federal-State relationship is most necessary. On the
    western public lands of mainly State and local significance, the types
    of decisions made are those that elsewhere in the United States would
    be made by State and local governments. It is difficult to understand
    why the Federal Government is still spending its scarce resources to
    decide the times and places where federally determined numbers of cows,
    owned by local ranchers, can be grazed. The Federal administrative
    costs of all this greatly exceed any Federal revenues returned by
    grazing fees.
        Other public lands serve mainly commercial purposes such as the 57
    million acres of Federal mineral rights below privately owned surface
    lands (about 2.5 percent of the United States). The O&C lands in
    Oregon, owing to their unique history, were long managed by BLM for
    mainly timber harvesting purposes, providing large revenue streams to
    local counties that are now much missed. Some of the commercially most
    valuable public lands might be privatized outright. This might also
    include an expanded program of land sales for those current public
    lands with a high private value for real estate and other developmental
    purposes, including particularly high quality sites for more intensive
    recreational development.
        H.R. 3294 is at present an outline of a plan for rethinking the
    Federal-State relationships on the public lands. But the States,
    working with their local governments, are better positioned to make the
    changes in public land management that are now so greatly needed. In
    recent years, it has often been State governments, not the Federal
    Government, that have taken the key leadership roles in American
    government efforts to deal with key policy problems and issues.
        With a greater State role, there would likely be differences in
    land management approaches from one State to another, appropriately
    reflecting their diverse State circumstances, as compared with the
    current one-size-fits-all Federal system. States could also learn from
    a trial and error process if each of them had greater freedom of land
    management experimentation.
        It is a little known fact that the State with the highest
    percentage of State-owned land is New York State, equal to 37 percent
    of its total land. In 1894, New York State exercised its management
    prerogatives to set aside Adirondack Park, now equal to 6 million
    acres, 2.6 million owned by the State, setting a management policy to
    keep these lands ``forever wild'' long before the wilderness concept
    was introduced to the Federal lands. Other eastern States with large
    acreages of State owned land include New Jersey (16 percent), Florida
    (14 percent) and Pennsylvania (13 percent), more than any western State
    except Alaska (29 percent). It is ironic that eastern States have often
    been reluctant to extend a similar prerogatives to develop their own
    internal State land management strategies to western States.
        In proposing the administrative devolution of public land
    responsibilities, a useful analogy might be the establishment of
    charter schools in large public school systems that often serve the
    disadvantaged. A growing body of research from leading scholars at
    universities such as MIT, Harvard and Princeton is concluding that the
    better-run urban charter schools, free to pursue educational
    innovations previously unavailable in traditional public school
    systems, have been achieving remarkable gains in student achievement
    and parental satisfaction. The current Secretary of Education is among
    those who agree with this assessment.
        Perhaps we should be similarly flexible and innovative in trying
    out land management innovations on the public lands that might be
    analogous in many ways to charter schools. Local boards of directors,
    like those of charter schools, could have wide latitude in hiring
    staff, contracting out work, and other important management matters.
    While H.R. 3294 is an encouraging step, there are many possible
    approaches to public lands administrative devolution and many details
    would need to be resolved for each such approach, possibly on a State
    by State basis.
        The most important role for the Congress at present is to create a
    statutory basis for opening up a much wider range of devolved public
    land management alternatives and to set the terms for subsequent
    oversight of these alternatives as they are put into practice. There
    should be opportunities not only for State governments but also local
    governments and private local non-governmental groups to propose
    innovative devolved land management strategies and a process by which
    these proposals can be fairly and expeditiously reviewed at the Federal
    level.
        The creation of the existing public land system 100 years ago was
    predicated on an assumption that clear goals and policies could be
    established for the whole Nation, including the uses of the public
    lands. That was the time of the American ``melting pot'' when common
    national values were taken for granted. Today, however, the American
    Nation has become more diverse. When core values are being contested,
    it is more difficult to establish nationwide goals and policies, an
    important contributing factor to the large current problems of Federal
    land management. Devolution of greater administrative responsibilities
    to State-level bodies would allow for greater diversity in land use
    goals and policies, reflecting the actual greater diversity of the
    United States at present.
    Additional Comments on H.R. 3294
        The title of the bill, ``State-Run Federal Lands Act,'' perhaps
    might be changed. Some people might read ``State-run'' to mean
    ``government-run.'' Also, while the States would necessarily play a
    prominent role in any devolution plans, other public and nongovernment
    groups within the State might also be significantly involved, proposing
    appropriate boundaries for land units, developing a plan for their
    devolved administration, and ending up with many of the final
    management responsibilities. An alternative possible title might be the
    ``Federal Lands Administrative Devolution Act.''
        Including all the Federal land agencies might be too much for one
    bill. It might be better to have separate bills for the national forest
    system and the BLM lands. The National Park System is a special case,
    combining national treasures such as the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone
    with some national park units of minor national significance. If one
    Federal land agency had to be chosen to pioneer new administrative
    devolutionary approaches, it might be the Forest Service, the oldest of
    the Federal land systems, and the one currently experiencing many of
    the most severe problems of adaptation to new land use demands and
    forest health.
        The development of innovative proposals for public land
    administrative devolution does not need to be limited to State
    governments. Others within the State, public and non-governmental,
    might be able to devise their own proposed management plans and
    devolution strategies, perhaps submitting them directly to Federal
    officials and negotiating the details with these officials (with
    overall State approval of such efforts).
        Where the State would assume the primary administrative role
    itself, the State would be the one to submit directly a land
    administration devolution plan. For example, States might propose that
    State trust land administrators add new manage responsibilities for
    current Federal lands--with some arrangements provided for the
    allocation of some portion of the revenues from these lands to the
    trusts. Given the importance of energy minerals, States might want to
    take direct responsibility for the devolved administration of such
    critically important lands through some new State administrative
    mechanism. (It is questionable that a game changing event such as the
    oil shale development of the Bakken formation in North Dakota could
    ever have occurred within the current federally run system of
    management for the public lands.)
        Rather than one instrument for administrative devolution as
    proposed in H.R. 3294, the use of a ``cooperative agreement,'' it might
    be appropriate to offer a tool kit of possible administrative
    devolution instruments, including separate provisions and procedures in
    the law for various forms of devolution to States themselves, to local
    governments, and to local non-government organizations. The legislative
    provisions could then be tailored more specifically to the forms and
    circumstances of each type of administrative devolution instrument.
        Some State proposals for public land administrative devolution
    might be so large and important that they should be approved by the
    Congress itself (rather than the relevant Secretary). Other proposals
    might be more routine and could be handled within the executive branch
    alone. Provision might be made in the law for such a distinction and
    separate approval procedures established.
        After administrative devolution, the Federal Government would no
    longer directly manage the lands. However, it would be appropriate for
    the Federal Government to set some certain broader goals and standards
    for the devolved administration. Environmental ``sidebars'' of
    performance, for example, might be established. There might be formal
    Federal reviews say every 5 or 10 years. In cases of severe
    mismanagement, the Federal Government might step in immediately to
    cancel the devolution agreement. Such provisions should probably be
    spelled out more explicitly in the legislation.
        The issue of existing rights in public lands should probably be
    more explicitly and fully addressed in the legislation. What would
    happen, for example, to rancher grazing permits that traditionally have
    always been renewed? How much if any discretion would State, local or
    non-governmental administrators have in altering the terms of livestock
    grazing. If a non-government body took over the responsibility, for
    example, for administering a wilderness area, how much discretion would
    it have in implementing wilderness use policies?
        Given the very large expenditures currently being made in the West
    for fire fighting, this important area of Federal-State relations
    probably should be addressed specifically in the legislation. How would
    fire fighting responsibilities be handled for newly devolved
    administrative units? How would the costs be shared? What would be the
    continuing Federal Government role in fire fighting in the West?
        It might prove difficult to fully resolve some of these issues on a
    general basis in a short time. The first steps of public land
    administrative devolution thus might have to occur more incrementally.
    Perhaps somewhat in the manner of a wilderness designation approval
    package, State governments might be authorized to put together packages
    of administrative devolution plans for specific areas and specific
    kinds of devolved administrative bodies, and to submit these to the
    Congress for its negotiation and approval on a State by State basis.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. I thank you.
        And I will turn to the committee for questions of any of
    the witnesses. Mr. Young, do you have questions?
        Mr. Young. Mr. Nelson, I have read your testimony, and of
    course, you are speaking my language, and I do appreciate that
    because a Park Service, bless your heart, and a Fish and
    Wildlife and a BLM have done a terrible job of management,
    period, and communicating with one another.
        This bill is just a thought frame. I like that you brought
    up the fact it may not just be the State. There could be local.
    You are thinking local counties or boroughs or something being
    involved.
        Dr. Nelson. And even non-governmental organizations.
        Mr. Young. It would be non-government?
        Dr. Nelson. You could think of it as like a charter school,
    but on a national--so the charter school is still in a
    framework of public education, but it is independent in terms
    of hiring and firing and all kinds of other things, and it has
    a Board of Directors, and so you could have something like that
    on the public lands, I think, and it would be a way of opening
    the whole system up, but without trying to take on the
    fundamental challenge of the whole question of Federal land
    ownership in the West, which is so contentious that if you
    challenge that, it would immediately become completely
    polarized.
        Mr. Young. Well, under my bill, I do not propose that they
    relinquish the ownership, but they relinquish the management.
        Dr. Nelson. Right.
        Mr. Young. So it is more of a party.
        Dr. Nelson. I am agreeing with your bill in that respect,
    but you are proposing mostly to do it through cooperative
    agreements.
        Mr. Young. Yes, yes.
        Dr. Nelson. It is not really clear, but it sounds like
    reading your bill that you are thinking that it is mostly going
    to be cooperative agreements between the State and the Federal
    Government. And I am suggesting going beyond that and allowing,
    you know, arrangements for counties and municipalities, but
    even going beyond that and creating things that would be a
    public land equivalent of, say, a charter school. That is, it
    would have a Board of Directors. It would maybe have
    recreationists and environmentalists, economists and whatever.
    It would still be within the public framework, and it would
    still get some public money, but it would be free of many of
    the limitations of public land management that exist at
    present.
        Mr. Young. Well, I am glad he brought this up, Mr.
    Chairman, because in our areas in Alaska, again, it is the
    management of the parks with no input from the local people,
    period. In fact, we moved the one park lady there because she
    was totally obnoxious, moved her out because no input, and yet
    the Native corporations, which are adjacent to and around these
    parks, they do not hire anybody out from Alaska, you know, and
    let them be part of the management system where they are
    ignored now, and yet they have been living there for centuries,
    and they have the expertise to do it.
        This is what I envision so that there is more of an
    understanding what the parks are for.
        Dr. Nelson. If I could.
        Mr. Young. Yes.
        Dr. Nelson. So for a suitable national park unit in Alaska,
    you could envision a system where there would be a Board of
    Directors appointed to oversee the management of that national
    park. The hiring process would be freed from the standard
    bureaucratic Civil Service that makes it extremely difficult
    and it takes forever and so forth.
        Contracting would be freed from the normal Federal
    contracting rules. You would be freed from some of the normal
    environmental impact statement requirements and land use
    planning, which are mostly just an invitation for litigation.
    But it would still be a national park.
        And so the Board of Directors of the national park would
    hire the supervisor of the national park. So that person would
    be hired through this. The Board would be the representative
    board involving various affected parties, but it would
    basically be mostly local people or State people.
        Mr. Young. And this is what I am looking for.
        Mr. Chairman, I know I have got letters from the park
    conservative group and the park agency itself, but the system
    is not working.
        Dr. Nelson. I think there is general agreement. I mean,
    frankly I have been going to conferences for 20 years, and not
    as many recently because not that much has been happening, but
    people have been saying, very well recognized scholars, people
    who study the public lands, former public land administrators.
    I mean even I have been in a conference with Jack Ward Thomas
    and, you know, not a Republican. He would not use your
    language, but he would basically say the system is not working,
    and the Forest Service says the system is not working.
        So there is agreement on that. The question at this point
    is: how can we get past the gridlock and the partisanship and
    everything else when there actually is substantial bipartisan
    agreement out there that the current system is not functioning.
        Mr. Young. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Grijalva.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, three
    communications, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
    on all of the legislation before us; Greater Yellowstone
    Coalition; and 14 other environmental organizations for the
    record.
        Mr. Bishop. Without objection.
        [The communication from NPCA, Greater Yellowstone Coalition
    and 14 environmental organizations follows:]

          Letters Submitted for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA),
                                                Washington, DC,
                                                     November 20, 2013.

    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
    House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
    Washington, DC 20515.

    Re: NPCA's Positions on Legislation at November 21st Hearing

        Dear Members of the House Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
    Subcommittee:

        Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has
    been the leading voice of the American people in protecting and
    enhancing our National Park System. On behalf of our more than 800,000
    members and supporters nationwide, I write to urge you to consider our
    positions on the following three bills they come before the
    subcommittee tomorrow, November 21.

        H.R. 3294, the State-Run Federal Lands Act and H.R. 3311, Providing
    Access and Retain Continuity (PARC) Act--NPCA strongly opposes these
    bills. The funding and protection of our national parks is a
    fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government. The generalized
    failure of Congress, which has the power of the purse, to meet its
    fundamental responsibilities should not be used as an excuse to attempt
    a State takeover of national parks or other Federal public lands. It
    has been 3 years since Congress funded national parks through any
    measure other than a continuing resolution. What the American people
    deserve and our national parks need is a functioning Federal budget
    process, not measures that would undermine the legacy we leave to our
    children and grandchildren through strongly protected national parks.
        National parks are protected under a suite of bedrock Federal
    environmental, natural and cultural resource laws, which together
    provide for the protection of nationally important resources protected
    by national parks. The National Park Service is the appropriate
    governmental entity to protect our parks and to provide for the safety
    and enjoyment of park visitors. National Park Service personnel, not
    State officials, are charged with implementing the laws and policies
    that govern national parks. The idea that state park officials, however
    well meaning or talented, could readily step into the shoes of the
    National Park Service and do the job that is legally required is simply
    incorrect, and would constitute an abdication of responsibility by the
    Interior Department and the Congress of the United States.
        Instead of proposing legislation to pave the way for another
    Federal shutdown or a State take-over of our national parks, Congress
    should be working to avoid future shutdowns. Using the threat of
    another Federal shutdown as an excuse to promote a State takeover of
    national parks is cynical at best, and does nothing to address the
    genuine threats to our national parks from underfunding and other
    issues. These bills propose nothing to address the long-term problems
    facing our national parks; a meaningful proposal would actually provide
    national parks with the funds they need to be fully open. We need real
    solutions that will help our parks, visitors, and businesses who depend
    on them, not damaging solutions that do nothing to stop the slow-moving
    shutdown that is already occurring throughout our national parks as a
    result of budget cuts.

        H.R. 3492, the River Paddling Protection Act--NPCA strongly opposes
    this legislation that would undermine existing laws and regulations
    which for many years have served to protect the values of river
    sections in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Grand Teton and
    Yellowstone National Parks (NPS) and the National Elk Refuge (NER) have
    been managed under long-standing regulations that prohibit boating on
    limited undesignated and designated wild and scenic river segments. The
    draft Snake River Headwaters--Wild and Scenic Planning Project already
    proposes to provide paddling access to over 300 miles of river or 86
    percent of all rivers under analysis of this plan. NPS and NER have
    determined that keeping a paddling closure on the remaining 14 percent
    is not only consistent with current law and policy but also will
    provide for appropriate protections for sensitive park and refuge
    wildlife, including grizzly bears, and appropriate range of non-boating
    recreational experiences. This legislation would open all of the park
    and refuge rivers to ``hand-propelled'' recreational boating, without
    considering the recreational and natural values for visitors who seek
    solitude and wild nature along the rivers in Yellowstone and Grand
    Teton.
        Thank you for considering our views.

                Sincerely,
                                                 Craig D. Obey,
                             Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.

                                     ______

                         Greater Yellowstone Coalition,
                                              Bozeman, Montana,
                                                     November 20, 2013.

    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
    House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
    Washington, DC 20515.

    Re: H.R. 3492--The River Paddling Protection Act

        For 30 years. the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) has worked,
    with communities, landowners, recreationists and others around
    Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, to conserve the world
    renowned land, water and wildlife resources found in this region. GYC
    strongly opposes this legislation. H.R. 3492 strips away the discretion
    of the National Park Service and sets a perilous precedent for
    legislating uses into some of our Nation's most cherished natural areas
    without a public process or adequate environmental analysis. This
    legislation would undercut existing laws and regulations which for
    years have protected the many values of rivers in Yellowstone and Grand
    Teton National Parks. Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks have
    been managed under long-standing regulations that allow boating in many
    areas. The draft Snake River Comprehensive River Management Plan
    already proposes to provide paddling access to over 300 miles of river
    or 86 percent of all rivers under analysis of this plan, The National
    Park Service and National Elk Refuge have determined that maintaining a
    paddling closure on the remaining 14 percent is not only consistent
    with current law and policy, but also will provide for appropriate
    protections for sensitive park and refuge wildlife and a range of non-
    boating recreational experiences.
        This legislation is not the right mechanism to address recreational
    use in our national parks. It is a blunt approach that fails to
    consider the recreational and natural values provided by waters in some
    of the world's most popular and pristine places--Yellowstone and Grand
    Teton National Parks, and the National Elk Refuge.

                Sincerely,
                                                 Caroline Byrd,
                                                    Executive Director.

                                     ______

                                                     November 20, 2013.

    Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
    House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
    Washington, DC 20515.

    Re: November 21, 2013 Subcommittee Hearing

        Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:

        We the undersigned organizations, on behalf of our millions of
    members, are writing to you to express our opposition to three bills
    being considered this week by the House Natural Resources Committee:
    H.R. 3286, H.R. 3294 and H.R. 3311. These bills would allow States to
    demand management authority over our public lands (including but not
    limited to National Parks, National Forests, National Conservation
    Lands and National Wildlife Refuges), pave the way for future
    shutdowns, and undermine Federal environmental protections and land
    management laws.
        If anything is to be learned from the unnecessary and damaging
    government shutdown it is that Americans love their national parks and
    public lands. Just this week a new report from the Center for American
    Progress (CAP) showed that 75 percent of voters oppose any additional
    budget cuts to our public lands. Allowing State management of our
    Federal lands is not the answer to management or budget shortfalls and
    these bills do nothing to address the long-term problems facing our
    public lands.
        Instead of working to prevent a future government shutdown and to
    provide more resources to our drastically underfunded public lands, the
    committee is considering a slate of bills that would pave the way for
    more shutdowns and State takeovers of public lands. H.R. 3294
    essentially requires Federal land managers to hand over control of
    national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and other lands to States
    upon demand. Once in State control, Federal environmental and land
    management laws could be superseded by State laws, and revenues
    generated by resource extraction on public lands that would normally be
    used to benefit all Americans would be transferred to the State. H.R.
    3311 and H.R. 3286 pave the way for future government shutdowns, rather
    than ensuring they do not happen again, and would open the door to
    additional costly litigation aimed at the Federal Government by waving
    the Federal Government's sovereign immunity.
        The unnecessary government shutdown was just the latest blow to the
    agencies that manage our national parks, forests, conservation lands
    and wildlife refuges, all of which have faced significant budget
    reductions for years, putting Federal spending on conservation and the
    environment at the lowest point in decades.
        Rather than addressing the real budgetary and management issues
    facing our public lands these bills seek to address a symptom and not a
    cause, shifting responsibility to the States instead of addressing
    Congress' obligation to keep the government open and adequately fund
    our public lands. In sum, H.R. 3286, H.R. 3294 and H.R. 3311 are
    irresponsible and ineffective approaches to the management of our
    public lands, undermining Federal environmental law, paving the way for
    future shutdowns, opening the door to increased litigation and failing
    to address the true problems facing our public lands.
        We strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 3286, H.R. 3294 and H.R. 3311.

                Sincerely,

                                Center for Biological Diversity
                              Crow Canyon Archaeological Center
                                          Defenders of Wildlife
                                   Endangered Species Coalition
              EPIC--Environmental Protection Information Center
                        Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument
                                     Friends of Ironwood Forest
                             Grand Staircase Escalante Partners
                                High Country Citizens' Alliance
                                        Klamath Forest Alliance
                              Oregon Natural Desert Association
                                                    Sierra Club
                                              The Lands Council
                                         The Wilderness Society

                                     ______

        Mr. Young. I can tell you what they say already. Why put
    them in the record?
        Mr. Grijalva. I am going to read them right now.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Nelson, let me just follow because you
    used some very interesting examples. If the Federal Government,
    based on the legislation that my colleague Mr. Young has,
    retains title but management authority is given to the States--
    --
        Dr. Nelson. Or some other groups.
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes, I was going there. Or even a non-
    governmental organization, I think you used the chartered
    school example as a governance example.
        Dr. Nelson. Well, yes.
        Mr. Grijalva. Who would be liable? OK. Let us talk about
    liability. Who would have liability for the activity of the
    land?
        Dr. Nelson. Well, think about the charter school model
    again, which is----
        Mr. Grijalva. So that would be retained by this governance
    group then?
        Dr. Nelson. So it is actually. It is not literally a non-
    governmental organization, although it functions a lot like
    one, but anyway, it operates under certain rules and guidelines
    and so forth. So this would not mean the Federal Government
    would disappear.
        Mr. Grijalva. OK.
        Dr. Nelson. The Federal Government would set the context
    and set certain broad guidelines and maybe then review the
    operations on an annual basis.
        Mr. Grijalva. Accepting that there is no non-disappearance
    entirely of the Federal role, who pays the bills?
        Dr. Nelson. That would be part of the whole discussion.
        Mr. Grijalva. OK.
        Dr. Nelson. I mean, you would have to look at the specific
    situation.
        Mr. Grijalva. And compliance with Federal laws would fall
    where?
        Dr. Nelson. That would also have to be part of the
    discussion. I mean, part of the reason why the system does not
    work now, as I said, is----
        Mr. Grijalva. So a step----
        Dr. Nelson [continuing]. It is again----
        Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. I call them bedrock laws. Other
    people have other descriptions for them, but you know, things
    like NEPA, Endangered Species, Clean Water Act, Historic
    Preservation, Native American Grave Protection.
        Dr. Nelson. I would leave all of those applying.
        Mr. Grijalva. OK.
        Dr. Nelson. The ones that I would look at are the Civil
    Service hiring procedures, which I think frustrate good
    governance; the contracting procedures, if you happen to notice
    Obamacare. I would also look at and basically get rid of the
    land use planning requirements and the EIS requirements which
    are just invitations for litigation that turn the management of
    these lands over to some other parties to exercise their
    management role through the courts.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
        Let me ask Mr.----
        Mr. Pruzan. Pruzan.
        Mr. Grijalva. Pruzan, and excuse me. You know, I have a lot
    of vowels.
        Mr. Pruzan. That is all right.
        Mr. Grijalva. And I get irritated when people mispronounce
    it. My apologies.
        As I understand it, on the management plan that you were
    talking about, the draft Snake River Comprehensive River
    Management Plan that I think the sponsor of the legislation
    referenced, that draft has proposals to provide paddling on 300
    miles of river, 86 percent of all rivers, which leaves 14
    percent where the ban is going to be in place.
        So as I understand the legislation and your position, and I
    do appreciate you saying that whatever we do with the
    legislation has to be careful and meticulous because you do not
    want to set a precedent. I appreciate that comment.
        So we are talking here about an absolute 100 percent?
        Mr. Pruzan. You know, paddling has always been allowed on
    that other 386 miles.
        Mr. Grijalva. So that 14 percent is what?
        Mr. Pruzan. This goes a little broader than just the Wild
    and Scenic. The Wild and Scenic was another opportunity to look
    at those sections in Grand Teton and Yellowstone that have been
    closed. This bill goes a little broader in that, you know,
    Yellowstone itself, Yellowstone National Park is, you know----
        Mr. Grijalva. OK. But so in that 14 percent there is your
    estimate, and being a recreationalist there and a paddler
    there, there is no area that either wildlife habitat, other
    reasons that that should be protected and set aside from
    paddling activities?
        Mr. Pruzan. Yes. I mean, some of these are roadside areas.
    No, I do not think there is. People hike into these areas. I
    feel like any of those 14 percent in particular are acceptable
    for paddling.
        When we look at Yellowstone as a whole----
        Mr. Grijalva. So with that kind of management plan----
        Mr. Pruzan. Can I finish please?
        Mr. Grijalva [continuing]. That is your point of
    contention, the 14 percent.
        Mr. Pruzan. Well, it goes beyond that because it also looks
    at Yellowstone. We do not feel that every river in Yellowstone
    should be open all the time. That is not what we are saying at
    all, and it says that in my testimony. But we feel there are
    many stretches that could be opened and managed successfully,
    and there are many great templates for that.
        And we do not feel there has been opportunity to even look
    at that. The Wild and Scenic was just an opportunity to look at
    a portion of those, and it was denied, which was, you know,
    unfortunate because Yellowstone itself, it has some of the most
    outstanding river running opportunities in the world.
        Mr. Grijalva. Yes, but I remain----
        Mr. Pruzan. Of that portion----
        Mr. Grijalva. I am just looking at percentages.
        Mr. Pruzan. Of that 14 percent, absolutely, all that
    section could be opened to paddling with very, very----
        Mr. Grijalva. No mitigating information or----
        Mr. Pruzan. Well, no. I think you would have to look at
    them individually. We want to give that authority to the
    Superintendent, but as I know those sections, you know, I do
    not see any harm and I do not see anyone really standing up
    saying----
        Mr. Grijalva. And giving the authority to the
    Superintendent in this particular issue and this legislation,
    you are very confident that he would open up the 14 percent?
        Mr. Pruzan. I cannot speak for the Superintendent because
    right now, you know, that is in flux, but given the opportunity
    to allow the discussion and look at the actual impacts, then we
    could open the door to opening these. Right now, you know, the
    opening is not there.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
        Mr. Pruzan. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Mrs. Lummis.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Grijalva, thank you for that dialog because it
    gets to the heart of what we are trying to accomplish with this
    bill.
        The intent is not to open all rivers all the time to
    paddling in the parks. The intent of the bill is to remove a
    prohibition so paddlers can sit down with the Superintendents
    of the parks and discuss where paddling makes sense, when it
    makes sense and when it does not make sense.
        I recognize that the bill was drafted so that the
    Superintendent could still say no more paddling ever in these
    places, but at least there would be a public process where
    kayakers and other paddlers could come in and make their case.
        Mr. Pruzan, I would like to ask you to explain how other
    rivers are managed, how their management plans do provide for
    limits on paddling.
        Mr. Pruzan. Yes, thank you.
        You know, of all the rivers that people run all around the
    country, there are less than 30 that I can think of that
    actually have a permit system, and many rivers very close like
    the Clarks Fork and the Yellowstone, for instance, which is
    just adjacent to the park, it is totally open to river running
    at all times. People can use it when they want, and there are
    really no issues. It is a wild and scenic river. It flows
    through an incredible wilderness area, and there have been
    almost immeasurable impacts to the resource by the paddling
    that has been done there.
        But there are many great templates, you know, particularly
    in the State of Idaho, rivers like the Middle Fork of the
    Salmon, the Selway, in Arizona, of course, the Grand Canyon,
    where there is very tight river management. You have to draw a
    permit. There is a lottery system every year.
        The Selway, for instance, as I mentioned, one launch a day
    during the season. That is all you get, and the paddling
    community, the river running community, they understand that
    very well, and they feel that is, you know, a fair resolution.
        But as you mentioned, we have never even been able to have
    that discussion. I mean if there are wildlife concerns, there
    are other avenues and other tools that could be used, such as a
    season. You know, maybe some of these rivers are open in April
    and May, and then when the park gets very busy they are closed
    and they open again in late August and September, but again, we
    have never ever been able to have that discussion.
        And it was very different from the Forest Service approach
    to creating the management plan for the forest sections of the
    river, which was a very open process, lots of public meetings,
    lots of opportunity to comment, as opposed to the Park Service
    process which did not really give a lot of opportunity for the
    community to be involved.
        And I will say that for the most part in the greater
    Yellowstone area, there is great collaboration between the
    local community and the parks and the forest, and that is
    something that our area is known for, and there have been great
    partnerships that have been created about that, that just
    result in better management.
        Mrs. Lummis. Well, it has been a head-scratcher to me that
    we do allow controlled, managed, planned access for snowmobiles
    in the winter into Yellowstone, and yet during times of year
    when kayakers would like to use certain waters in the park,
    they cannot, and it is simply because of a regulation.
        So let us lift the regulation and give the park managers
    the tools that they need to actually have a dialog with the
    paddlers and find a way to put together a management plan that
    would allow for appropriate and limited use of these waters for
    another recreational outdoor opportunity that is very minimum
    impact.
        Let me also mention that the reason we put some language in
    here about the Elk Refuge is there are some waters that border
    both the Elk Refuge and Grand Teton National Park. The river is
    actually a border, and so we included some language for both so
    we can allow for a rational way to allow Grand Teton's
    Superintendent and the Elk Refuge to have some discretionary
    management authority to manage there.
        And my time is up. I want to really thank Mr. Pruzan for
    coming to Washington to testify on behalf of this bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Allow me to ask some questions, if I could. Mr. Pruzan, let
    me start with you again here. Thank you once again for being
    here.
        I guess it comes down to the bottom line which is: is the
    old paddling prohibition still relevant to managing fish stock?
        Mr. Pruzan. Well, I do not think it was a provision that
    really even envisioned paddling. No, it is not relevant
    anymore. It was relevant to float fishing.
        I would say, you know, kayakers, we mostly throw ourselves
    in the water. We do not really throw lures or fishing lines in
    the water. So, no, I do not see it is relevant at all.
        Mr. Bishop. So allowing paddling certainly would not
    underlie the values for which this river was established or is
    used?
        Mr. Pruzan. No, absolutely not.
        Mr. Bishop. Well, do you see any potential pitfalls in
    changing the regulations to allow this activity?
        Mr. Pruzan. Well, again, by ending the ban, I think we can
    look at individual sections of river and we can recognize,
    well, what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. You
    know, I am sure there are--I have never heard any of my
    colleagues in the conservation world say, ``I am against
    paddling in Yellowstone,'' and especially with this bill they
    are more concerned about the process. So I do not----
        Mr. Bishop. So really what you are talking to me about is
    people simply will not talk to you all and they hide behind a
    regulation passed a half century ago that may or may not and
    probably is not still relevant to the issue for which it was
    established.
        Mr. Pruzan. That is correct.
        Mr. Bishop. We are tradition bound and we hide behind that,
    and we refuse to think outside the box, which is what all of
    you have been talking about so far.
        All recreation, not just kayaking and paddling recreation,
    but all recreation in the United States seems to be under
    attack by different kinds of groups. I do not care whether it
    is hunting or fishing or water recreation, bicycling, motor
    vehicles. We find as soon as there is something that is
    established, there are groups then that go after that.
        And establishing protection for these activities ought to
    be one of the goals that we look at, and one of the goals that
    I hope this committee takes a greater emphasis in dealing with
    to make sure that those things are protected so that if you
    have an assumption something is there and somebody has this
    wild idea because he or she happens to be a land manager and we
    are going to close it down, they had better find an alternative
    way to guarantee that activity has some place to go forward.
        I am sure you know nothing about this, but would there be
    any illegal kayaking that goes on on these rivers, people gone
    in places where they are not supposed to be?
        Mr. Pruzan. It has probably happened. I mean, when you
    think about--well, it definitely has happened.
        Mr. Bishop. You know, there may be a felony here. I do not
    want you to insinuate yourself----
        Mr. Pruzan. No, I just need to say something about the
    section that Representative Lummis mentioned, which is the
    Grovont River, which forms the border primarily between the Elk
    Refuge and Grand Teton National Park, and it flows through a
    little triangle of water.
        That was a section that people regularly floated around the
    Jackson Hole community. It is a pretty easy section. It goes
    right into the Town of Kelly, and for a long time nobody really
    was concerned about it, and then all of a sudden it was
    probably early 1990s, mid-1990s, there was enforcement, and a
    lot of people did not even realize it was illegal. So that is
    just one example.
        Mr. Bishop. And you did not destroy the fish habitat when
    you did that.
        Mr. Pruzan. No.
        Mr. Bishop. We have had many hearings over the course of
    this year in which we are talking about decisions that are made
    that are arbitrary, that are not really conducive to helping
    people out. We seem to have lost the concept, and
    unfortunately, the Park Service has their fair share of that.
        Mr. Sheaffer, the Interior Department did not write
    testimony on this particular bill. I wondered if you wanted to
    say anything about it, if you want to step into that quagmire
    with the other stuff.
        Mr. Sheaffer. I would certainly not, but I will say what I
    can. We had a very brief time to look at this bill and did not
    get a chance to vet it; talked briefly to the Superintendent of
    Yellowstone who coincidentally was in town, as I believe you
    may have as well.
        So I do not think we were in a position to comment at this
    point.
        Mr. Bishop. We will be looking forward to comments if you
    wish to add those in the future with the same literary zest as
    the other comments that we have had here.
        I am running out of time, but I do have a few more
    questions for Mr. Nelson. Do you have other questions, Mrs.
    Lummis?
        Mrs. Lummis. I do not have a question, but I would comment.
    I did meet with the Superintendent of Yellowstone, and we are
    open to suggestions about how the language could be drafted in
    a way that makes that Park Service comfortable. Our intent is
    just to give them the authority to make these decisions
    pursuant to a plan, and that hiding behind a regulation that
    actually bans it is contrary to the current intent of Congress
    certainly if this bill passes.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Be careful. You guys are sounding too rational.
    You are sounding too green for me. You had better be careful on
    what you are saying here.
        Do you have other questions though before I finish up?
        Mr. Grijalva. No. I am just intrigued by the example that
    my colleague, Mrs. Lummis, used about snowmobiles and paddling.
    And as I mentioned to the Chairman while this was going on,
    that any day I will trade some paddling for a reduction in the
    snowmobiles in Yellowstone. I think that would not be a bad
    idea.
        But having said that, I think that, Mr. Sheaffer, I have
    questions. They will be in writing, and I appreciate your being
    here, and thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. I want to, if I could, just ask Mr. Nelson a
    couple of last things.
        In your written testimony, you make reference to the fact
    that there are six million acres in the Adirondack Park in New
    York; that New Jersey has 16 percent, Florida 14 percent,
    Pennsylvania 13 percent of their land already under State
    control and some kind of State----
        Dr. Nelson. Well, it has been that way for a long time.
        Mr. Bishop. And yet you notice in here----
        Dr. Nelson. It goes back in history that most of these
    State lands, you know, have been that way for just----
        Mr. Bishop. Well, I just want you to comment on the next
    sentence that you wrote. ``It is ironic that Eastern States
    have often been reluctant to extend a similar prerogative to
    develop their own internal State land management strategies to
    Western States.''
        Would you just like to comment on that?
        Dr. Nelson. Well, it is an amazing thing that the
    percentage of State land ownership in New York State is about
    35 percent, and it is actually greater than Alaska, and
    Adirondack Park is the most important part of that, which is
    six million acres, which is three times as big as Yellowstone,
    but it is an innovative or it is a different kind of management
    structure.
        A little more than half of the land is private, but it is
    subject to control by the Adirondack Park Commission. So there
    is a regulatory apparatus, and then the other half or a little
    less than half is actually State of New York land.
        And interestingly enough, in 1894, when Adirondack Park was
    set up, the State of New York designated that the State-owned
    lands in New York should be maintained in a forever wild
    status. So I just offer that as an example of how a State, when
    it has its own lands, in fact, it was anticipating by about 40
    years the wilderness ideal. So New York State has, in effect,
    been maintaining about three million acres, which again is
    bigger than Yellowstone in a wilderness status since 1894.
        Mr. Bishop. In 1894 I think there were only two national
    parks we had, Yellowstone and Yosemite and Mackinaw had been
    given back to Michigan by that point. So this predates a lot of
    those particular efforts.
        Obviously, the Young language has apparently touched a
    nerve at Interior. What does the Federal Government have to
    lose by allowing States a greater place in the management of
    the lands between their borders?
        Just estimate why do you think? Of what are they afraid?
        Dr. Nelson. Well, I think, I mean, a lot depends on how it
    is done, and frankly, I think that Representative Young would
    agree that this is really just the outline of a proposal, and
    that it would be a tremendous number of details that would have
    to be, or not tremendous, but quite a few details. A lot of
    things would have to be looked at and worked out to even come
    close to operationalizing this idea that he is putting on the
    table.
        But the question is why would the Interior Department
    resist it? I mean, what you are talking about is maintaining
    Federal lands, but you would be cutting down in a rather
    dramatic fashion the bureaucratic apparatus of the Bureau of
    Land Management.
        And the same would apply to the Forest Service. If you were
    to do it, you know, the Forest Service has 35,000 employees. If
    you actually implemented the Young legislation, you might be
    looking at 5,000 employees, and obviously that is going to, you
    know, provoke some pretty strong reaction.
        Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that, and that is one of the
    reasons why I prefaced our meeting today by simply saying the
    idea of large centralized, bureaucratic institutions making
    decisions has been discredited and ought to be, but apparently
    we do not do that in Washington often enough.
        I think you mentioned a 2005 work that said what to do when
    an agency outlasts its time, and I think what you are talking
    about is looking at new ways of thinking about that.
        Mr. Sheaffer, I will end with this last diatribe if I
    could. Once again, I do appreciate what you are doing as
    Comptroller. I have no qualms that you are doing a very good
    job at what you are doing, although I want you to find those
    two million bucks that you got extra and they had better go
    back to the States at some time.
        But the testimony the Department sent you up here to defend
    and suffer the slings and arrows that go along with it on this
    bill and the Young bill especially said the same thing. They
    basically said States could not possibly manage these lands.
    They were incompetent to do it. The Federal Government knows
    better.
        There are three conventional wisdom concepts that I would
    like you to take back to your agency. The first one is only
    people in Washington have the grand view of what is necessary
    and important for the United States.
        Number two is only people in Washington should be
    recognized whenever there is a conflict between Washington and
    local government.
        And the third conventional wisdom is that the West needs to
    be protected from itself.
        All three of those principles and standards are crap. They
    should not be used, but unfortunately, many of the decisions
    that are being made not only by agencies in Washington, but
    some of the managers on the ground seem to be based on those
    same three principles, and those principles were, once again,
    reinforced in the testimony that the Interior Department sent
    up here.
        It is mind boggling to me why the Interior Department seems
    to insist that they know better, and they have this
    apprehension of ever having any kind of partnership with
    Interior projects, especially when they keep crying poverty at
    all times. If, for example, in Alaska you have one employee for
    every 54,000 acres of property in Alaska and still have a
    backlog that is over $120,000, you are obviously extremely
    efficient managers or you are simply an absentee landlord.
        And that is part of the problem. That is why I object to
    the testimony which they saddled you and brought you up here to
    defend and present to us. The verbiage had a message that is
    simply wrong, and we need to start thinking about new ways of
    handling our lands and new ways of making decisions because old
    and large is not effective. Young, lean, and different is what
    will be effective, and I hope this committee has the
    opportunity to keep spreading that message as time goes on.
        Unless there is something else, Mr. Grijalva?
        I want you to know I appreciate you taking the time to come
    here. I hope at different times we can invite you to come back
    again, Mr. Sheaffer. I do not know if you ever want to come
    back again, but you are certainly welcome to come back here
    again.
        Mr. Pruzan, I appreciate the input. I appreciate you coming
    from Wyoming and alerting us to a situation where once again
    individuals are harmed where they ought not to be, and this
    does not make any sense at all. We need to resolve these types
    of things.
        Mr. Nelson, we hope to invite you back here again. We
    appreciate your testimony and appreciate your patience.
        I also want to officially apologize once again for having
    to make you wait here for over an hour. It was what is like an
    hour and 15 minutes when I originally said we might be able to
    be back here as short as 45, and just remind you that is the
    way things used to run in the old time before a couple of
    sessions ago when we made some changes to try and alleviate
    that time.
        So I apologize for putting you in that situation. Thank you
    for your patience.
        There once again may be some additional questions, as the
    Ranking Member suggested for Mr. Sheaffer, that will be
    submitted in written form. We would ask you to please submit a
    written response back in a timely manner.
        And if there is no further business, without objection we
    stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

           Prepared Statement of the U.S. Department of the Interior
    concerning h.r. 3492, to provide for the use of hand-propelled vessels
       in yellowstone national park, grand teton national park, and the
                  national elk refuge, and for other purposes
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the Interior on
    H.R. 3492, a bill to provide for the use of hand-propelled vessels in
    Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and the National
    Elk Refuge.
        Although the Department supports expanding outdoor recreation
    opportunities, we strongly oppose H.R. 3492 as introduced. By
    overriding existing regulations and regulatory authority over hand-
    propelled boating, this legislation would set a troubling precedent by
    disrupting the carefully balanced management of recreational activities
    and resource protection that the National Park Service (NPS) provides
    at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and that the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) provides at the National Elk Refuge. It
    would diminish the ability of Federal managers to meet their
    responsibilities under the NPS Organic Act, the National Wildlife
    Refuge Administration Act, and other laws to provide for public
    enjoyment, ensure visitor safety, and address adverse effects to
    resources at those three units.
        H.R. 3492 would nullify regulations that prohibit boating on rivers
    and streams in Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park
    with regard to hand-propelled vessels and prohibit the promulgation of
    similar regulations. It would specify that the use of hand-propelled
    vessels on rivers and streams in the National Elk Refuge is a wildlife-
    dependent recreational use, changing the statutory definition of that
    term for a single national wildlife refuge. Proponents of H.R. 3492
    contend that it would restore management authority over paddling to
    park and refuge managers but, in fact, it would deny managers the
    authority to exercise their professional judgment and management
    discretion regarding the use of hand-propelled vessels throughout the
    parks. H.R. 3492 would also circumvent the not-yet-completed public
    process to finalize the Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive River
    Management Plan.
    Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks
        In Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, all waters are open
    to hand-propelled vessels unless they have been closed to that activity
    by special regulations in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations
    (36 CFR).
        In Grand Teton National Park, special regulations in 36 CFR Section
    7.22 have allowed abundant opportunities for paddling or floating on
    almost all the waters except for those in the remote, mountainous high
    country. Many thousands of visitors enjoy kayaking, canoeing, floating,
    and paddle boarding on the many lakes, including Jackson, Jenny,
    Phelps, Emma Matilda, Two Ocean, Taggart, Bradley, Bearpaw, Leigh and
    String Lakes. And, the iconic 26-mile stretch of the Snake River along
    the Teton Range though the park, considered one of our Nation's premier
    float trips, attracts over 60,000 paddlers each year to the park. Only
    a 1,000-foot stretch section of the river, immediately downstream of
    the Jackson Lake Dam, is closed due to public safety and Homeland
    Security concerns.
        Many paddling opportunities also exist in Yellowstone National
    Park. Of the 168 lakes within the park, only five are closed to
    boating, which provides ample opportunities for paddling, while also
    providing at least some opportunity to experience lakes in a pristine
    natural state. Over 1,300 paddlers recreate annually on the Lewis River
    Channel between Shoshone and Lewis lakes. The park issues an average of
    over 2,000 permits per year for non-motorized boating vessels.
        Since 1971, special regulations in 36 CFR Section 7.13 have closed
    certain waters in Yellowstone National Park to vessels, including
    Sylvan Lake, Eleanor Lake, Twin Lakes, and Beach Springs Lagoon and on
    all park rivers and streams, except on the channel between Lewis Lake
    and Shoshone Lake, which is open only to hand-propelled vessels.
        While our regulations do close some waters to boating, they provide
    a balanced approach that includes opportunities for a wide variety of
    recreation, including the use of hand-propelled vessels.
        The National Park Service Organic Act requires the NPS to provide
    for the enjoyment of park resources and values. This includes both
    opportunities for recreational activities and to experience the parks
    in their natural state. For over 40 years, the balanced approach
    provided by these regulations has successfully allowed for a variety of
    uses, including paddling, while also protecting the ability of park
    visitors to experience the solitude and wildness of pristine rivers in
    their natural state, without the visual intrusion of vehicles or
    watercraft. Millions of visitors come every year to Yellowstone to
    experience the natural wonders of the park. People from all corners of
    the planet are able to view the iconic Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone,
    paddle on Shoshone Lake, watch wolves in the foggy mornings along the
    banks of the winding Lamar River and experience the roar of the
    Yellowstone River as it travels through the Black Canyon.
        The National Park Service Organic Act also requires the NPS to make
    and publish such rules and regulations necessary or proper for the use
    and management of the parks so that they remain unimpaired for future
    generations. H.R. 3492 would fundamentally alter this authority by
    preventing the NPS from promulgating new regulations to prevent
    potential future impacts associated with boating in Yellowstone and
    Grand Teton National Parks.
        Many of the areas that would be opened to boating by H.R. 3492 see
    very little human activity and represent some of the most intact,
    pristine landscapes anywhere in the contiguous United States. There may
    be no other scenic resource like this in the United States, and
    possibly the world, where large intact river systems and their
    environments are allowed to remain in a wild, ecologically pristine
    state. The National Park Service has a responsibility to recognize and
    protect this uniquely Yellowstone experience. H.R. 3492 would not only
    arbitrarily open all of the waters in both parks to boating, but would
    prevent the NPS from promulgating any future regulations that might be
    necessary to ensure the proper management of boating on these waters.
    The National Elk Refuge
        The primary purpose of the National Elk Refuge, as identified in
    statute and executive order, is the conservation of wildlife resources.
    The Gros Ventre River corridor between the National Elk Refuge and
    Grand Teton National Park is a heavily used ungulate winter range, a
    spring and fall migration corridor for elk and bison, and vital year-
    round habitat for moose. Management of this area as wildlife habitat is
    key to meeting the purpose of the refuge.
        H.R. 3492 redefines the term ``wildlife dependent,'' a bedrock term
    in the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as amended by
    National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57,
    ``Improvement Act''), as it is applied to the National Elk Refuge. A
    key component of the act is that individual national wildlife refuges
    across the country (currently numbering 561) be managed as a coherent
    ``system.'' Enactment of H.R. 3492 would undermine this basic tenet by
    micromanaging activities at a single national wildlife refuge through
    Federal statute.
    Conclusion
        This precedent-setting bill as introduced would prohibit land
    managers from meeting their statutory responsibilities to properly
    regulate the use of Federal lands. The Department believes strongly
    that the existing authority granted by Congress to the NPS and FWS
    through the Organic Act and National Wildlife Refuge System
    Administration Act is critical to the proper management of these lands
    for all Americans.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
    the Department on this legislation.

                                     ______

    [LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
                                OFFICIAL FILES]

        --``Free the American West--Get the federal government off
                public lands that are of no importance'',
                latimes.com Op-Ed, March 7, 2012, by Robert H.
                Nelson.

        --``Our Languishing Public Lands'', Policy Review, February
                & March 2012, No. 171, by Robert H. Nelson.