    [Senate Hearing 115-417]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-417

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

    S. 257                               S. 1073
    S. 312                               S. 1202
    S. 355                               S. 1403
    S. 391                               S. 1438
    S. 841                               S. 1459
    S. 926                               S. 1522

                                   __________

                                 JULY 19, 2017

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    26-868                        WASHINGTON : 2019

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama              CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada

                                   ------

                         Subcommittee on National Parks

                             STEVE DAINES, Chairman

    JOHN BARRASSO                        MAZIE K. HIRONO
    MIKE LEE                             BERNARD SANDERS
    CORY GARDNER                         DEBBIE STABENOW
    LAMAR ALEXANDER                      MARTIN HEINRICH
    JOHN HOEVEN                          ANGUS S. KING, JR.
    ROB PORTMAN                          TAMMY DUCKWORTH

                          Colin Hayes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
                    Michelle Lane, Professional Staff Member
               Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                    David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Daines, Hon. Steve, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from
      Montana........................................................     1
    Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S.
      Senator from Hawaii............................................     4
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S., a U.S. Senator from Maine..............     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Vogel, Robert, Acting Deputy Director, National Park Service,
      U.S. Department of the Interior................................     5

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Aquanauts Adaptive Aquatics, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    56
    (The) Augustus Saint-Gaudens Memorial:
        Letter for the Record........................................    57
    Blunt, Hon. Roy:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    59
    Central High Neighborhood, Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    60
    CityArchRiver Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................    61
    Columbus (Ohio) Downtown Development Corporation:
        Letter for the Record........................................    62
    Cotton, Hon. Tom:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    63
    Daines, Hon. Steve:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
        Hearing Announcement and Agenda..............................     3
    Ernst, Hon. Joni K.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    64
    Explore St. Louis (Missouri):
        Letter for the Record........................................    65
    Global War on Terror Memorial Foundation:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    66
    Got Your Six:
        Letter for the Record........................................    69
    Hirono, Hon. Mazie K.:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America:
        Letter for the Record........................................    70
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
    Maine Coast Heritage Trust and Friends of Acadia:
        Letter for the Record........................................    71
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    73
    McGraw, Dr. Patricia Washington, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    74
    National Veterans Memorial & Museum:
        Letter for the Record........................................    75
    Outdoors Alliance for Kids:
        Letter for the Record........................................    77
    Preserve Arkansas Board of Directors:
        Letter for the Record........................................    79
    Public Lands Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................    80
    Santa Rosa County (Florida) Board of Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................    82
    Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    83
        Addendum: Information Regarding the Influence of Augustus
          Saint-Gaudens and the Cornish Art Colony...................    86
    Sierra Club:
        Letter for the Record........................................    92
    Vet Voice Foundation:
        Letter for the Record........................................    95
    Vogel, Robert:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    48
    (The) Wilderness Society:
        Letter for the Record........................................    97

                                   ----------

    The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can
    be found on the committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
    public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=9C398823-7906-4914-
    B76F-565FA5584600.

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2017

                                   U.S. Senate,
                        Subcommittee on National Parks,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Steve Daines,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Daines [presiding]. The Subcommittee will come to
    order.
        The 12 bills we are examining this afternoon cover a wide
    range of issues relating to federal land administered by the
    Department of the Interior, primarily by the National Park
    Service (NPS). Today we will hear about legislation that
    includes a range of issues impacting park units including
    boundary adjustments, the establishment of national memorials
    both here in Washington, DC, and elsewhere around our country,
    redesignations, land conveyances and even issues related to
    park entrance fees and public land corps programs.
        I would like to take a moment and discuss Senate bill 1403,
    the 21st Century Conservation Corps Act of 2017. Right now in
    my home state of Montana there is a Veterans Public Lands Corps
    working hard at Glacier National Park. The Montana Conservation
    Corps have done some great work in fuel reduction and trail
    maintenance.
        I can tell you I have a state that is suffering from
    drought. It is very dry right now. And so, this fuel reduction
    is critically important to try to prevent massive wildfires.
    With the cost and intensity of catastrophic wildfire
    continually increasing and the deferred maintenance backlog for
    land management agencies affecting management and access, corps
    like the Montana Conservation Corps are good partners in
    tackling these challenges. I am anxious to hear more about how
    this legislation can work to expand the good work that these
    public land corps do in our national parks and forests in
    Montana and across the U.S.
        I will say, as I was growing up in Montana I nearly took a
    summer job working for the corps, working on some trail
    maintenance crews. And it is not only in terms of preventative
    maintenance, but also in providing important skill sets for a
    new generation of young Americans as well as veterans. There is
    nothing better than getting young people outdoors.
        In addition, we will hear testimony on Senate bill 926, a
    bill that would authorize the Global War on Terror Memorial
    Foundation to establish the National Global War on Terrorism
    Memorial as a commemorative work here in the District of
    Columbia. Since Senator Ernst introduced Senate bill 926 in
    April, 19 other Senators, including myself and Ranking Member
    Hirono, have co-sponsored this legislation. While the
    legislation requires some significant exemptions from the
    Commemorative Works Act, I believe this marks the beginning of
    a very necessary discussion regarding the need to appropriately
    honor those who have served in our nation's longest war.
        We are also going to talk about Senate bill 1522, the Every
    Kid Outdoors Act, which was introduced by Senators Alexander
    and Heinrich. It is my understanding that there may be a few
    details left to work out on that, but let me just say, I do
    support the concept of getting kids and their families spending
    some time together outside. I think that is something we all
    can certainly get behind.
        I look forward to a robust discussion today. I know that
    each of these agenda items are not only important to individual
    members of the Subcommittee, but to our nation, parks and
    citizens as a whole. Many on our list have passed the House of
    Representatives, a few of these bills have been heard before in
    this Subcommittee and others have been considered in previous
    Congresses. While a few of these bills may spark conversation,
    I am hopeful we can move through this list fairly quickly.
        The purpose of this hearing is to consider the
    Administration's views on these bills and allow Committee
    members an opportunity to ask questions they might have. We
    will also include written statements that have been sent to the
    Subcommittee in the official hearing record.
        Because of the large number of bills on today's agenda I
    will not read through the list, but at this time I will include
    the complete agenda in the hearing record, without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                              COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
                             AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                         Subcommittee on National Parks

                    HEARING ANNOUNCEMENT AND AGENDA

        This notice is to advise you of a legislative hearing
    before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources'
    Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing will be held on
    Wednesday, July 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 366 of the
    Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
        The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the
    following bills:
       S. 257, Acadia National Park Boundary Clarification
            Act
       S. 312, Saint-Gaudens National Historical Park
            Redesignation Act
       S. 355, Wounded Veterans Recreation Act of 2017
       S. 391, African Burial Ground International Memorial
            Museum and Educational Center Act
       S. 841, National Veterans Memorial and Museum Act
       S. 926, Global War on Terrorism War Memorial Act
       S. 1073, Escambia County Land Conveyance Act
       S. 1202, Little Rock Central High School National
            Historic Boundary Modification Act
       S. 1403, 21st Century Conservation Corps Act of 2017
       S. 1438, Redesignate Jefferson National Expansion
            Memorial in the State of Missouri as the ``Gateway Arch
            National Park''
       S. 1459, A bill to establish Fort Sumter and Fort
            Multrie National Park in the State of South Carolina,
            and for other purposes
       S. 1522, A bill to establish an Every Kid Outdoors
            program, and for other purposes
        Senator Daines. Let me now turn to the Ranking Member,
    Senator Hirono, a great partner here in the Parks Committee,
    for her opening remarks.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Across our country, our national parks and public lands
    preserve environments that are meaningful to our communities.
    In Hawaii, this includes protecting native plants and animals
    and sites that hold deep, cultural significance to the Native
    Hawaiian community. Many of the bills we are considering today
    represent worthy ideas to improve and expand access to our
    public lands and national parks. Before we hear from our
    witness, I would like to comment on two of these bills briefly.
        I am a co-sponsor of S. 355, the Wounded Veterans
    Recreation Act, introduced by Senator Shaheen. This bill would
    provide a free, lifetime National Parks and Federal
    Recreational Lands Pass to veterans with a service-connected
    disability. Several veterans service organizations have
    highlighted the healing influence of spending time in our
    national parks, forests and other public lands. Providing
    service-disabled veterans with lifetime passes to our national
    parks and public lands would convey our gratitude for their
    service.
        The second bill I would like to highlight, also highlighted
    by the Chair, is S. 1403, the 21st Century Conservation Service
    Corps Act of 2017, sponsored by Senator McCain. This bill would
    strengthen partnerships that engage youth and veterans in
    maintaining public lands and waters. In Hawaii, our accredited
    21st Century Conservation Service Corps member is the Hawaii
    Youth Conservation Corps, also known as KUPU. Over the past 10
    years, KUPU has provided training to over 3,000 of Hawaii's
    youth to become stewards of our culture and aina, or land. I
    know the Department's testimony recommends that Congress defer
    action on this bill until they can undergo a review of their
    youth programs, and I will address this recommendation with our
    witness this morning.
        Mr. Chairman, I understand that there are continuing policy
    concerns about a number of these bills on the agenda today. I
    look forward to working with you and the bill sponsors to help
    move these bills through the Committee.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Are there any other Senators who would like to make a short
    statement on the legislation today?
        Senator King. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if you would.
        Thank you.
        Senator Daines. Senator King.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. ANGUS S. KING, JR.,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE

        Senator King. S. 257, Acadia National Park Boundary
    Clarification Act. We have had quite a bit of discussion about
    this with the National Park Service and also with the House.
    There are some questions, but we are attempting to work out
    language that will be satisfactory to all.
        Basically, there was a 1929 Act that established Acadia
    National Park and then in 1986, there were questions about the
    boundary of the park, and it was established and fixed. I
    believe one of the staff members that perhaps worked on that,
    or at least worked in the Office of Senator Cohen, was one
    Susan Collins. So, anyway, that fixed the boundary.
        Then several years ago there was a transfer of about 1,500
    acres pursuant to the '29 Act but arguably in violation of the
    '86 boundary. This bill corrects that problem and deals with
    some of the other issues along the boundary.
        Mr. Vogel, I do not know if you want to add anything, but
    this is something that we are assiduously trying to get worked
    out. I think it is a fairly straightforward bill and should be
    non-controversial once we work through the various provisions.
    Is that accurate?
        Thank you. It is very important to this region and I will,
    at the appropriate time, urge the Committee's active
    consideration.
        Thank you.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator King.
        It is now time to hear from our witness, Mr. Robert Vogel,
    Acting Deputy Director for Operations, National Park Service,
    U.S. Department of the Interior. Thank you for being with us
    today. At the end of your testimony, we will begin questions.
    Your full written testimony will be made part of the official
    hearing record.
        Mr. Vogel, you may proceed.

      STATEMENT OF ROBERT VOGEL, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
             PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Vogel. Thank you.
        Chairman Daines, Ranking Member Hirono, thank you so much
    for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's
    views on 12 bills on today's agenda. I would like to submit our
    full statements on each of these bills for the record and would
    like to summarize the Department's views.
        The Department supports the following bills:
        --S. 312, which would redesignate the Saint-Gaudens
    National Historic Site in Cornish, New Hampshire, as the Saint-
    Gaudens National Historical Park;
        --S. 335, which would amend the Federal Lands Recreation
    Enhancement Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
    make the lifetime National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands
    Pass available without cost to any veteran with a service-
    connected disability;
        --S. 926, which would authorize the Global War on Terror
    National Memorial Foundation to establish the National Global
    War on Terrorism Memorial as a commemorative work on federal
    land here in the District of Columbia;
        --S. 1073, which would provide the authority to Escambia
    County, Florida, to convey property, subject to certain
    conditions, that it received from the Federal Government in
    1947;
        --S. 1202, which would modify the boundary of Little Rock
    Central High School National Historic Site and expand the
    park's authority to enter into cooperative agreements;
        --S. 1438, which would redesignate the Jefferson National
    Expansion Memorial in the State of Missouri as the Gateway Arch
    National Park; and
        --S. 1459, which would establish Fort Sumter and Fort
    Multrie National Park in the State of South Carolina.
        The reasons for our support of these bills are explained in
    our full statements. For several of the bills we are requesting
    amendments and we would be happy to work with the Committee, of
    course, on drafting them.
        Regarding S. 257, which would clarify the boundary of
    Acadia National Park and includes changes to a range of
    authorities for the park, the Department has various positions
    on each of the bill's nine sections. These positions are
    explained further in our written statement and we would be
    happy to work with the Committee, of course, on recommended
    amendments, particularly with regard to providing
    administrative boundary adjustment authority and limiting the
    authority for harvesting clams and worms to the traditional
    level at which it occurs now.
        The Department defers to the Department of Veterans Affairs
    for a position on S. 841 since the purpose of the legislation
    is to confer a title on a memorial and museum designed to honor
    veterans.
        The Department recommends that Congress defer action on the
    following two bills until we have had an opportunity to review
    all of the Department's youth programs and determine the most
    cost-effective strategies for engaging youth in our nation's
    great outdoors: those bills are S. 1403, which would establish
    the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps; and S. 1522, which
    would establish the Every Kid Outdoors Program.
        The Department opposes S. 391 which would establish the
    African Burial Ground National Monument Museum and Education
    Center to serve as a memorial to the enslaved who are buried at
    the African Burial Ground and to other enslaved Africans and
    African Americans. We do not have yet the necessary information
    to evaluate this proposal as there has been no comprehensive
    study that addresses the purpose, need, feasibility or cost to
    establish an associated museum or a study that evaluates
    alternatives for such a facility.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be very
    pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Vogel follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Vogel. I
    will start off with some questions here.
        Like I mentioned in my opening testimony, I agree with
    Senator Ernst and Ranking Member Hirono and the other 19 co-
    sponsors of Senate bill 926. It is important we commemorate the
    ongoing sacrifices being made by those who have given so much,
    many the ultimate sacrifice, in the global war on terror.
        One of the key discussions I think we do need to have with
    this legislation is the unique nature of the global war on
    terror itself. I think we can all agree that the nature of
    modern warfare has changed so that it can be difficult to
    figure out how to commemorate a conflict that has lasted nearly
    two decades at this point without, truly, a clear end in sight.
    Certainly, a different set of circumstances than a building
    say, that would be the World War II or the Martin Luther King
    Memorial.
        Setting aside the exemptions that this legislation would
    require from the Commemorative Works Act for a moment, does the
    NPS have any specific suggestions as to how we might proceed in
    terms of the process for this memorial which faces some unique
    challenges? How might we appropriately approach that?
        Let me throw something out. For example, would NPS accept
    the current definition of global war on terror as defined in
    the legislation or would you wish to defer to the Department of
    Defense (DoD) on that issue? If you agree to waive the waiting
    period requirement do you anticipate this hitting a problematic
    precedent in relation to other proposed commemorative works?
        Mr. Vogel. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Department does value
    and support, in general, the waiting period for commemorative
    works as established in the Commemorative Works Act in 1986.
    However, I think that we might all agree that the nature of
    military conflict has changed in the last 30 years and the
    Department recognizes that the global war on terror really does
    not conform to how military conflicts were once understood.
        While the nation hopes, of course, for a clear end to this
    ongoing war, it is apparent that it's not going to end soon and
    that a sustained and potentially war effort remains ahead of
    us. So it would not do justice to those who served and died in
    a conflict that started almost 16 years ago, to wait for
    decades to honor their service.
        I think we do recognize the unique nature of this while we
    still very much support the overall time restrictions in the
    Commemorative Works Act. I think we would recognize that this
    is a unique situation.
        Senator Daines. In terms of perhaps deferring to DoD on
    this issue, is that something that we might pursue, do you
    suggest, to define the global war on terror?
        Mr. Vogel. I think we certainly would work with the
    Department of Defense on defining that and we've done some
    initial work and again, I think we recognize that it's gone on
    for at least 16 years, but we would work with them to identify
    the key five operations that we've already identified related
    to the global war on terror.
        Senator Daines. Mr. Vogel, I want to shift gears and talk
    about Senate bill 391. As written this would add a museum in
    lower Manhattan to the existing African Burial Ground National
    Monument. The Monument as it exists today includes an outdoor
    site that commemorates and interprets the large gravesite as
    well as a visitor center in the nearby General Services
    Administration (GSA)-owned building that interprets the site
    further and provides a comprehensive story of enslaved persons
    in New York history. The question is this: do you consider the
    current outdoor site and the visitor's center for the current
    African Burial Ground National Monument as insufficient to tell
    the story behind the significance?
        Mr. Vogel. I think at the current time we do feel that it
    is sufficient and I think we are willing to consider the
    proposed legislation in the future, but we need to do some
    initial planning.
        We certainly have our new African American Museum here in
    Washington, DC, that tells some of the same stories. And I
    think we need to go through a complete planning process to
    determine, fully, what this additional proposal would be like.
        Senator Daines. Do you believe, or I should say, does the
    NPS believe that the site's purpose should be expanded in
    scope?
        Mr. Vogel. I think at the current time we feel that the
    current scope is adequate to telling this very important story
    to our nation.
        Senator Daines. My last question, then I am going to turn
    the gavel over to Senator Hirono here as we have a vote that
    has been called.
        Senate bill 391 proposed a partnership between the
    Smithsonian, the NPS and GSA. Is there anything preventing the
    NPS from entering such a partnership if it was an interest to
    the U.S. without the passage of S. 391?
        Mr. Vogel. There is nothing that would prohibit us from
    doing that.
        Senator Daines. So, said another way, doesn't the NPS
    already have the authority to enter into partnerships with
    other units of government and/or non-profit organizations?
        Mr. Vogel. We indeed do have the authority. In fact, we
    work with both of those organizations in a number of ways in
    cooperative agreements.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Vogel.
        I will turn the gavel here over to Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Vogel, thank you very much for supporting 7 of the 12
    bills that are on the agenda today.
        With regard to your position or the Department's position
    to defer action on two of these bills, S. 1403 and S. 1522,
    both having to do with youth programs and supporting youth
    engagement in our parks, are you undergoing such a review now,
    and what is the timeframe? With regard to both of these bills,
    are you reviewing the programs that are encompassed in these
    bills? Are you doing a review of these programs, and what are
    you focusing on in your review of these youth programs?
        Mr. Vogel. Well, we are not undergoing a formal review of
    either program, so we can't give you any exact timeframe. But
    certainly with the change in Administration, it's a normal
    process for us to want to look at these programs and to get a
    full extent of what they currently are and what are the most
    cost-efficient and effective ways to provide services to our
    youth.
        We've had, as the testimony indicates, we've had great
    success with the Every Kid in a Park Program and, of course,
    that is still continuing through the end of August. And we've
    had great support with our Corps Network. And so, we're hopeful
    that we will still have robust youth programming in the
    Department of the Interior. I think we just need a little bit
    more time to fully vet the existing programs and to figure out
    our approach in the future.
        Senator Hirono. Do you have a list of all of the existing
    programs that impact youth in our country with regard to your
    mission?
        Mr. Vogel. I do not have that with me. We certainly have a
    wide variety of incredible programs.
        Senator Hirono. Could you provide the Committee with such a
    list?
        Mr. Vogel. Absolutely.
        Senator Hirono. Of course, to the extent that you can
    coordinate with other departments, for example, the Department
    of Education, with your review, I hope you will undergo that
    because I think that these programs have proven themselves to
    be worthy of support and that you do undergo the review in an
    expeditious way so that these programs can be continued. And
    while you are at it, will you coordinate with other departments
    that would have an interest in supporting our young people's
    experiences?
        Mr. Vogel. Yes, Senator, in fact we are definitely planning
    on engaging with the Department of Education on these efforts.
        Senator Hirono. Also, with regard to S. 1403, I think you
    should consult with The Corps Network. That is another group.
        S. 1522, again, which authorizes the Every Kid Outdoors
    Program, builds on the Department's Every Kid in a Park
    initiative that was put in place a few years ago. My
    understanding is that the Department's initiative was very
    popular and was considered to be successful in introducing
    fourth graders to our national parks and other public lands. As
    I said, I hope that since this program has proven itself that
    the deference of support for this program, I hope, is something
    that is going to be resolved. We would like to have these
    programs continue expeditiously.
        Can you comment on the National Park Service's experience
    with the Every Kid in a Park initiative and from your
    perspective how effective was this program in introducing our
    young people to our parks?
        Mr. Vogel. From my perspective it's been a very effective
    program and we've reached hundreds of thousands of young people
    in the fourth grade in not only engaging the students, but
    bringing their families along with them to learn about our
    national parks.
        And again, I think the Department indicates that it's been
    very successful, but we, again, would like to, again, do a full
    assessment of the program and perhaps add language, again, for
    the Secretary of Education to collaborate with the other
    secretaries involved and perhaps include homeschooled students
    in the language and to better define the access to public lands
    and waters. So I think we want to just defer that until we have
    a little bit more time to assess the program.
        Senator Hirono. You indicated that this is a normal kind of
    an assessment that all of the departments are doing with regard
    to ongoing programs. I do not know where the review of your
    youth programs falls within the purview of all the other
    programs that you are reviewing. So where does it fall in terms
    of your priority for review?
        Mr. Vogel. I really don't have a timeframe. Again, we
    haven't undergone a formal review process. I would hope that it
    would be an expeditious review, but I don't have a timeframe
    for that. I apologize.
        Senator Hirono. Are you going to be developing a timeframe?
        Mr. Vogel. Yes, we will.
        Senator Hirono. And when you do that could you let----
        Mr. Vogel. We, of course, will let you know.
        Senator Hirono. ----our Committee know so that we can make
    sure that we are on the same page?
        My time is up.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich [presiding]. Thank you.
        I think our Ranking Member has been very diplomatic in her
    language around this. I would hope that we could do more than
    hope.
        You said this is a very effective program. I want to speak,
    not just to S. 1522 but also to S. 1403, because the bill
    introduced by Senators McCain, Bennet and Udall to establish
    the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps as well as the
    Every Kid Outdoors Act have a long history of success.
        You said Every Kid Outdoors is a very effective program,
    and we have had great success. So why should we put these
    programs in jeopardy while investing precious National Park
    Service resources and money into another bureaucratic review?
        Mr. Vogel. Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that the
    programs are in jeopardy. I think that the hearing came up on
    fairly short notice and the Department has just asked for
    additional time to review so that we could come up with a
    formal position on it.
        Senator Heinrich. How much time do you need?
        Mr. Vogel. I can't answer that, but I would think that we
    would be trying to do it expeditiously. And I certainly can
    provide a timeframe to----
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Vogel, what does that mean,
    expeditiously? Are we talking about a few days, a few weeks, a
    few months? If you are going to ask for time you should know
    how much you need.
        Mr. Vogel. I would think it would take several months to
    complete the review looking at all of the other programs that
    we're currently under review on. We certainly can provide a
    clearer timeframe.
        Senator Heinrich. So I know we have a vote on the Floor.
    There are a number of points I was going to make; however, I
    think I am going to wrap up my comments and say that on behalf
    of those of us who have worked on these issues that government
    can always find a reason not to do something and they can
    always find a reason to do the bureaucratic thing. I would hope
    that we would take this opportunity rather to do the right
    thing. I hope the Committee will choose not to defer these
    bills.
        I want to commend Senators McCain, Bennet and Udall on
    their work on the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps bill;
    I want to commend Senator Alexander on his work with me on
    Every Kid Outdoors; and I hope this Committee will move
    expeditiously, as well as being willing to work with you on
    actual underlying criticisms of these legislations.
        Senator Portman, ready to take the baton?
        Senator Portman. Yes.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes.
        Senator Portman [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
    appreciate it.
        First of all, thank you for being here, Mr. Vogel.
        As you know, I have been focused on the backlog of the Park
    Service for some time and we have been able to help in small
    ways with the Centennial Initiative which we got passed at the
    end of last year, I think at five o'clock in the morning. We
    are looking forward to proactive implementation of that
    legislation, including getting more public-private partnership
    dollars in both for the Park Service directly and for the
    Foundation which can then help on the backlog.
        I want to talk to you about another issue as well and that
    is new legislation, the National Park Service Legacy Act that
    Senator Warren and I have introduced. Do you support that?
        Mr. Vogel. Well, I think that we very much appreciate your
    interest in deferred maintenance and we share your concern that
    it's a significant issue for us. And I think that we would just
    respectfully request a little additional time to figure out our
    position on that.
        Senator Portman. It would be a huge shot in the arm for the
    Park Service. The number that I hear most frequently is $12
    billion which is a big number, eye-popping really. Senator
    Warren and I think that this is a way for us to go beyond what
    we were able to do in the Centennial Initiative and really
    provide the Park Service the ability to deal with the backlog.
        Let me ask you about another issue. As you may know, in
    Columbus, Ohio, there is a National Veterans Memorial being
    designed right now. I have been there. I have seen the site. It
    is spectacular, and it is a classic example of a public-private
    partnership, heavy on the private side. In fact, $75 million
    has already been contributed from private foundations,
    individuals and corporations to make this museum a reality.
        What it does is it holds up the veteran, in every respect.
    It is a beautiful design, but once the interior is completed
    and the exhibits are there I think it will be something that
    will be able to both honor and connect us to veterans but also
    inspire and educate Americans to the importance of service and
    the sacrifice that our veterans have made will be highlighted.
        I am really excited about it and we are home, in Ohio, to
    the sixth largest veteran population in the country. In fact,
    Columbus was the birthplace of the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
    the first organization to represent all U.S. veterans who
    fought overseas. We are also home to a lot of military bases,
    as you know, including Wright Patterson Air Force Base which is
    the largest logistical base in the country. So we think we are
    well situated to be able to have this museum there.
        I noticed in your testimony you expressed some concerns
    about designating this as a national museum. Let me ask you one
    question, again, having worked on your backlog for years now,
    going back to my days at the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB). Does the National Park Service intend to create a new
    unit of the National Park Service, similar to the veteran's
    museum being built in Columbus, that will honor the lives and
    history of our nation's veterans?
        Mr. Vogel. We do not, and it certainly seems like an
    incredible and worthwhile endeavor. I think we would just defer
    to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) since it really
    doesn't use any of our lands and have direct involvement with
    the National Park Service. It does sound like a very worthwhile
    endeavor.
        Senator Portman. Well, I appreciate your saying that. I
    would just hope that, at the very least, the Park Service would
    not stand in the way of us raising private dollars to be able
    to do such a worthy mission, as you have talked about. We would
    appreciate your not making it more difficult for us to
    designate this as a national museum and to get this legislation
    that we have completed.
        So I thank you for that comment and I thank you for your
    willingness to be helpful in honoring our veterans and also
    your work with us on the appropriate way to deal with the
    backlog, in addition to what we were able to do in the
    Centennial Act.
        I am told that this hearing is now going to be in recess
    until Senator Daines returns. I do not have a gavel, so I will
    take Senator Hoeven's nameplate.
        We are officially in recess until the return of the
    Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Vogel.
        [RECESS.]
        Senator King [presiding]. ----there seems to be no real,
    serious effort to coordinate the way these things work
    together. In fact, I was in a hearing before coming here with
    the proposed Deputy Director of the National Intelligence
    Office. I suggested, perhaps, the Intelligence community could
    design a schedule for us so that we do not have so many
    conflicts.
        Mr. Vogel. That's perfectly alright.
        Senator King. I appreciate your being here. I look forward
    to working with you.
        I think there are several provisions of the Acadia bill
    that are important to discuss. One is the worming and clamming
    issue. There was worming and clamming in that intertidal zone
    long before anybody ever thought of Acadia National Park. We
    have to get that worked out because it is a traditional and
    important business for people in that region. I understand the
    Park Service concern about the breadth of the language, so I
    will look forward to working with you on that. Secretary Zinke
    has given me his commitment to work with us on this issue, and
    I hope we can get it resolved in this bill. If you want to
    state your concerns for the record, I think that might be
    helpful.
        Mr. Vogel. Absolutely.
        We do support, with conditions, permitting the long
    tradition of harvesting of clams and worms at Acadia, but only
    if such harvesting can be kept at the minimum levels in which
    it occurs now and where the activity occurs, as it does now, by
    non-mechanized means and in small numbers of locations.
        However, the language of Section 8 extends authority for
    harvesting far beyond what is needed to allow traditional
    harvesting of clams and worms. So we do have some concerns
    about expanding the harvesting to other marine organisms or to
    aqua culture activity and believe that not only should
    intertidal harvesting be limited to clams and worms, using non-
    mechanized methods, but considering the 3.3 million visitors
    coming to Acadia last year and the sensitive nature of the
    intertidal area, that these activities should be subject to
    those regulations and rules that the Secretary deems necessary
    to protect the important park resources and, of course, the
    safety of our park visitors.
        Senator King. Well, I think that you use the term minimum
    or minimal. I think we would prefer the use of the term
    traditional.
        Mr. Vogel. Yes.
        Senator King. The idea, I think, as we all agree is to
    allow traditional clamming, worming, and periwinkles, as has
    been used. The discussion is about mechanized and about other
    types of marine organisms, perhaps seaweed and those kinds of
    things. So we will follow up on those discussions and work with
    you, but I hope that it is the position of the Department that
    the traditional uses are to be allowed.
        Mr. Vogel. Very much so, Senator.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        There was one part of the testimony that puzzled me a
    little bit. In 1986, there was a provision in the statute to
    transfer $350,000 from the Park Service to the local
    communities to participate in waste disposal. The idea was to
    create a waste facility. That is no longer the case, but they
    are now talking about a transfer station and here you mentioned
    3.3 million visitors--that is a lot of waste.
        For some reason the Department has never made that
    transfer. We should have put interest in that bill in 1986, but
    is there some reason? This is a funding requirement in the law,
    and I hope we can work with the Department to see that this
    transfer is made, subject to appropriations.
        Mr. Vogel. My understanding is, indeed, it was authorized
    but it was never funded. And I guess the facility wasn't fully
    brought into operation.
        We do pay a tipping fee to the local municipality for all
    of the waste generated by park visitors. The Department really
    doesn't believe that this type of subsidy for municipal waste
    disposal is an appropriate use of federal funds, so we do
    oppose that section.
        Senator King. But I presume since it has already been
    authorized in law, if it's appropriated you would spend it
    according to the appropriation?
        Mr. Vogel. I believe we would have to, yes, sir.
        Senator King. Thank you. That was the right answer. I
    appreciate your testimony.
        There is one other area of discussion and that is you are
    requesting greater authority for boundary transfers. I think
    the problem that we have with that is that that is, sort of,
    what got us into this in the first place in terms of the
    communities not being involved in the enlargement of the park.
    That is the sensitivity in the area, and I think that is a
    provision that, perhaps, should be in different legislation or
    there should be a different way to approach it, but I am
    reluctant to include that here because that would take us back
    into the problem that brought about the 1986 legislation--that
    is the expansion of the park without authorization of Congress.
        Mr. Vogel. I think we would be happy to work with you and
    the Committee on that, Senator. Our goal is in the small
    boundary adjustment, authority would, of course, require us to
    work with the local communities and, of course, give
    notification to Congress.
        We find throughout the Park Service that we frequently have
    some odd situations of a few acres here or there that are
    irregular or someone builds a garage inadvertently and we
    discover 10 years later that it's on federal property. And so,
    it gives us some leeway to adjust the boundaries. And we, in no
    way, are intending to do that without consulting with the local
    community or Congress.
        Senator King. Well, we will have to discuss that position
    further with the Department.
        Mr. Vogel. Certainly.
        Senator King. There is a famous story about the man who
    lived on the Maine-New Hampshire border, and he was 80 years
    old. They resurveyed and found out that all these years he had
    been in New Hampshire. They asked him what he felt about that
    new survey and he said, ``I'm really delighted because I don't
    think I could have taken another one of those Maine winters.''
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Vogel. I like that story.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Vogel.
        Senator Daines [presiding]. Thank you, Senator King.
        Mr. Vogel, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is a
    veteran's crew working in Glacier National Park as we speak, as
    well as several other Veteran Corps working around the country,
    mostly on Forest Service land. The Montana Conservation Corps
    has done some great work in our state.
        I am interested in learning more about how this legislation
    might help veterans and other young people. In Montana, we have
    one of the highest per capita veteran populations in the United
    States. So how might this help veterans, other young people and
    expand employment opportunities while also doing something very
    important, and that is reducing the threat of wildfires. Can
    you expand upon how the National Park Service might use this
    legislation to pair those opportunities?
        Mr. Vogel. Well, I think we have used this authority and
    should the Department decide to continue with it, I think
    there's a number of ways that we could partner, continue to
    partner and expand our involvement with veterans in all sorts
    of ways and certainly in wildfire remediation.
        As we've all discussed here we have enormous maintenance
    projects and backlogs, and we have successfully used these
    corps to help us in our critical work there in a cost-efficient
    way and in a way that provides important skills to members of
    the crews. In backlog maintenance and providing more recreation
    and access to our park lands and certainly can be useful in our
    rural workforce development too. So I think we've had some
    great successes in the past.
        Senator Daines. To follow up, we have focused a great
    amount on this Committee on the--there are two words that I
    hear a lot as relates to our national parks as I travel to our
    national parks. I have one of the park season passes there in
    my pickup back home. We are passionate about our parks, and we
    get to them a lot. But it is the words ``deferred
    maintenance.'' It is not the most exciting topic to talk about,
    but arguably it is one of the critical issues facing our
    national parks today. We have this huge backlog in the National
    Park Service.
        While a big portion of that can be attributed to roads,
    there is still a significant amount that can be accounted for
    in general infrastructure, trails and overall preservation. And
    corps, like the Montana Conservation Corps in my home state,
    have partnered with concessionaries to leverage private-public
    funds to try to accomplish some of these projects while
    providing essential workplace skills to young adults at the
    same time. I will tell you, nothing is better training than
    just doing hard work which is part of the process.
        Can you talk more about how this legislation might help the
    National Park Service and the existing corps facilitate more
    backlog and maintenance projects generally getting
    accomplished? And the follow-up is, do you feel that this
    legislation might, even in a minor way, work toward stretching
    the NPS budget a bit further or contributing to reducing the
    deferred maintenance backlog?
        Mr. Vogel. Well, certainly if we continue with this
    program, I think we would want to make sure that it's an
    incredibly cost-efficient program. And I think it could be,
    certainly using young people and engaging people that are part-
    time employees is an incredibly effective way that can provide
    critical job training and helping us in our myriad of projects
    throughout the country in deferred maintenance. So I think if
    we continue the program, that's part of the evaluation that we
    want to do is find out, you know, the most cost-effective,
    efficient way to continue the programs. But certainly, use of
    young people and job corps would be one way that we have been
    very effective in making cost-effective inroads into our
    deferred maintenance.
        Senator Daines. Last question and then I am going to turn
    to a second round here for the other members.
        As our military continues to protect us from ever-changing
    global risks, we are united across all 50 states, across the
    aisle, supporting our veterans who have shared in sacrificing
    for the freedoms that we all enjoy here today and we take them
    for granted, frankly.
        I think Senate bill 355 is well-intended, but I want to
    make sure we do not create any additional administrative
    burdens for veterans or create an unnecessary cost in this
    process. I know some changes have been made to the language in
    the legislation this last Congress, but here is the question.
    What would currently prohibit a disabled veteran from obtaining
    a free access pass?
        Mr. Vogel. There, in our opinion, really is nothing that
    would prohibit anyone from getting the pass now. And so, again,
    that's some of our questions. We just want to clarify it. We
    certainly are very supportive of veterans having----
        Senator Daines. So the question then is, how would the bill
    provide additional benefits to the existing access pass for a
    disabled veteran?
        Mr. Vogel. I guess that's our question. We would like to
    evaluate the bill further and work with the Committee for some
    clarification on it to make sure that we are able to truly
    define disabled veterans and certainly wouldn't want a veteran
    to arrive at an entrance station and have to provide some
    paperwork which they might not have with them and somehow deny
    them access. So we would like to work with the Committee to
    clarify that.
        Senator Daines. Do you think--and this is my last question,
    then I will be done.
        Would implementing this legislation require additional
    funding or staff in your agency?
        Mr. Vogel. I don't think so. I'd have to defer on that a
    little bit. I can get you an answer.
        Senator Daines. Okay.
        Thank you.
        Ranking Member Hirono.
        Senator Hirono [presiding]. Let me just follow up on S.
    355, the veteran passes.
        Currently anyone with a permanent disability, as I
    understand it, can get a pass to go to our national parks--
    those with a permanent disability or total disability. What is
    the criteria that already exists?
        Mr. Vogel. Really anyone that has a permanent disability
    can get a park access pass today.
        Senator Hirono. My question is what constitutes permanent
    disability?
        Mr. Vogel. I think that is part of the clarification that
    we would like to follow in this. We, generally, are not asking
    people to provide identification at an entrance station as to,
    you know, what their disability is.
        Senator Hirono. You are confusing me.
        So people, who are not necessarily a veteran, but people
    with permanent disabilities can already get free passes to our
    national parks?
        Mr. Vogel. That is correct.
        Senator Hirono. And you already have some kind of process
    for this to occur?
        Mr. Vogel. Yes, we do.
        Senator Hirono. There should be a definition that you have
    for what constitutes permanent disability that is showing that
    someone has to provide in order to get a free pass.
        What we are doing with this bill is basically to open the
    opportunity for people with less than 100 percent disability.
    This is why I do need to get clarification on the necessity for
    this bill. We are not looking to just those veterans who have
    100 percent permanent disability. We need to get to a certain
    level of disability.
        As we implement something like this, I would think that you
    would want to figure out ways to work with the VA so that when
    they get their ratings for their level of disability, it could
    be that they would just automatically get a free pass from you
    all.
        There are some things that need to be worked out, and I
    would want to be working with you on how to get this clarified
    because I do see a need for this bill.
        Mr. Vogel. Indeed, Senator.
        And our guidance comes from the Rehabilitation Act. Our
    intent is not to keep any veterans with any disability from
    having free access to the parks. So we would just like to work
    with you and the Committee to clarify that. I think we have a
    mutual goal of providing free access to our disabled veterans.
        Senator Hirono. Getting back to the youth programs, Senator
    Heinrich said that I was very tactful in my questioning of you,
    but I do not want my tactfulness to be interpreted as somehow
    being really benign about giving you a timeframe that could
    result in nothing happening with these kinds of programs.
        I would ask you to have a sense of purpose and urgency
    about supporting these programs. I think it is really critical
    that the young people in our country have the experience of
    being in our national parks. There are a lot of cultural
    aspects to this, and you are creating another generation of
    people who are going to be very supportive of our parks, and I
    think that is critical. So, there is a sense of purpose and
    urgency there.
        Mr. Vogel. Indeed.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Daines went to vote.
        Senator King, have you had an opportunity to ask questions?
        Welcome, I am glad you are here.
        Mr. Vogel. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander. Thanks for staying until I could get
    here.
        I was talking with some Senators from the Committee on the
    Floor of the Senate as we voted and it seems like the thrust of
    the discussion is that these two programs, the Every Kid
    Outdoors and the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Act,
    both seem like good ideas to the Park Service. Is that right?
        Mr. Vogel. I think they have historically proven to be a
    benefit to the Service.
        Senator Alexander. Right.
        But the question is how best to implement them, right?
        Mr. Vogel. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. I have a couple of suggestions about
    that. It boils down to this--red teams and pilot programs. And
    let me say what I mean by that. At Oak Ridge we have a huge
    facility called the Uranium Processing Facility which was going
    out of control in terms of spending. It is eventually going to
    cost $6.5 billion, but Senator Feinstein and I asked the
    Department to create a red team to take a look at how to bring
    the spending under control. They asked the head of the Oak
    Ridge National Laboratory to do it. He got 14 or 15 people
    around the country who knew what they were talking about. They
    met for about two and a half months and came back with a
    recommendation that basically solved the problem.
        We asked them to do it again with a red team on the MOX
    facility in South Carolina, and they came back with a
    recommendation in about two and a half months that, in my view,
    would solve the problem, although the problem is not yet
    solved.
        My point is the normal government way of solving problems
    takes a long time, but in those examples they were able to move
    quickly, like within two or three months.
        Why not ask the Secretary to appoint a red team, somebody
    who knows a lot about parks, conservation service, these
    programs, assemble a group of 12 or 15 people informally, to
    take a look at it and recommend what to do and get it done in
    say, 90 days? Would that work?
        Mr. Vogel. I would be more than happy to take your
    recommendation back to the Secretary, and I feel comfortable in
    saying that he is committed to doing an expeditious review of
    this and that we could hopefully, soon, provide a formal
    position on this.
        Senator Alexander. The other thing you might consider are
    pilot programs. Typically in government, if McDonald's wants to
    introduce a new gravy, it doesn't introduce it everywhere in
    the country. It tries it out in Pittsburgh for a while to see
    whether people like it or not.
        These are not brand new ideas or ideas you know a lot
    about. The questions just are how best to implement them--with
    a new Administration, decision-making may take a while. Maybe
    the red team could say why don't we start out with these five,
    you know, let's start out in five different places.
        Let's go to the Smokies, for example, where fourth graders
    can already get in free because there is no entrance
    requirement. But let's expand the Conservation Corps there,
    operate it for a year and see how it works before we try it
    everywhere else, or let's go to Yellowstone and do it.
        So my suggestion is, since it has broad, bipartisan support
    and since these are two ideas that make obvious good sense to
    everybody, that maybe a red team type of review that could be
    done in 90 days and to begin with some action rather than
    waiting to decide how to apply every single place in the United
    States, might be a sensible way to get started. What about
    that?
        Mr. Vogel. It sounds like an interesting approach and I,
    again, would be happy to take that back to the Secretary and
    see if we could make that happen.
        Senator Alexander. Well, I would appreciate your doing that
    because I know the Secretary is action-oriented and sometimes
    it takes doing things a little bit differently to get that kind
    of result.
        I grew up, basically, in the national parks and I live
    within two miles of the Great Smokies, and my whole life has
    changed because of it. In scouting we went there every weekend,
    so I still go there a lot and I see on a regular basis what
    volunteers can do. We could not keep our trails in good shape
    and the park in good shape. We have retired people from Florida
    who come and spend the summer in the Smokies and do all this
    hard work and then they go back home. They love to do it, and
    it does not cost us anything.
        I would appreciate your taking back to the Secretary the
    suggestion of, number one, red teams, and number two, pilot
    programs and broad, bipartisan support for both these ideas.
        Mr. Vogel. Thank you. I will, Senator.
        Senator Alexander. Are there further comments by the
    Senators?
        Senator King.
        Senator King. I think my only comment is we love what you
    do. The national parks are one of the greatest aspects of this
    country, and they mean so much to so many people.
        I just want to express my thanks to the Department and to
    the National Park Service for the great work that you do,
    representing the country beautifully all across America. So
    would you please take that back to the----
        Mr. Vogel. I certainly will, and thank you very much for
    your continued support of our national parks.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander. Senator Hirono, any further comment?
        Senator Hirono. And my thanks----
        Mr. Vogel. Thank you.
        Senator Hirono. Our parks provide opportunities for being
    with nature to everyone in our country. So as we say in Hawaii,
    Mahalo.
        Mr. Vogel. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Thank you, Mr. Vogel, for your work for our country----
        Mr. Vogel. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander. ----and on America's best idea.
        The record will remain open for 10 days so that the
    Senators and others can submit information, if they wish.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]