    [Senate Hearing 115-521]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-521

                       S. 3172, THE RESTORE OUR PARKS ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                 NATIONAL PARKS

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                                    S. 3172

                           THE RESTORE OUR PARKS ACT

                                   __________

                                 JULY 11, 2018

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC(S) 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
     30-981               WASHINGTON : 2020

                   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                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TINA SMITH, Minnesota
                                     ------

                         Subcommittee on National Parks

                             STEVE DAINES, Chairman

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

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
                    Michelle Lane, Professional Staff Member
                 Mary Louise Wagner, 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
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S., Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S.
      Senator from Maine.............................................     4
    Portman, Hon. Rob, a U.S. Senator from Ohio......................     5
    Gardner, Hon. Cory, a U.S. Senator from Colorado.................     7
    Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee.............    10
    Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., a U.S. Senator from Hawaii................    11

                                   WITNESSES

    Warner, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from Virginia..................    12
    McDowall, Lena, Deputy Director, Management and Administration,
      National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.........    13
    Argust, Marcia, Director, Restore America's Parks, The Pew
      Charitable Trusts..............................................    17
    Brengel, Kristen, Vice-President for Government Affairs, National
      Parks Conservation Association.................................    26
    Fretwell, Holly, Outreach Director and Research Fellow, Property
      and Environment Research Center (PERC).........................    33

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Agenda and Witness List..........................................     3
    Alexander, Hon. Lamar:
        Opening Statement............................................    10
    Argust, Marcia:
        Opening Statement............................................    17
        Written Testimony............................................    19
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    62
    Backcountry Hunters & Anglers:
        Letter for the Record........................................    73
    Brengel, Kristen:
        Opening Statement............................................    26
        Written Testimony............................................    28
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    63
    Daines, Hon. Steve:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Fretwell, Holly:
        Opening Statement............................................    33
        Written Testimony............................................    35
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    64
    Friends of Acadia:
        Letter for the Record........................................    75
    Gardner, Hon. Cory:
        Opening Statement............................................     7
        Written Statement............................................     8
    Hirono, Hon. Mazie K.:
        Opening Statement............................................    11
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
    McDowall, Lena:
        Opening Statement............................................    13
        Written Testimony............................................    15
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    58
    National Association of Counties:
        Letter for the Record........................................    78
    National Parks Second Century Action Coalition:
        Letter for the Record........................................    79
    National Trust for Historic Preservation:
        Letter for the Record........................................    81
    National Wildlife Federation:
        Letter for the Record........................................    84
    Outdoor Recreation Roundtable:
        Letter for the Record........................................    86
    Portman, Hon. Rob:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
    S. 3172, the Restore Our Parks Act...............................    66
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    88
    Warner, Hon. Mark:
        Opening Statement............................................    12
    (The) Wilderness Society:
        Letter for the Record........................................    91

                       S. 3172, THE RESTORE OUR PARKS ACT

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2018

                                   U.S. Senate,
                        Subcommittee on National Parks,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Steve Daines,
    presiding.

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

        Senator Daines [presiding]. We will come to order.
        Today we will discuss Senate bill 3172, the Restore Our
    Parks Act, which was introduced by Senators Portman, Warner,
    Alexander and King on June 28th. We have also had additional
    members join Senate bill 3172 as co-sponsors including myself,
    as well as Senators Collins, Manchin, Capito, Blunt, Heinrich,
    Tillis and Gardner. This truly is a great start, and I am
    hoping that Senate bill 3172 garners the support of many more
    of my colleagues in the coming weeks.
        This legislation addresses a topic that is very near and
    dear to my heart, the topic of the deferred maintenance backlog
    in our national parks. Having literally grown up in the shadows
    of Yellowstone National Park, I see firsthand the economic
    benefits and the outdoor heritage that relays to our state.
    However, in order to continue growing those benefits, we must
    ensure the needs of our parks are adequately addressed.
        As many of my colleagues have heard, time and time again,
    the National Park Service currently estimates the deferred
    maintenance backlog at approximately $11.6 billion. This amount
    is split roughly 50 percent between transportation and non-
    transportation related assets.
        Outstanding critical deferred maintenance needs for our
    parks include everything from historic buildings, employee
    housing and visitor centers, as well as sewer systems, trails
    and paved roads. Only the Department of Defense, which I would
    note has a substantially larger budget and workforce, has more
    assets to maintain than the National Park Service.
        In fact, in my home State of Montana, our current backlog
    is about $217.5 million with the largest portion, $153.8
    million, at Glacier National Park. The projects are varied but
    they all, ultimately, impact the visitor experience.
        Whether it is the $5.5 million needed to replace and
    upgrade electrical and wastewater utilities along Lake McDonald
    or the $92,000 to repair a water line that crosses Rose Creek
    in the Rising Sun concessions area, visitors to the national
    parks deserve a basic, functioning infrastructure that,
    remarkably, actually works.
        Over the years the deferred maintenance backlog has grown,
    some would say, uncontrollably, into the large figure of $11.6
    billion that we see today. This can be attributed to a variety
    of factors including the acquisition of additional park units,
    without funding, and challenges to prioritize funding for
    certain projects like wastewater and water systems.
        Despite many efforts by Congress and federal and non-
    federal stakeholders, the deferred maintenance backlog
    continues to grow. It is growing every hour. I am pleased that
    both the current Administration and my colleagues, both on and
    off this Committee, on a bipartisan basis, have accepted this
    very daunting challenge of arresting the growing deferred
    maintenance backlog in our parks.
        Now solving this problem is not going to be easy. But if we
    do work together to pull something together here, as the
    Ranking Member and I were just speaking about, we might
    actually get something done. I believe we are up to the task.
        We face challenges ahead, including, at a minimum, finding
    the funding necessary for any solution that we all ultimately,
    can agree on. In addition, we will likely hear about the need
    to resolve deferred maintenance backlogs on other public lands
    which, of course, are worthy of discussion.
        It is important to me that any legislation that moves
    forward regarding offshore and mineral revenue, protects
    existing programs, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF). In my opinion, LWCF still needs permanent
    reauthorization and full funding and the clock is ticking.
    Senate bill 3172 does have those protections and I believe we
    can keep our commitment to both, but we must not hold back one
    priority at the expense of another. Therefore, I believe that
    both these bipartisan priorities should move quickly to ensure
    the needs of public lands are taken care of.
        I look forward to a robust discussion on this bill today.
        Again, I would like to thank Senators Portman and Warner,
    Alexander and King, as well as their staffs, for truly all the
    hard work that has gone into this legislation thus far and to
    make this hearing possible today.
        The purpose of this hearing is to consider the
    Administration's and stakeholders' views on Senate bill 3172
    and allow Committee members an opportunity to ask questions.
        We will also include written statements that have been sent
    to the Subcommittee in the official hearing record.
        The complete agenda and witness list will also be included
    in the hearing record, without objection.
        [Agenda and witness list follow:]

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                            COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                               NATURAL RESOURCES

                         Subcommittee on National Parks

                            Wednesday, July 11, 2018

                      National Parks Subcommittee Hearing

                                 AGENDA

                       S. 3172, the Restore Our Parks Act

                              WITNESS LIST

                          The Honorable Mark R. Warner

                             United States Senator

                               Ms. Lena McDowall

                 Deputy Director, Management and Administration

             National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

                               Ms. Marcia Argust

                       Director, Restore America's Parks

                             Pew Charitable Trusts

                              Ms. Kristen Brengel

                       Vice President--Government Affairs

                    National Parks Conservation Association

                               Ms. Holly Fretwell

                     Outreach Director and Research Fellow

                    Property and Environment Research Center

        Senator Daines. We have five witnesses here today.
        First, Senator Warner will be joining us to provide a brief
    statement about Senate bill 3172, following opening remarks.
        Welcome, Senator Warner.
        I will yield to my Ranking Member here.
        Is your schedule okay? Okay.
        We will yield to you, Angus, and then we will go to Senator
    Warner next.

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

        Senator King. Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely delighted to be
    here today. I think this marks a milestone and an opportunity
    for us to accomplish something important for the people of this
    country. Also, it is an important opportunity to address a
    serious infrastructure failing.
        When I was Governor of Maine, we used to go to New York to
    talk about bond ratings, and I used to talk about how little
    debt we had and how we did not borrow much money. One of the
    analysts stopped me and said, ``Governor, if you're not fixing
    your infrastructure, that's debt. It's debt, exactly as if it's
    debt on your balance sheet, and it's got to be paid and it's
    going to have to be paid, usually with interest, in the sense
    of increased maintenance costs.'' So this is a debt that we are
    paying, that we owe to the people of this country.
        When I left office as Governor in 2003, my wife and I and
    our two children, who were then 12 and 9, took off in a RV for
    five and a half months and we circumnavigated America. In the
    process, we went to 14 national parks and innumerable national
    monuments. So this issue is very dear to my heart. The national
    parks, as Franklin Roosevelt said, ``This is America.'' They
    are a wonderful part of our country.
        The parks are in trouble, however. The Chairman gave the
    stark numbers, almost $12 billion in deferred maintenance.
        And in Maine, for example, in Acadia National Park, we have
    about $80 million of deferred maintenance. By the way, Acadia
    is not the most visited national park in the country. I think
    that honor goes to Yellowstone, but I would venture to say it
    is the most visited national park in the country per square
    foot.
        [Laughter.]
        It is one of the smallest national parks and yet we have
    three million visitors a year which, by the way, is twice the
    population of Maine. So on a sunny day in August, Acadia
    National Park is about our third largest city.
        It is a hugely important part of the economy of the region,
    and to jeopardize what is essentially an economic magnet
    because of a failure to provide maintenance is just short-
    sighted in the extreme. We have an old maintenance building at
    Acadia which, if it fails, will probably result in the closure
    of the park for some time.
        The other piece is, of course, while we have this
    infrastructure problem, we are seeing a significant increase in
    visitation. In Acadia, the visitation has gone up something
    like 50 percent in the last seven or eight years. So we have
    more people coming but parks are less capable of absorbing
    them.
        That is why I am just delighted to be co-sponsoring this
    bill. I think this is an opportunity to really do something
    important.
        I want to underline what the Chair said, we are also
    extremely committed to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I
    do not see this bill as in any way competitive with that. We
    need to move forward with the permanent reauthorization. This
    does not take money out of the same pot. This is an opportunity
    to fix a specific problem. And I hope that we can work
    together, both on this in the immediate future and on the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund before the end of September.
        More and more people are getting out to enjoy our parks.
    Some have even put down their phones when they do so. We are
    hoping to encourage more of that, but certainly, we want the
    parks to be safe, accessible and welcoming to the millions of
    visitors for whom they are such a valuable asset in our
    country.
        So I thank our witnesses, I thank the sponsors of the bill
    and I suppose we will turn it over to Senator Warner.
        Senator Daines. Senator King, thank you.
        I am just going to introduce the witnesses briefly, and
    then I know Senators have a few comments and then we are going
    to turn it to Senator Warner.
        Next to Senator Warner, starting over on this side here, we
    are joined by Ms. Lena McDowall, Deputy Director, Management
    and Administration, National Park Service, U.S. Department of
    the Interior. Thank you for being here.
        Ms. Marcia Argust, the Director of the Restore America's
    Park campaign from Pew Charitable Trust, has also joined the
    panel today. Thank you.
        Then we have Ms. Kristen Brengel, Vice President of
    Government Affairs for the National Parks Conservation
    Association.
        And last, but certainly not least, we have another Montanan
    here, Ms. Holly Fretwell, who hails from our great state and
    also serves as the Outreach Director and Research Fellow for
    the Property and Environment Research Center.
        Welcome to the witness table here today. Thank you for
    making time to be here.
        Before we turn to Senator Warner, I am going to ask if
    there are any Senators who would like to make a short statement
    before we proceed.
        Senator Portman.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

        Senator Portman. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for having
    this hearing and for co-sponsoring the legislation and for your
    passion for the parks. As you have told me, you not only grew
    up in the shadow of Yellowstone, but you continue to frequent
    it.
        And to Senator King, I know about your passion for Acadia.
    I am going to challenge you on whether Cuyahoga Valley National
    Park has more visitors per capita which is snuggled in between
    Akron and Cleveland, Ohio. It is the number 13th most visited
    park in the country. It is not big, but it is mighty.
        Let me just say today we are here to talk about this
    legislation and to get your input, and we really appreciate it.
    I want to thank all the organizations represented here and
    others who could not be here who have worked with us over the
    last couple years to get to this point.
        More importantly, this is a bit of a Kumbaya moment in that
    we are coming together, and that does not happen easily around
    this place. And it does not mean that it is over, by the way.
    We have a lot of work to do to get this enacted into law as the
    Chairman and the Ranking Member were saying, but we would not
    be at this point but for some compromises and, frankly,
    sacrifices that some members have made to move this process
    forward. I just want to acknowledge two quickly.
        One is Senator Alexander, who introduced legislation with
    Senator King that the Administration was supportive of and has
    been willing to work with us to come up with, again, this
    legislation that, I think, meets the needs that Senator Warner
    and I had laid out over the last couple years with those sewn
    away we believe the Administration will be able to support.
    Right, Ms. McDowall?
        [Laughter.]
        Then second, and I really want to be sure that you all
    understand, Mark Warner came to me a couple years ago to say,
    hey, I know you guys have been trying to work on this issue of
    deferred maintenance and you've done a little bit here and
    there, like with the Centennial match program, which was my
    legislation, which helps, but frankly, it is hundreds of
    millions, not billions, that is needed--and this was really
    Mark Warner's idea. So he is here to talk a little about it
    today, but I want to thank him for his willingness to take this
    idea and then mold it into something that can actually get
    passed into law. Not all Senators would be willing and able to
    do that. I want to thank him personally for his commitment to
    this and to all my colleagues for their support and long-
    standing interest in the parks. There is nothing more important
    to our natural legacy than keeping these parks in pristine,
    good condition.
        And that is our problem. You know, we do like to expand the
    parks. We do like to add more responsibilities to the parks. We
    are not very good at dealing with the infrastructure needs of
    the parks.
        In my own State of Ohio, we have about a $100 million
    backlog, although we are not as big as some of you in terms of
    our parks, that is a lot of money. We just simply can't find
    it, even with the Friends groups and all the other work that we
    have tried to do with our matching funds. We have to have this
    legislation.
        I agree with what Chairman Daines and Ranking Member King
    said. This has nothing to do with taking money away from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund or any other purpose. It has
    to do with funding that otherwise would go to the Treasury and
    redirecting it for an urgent need we have.
        Frankly, if it is a $12 billion shortfall which, I believe,
    is roughly accurate, we are going to get about halfway there in
    five years. We have more work to do, but this is going to
    enable us to address the most urgent needs.
        I really appreciate the fact that, again, everybody has
    come together to try to figure out how to get to yes.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Portman.
        It is nice to see Senators bragging about their national
    parks today, isn't it?
        Senator Gardner.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to
    Senators Portman, Warner, Alexander and King. I was a co-
    sponsor of this first bill and proud to co-sponsor this bill,
    excited to be a part of it.
        I was in Rocky Mountain National Park this past weekend,
    met with our Superintendent there, Darla Sidles, talking about
    the needs of Rocky which is over $200 million in terms of
    deferred maintenance needs. That is $200 million alone for
    Rocky and then you look at the needs of Mesa Verde, you look at
    the needs of the Great Sands National Park. This is an
    incredible opportunity for us to do something bipartisan, do
    something good for a great generational change an idea.
        So Rocky Mountain National Park is home to the highest
    paved road in America. Elevation goes from 7,600 feet to 14,259
    feet, in case you are----
        Senator Daines. There are a lot of things high in
    Colorado----
        Senator Gardner. Be careful about that. Be careful about
    that.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Daines. That is right.
        Senator Gardner. I knew that was coming. You can't avoid
    it.
        [Laughter.]
        But when I was there last weekend, traveling through the
    park we saw a bear, we saw a bear cub. We had elk all over the
    place.
        The national parks are a glorious idea, and I think this
    legacy legislation really proves that we can work together in a
    way that will benefit Americans for generations to come.
        [The written statement of Senator Gardner follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Senator Alexander.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman and Senator King.
        Welcome to the witnesses, especially to Senator Warner,
    about whom I will have more to say in just a minute.
        We greatly value diversity in our country, but what really
    is remarkable is when we bring all that diversity in to make
    this one country and an idea that unifies us, as much as any
    other idea, is our love for our national parks and they are not
    in good shape right now.
        The Look Rock Campground on Chilhowee Mountain, Senator
    Portman knows where that is, has been closed since 2013. It is
    in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Five thousand
    families a year could use it, but now they can't because there
    is not enough money to make the repairs to the bathrooms and to
    the roofs and the other places it needs to be there.
        Just as Senator Gardner said, in the Smokies, which is our
    most visited national park, there are about $220, $215 million
    of deferred maintenance needs and the annual appropriation for
    the Smokies every year is only $20 million--and we do not have
    an entrance fee because we gave the park to the Federal
    Government.
        So the deferred maintenance is ten times the amount of the
    appropriation, the revenues we have every year. We will never
    get it done without some extraordinary effort, which this is.
        I want to echo what Senator Portman said. There is an old
    bromide in the Senate which is so true--that you start getting
    things done when you don't mind who gets the credit--and it is
    absolutely true that Senator Warner working with a whole bunch
    of groups and others came to Senator Portman and they created
    an excellent piece of legislation.
        I worked with Senator King. We created one. But our goal
    was to get a result and I think what we have done here, thanks
    to the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Portman and
    every Senator here, is that we've got together just the right
    policy, thanks to support from Secretary Zinke and the
    President. Remember, we could not get this done if the Office
    of Management and Budget did not support it which is why it is
    so important to have Senator Portman who used to have that job
    on our side to explain to some Republicans why that is a good
    idea. So we have the right mix of policy, we have the right mix
    of bipartisan support and we have an excellent, excellent
    product.
        Chairman Murkowski has been terrific in helping to arrange
    with Chairman Daines for this Subcommittee hearing. I hope we
    can get dozens of Senators on both sides to co-sponsor this
    bill. I hope the bill will pass the House.
        And then one other thing, which I want to say gently, there
    are--any time in the United States Senate you see a train
    moving that you are sure will get to the station, you start
    throwing as much baggage on it as you can because you want to
    get to the station too.
        [Laughter.]
        And there are lots of very good ideas that all of us
    support. But if we try to put too much baggage or maybe even
    any more baggage on this train, we won't get to the station
    because this is a pretty big lift to start with. This would be
    the most significant piece of legislation in support of the
    national parks in more than half a century. I don't think there
    is any doubt about that. So I hope that we will keep our eye on
    the ball, both on the Democratic and Republican side, both with
    the President and with the various conservation and
    environmental groups, and that we can continue to work together
    to pass a range of programs that we are all for. But if we can
    actually get this done, we need to get it done this year.
        We need to hit while the iron is hot, while we have the
    support of the conservation community, while we have the
    support of the President, while we have bipartisan support in
    the Senate and the House. We ought to grab it and go and get to
    work on the national parks.
        I will end by saying thanks to Senator Warner, thanks to
    Senator Portman, thanks to every Senator here and thanks to all
    who have worked on this. I think we have a perfect product, but
    now let's see if we can get the train to the station without
    too much baggage on it.
        Thank you.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
        It truly is good policy. It has been good people producing
    good policy here.
        I want to thank all the Senators here who worked so well
    together. Truly, it has been great. And then we have Director
    Mulvaney, Secretary Zinke and the Administration working with
    us. This is a very good thing.
        Thanks for your comments, Senator Alexander.
        Senator Hirono.

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

        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Very briefly. This is one of the few issues--the fact that
    we need to provide support for our national park infrastructure
    needs--enjoying near universal support. Who would have thunk
    it?
        I totally agree with you, Senator Alexander, that we have
    to strike while the iron is hot and, of course, in Hawaii we
    have something on the order of over $238 million worth of
    deferred maintenance needs.
        Thank you very much for bringing us all together and let's
    move this legislation. We are one akin to it that we can all
    support.
        Thank you.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        It looks like we have all the senators on the record. All
    member statements will be added to the official hearing record.
        Before moving to witness testimony, Senator Warner, there
    has been a lot said about you already. You will provide opening
    remarks. Welcome to the Committee today. Thank you for all your
    hard work on this legislation. I understand you have a few
    words to say, and we welcome your testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA

        Senator Warner. Well, Chairman Daines and Ranking Member
    King, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        Apologies, it is only in the U.S. Senate that you arrive
    here last and then jump line in front of all the other
    witnesses, but thank you to all the great groups who I know are
    going to add their voice to support this very important
    legislation.
        Let me acknowledge, and we don't get to do this nearly
    enough in the Senate these days, but let me make a couple of
    personal thanks. First, personal thanks to Rob Portman. It was
    a couple years back I came to him with this idea. He had been
    working, as he had mentioned, on this subject. We had a
    slightly different angle on how we might approach it. He has
    hung in through thick and thin as we put forward legislation
    that was slightly more ambitious. It would have bitten off the
    whole $11.6 billion backfall or backlog. But he and I stuck
    together through this and that kind of stick-to-itiveness is
    something that I am grateful for and will remember for a long
    time.
        I also want to thank Senator Alexander and Senator King who
    had competing legislation. I want to echo what Lamar has
    already said--if we can actually get something done here, whose
    name appears on the bill will be long forgotten compared to the
    incredible value that will be added to our national parks which
    are part of our most important historic assets and historic
    content. So I think we are at a point in time that doesn't come
    near enough.
        I want to make a couple of quick comments about this
    legislation, then I will let this much more informed panel make
    their presentations.
        We are at $11.6 billion in maintenance backlog and, as a
    fellow Governor, I completely agree with Senator King. Deferred
    maintenance is part of a debt, part of a deficit, and each year
    that we allow this deficit to increase, the challenge gets
    greater. As a matter of fact, over half of our park assets are
    in some level of need of deferred maintenance. Every member has
    mentioned a park in their respective state.
        Let me just cite two examples in Virginia. In Virginia, the
    Colonial National Historical Park, which is the home of
    historic Jamestown and the Yorktown Battlefield, which I hope
    you saw, Senator King, when you went on your tour.
        Senator King. One of my first stops.
        Senator Warner. One of your first stops.
        We now have, on that one park alone, deferred maintenance
    over $420 million.
        Last year alone, Virginia's deferred maintenance in terms
    of national parks added $250 million to the total. We're now at
    over $1 billion. We are third behind only California and the
    District--and this is not a place where I'd like Virginia to be
    in the top--but we are third in terms of total deferred
    maintenance.
        If we do not take this action and the legislation that
    Senators Portman, Alexander, King and I now know the Chairman
    and others will join, where we can strike while the iron is
    hot, take advantage of funds that are already being collected
    by the Federal Government and echoing what all the other
    sponsors have said, that in no way would interfere with funding
    or support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other
    valuable, valuable entities. But we put this legislation
    through over the five years that would have had the
    Administration support for. We are going to get over $6 billion
    in revenues. We will be able to take down at least about 50
    percent of that deferred maintenance and all of the items that
    are in the most critical need.
        I know the witnesses will testify that with more detail,
    but let me echo what all my colleagues have said. This is the
    time. The time is right. The bipartisan nature is right. The
    support of the Administration is critical. Let's get this done.
        And echoing Senator Alexander, let's make sure that it
    doesn't get loaded up with too many other items. This would be
    a signing ceremony I would even show up at the White House for.
        [Laughter.]
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Alright, thank you Senator Warner.
        It is now time to hear from our----
        Senator Warner. Presuming that I would be invited, let me
    presume.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Daines. It is time to hear from our witnesses. We
    will start with Ms. McDowall.

      STATEMENT OF LENA MCDOWALL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT AND
     ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
                                INTERIOR

        Ms. McDowall. Thank you.
        Chairman Daines, Ranking Member King and members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the
    Department of the Interior's views on Senate bill 3172, the
    Restore Our Parks Act.
        I would like to summarize my testimony and submit my full
    statement for the record.
        The Department supports Senate bill 3172, the Restore Our
    Parks Act. This legislation closely aligns with the
    Administration's FY'19 proposal to establish a fund dedicated
    to our public lands infrastructure needs.
        We appreciate that this bill combines the elements of both
    S. 751, the National Park Service Legacy Act, and Senate bill
    2509, the National Park Restoration Act, to accomplish the goal
    of providing consistent and reliable funding to address the
    National Park Service's deferred maintenance backlog.
        S. 3172 would establish a separate account within the
    United States Treasury called the National Park Service Legacy
    Restoration Fund with potential deposits to the fund of up to
    $1.3 billion per year and up to $6.5 billion for the five-year
    deposit period, this measure will help to substantially reduce
    the National Park Service $11.6 billion deferred maintenance
    backlog.
        The bill requires 65 percent of funds to be used for
    buildings, utilities and visitor facilities and 35 percent to
    be used for transportation projects.
        Along with the annual funding the National Park Service
    receives from the Department of Transportation, this brings the
    transportation and non-transportation split to roughly 50/50.
        The Fund also allows for public donations in the form of
    cash or in-kind donations. This allows the National Park
    Service to expand and encourage relevant public-private
    partnerships that work toward the reduction of the deferred
    maintenance backlog.
        Deposits to the National Park Service Legacy Restoration
    Fund would come from all sources of federal energy development
    revenues, including both renewable and conventional sources
    such as oil, gas and coal and not from taxpayer dollars. This
    aligns with the Administration's all-of-the-above energy
    development strategy.
        It is important to note that the fund would not change or
    modify established revenue sharing payments to the states under
    the Mineral Leasing Act, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act
    or other statutes, nor would it affect deposits to other
    established funds such as the Reclamation Fund, the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund or other dedicated uses of onshore and
    offshore revenues.
        These existing uses would receive all of their dedicated
    funding before the fund receives anything. After all existing
    obligations are met, 50 percent of the revenue that would
    otherwise be deposited as miscellaneous receipts will be
    deposited into the fund to address the National Park Service
    maintenance backlog.
        Appropriated funds are currently the primary source of
    funding for deferred maintenance, but as the Secretary
    indicated earlier this year before this Committee, we cannot
    rely solely on appropriated dollars to address this problem.
    Without a dedicated funding source, the deferred maintenance
    backlog will only continue to grow.
        The backlog of projects at our national parks impacts park
    visitors' access, recreational opportunities and experiences.
    The network of roads, trails, restrooms, water treatment
    systems, drinking water and visitor centers are aging and are
    exceeding a capacity they were often never designed to hold and
    support.
        We greatly appreciate the effort of this Committee,
    Chairman Daines, Ranking Member King, Senators Portman,
    Alexander, Warner, Capito, Gardner, Manchin, Blunt, Tillis and
    Heinrich, who have sought to craft real solutions to our
    maintenance backlog.
        As the Secretary has mentioned multiple times, our public
    lands are not a Republican or a Democrat issue. They are an
    American issue. The bipartisan proposal before us today
    reflects his sentiments providing real solutions for each and
    every person who visits our national treasures.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
    Subcommittee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McDowall follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Ms. McDowall.
        Ms. Argust.

    STATEMENT OF MARCIA ARGUST, DIRECTOR, RESTORE AMERICA'S PARKS,
                       THE PEW CHARITABLE TRUSTS

        Ms. Argust. Chairman Daines, Ranking Member King and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing
    today on the bipartisan Restore Our Parks Act, S. 3172,
    legislation to help address the $11+ billion backlog of repairs
    plaguing our National Park System.
        I request that my full written statement be submitted for
    the record.
        I'm Marcia Argust and I direct The Pew Charitable Trusts
    Restore America's Parks campaign which seeks to protect our
    national parks by pursuing long-term solutions to the deferred
    maintenance backlog.
        Resources impacted by the backlog include trails, visitor
    centers, campgrounds, battlefields, iconic memorials, roads
    that provide access for visitors, historic buildings and
    cultural structures.
        Pew strongly endorses S. 3172. If enacted, this commonsense
    legislation presents a real path forward in restoring the
    integrity of park resources and facilities.
        Pew has been working with sponsors of previously introduced
    deferred maintenance bills, specifically the National Park
    Service Legacy Act and the National Park Restoration Act, to
    develop a measure that incorporates the best components of each
    of these bills and that draws support from across political
    lines and the Administration.
        The Restore Our Parks Act has accomplished these goals and
    Pew applauds Senators Portman, Warner, Alexander, King for
    their collaborative work in crafting this new consensus
    initiative. Senator Portman used the word sacrifice. Members
    truly put aside their need for personal accolades to put this
    bill forward. We recognize that and greatly appreciate it.
        I'd like to highlight several provisions of this bill.
        It would provide reliable annual funding for priority
    national park repair needs.
        While a range of solutions should be pursued to address
    maintenance needs within the Park System, the key to success
    and to enabling the Park Service to get a handle on the
    compounding challenge of the backlog is funding certainty.
        The legislation would facilitate a potential $6.5 billion
    drawdown in the repair backlog by establishing a fund in the
    U.S. Treasury that would direct monies to priority park
    maintenance. The fund would have an annual revenue cap of $1.3
    billion each year.
        Past mineral revenue data from the Department of Interior
    indicates that even during low energy production years, the
    $1.3 billion cap is likely to be reached each year. This would
    provide the consistent annual funding that the Park Service
    needs to help stem the escalation of its backlog.
        Another aspect of the legislation worth noting is its
    revenue source. The fund would be financed with unobligated
    annual federal mineral revenues such as royalties from onshore
    and offshore oil and gas operations, as well as renewables.
        S. 3172 recognizes the importance of these and other
    programs and like LWCF and the historic preservation fund, and
    it includes provisions to ensure that efforts to fund deferred
    maintenance do not happen at their expense. Language in the
    bill stipulates that the park deferred maintenance fund would
    receive 50 percent of revenues that are not otherwise credited,
    covered or deposited under federal law.
        The language goes further and states that the fund shall
    not affect revenues that are due to special funds, trust funds
    or states, nor shall it affect revenues appropriated under
    federal law for programs like GOMESA, the Mineral Leasing Act
    and LWCF.
        I'd like to spotlight, as well, language in the bill that
    directs use of the funds to restore priority park assets. This
    provision is in line with the Park Service's current asset
    management system that focuses limited funds on maintenance
    projects that are deemed mission critical, and it will ensure
    that funds would be used wisely.
        Ignoring deferred maintenance needs in our national parks
    or addressing them in a piecemeal fashion is not sound policy.
    Our National Park System generates hundreds of thousands of
    jobs and billions of dollars for local economies each year. Our
    parks provide access to world class recreation and park units
    document our nation's history.
        Support and enactment of the bipartisan Restore Our Parks
    Act is a wise investment in a system that has overwhelming
    support from the American public, including almost 3,000 local,
    state and national organizations that support directing more
    resources to restoring our park treasures.
        Thank you for your serious consideration of S. 3172, and
    I'm happy to address any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Argust follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Ms. Argust.
        Ms. Brengel.

      STATEMENT OF KRISTEN BRENGEL, VICE-PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT
            AFFAIRS, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Brengel. Good afternoon, Chairman Daines, Ranking
    Member King and the members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
    inviting me to testify today.
        I'm Kristen Brengel, Vice-President of Government Affairs
    for the National Parks Conservation Association, the leading
    national independent voice for America's National Park System.
        We appreciate the opportunity to provide our views
    regarding the Restore Our Parks Act. We are extremely grateful
    to Senator Portman, Senator Warner, Senator Alexander and
    Senator King for your leadership on this issue, and we
    appreciate that of the Administration as well.
        National parks are among few places families can see star-
    filled night skies, hear the sounds of wolves and waterfalls
    and experience places where American heroes fought for our
    democracy and our right to vote. Funding to operate and repair
    our 417 national park units has broad public support because we
    value these incredible places.
        The national parks repair backlog is one of the most
    critical funding issues facing the Park System, but it is not
    the only issue. Parks are suffering from severe understaffing,
    outdated interpretation and threaten natural and cultural
    resources. We are confident that significantly reducing the
    repair backlog will bring more attention to the other critical
    needs.
        There has been a long history of insufficient investments
    in park infrastructure. We commend Congress for increasing
    funding for park transportation infrastructure and for
    increasing appropriations for non-transportation deferred
    maintenance over the last five years. These sources continue to
    be increased, but ultimately dedicated funding is needed, given
    the large scope of the problem which many of you have already
    mentioned. So we're pleased to testify in full support of the
    bill.
        Some national parks are over 100 years old, and it's
    showing. Park infrastructure hasn't received the requisite
    capital investment for cyclical maintenance or construction
    projects. Marinas, trails, roads, bridges and visitor centers
    are in disrepair.
        Historic assets represent 45 percent of the maintenance
    backlog. This includes historic homes, forts, battlefields and
    other assets preserving our unique American history, and they
    are threatened with the possibility of irreparable harm if we
    don't address this problem. Historic properties at Cuyahoga,
    roads at Shenandoah, Acadia's park headquarters and the Grand
    Loop Road at Yellowstone are just a few examples of important
    repair needs.
        Parks have been in triage mode, making repairs when funding
    is available and, sadly, shifting resources from other areas to
    try to address maintenance needs. The National Park Service has
    not been in a position to complete important repair projects as
    a consequence and this is no way to take care of our parks.
        We appreciate the Restore Our Parks Act includes several
    helpful components. Chiefly, the bill provides certainty of
    funding which ensures the Park Service can finally address
    these overdue projects. Also very helpful is no limit for using
    the funds and this is an important one which will allow the
    Park Service to carefully plan and implement large multiyear
    projects. This will ensure these overdue projects will finally
    get done and that is a prospect we should all be pulling for.
        The reality is the backlog challenge will be reduced
    substantially but won't be entirely solved with this bill. We
    ask that you consider evaluating the fund's progress in five
    years and then consider extending it to keep the problem from
    growing again.
        Parks also badly need sustainable operational funds.
    Staffing losses over the last five years are becoming more
    noticeable in many national parks, and we've experienced
    backcountry rangers becoming almost parking managers in many
    parking lots. Popular national parks have had a surge in
    visitation in the last few years and there simply aren't enough
    staff to handle the influx of visitors. This lack of staff also
    affects park staff ability to address wildlife habitat
    restoration, the spread of invasive species, overcrowding of
    popular sites, watershed restoration and maintenance and
    repairs.
        Another critical issue facing our parks is acquiring the
    many inholdings inside park boundaries. The Land and Water
    Conservation Fund is the successful conservation program that
    addresses this issue. It should receive increased
    appropriations and reauthorization as well as dedicated funding
    which many of you have mentioned.
        In conclusion, we urge quick action to advance the Restore
    Our Parks bill, to address high priority, desperately needed
    repair and restoration projects for the benefit of park
    resources and for the enjoyment of millions of American
    families who visit them every year.
        Glacier, Cuyahoga, Gettysburg, the Great Smokies, Mesa
    Verde are iconic American places. They're incredibly popular
    with the American public who enjoy them and learn about their
    stories. They are as profound as they are invaluable.
        By moving this bill forward, your commitment to them will
    be deeply appreciated by all Americans.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I'd be
    happy to answer your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Brengel follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Ms. Brengel.
        Ms. Fretwell.

      STATEMENT OF HOLLY FRETWELL, OUTREACH DIRECTOR AND RESEARCH
        FELLOW, PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER (PERC)

        Ms. Fretwell. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the
    future of our national parks and solutions to the National Park
    Service's deferred maintenance backlog.
        My name is Holly Fretwell. I'm a Research Fellow and
    Director of Outreach at the Property and Environment Research
    Center (PERC) where I have studied public lands for more than
    two decades. PERC is the nation's leading institute dedicated
    to exploring market-based, entrepreneurial solutions to
    environmental problems.
        Living in Bozeman, Montana, I am lucky to have Yellowstone,
    Grand Teton and Glacier National Parks in my backyard. I'm an
    avid skier and hiker as well as a frequent visitor to our parks
    and other public lands. I'm passionate about ensuring these
    treasured landscapes are around for my children and their
    children to enjoy.
        In my testimony today, I will offer support for the Restore
    Our Parks Act. Addressing the deferred maintenance problem must
    be a priority to ensure our parks are preserved and available
    for enjoyment today and in the future. I will also provide a
    few ideas to help the agency better address its maintenance and
    operational shortfalls.
        Conservation is ultimately about caring for and maintaining
    our lands and resources. Yet, Congressional annual
    appropriations for the National Park Service do not cover the
    cost to preserve the parks for present and future generations.
    Currently, as estimated at $11.6 billion, the agency's deferred
    maintenance backlog impairs the public enjoyment of America's
    parks. If conservation truly is about caring for what you own,
    the maintenance backlog is a reminder that we are not being
    good stewards of our public lands. At its core, addressing the
    maintenance issue is about ensuring families and visitors enjoy
    their experiences in our national parks. That is a fundamental
    principle of the Organic Act.
        In 1997 my colleague, Don Leal, and I researched the state
    of our national parks. We wrote, ``Our national parks are in
    trouble. Their roads, historic buildings, visitor facilities
    and water and sewer systems are falling apart.'' We estimated
    the maintenance backlog then to be about $5.3 billion.
        The problem persists. Now, more than 20 years later, the
    backlog has more than doubled. This is, in part, because the
    agency's infrastructure is aging, but also because for decades
    park managers have not had adequate, reliable funding to
    maintain park resources and assets. Congress is right to look
    for something more secure and reliable to ensure the future of
    our parks.
        The Restore Our Parks Act sets out to do this and can help
    address the growing deferred maintenance problem better than
    existing tools for a number of reasons.
        First, the Act provides a consistent and reliable dedicated
    fund that is available for Park Service use, importantly,
    without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation.
    Historical reliance on annual appropriations to tackle deferred
    maintenance issues is less reliable because appropriated
    budgets vary annually according to political interest and
    typically have a time spending limit.
        Second, the National Park Service has prioritized deferred
    maintenance projects system wide and can allocate from this
    fund accordingly without further political input.
        Third, the Act creates a quasi-endowment fund by allowing
    the Interior Secretary to invest a portion of the energy
    development revenues and depositing income earned back into the
    fund. This can enhance both the longevity of the fund and the
    resources available for future deferred maintenance projects.
        Fourth, because the fund has no fiscal year limitation and
    deposits can be invested, an endowment fund could be created
    where the principle remains invested and the income on
    investment provides a continuous source of reliable funding for
    maintenance needs.
        Fifth, the fund is dedicated to deferred maintenance and
    cannot be used for land acquisition. Additional assets can add
    to the maintenance problem.
        And finally, the fund will not replace discretionary
    funding. Historically, it has often been the case that new
    agency funding sources are matched by a reduction in
    appropriations. This fund is designed to provide additional
    total revenues for the National Park Service.
        The Restore Our Parks Act would help address the existing
    backlog, but it does not address the underlying challenge of
    inadequate funding for routine maintenance projects. Deferred
    maintenance is the result of not performing routine
    maintenance. As I explain in my written testimony, the Restore
    Our Parks Act could address the routine maintenance issue by
    creating an endowment for cyclic maintenance. My written
    testimony also considers the use of recreation fees to better
    address the routine maintenance funding shortfalls.
        It is important to have more decision-making authority in
    the hands of local officials who better understand the needs on
    the ground.
        It will take multiple creative approaches to adequately
    conserve and maintain our national parks for future
    generations, but the Restore Our Parks Act is a step in the
    right direction to enhance park stewardship.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
    interest in seeing long-term conservation of our public lands
    is unwavering. I'm happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Fretwell follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Ms. Fretwell.
        I am going to start by yielding to Senator Portman. I know
    he has another meeting coming up.
        Senator Portman.
        Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the
    nominee for the Supreme Court waiting in my office. I have to
    go see him. And I apologize to my colleagues. I will be very
    brief.
        First of all, the testimony was superb and I think you have
    raised all the good points except the one thing, I think, that
    was very interesting is you all seem to be focused on this
    issue of certainty.
        We had a hearing here in April some of you attended where
    we asked all the witnesses to talk about what the most
    important, single aspect was to getting at the deferred
    maintenance and you talked about certainty so that you can
    plan.
        You talked about large complex projects, Ms. Argust, and
    you also talked about the need for dealing with this because it
    is a compounding problem, in other words, we don't deal with
    it.
        Talk about that just for a second, if you would. What do
    you mean by a compounding problem?
        Ms. Argust. Yes, it's the longer that deferred maintenance
    continues without addressing it, the more costs are going to
    continue to increase.
        One example is Ebenezer Church, for example, in the Martin
    Luther King Historic Site. That roof has not been addressed.
    There are leaks in those roofs, in that roof. Water gets into
    the roof. It gets into the walls, then you have issues with the
    plaster and then you have issues with the paint. So if you
    don't address that roof right away, you're going to have costs
    with other repairs that are happening.
        Senator Portman. I think that is a really important point
    to make, particularly to our fiscally conservative colleagues.
    We all consider ourselves fiscal conservatives, I assume, but
    this is the right thing to do.
        You mentioned it, a conservation ethic, Ms. Fretwell. This
    is part of the being conservative about it.
        With regard to certainty, I will put you on the spot here,
    Ms. McDowall, but you remember there is a cap in here of $1.3
    billion. It is also the 50 percent. Some might argue, well, how
    much certainty is there in that?
        If you look historically, the $1.3 billion will be hit
    based on the last ten years, but you could also look
    prospectively and say, what is likely to be the royalties?
    Isn't it true that there are plans to continue to use our
    natural resources in this country? This Administration, in
    fact, seems to want to expand that, if anything. So there seems
    to be a high certainty there would at least be the funding
    available that has been there over the last several years.
        Ms. McDowall. Yes, not, of course, knowing the details on
    projections going forward, but yes.
        Senator Portman. You said it right.
        [Laughter.]
        No, but I think that is a point to be made. So I think
    there is certainty here of the kind we are looking for.
        You also talked about, Ms. Fretwell, the need for us to
    have some sort of a fund, almost an endowment, and I really
    look forward to seeing your testimony where you talk in more
    detail about that, that you submitted for the record.
        But you are right, one thing people have not noticed in
    this bill is that we actually do provide for some rate of
    return which is very unusual in government. I think this is a
    positive aspect of it so that we will be able to allow the Park
    Service Director to be able to set some funds aside and get
    more funds to be able to address some of these really
    difficult, long-term problems. So, it may not be the full
    endowment you are looking for, but it is a step in that right
    direction.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your giving me
    indulgence, and I appreciate my colleagues.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Portman.
        Ms. Fretwell, I am going to start with you.
        Thank you for taking the time to fly all the way here from
    Bozeman. I can tell you, I know it is a true sacrifice to leave
    Bozeman and come to Washington, DC, in July.
        Your testimony mentions, as a potential solution, the
    creation of an endowment that could address both cyclic as well
    as deferred maintenance needs. Would the creation of an
    endowment, you think, better address the overall budgetary
    needs of the National Park System than this current proposal?
        Ms. Fretwell. I am interested in the endowment because,
    again, it provides that certainty as a dedicated fund that's
    available for the Park Service and for park managers to use
    rather than waiting upon appropriations.
        I think this bill is very specific toward the deferred
    maintenance, but I also think it's extremely important for us
    to pay attention to what the cyclic maintenance is and to
    ensure that we have a consistent funding source for cyclic
    maintenance for our park managers.
        I do suggest that a part of that could come from the fee
    revenues as well. We have FLREA that exists out there that's
    set to expire next year. I think permanence of that fund would
    help us in the long run for those routine and cyclic
    maintenance projects.
        Senator Daines. Your written testimony referenced what a
    former NPS Director called the ``thinning of the blood'' which
    is what happens when the overall Park System acreage is
    expanded, but even if appropriations are increased year after
    year, they are not increased at the same pace as park acreage.
    The overall effect is basically a thinning of park resources.
        What I would like to ask you is how do we, as Congress,
    continue to ensure the national parks are able to meet its
    mission without continuing to dilute park resources and
    retaining at least some semblance of fiscal responsibility?
        Ms. Fretwell. I think we really need to focus on exactly
    what we have now rather than expanding what is in the parks,
    that means both expanding assets and expanding new parks.
        Those ``thin the blood'' as Ridenour said, and if we really
    want to protect our parks for the future and conserve those
    parks, we need to take the revenues and the receipts we have
    today and put them in the parks that we have today.
        First, we need to make sure that we get a hold of the
    deferred maintenance problem. Part of that deferred maintenance
    problem is that we don't have enough funding for the cyclic and
    routine maintenance. So, after a year when we're unable to
    respond to those issues, they are added to the deferred
    maintenance problem.
        In order to get a hold of that deferred maintenance
    problem, it's not just getting the deferred maintenance numbers
    down, it's also making sure that we can take care of those
    resources that we have existing in our parks today.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        I want to switch gears here to Ms. McDowall. Thank you for
    coming here today.
        Since we are dealing with multiple revenue streams, monies
    are drawn from accounts that deposit funds into the Treasury at
    different times of the year. So it can be a little bit lumpy
    and bumpy. In terms of timing, how would you envision the
    timing of the payments to the Legacy Fund taking place?
        Ms. McDowall. So the Department's Office of Natural
    Resources Revenue handles the disbursement process for these
    revenues.
        And as you mentioned, they do come in at different times of
    the year. Our understanding is that no deposits will be made to
    the Legacy Fund under this legislation until the end of the
    year, until all other obligations have been satisfied.
        ONRR has, you know, handles the details of those
    disbursements. I am not as conversant in the details. So, if
    you would like more details on exactly how that works, we can
    provide those for the record.
        Senator Daines. We will follow up on that.
        And then, how would you draft the regulations that allow
    for parity in each of the various types of revenue sources
    currently depositing funds back into the Treasury or is that
    even possible to predict?
        Ms. McDowall. I don't think I have the answer to that
    question. I would have to get back to you for the record on
    that one.
        Senator Daines. Okay, we will work on that.
        Let's get back to this whole certainty piece to make sure
    we have something here that will be very workable and can
    operate well.
        I am going to yield now to the Ranking Member, Senator
    King.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        First, I should say I was a little carried away. Acadia is
    not one of the third or fourth largest towns, but it is a large
    town, about 10,000 people on a busy day, but by Maine's
    standards it is still a large town. I didn't want to overstate
    that.
        Ms. McDowall, how would the projects be prioritized? We are
    talking about a fund that would meet about half the need. I
    understand about this 60/40 split on the roads versus--
    buildings versus roads. But how? Is there a process? Have you
    started to think about what would be the most urgent projects
    and how that would be defined?
        Ms. McDowall. So the Park Service does have a strategy that
    we use to prioritize these projects. It's called the Capital
    Investment Strategy. It has a number of criteria, including
    impacts on visitation, resource protection, is it an asset that
    is critical to the mission of that park? We look at health and
    safety, and we also look at financial sustainability. So, is it
    an asset that the Park Service feels it has the funding to
    maintain? We don't want to put significant investment dollars
    into facilities that we do not feel we have the funding or the
    commitment to maintain over the long-term with our operational
    dollars.
        Senator King. So it sounds like you have already got a plan
    in mind. If we can get this bill through, we wouldn't have to
    spend two years thinking about how to allocate the money?
        Ms. McDowall. That is correct.
        You know, one factor in not having enough funding available
    to deal with these things is that we've had to get smarter
    about how we use the funding that we do have. So we do have
    several processes in place.
        Senator King. Good.
        Ms. Brengel, you represent the National Parks Conservation
    Association, a large, non-profit organization that works on
    behalf of the parks. There are lots of other organizations that
    are interested in these park conservation issues. Is it your
    understanding that they are in support of this legislation as
    well?
        Ms. Brengel. Yes, we actually lead a coalition called the
    Second Century Action Coalition, and it's made up of friends
    groups, tourism groups, recreation groups and they're all
    pulling for this bill to move and to pass so that we can get
    proper funding for the maintenance backlog.
        Senator King. Can you estimate how many of such groups
    there are?
        Ms. Brengel. Oh my goodness. Well, those groups combined
    with the ones that we've been working with with Pew are a
    couple hundred.
        Senator King. Good.
        And they know about this bill and they think this is the
    right way to go?
        Ms. Brengel. Yes, since the past week we've been educating
    folks about the bill and you'll be receiving a letter from the
    coalition and from others who are supporting the bill.
        Senator King. Great. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator King.
        Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you. Thanks to all of you for
    being here.
        Let me continue with--did you say 200 organizations?
        Ms. Brengel. It's a couple hundred organizations.
        Ms. Argust. It's actually--I'll jump in--it's almost 3,000
    if you combine it with the groups who want to see dedicated
    resources for maintenance nationwide, local and nationwide.
        Senator Alexander. Good.
        Ms. Argust. A lot in Tennessee.
        Senator Alexander. Well, let me tell you something that
    would help. This would be nice if this bill had about 98 co-
    sponsors.
        Seriously, I think the single thing as I look down the
    road, I think, thanks to your work and the work of Senator
    Warner, Senators Portman and King, the Chairman, others, I
    think we have a very good product. I mean, you support it. The
    Administration supports it. This is a pretty unique
    circumstance. So we have a good product. That is step one.
        What do we need with steps two and three? I think two and
    three are for the House of Representatives to like it as well
    and to pass it. That would help.
        And here in the Senate, I think the thing that would help
    us the most, we have 12 bipartisan co-sponsors of the new bill
    today. Of course, nobody has had much time to see it since it
    is just a few days old. But it would genuinely help our efforts
    to move this through swiftly if the 3,000 organizations would
    let members of the Senate know that they hope they will co-
    sponsor this legislation.
        And I would ask you, if it is appropriate, to encourage
    them, to encourage them to do that.
        Ms. Brengel. We'll let them know that you asked them to
    report it.
        Senator Alexander. No, it helps. It helps a lot.
        Ms. Brengel. Yeah.
        Senator Alexander. The practical matter is we have a busy
    time ahead of us and even a partisan time ahead of us which
    isn't unusual. But Senator McConnell has to look at a piece of
    legislation and see if he has time on the Floor----
        Ms. Brengel. Right.
        Senator Alexander. ----for us to consider it. And if we
    have a large number of Democrat and Republican co-sponsors that
    may mean that we can say to him, Majority Leader, this won't
    take much time. We can get a lot of agreement on this if we
    have that kind of support.
        So it is not just an idle request. It is a practical matter
    that is probably, up to now, the single most important thing to
    do is to get the product right.
        I think we have done that with your help and support and
    that of the Administration--which I am very grateful to
    Secretary Zinke for his role in this because he has done an
    excellent job of talking with Office of Management and Budget
    and with the President and it is very good to have that kind of
    support. So that is number one.
        Number two, I think it would help for the public at large
    to understand that when we talk about 417 different properties,
    we are talking about some things they might not normally think
    of as national park properties. For example, the National Mall
    is one such property, right? What is the backlog in deferred
    maintenance at the National Mall right now? Anybody know that?
        Ms. Argust. It's, I think, about $700 million.
        Senator Alexander. Yes.
        Ms. Argust. Based on FY2017 figures, unless you know
    differently and that's approximate.
        Senator Alexander. Yes, and the National Mall is something
    that people come from every single state, almost every
    community, to see and do not want it to be run down.
        I think another, the Great Smokies, has more than ten
    million visitors a year, and we have $215 million in
    maintenance.
        Ms. McDowall, we get an annual appropriation of $20 million
    a year at the Great Smokies. Can you see a way that our $215
    million deferred maintenance backlog would ever be taken care
    of without some extraordinary effort like this?
        Ms. McDowall. Not by just relying on the $20 million a
    year, no.
        Senator Alexander. Yes.
        Ms. Fretwell, you did a lot of studying of the properties.
    Can you mention two or three other properties in the National
    Park System that are badly in need of help that people might
    not be aware of?
        Ms. Fretwell. Well, the ones I focus on are the ones I use.
    So Yellowstone definitely has a lot of water and sewer issues.
        Senator Alexander. Yes.
        Ms. Fretwell. As well as Grand Canyon has water issues.
        Really what I see when I go through my parks is that they
    are not being cared for just from a visual perspective when I'm
    driving through and seeing potholes and trying to use the
    restrooms at Yellowstone National Park and there are huge lines
    and they are outhouses that we're using and there's 30 people
    waiting in line because a bus just came in to use those
    facilities.
        Senator Alexander. Yes.
        Ms. Fretwell. That's not a good way to conserve our
    properties and that's not a good way to show other Americans
    and those visiting our country that these really are the great
    crown jewels that they should be.
        Senator Alexander. My time is up, Mr. Chairman, but I will
    mention my suggestion of how helpful it would be to have a
    large number of Democratic and Republican co-sponsors for the
    bill.
        The other thing that would help is for those who support
    the bill, both in the Senate and outside the Senate, to keep in
    mind that, as a practical matter, it will be easier to move
    this bill through the Senate if it stays this bill and doesn't
    try to attract a lot of other worthy amendments and proposals
    which many of us support. In fact, if it does that what often
    happens when we try to do too much at one time, nothing
    happens.
        So I can see this bill gaining broad support and if we can
    keep to the bill the way it is written, I can see it passing
    this year. I think the two biggest things to help do that are
    one, the largest number of co-sponsors, and two, let's keep the
    train moving without a lot of extra baggage, even if it is
    baggage that all of us like and support. We can work on that on
    another track at another time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
        I think about the National Mall, and our national parks
    oftentimes are the first impressions for international visitors
    who come to our country, that is the first place they go is our
    national parks. It is their first impression of America, and
    they will see our crumbling infrastructure right before them.
        Speaking of the schedule too, Senator Alexander, you know,
    the House had a hearing about a month ago. We are pushing the
    House to try to get a markup done before the House recess, so
    before the first part of August. And so, we are pushing this
    hard.
        Again, I echo Senator Alexander's comments. Let's get a
    bunch of Senators on this bill as co-sponsors. Let's make it
    98. Let's make it 100. Let's get everybody on it.
        Give us a good reason why you should not be on it and we
    will go, but I think we really have a chance here with
    Secretary Zinke's leadership, Director Mulvaney. The stars are
    lined up. Let's act.
        Senator King. That would be the layabout House that is
    taking an August recess, right?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Daines. They do criticize us a bit, don't they?
        Anyway.
        And rightfully so, frankly, Senator King.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Well, I want to start by just thanking
    the Chair and the Ranking Member and all of my colleagues who
    have worked to put this together. I think we have a really
    great start here. It is a bright spot in what has been a year
    that could use some bright spots.
        I guess the first thing I wanted to say is that the reality
    here is that--and maybe Senator King might have used this
    phrase in the past, but it is certainly something I learned
    from bond counsel when I was in government at the local level--
    deferred maintenance is debt. It just is. When you choose not
    to invest in things, it is going to cost you more later, and it
    should be reflected in our balance sheet as such.
        And when we have these Park Service jewels that are really,
    truly the economic engines of rural communities across the
    West, of communities all over the country in both rural and
    urban areas, they deserve for us to do something about this.
        So, I'm excited about where we are going here and how
    quickly we have put together the list of co-sponsors we have,
    and I think we all got our marching orders about finding
    additional ones.
        Ms. McDowall, I would be a little bit remiss if I didn't
    mention a specific backlog issue, while I have you here,
    regarding New Mexico.
        I was really excited to see the primary elevators at
    Carlsbad Caverns go back into service last week. It was the
    first time since 2015, as you may know. However, our secondary
    elevators have also proven to be unreliable due to many decades
    of deferred maintenance.
        Do you have the funds to restore the secondary elevators
    identified by the Park Service yet, and what are you expecting
    with regard to a timeline to get those backup elevators up and
    running as well?
        Ms. McDowall. So that will be a large project. The estimate
    right now is close to $19 million, and it is on our line item
    construction list proposed for 2021 at this point.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
        We look forward to working with you on that.
        Ms. Argust, I have a quick question for you.
        Most National Park units in New Mexico are in rural areas.
    That is true for a lot of the West. It is not always true with
    respect to some of our historic Park Service properties in
    urban areas on the East Coast, but it does hold true for a big
    chunk of the Western United States.
        And what we've learned is that protected and specially
    designated public lands, parks, monuments, wilderness areas and
    wildlife refuges provide a critical boost to neighboring
    communities. In fact, a recent joint Economic Committee report
    on rural economic development found that rural communities with
    specially designated public lands like parks and monuments
    recovered more quickly from the 2007 recession than similar
    counties without those amenities.
        How does the park's maintenance backlog specifically affect
    rural communities and how does it impact the economies of our
    gateway communities?
        Ms. Argust. A number of our parks are certainly in rural
    communities or rural areas, as you note and a number of those
    are larger parks. And as you note, parks are certainly economic
    engines.
        So Pew commissioned a study late last year. It showed that
    fully investing in the deferred maintenance backlog has the
    potential to generate more than 110,000 additional
    infrastructure-related jobs.
        So parks already create approximately 306,000 jobs
    annually. That's based on National Park Service data. They also
    bring over 330 million visitors each year to parks, and those
    visitors spend upwards of $18 billion directly in communities.
    So we're talking about the possibility of an additional 110,000
    jobs, infrastructure-related jobs and, you know, jobs in rural
    communities, very important.
        So addressing deferred maintenance, it's important to
    preserving historic resources, landscape resources, but also
    important for the economy.
        Senator Heinrich. Thanks for your thoughts on that.
        Mr. Chair, I don't want to ever disagree with our colleague
    from Tennessee because he is very wise counsel, but I would
    urge us also to come together around some of the other things
    that historically we have been able to come together around,
    including the Land and Water Conservation Fund and taking care
    of our wildlife as well. I know those are priorities in
    Montana, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention those.
        Thanks.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I do appreciate this opportunity to have you all testify and to
    have this discussion today, particularly as many of our
    national parks are in the middle of peak tourist season.
        I am happy to see my colleague and friend from New Mexico
    here as well because Wyoming and New Mexico play such a role in
    the contributions to the funding mechanism.
        I think, as you know, Mr. Chairman, national parks are
    prized and celebrated in our local communities, including those
    near Grand Teton National Park, our shared Yellowstone National
    Park. Mr. Chairman, the need to develop long-term options to
    address the significant pervasive deferred maintenance
    requirements is very clear to all of us who visit the parks
    regularly. We need to ensure that people are able to visit
    parks that are safe, functional, educational and enjoyable.
        But both Yellowstone and Grand Teton saw record visitations
    last year, over four million visitors each during 2017 and the
    whole population of the State of Wyoming is only a half a
    million people. So to have four million visitors in each park
    tells you what a significant role the parks play in our states.
    These visitors, millions others like them, have joined Wyoming
    residents in enjoying all the wonders the parks have to offer.
        In Wyoming we know that the parks represent important
    wildlife habitat, diverse natural resources and are a legacy
    that we must actively work to protect. We also know that our
    Wyoming legacy is not based solely in our national parks, our
    communities are filled with thriving businesses, agriculture
    components, energy companies. They give their time and their
    money to our local schools, our charities and other small
    businesses. In Wyoming we recognize the need to develop our
    resources wisely to ensure a strong future for the communities,
    and in the case of this bill, certainly for our national parks.
        I think, Mr. Chairman, this bill highlights the irony
    though that some groups that have historically opposed
    expansion of offshore energy development and who have opposed
    increasing onshore development now seem to support using the
    revenues derived from these very activities that these people
    have objected to in the past, as long as it goes to the
    national park fund.
        But what really struck me about the bill, particularly
    after the line of your questioning, Mr. Chairman, is that the
    proposed mandatory funding model begs comparison between this
    proposed fund and other existing funds, like the Reclamation
    Fund, for example, is also currently funded by energy revenues
    and it has a balance of today, on the books, about $14 billion.
    And yet, in order to actually access this money, to use any of
    that money on the ground, Congress has to first appropriate the
    dollars.
        Well, it is worth noting that for the last 14 years,
    Wyoming contributed over 50 percent of the royalty receipts to
    this Reclamation Fund. And my friend from New Mexico, who just
    had asked the questions, he knows that his state has
    contributed 27 percent. So it is 77 percent of all the money in
    the Reclamation Fund has been populated by receipts from two
    western states, Wyoming and New Mexico. And still, access to
    the funds, to actually use the funds is very hard to come by.
        So it is disheartening for people in Wyoming for whom water
    storage projects and other activities the Reclamation Fund is
    supposed to be funding and could be funding, well, the projects
    seem far out of reach and the money is stuck there.
        To be clear, I am not suggesting we make each of the other
    funds populated by offshore and onshore revenues mandatory
    spending, but I am suggesting that a bill that includes
    mandatory spending, even for just five years, seems a greater
    priority system that favors parks and over critical water
    projects or other conservation programs, like those funded
    through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        It is not just a question of existing funds. There are a
    number of initiatives in bills that would like a piece of this
    unobligated revenue as well.
        The bill is not unique. If enacted, this funding mechanism,
    I believe, will set a precedent that it will take away
    Congress' ability to direct resources, even for just five
    years. And when we have the conversation about each of these
    other funds in the future, this fund will then become a
    reference point.
        I just think, Mr. Chairman, the need for a better
    maintenance schedule and specific funding for the National Park
    Service deferred maintenance fund needs is very clear. We need
    to do this.
        My comments today are simply unanswered questions about
    whether this funding model is the best one to tackle the $11.6
    billion behemoth that lurks around every corner and every trail
    in every national park in America.
        It is a job that needs to be done. I appreciate the work
    that you have done and that members of the Committee have done
    to propose meaningful changes for the Park Service. I think it
    is important.
        I look forward to continuing to work with you to answer
    some of these remaining questions about how we ensure these
    incredible national parks that we are so blessed with have a
    bright future.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Deputy Director McDowall, in our state two-thirds of our
    deferred--we have five national parks, but two-thirds of the
    deferred maintenance is related to paved roads in Theodore
    Roosevelt National Park. How would the Restore Our Parks Act
    help the National Park Service improve transportation assets in
    our park and the other national parks?
        Ms. McDowall. So, 35 percent of the funds that would be
    deposited into this fund under this legislation would be
    devoted to transportation projects, like roads. The split is
    65/35 because we do have other fund sources available as well
    for transportation projects from federal highways.
        Senator Hoeven. Describe the funding mechanism.
        Ms. McDowall. The funding mechanism for the legislation
    that's on the table, Restore Our Parks Act?
        The funding would come from funds that would otherwise be
    deposited as miscellaneous receipts from energy development,
    including onshore, offshore, alternative energy, an all-of-the-
    above strategy, consistent with the Administration's overall
    energy development strategy.
        Senator Hoeven. And are some of these revenues already
    flowing into an account or would this be new projects?
        Ms. McDowall. These would be, if you're talking about
    projects that would be funded out of the new revenues, they
    would be additional projects that we could not cover with the
    funding that we currently have available. So there would be
    overall more projects, more transportation projects being done
    in the Park Service.
        Senator Hoeven. Ms. Argust, how does the Restore Our Parks
    Act encourage public-private partnerships in addressing the
    deferred maintenance backlog?
        That is one of the things we are trying to do in other
    areas are these public-private partnerships for infrastructure
    whether it is flood projects or roads and so on and so forth.
        Are you looking at the P3--public-private partnership--
    mechanism for the parks?
        Ms. Argust. There is a provision in the bill that would
    encourage donations that would go toward addressing deferred
    maintenance as well as public-private partnerships that would
    be used for deferred maintenance.
        Senator Hoeven. Does that give those projects some priority
    then, for example, if you have organizations that will make
    significant contributions in order to get a project going, how
    does that factor into the decision as to where the public
    revenues are allocated?
        Ms. Argust. I do not believe it gives those projects any
    prioritization on the list that goes to Congress.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay.
        But yet, you want to create incentives to leverage those
    dollars, right? How do you create those incentives then to
    leverage private funds to participate with the public funds?
        Ms. Argust. It's providing an authorization. The incentive
    is not quite the same as it has been in other bills but there
    is the authorization and the encouragement to be able to allow
    private and public partnerships to go toward deferred
    maintenance.
        Senator Hoeven. That would come in as charitable
    contributions.
        Ms. Argust. Correct.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay.
        And then Ms. Brengel, in your testimony you discuss how the
    Restore Our Parks Act balances funding between transportation
    and non-transportation. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
        I understand it is 35 percent from Ms. McDowall, but can
    you talk about that balance in terms of how the funds are
    allocated?
        Ms. Brengel. So the way that the bill was designed was to
    take into account money that's coming in through the Highway
    Trust Fund for the Park Service, and to make sure that there is
    parity when you included that funding into it. So that actually
    brings it to almost 50/50 when you include the money that we
    bring in annually through the Highway Trust Fund.
        The Park Service also does have opportunities to access
    other transportation funds from the Reauthorization bill and
    does--we have seen several projects that have been able to move
    forward. For instance, the State of Florida applied for a Tiger
    Grant in order to construct the Tamiami Trail which allows the
    water flow into the Everglades to be improved. There are other,
    sort of, sea mat grants for areas that are--haven't reached
    attainment in terms of air quality where those areas have
    applied for money.
        So when you take into account the transportation funds that
    are already being applied to national parks and you try to find
    parity between the amounts, you get closer to it in the bill
    when you have a 65/35 split for five years.
        Senator Hoeven. Do all of you see this legislation as
    significantly increasing the pull of private dollars into this
    effort to leverage the public dollars?
        Ms. Brengel. There are philanthropic entities that care
    deeply about the parks that want to write checks to improve the
    parks. In the previous hearing on this topic, on the oversight
    hearing, I think the National Park Foundation put it really
    well when they said that it's hard to raise money for water
    systems and sewer systems and so on and so forth. And that's
    going to continue to probably be a challenge.
        A lot of funding is raised for the Centennial Challenge
    program which is both appropriated and part of a previous bill.
    And those, that program is wonderful and incentivizes a one-to-
    one match. We've seen a lot of improvements and even some
    deferred maintenance projects tackled because of that one-to-
    one match. So there are other avenues that might be more
    attractive to the philanthropic community.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay.
        Thank you.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        One follow-up question for Ms. McDowall.
        You mentioned in the bill that this would create the
    National Park Service Legacy Restoration Fund which will be
    used to address some high priority deferred maintenance needs
    of the parks.
        One thing I have observed here today is first we have had a
    lot of governors here today.
        [Laughter.]
        I tell you, I am pandering here. I am surrounded by
    governors right here on my left and my right, but no, Senator
    Alexander. We had Senator Warner. And governors have to find
    solutions all the time because you are an office of one.
        I think that probably brings some of the pragmatism to
    trying to get something done here, and I thank you for the
    leadership of our former governors.
        There is also probably a common thread with many of us here
    today is commitment to LWCF.
        I would like to get into a bit more detail of how the
    Legacy Restoration Fund would operate with existing public
    lands funds. As you recall in my opening statement I mentioned
    that LWCF is an important program, certainly to Montana and the
    West. We want to ensure that the creation of this fund would
    not come at the expense of existing funds. Could you explain
    for us here today how the NPS Legacy Restoration Fund would
    interact with very important funds like LWCF and GOMESA?
        Ms. McDowall. So the Administration agrees that LWCF and
    GOMESA obligations are very important. That is why the
    legislation is designed to ensure that no funds are deposited
    for the Park Service that would otherwise go to other mandatory
    accounts, obligations under for a lot of these energy revenues.
    So the fund is designed to only deposit monies that would
    otherwise be deposited as miscellaneous receipts and are not
    obligated for some of those other funds.
        Senator Daines. Yes.
        I have been studying the past ten-year actual numbers, year
    by year. We have had, I think it's very safe looking at past
    history and probably looking at reasonable forecast, there will
    be enough coming up from these streams here to continue to keep
    funding all of these to see if we would like to see it funded
    higher, we will get a permanent, mandatory, but we will take
    this a step at a time.
        It looks like the funding streams here will be adequate. I
    think that is a concern of the community that supports LWCF,
    and we want to make sure we've looked at that math and that
    accounting.
        Ms. McDowall. I would say that the Administration agrees
    with that perspective.
        Senator Daines. Alright.
        Ms. McDowall. Yes.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        If there are no more questions here today, members may also
    submit follow-up written questions for the record. The hearing
    record will be open for two weeks.
        I very much want to thank the witnesses for great
    interaction today, very informative for this Committee and for
    your testimony today.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]