[Senate Hearing 117-440]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-440

                          PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
                             NATIONAL PARKS

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   on


                  S. 31          S. 535          S. 1354
                  S. 172         S. 753          S. 1526
                  S. 192         S. 1317         S. 1527
                  S. 270         S. 1320         S. 1769
                  S. 491         S. 1321         S. 1771
 
                               __________

                             JUNE 23, 2021
                               __________


                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
54-432                    WASHINGTON : 2024           
        
               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
                                 ------                                

                     Subcommittee on National Parks

                      ANGUS S. KING, JR., Chairman

BERNARD SANDERS                      STEVE DAINES
MARTIN HEINRICH                      MIKE LEE
MAZIE K. HIRONO                      LISA MURKOWSKI
MARK KELLY                           JOHN HOEVEN
                                     JAMES LANKFORD

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                     David Brooks, General Counsel
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
        John Tanner, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Lands
                   James Willson, Republican Counsel

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S., Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. 
  Senator from Maine.............................................     1
Daines, Hon. Steve, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. 
  Senator from Montana...........................................     2
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon......................     3
Lee, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Utah.........................    37

                               WITNESSES
                                Panel I

Ernst, Hon. Joni, a U.S. Senator from Iowa.......................    38
Golden, Hon. Jared F., a U.S. Representative from Maine..........    40

                                Panel II

Caldwell, Michael A., Acting Associate Director, Park Planning, 
  Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department 
  of the Interior; With Mark Lambrecht, Assistant Director, 
  National Conservation Lands and Community Partnerships, Bureau 
  of Land Management.............................................    42
Eberlien, Jennifer, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest 
  System, U.S. Department of Agriculture.........................    74
Hunter, Jennifer, Coordinator, York River Wild and Scenic Study..    80
Malmberg, Andrea, Union, Oregon..................................    84

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Alaska Trails:
    Letter for the Record........................................   260
American Forest Resource Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................   123
American Mineral Research, Inc.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   383
American Whitewater:
    Letter for the Record........................................   132
Andrus, Alicia:
    Letter for the Record with attachment........................   136
Applegate Neighborhood Network:
    Letter for the Record........................................   261
Arizona State Land Department:
    Letter for the Record........................................   265
Arkansas House of Representatives:
    State of Arkansas, 93rd General Assembly, House Resolution 
      1012.......................................................   100
Association of O&C Counties:
    Letter for the Record........................................   263
Austin, Jeremy:
    Letter for the Record........................................   267
Ballard, D.M.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   268
Batty, Thomas:
    Letter for the Record........................................   144
Benson, AZ (City of):
    Letter for the Record........................................   192
    Resolution 1-206 in support of designating the Chiricahua 
      National Monument as a National Park.......................   193
Bien, Rod:
    Letter for the Record........................................   145
Blaine, Kirk:
    Letter for the Record........................................   269
Bombaci, Angela:
    Letter for the Record........................................   270
Boot Campaign:
    Letter for the Record........................................    90
Bowers, Wayne L.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   146
Budge, Hon. Ken, Mayor of Bisbee, AZ:
    Letter for the Record........................................   194
Bush, Dr. Ellie:
    Letter for the Record........................................   271
Byers, Ron:
    Letter to the Editor of the Tillamook Headlight Herald, dated 
      3/1/2021...................................................   147
Caldwell, Michael A.:
    Opening Statement............................................    42
    Written Testimony............................................    45
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   208
Chamber of Medford & Jackson County (OR):
    Letter for the Record........................................   273
Chittim, Veroune:
    Letter for the Record........................................   148
Cochise County (AZ) Board of Supervisors:
    Letter for the Record........................................   195
Cole, Hugh and Marjorie:
    Letter for the Record........................................   149
Collier, Zachary:
    Letter for the Record........................................   150
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR):
    Letter for the Record........................................   151
Conley, Pam:
    Letter for the Record........................................   275
Cooper, Romain:
    Letter for the Record........................................   276
    Attached U.S. Forest Service eligibility study entitled 
      ``East Fork Illinois River and Its Tributaries'' from 
      September 1993.............................................   278
Cox, Hon. Spencer J., Governor of the State of Utah:
    Letter for the Record........................................   316
Crotty, Allison:
    Letter for the Record........................................   317
Daines, Hon. Steve:
    Opening Statement............................................     2
Davis, Tim:
    Letter for the Record........................................   153
Dawson, Jamie:
    Letter for the Record........................................   318
Dixon, John:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   407
Dotson, Michael:
    Letter for the Record........................................   320
Eastern Oregon Counties Association:
    Letter for the Record dated June 22, 2021....................   154
    Letter for the Record dated August 27, 2021..................   322
Eberlien, Jennifer:
    Opening Statement............................................    74
    Written Testimony............................................    76
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   247
Eldridge, Audrey:
    Letter for the Record........................................   325
Ernst, Hon. Joni:
    Opening Statement............................................    38
Erwin, Mike:
    Letter for the Record........................................    91
Estenoz, Hon. Shannon A., Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
  Wildlife and Parks:
    Letter for the Record addressed to Subcommittee Chairman King   428
    Letter of transmittal addressed to Chairman Manchin for the 
      York River Wild and Scenic River Study.....................   429
    National Park Service, ``York River Wild and Scenic River 
      Study Final Report'' from January 2020.....................   430
Fairbrother, Jennifer:
    Letter for the Record........................................   326
Fernandez, Erik et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   157
Fisher House Foundation:
    Letter for the Record........................................    92
Fitz, Gregory:
    Letter for the Record........................................   327
Friends of Family Farmers:
    Letter for the Record........................................   160
Friends of the Kalmiopsis:
    Letter for the Record in support of S. 192...................   328
    Letter for the Record in support of S. 192, section 9(a).....   329
    Letter for the Record in support of S. 192, section 9(b).....   332
Fuji, C. and Jim Kreider:
    Letter for the Record........................................   371
Gardiner, John L.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   335
Gerstner, Rose:
    Letter for the Record........................................   336
Gila River Indian Community:
    Letter for the Record........................................   337
Gilbert, Kira:
    Letter for the Record........................................   339
Global War on Terrorism Memorial Foundation:
    Letter for the Record........................................    93
    Statememt for the Record.....................................    97
Golden, Hon. Jared F.:
    Opening Statement............................................    40
Goodman-Campbell, Gena:
    Letter for the Record........................................   161
Grant County (OR) Court:
    Letter for the Record........................................   340
Gustafson, Allee:
    Letter for the Record........................................   342
Hannagan, Brian:
    Letter for the Record........................................   343
Harlan, Corie:
    Letter for the Record........................................   345
Harney County (OR) Court:
    Letter for the Record........................................   346
    Resolution 2021-18...........................................   348
Helm, Ken:
    Letter for the Record........................................   162
Helmer, John F.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   163
Huachuca City, AZ (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................   196
Hunter, Jennifer:
    Opening Statement............................................    80
    Written Testimony............................................    82
Idaho Recreation Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................   102
Illinois Valley Enthusiasts:
    Letter for the Record........................................   349
Isbell, Rory:
    Letter for the Record........................................   352
Jackson County (OR):
    Letter for the Record........................................   353
Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America:
    Letter for the Record........................................   105
Kalmiopsis Audubon Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................   355
Kauffman, J. Boone:
    Letter for the Record........................................   362
Kelly, William Brian:
    Letter for the Record........................................   364
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Klamath Forest Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   365
Klamath-Lake Forest Health Partnership:
    Letter for the Record........................................   367
Klavins, Emily and Robert:
    Letter for the Record........................................   164
Koh, Sophie:
    Letter for the Record........................................   370
Kulla, Casey:
    Letter for the Record........................................   372
LaBelle, Mary Jane:
    Letter for the Record........................................   165
Lacey, Dave:
    Letter for the Record........................................   422
Lacy, Peter M.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   373
Lake County (OR) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   374
Laws, Michael:
    Letter for the Record........................................   197
Lee, Hon. Mike:
    Opening Statement............................................    37
Lennard, Spencer:
    Letter for the Record........................................   377
Lyford, Gordon and Nancy:
    Letter for the Record........................................   378
Lyons, Gilly:
    Letter for the Record........................................   380
Mackenzie, John:
    Letter for the Record........................................   381
Malmberg, Andrea:
    Opening Statement............................................    84
    Written Testimony............................................    86
Manion, Ryan:
    Letter for the Record........................................   115
Martin, Pete:
    Letter for the Record........................................   382
Mescalero Apache Tribe:
    Letter for the Record........................................   385
Mikenis, John:
    Letter for the Record........................................   387
Molalla River Watch Watershed Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................    33
Moore, Frank and Jeff Dose:
    Letter for the Record........................................   166
Morrison, Anne:
    Letter for the Record........................................   388
National Congress of American Indians:
    Resolution #MKE-17-057 entitled ``Opposition to Amendments to 
      the Antiquities Act''......................................   550
National Military Family Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   106
Native Fish Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................   389
Neiberger-Miller, Ami et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   107
Nez Perce Tribe:
    Letter for the Record........................................   167
Northwest Guides and Anglers Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   174
Northwest Rafting Company et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   169
Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   172
Nuchols, Emily:
    Letter for the Record........................................   391
O'Connor, Laurie K.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   176
Olken, Sandy:
    Letter for the Record........................................   393
Oregon Natural Desert Association:
    Letter for the Record dated 6/21/2021........................   177
    Letter for the Record dated 7/7/2021.........................   394
Oregon Wild:
    Letter for the Record........................................   395
Palmer, Tim:
    Letter for the Record........................................   396
Parry, Darilyn:
    Letter for the Record........................................   398
Paule, Martin R.
    Letter for the Record........................................   399
Perkin, Elizabeth K.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   400
(The) Pew Charitable Trusts:
    Letter for the Record........................................   179
Preston, Frances M.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   401
Riener, Karen:
    Letter for the Record........................................   406
Roether, Evelyn:
    Letter for the Record........................................   410
Rogers, Charles:
    Letter for the Record........................................   411
Rogue River Watershed Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................    32
Salvo, Carl:
    Letter for the Record........................................   412
San Carlos Apache Tribe:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   198
Sant, Hana:
    Letter for the Record........................................   344
Seal, Thom:
    Letter for the Record dated 6/28/2021........................   413
    Letter for the Record dated 6/29/2021........................   414
Seng, John:
    Letter for the Record........................................   415
Siskiyou Chapter Native Plant Society of Oregon:
    Letter for the Record........................................   416
Siskiyou Crest Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................   418
Smith River Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   420
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council:
    Letter for the Record dated 6/23/2021........................   181
    Letter for the Record dated 7/3/2021.........................   182
    Letter for the Record dated 7/5/2021.........................   183
SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization:
    Letter for the Record........................................   200
    Resolution No. 2016-06.......................................   201
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   423
Special Operations Care Fund:
    Letter for the Record........................................   112
(The) Station Foundation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   113
Stowe, Colton:
    Letter for the Record........................................   184
Strahan, Dave:
    Letter for the Record........................................   426
Stuart, Amy M. and Mike Gerdes
    Letter for the Record........................................   185
Student Veterans of America:
    Letter for the Record........................................   114
Thornberg, Lace:
    Letter for the Record........................................   427
Thornton, Tim:
    Letter for the Record........................................   186
Union County (OR) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record dated 6/30/2021........................   542
    Letter for the Record dated 10/6/2021........................   545
Union Veterans Council, AFL-CIO:
    Letter for the Record........................................   116
Upper Deschutes Watershed Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................    34
Ute Indian Tribe:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   546
Visit Tucson:
    Letter for the Record........................................   203
Wallowa County (OR) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record dated 4/13/2021........................   552
    Resolution 2021-022, entitled ``In the Matter of S. 192, 
      Under Consideration in the 117th United States Congress''..   556
    Letter for the Record dated 10/6/2021........................   558
    Table listing streams in Wallowa County......................   560
WarrenWood, Alyssa:
    Letter for the Record........................................   563
Warrick, Ted and Mary:
    Letter for the Record........................................   187
Weiss, Caelin:
    Letter for the Record........................................   564
Wells, Hannah Wren:
    Letter for the Record........................................   565
White, Shay:
    Letter for the Record........................................   118
(The) Wilderness Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................   566
(The) Wilderness Society et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   569
Wood, Jake:
    Letter for the Record........................................   119
Worthington, Roger:
    Letter for the Record........................................   188
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
    Opening Statement............................................     3
    Community action plan entitled ``Recreation Economy for Rural 
      Communities'' coauthored by the U.S. Environmental 
      Protection Agency and the City of John Day.................     5
Yarnell, Ellen:
    Letter for the Record........................................   571
Yurgel, Danae:
    Letter for the Record........................................   572
Zero Emission Transportation Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   573
Zhang, Joanna:
    Letter for the Record........................................   575
Ziller, Gloria and Bob:
    Letter for the Record........................................   576

----------
The text for each of the bills addressed in this hearing can be 
accessed from the Committee's website at: https://
www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/6/national-park-subcommittee-
legislative-hearing

 
                          PENDING LEGISLATION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2021

                               U.S. Senate,
                    Subcommittee on National Parks,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus S. 
King, Jr., Chairman of the Subcommittee presiding.

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

    Senator King [presiding]. Good morning, everyone. Welcome 
to the second National Parks Subcommittee hearing of the 117th 
Congress.
    As we have seen over the last 15 months of the COVID 
pandemic, our public spaces have become important spaces for 
refuge where we can recharge our batteries. Today, we will 
consider a number of bills that would designate and protect for 
future use important spaces across our country. We have 15 
bills on the agenda today that cover a wide range of topics and 
geographic areas. Together, they seek to preserve our national 
history, change the way we manage public lands, and provide 
additional recreational opportunities. I will not speak on each 
of them individually, but I want to say that while some are 
likely to garner wide bipartisan support, others have raised 
concerns on either or both sides of the aisle. It is my belief 
that this Subcommittee should have an opportunity to discuss 
bills, even those bills that I might oppose.
    I would like to turn to a bill--using the Chairman's 
prerogative--that I have introduced with Senator Collins--the 
York River Wild and Scenic River Act. This bill is also 
supported by Maine's House delegation. The bill would designate 
a portion of the York River as a ``Wild and Scenic River,'' 
protecting an important part of our state and many important 
historical sites from future development. This bill has been a 
long time in the making, and frankly, it is one of the most 
grassroots initiatives that I have ever been involved with. 
Beginning in 2009, a locally based ``Friends of the York 
River'' group, made up of residents, town leaders, and others 
interested in river conservation, led the effort to determine 
whether designation of a Wild and Scenic River was an 
appropriate way to recognize and protect the York River. The 
group held public meetings and collected letters of support 
from the four adjacent communities. My House colleague, 
Representative Chellie Pingree and I introduced the York River 
Wild and Scenic Study bill. It was included in the Fiscal Year 
2015 National Defense Authorization Act.
    The study committee then began their work in partnership 
with local stakeholders. The study committee focused on 
designation as a ``Partnership Wild and Scenic River,'' given 
management models of other local rivers nearby in New Hampshire 
and Connecticut. The study committee identified a number of 
outstanding remarkable natural recreational and cultural 
resource values associated with the study area that they 
concluded made it eligible for designation. Anyone who has 
visited the York River designation watershed in Southern Maine 
notes the incredible landscape that the towns of York, South 
Berwick, Kittery, and Eliot have in their backyards. I am 
honored to have Jennifer Hunter here to share with the 
Subcommittee the uniqueness of the area and why we should 
designate it as part of the Wild and Scenic River System.
    One procedural note before I recognize Ranking Member 
Daines. Following his remarks, I will recognize members of the 
Committee who wish to make a statement about their bills on the 
agenda, followed by any members not on the Committee seeking to 
make a statement. From there, we will go on to the rest of our 
witnesses and then on to questions. Also, without objection, 
all members may submit letters of support or opposition or 
additional materials regarding measures on today's agenda.
    Senator Daines.

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

    Senator Daines. Chairman King, thank you.
    For today's hearing, we are going to examine 15 largely 
local and parochial bills. This Subcommittee has long worked 
together to examine and pass bills from members both on and off 
this Committee that affect parks and lands in their specific 
states. As we look at today's agenda, it is important to me to 
hear about the local support as well as the opposition to each 
bill. I firmly believe that land-use decisions and land 
designations should have the strong support of community 
members and the local elected officials who live and work 
closest to the lands impacted.
    This is not always easy, but it is vitally important that 
we hear from all of those affected and take in their feedback. 
In fact, in Montana, we were able to do that just a few years 
ago with the East Rosebud Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. As a kid 
growing up, I spent a lot of time in the East Rosebud. It is a 
beautiful part of our state coming out of the Absaroka-
Beartooth Wilderness, and this particular act targeted and 
received locally supported agreement to preserve a small but 
beautiful portion of a river that took over four years to get 
signed into law after I first introduced it in the House. 
During that time, we made a number of edits. We improved the 
bill and we grew local support and finally got it signed into 
law.
    As we go through today's agenda, I hope to work with the 
Chairman to examine the local support as well as the opposition 
to each bill, and take in their feedback as they move forward. 
I do want to make a quick mention of a few of the bills we have 
on today's agenda.
    First, Senate bill 1771, to officially designate the museum 
at the Blytheville/Eaker Air Force Base as the National Cold 
War Center. This museum has long been the de facto Cold War 
Center, and I have heard from many community members that they 
would like to see the name officially recognized.
    Senate bill 172 would authorize the establishment of a 
commemorative work in DC to honor the extraordinary acts of 
valor, selfless service, and sacrifice displayed by Medal of 
Honor recipients. This bill has bipartisan support and it has 
been the priority of a number of members over the past year.
    I would also like to hear more about Senate bill 535, which 
Senator Ernst will be speaking on today. This bill creates a 
commemorative work honoring those who have served on active 
duty in support of the Global War on Terrorism.
    Senate bill 1527, the Parks Road Access Act, would ensure 
uniform park acceptance of state road access laws. It is my 
knowledge that current regulations require parks to follow 
state and local vehicle laws, but that is the case at all 
parks. I look forward to hearing more.
    Senate bill 1354 would designate a national historic trail 
and a study of a proposed 500-mile national scenic trail in 
Alaska. Our historic and scenic trails help increase access to 
our public lands and drive tourism in local and often remote 
communities. I look forward to hearing from local communities 
on how this bill will boost their local economies and increase 
recreation.
    And finally, I am interested in hearing more about Senate 
bill 192, which would designate 4,700 miles of new Wild and 
Scenic Rivers in Oregon. This Committee has received a lot of 
correspondence on the bill, both in support as well in 
opposition.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I turn it back to you. I look 
forward to a robust discussion and testimony from our 
witnesses.
    Senator King. Thank you, Senator Daines.
    I would like to first call on Committee member, Senator Ron 
Wyden of Oregon, to discuss the proposal involving his state.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

    Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank you and Senator Daines. We are both Westerners and we 
know how Westerners love their treasures. I also want to 
express my appreciation for your allowing Andrea Malmberg, a 
rancher from Union County, Oregon to testify on our River 
Democracy Act and, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 
to enter into the record my remarks. I am going to keep it 
brief this morning. Is that acceptable, Chair?
    Senator King. Without objection.
    Senator Wyden. Great. I am going to start by entering into 
the record an October 2020 Grant County economic study, 
coauthored by the city of John Day, which found that outdoor 
recreation in and around the John Day Wild and Scenic River 
generates over $11 million per year, and that is in a county 
with just over 7,000 people. I also want to submit for the 
record letters from three watershed councils--the Rogue, the 
Molalla, and the Upper Deschutes--that support the River 
Democracy Act and the restoration tools it provides.
    [The Grant County economic study and the letters mentioned 
by Senator Wyden follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman and my colleague, my home state 
is 3,000 miles from Washington, DC, and I think, as Senator 
Daines knows, for Westerners it often seems like we are even 
further away. So I have, in my time in public service, always 
tried to shorten that distance by throwing open the doors of 
government. I have done that by holding almost 1,000 in-person 
town meetings, scores more discussion sessions on Zoom and in 
schools and other community centers, and I call it the ``Oregon 
Way.'' The River Democracy Act is another such effort to listen 
to the people of my home state in every nook and cranny of 
Oregon. Oregonians love to discuss our rivers for their beauty, 
for their cool, clear drinking water, for fishing and rafting, 
for unmatched salmon and steelhead, and also because of the 
huge boost to our recreation economy.
    So what I have done with this legislation is, I have asked 
Oregonians to give me their ideas and their best suggestions 
for additional conservation efforts and additional 
opportunities to protect our rivers. Mr. Chairman and Senator 
Daines, I do not know of another such effort in the country to 
go to the people in every part of my state and say, ``I am not 
going to write this bill in Washington, DC. I am going to take 
your ideas and suggestions when you give them to me,'' and I 
can tell you, they sure did that. The response was 
overwhelming. In a few months, my office received over 15,000 
nominations for rivers and streams that Oregonians felt are 
worthy of Wild and Scenic River designations, which produced a 
bill that would protect nearly 4,700 miles of rivers and 
streams.
    So I say to my colleagues, both of whom I work with 
constantly--talked to Senator King last night about healthcare. 
Senator Daines and I put in a big privacy bill this week. So we 
work together often. I consider this a fresh approach to 
legislating because it is not me writing a bill in Washington, 
DC and handing it over to my colleagues and then we talk about 
it. This bill comes from the people of Oregon--the Oregon Way--
and the bill represents, for example, nominations from school 
kids for Tumalo Creek for their science class at the Pacific 
Crest Middle School in Bend, for Rough and Ready Creek from 
river guides in Southern Oregon, and for the Umatilla River in 
the Middle Fork of the John Day by the Confederated Tribes of 
the Umatilla Indian Reservation. So this is what I thought the 
future of natural resources policy ought to be about--
empowering people, particularly Westerners, who as Senator 
Daines knows, treasure our natural resources and want to use 
them for multiple purposes, to have a new opportunity to share 
their views.
    Now, in addition to protecting rivers and streams, I also 
felt it was important to take unique steps to protect my 
communities from the ravages of catastrophic wildfires, and I 
think my colleagues from the West know how strongly I feel 
about it, but I know all Westerners do, and you heard me ask 
Vicki Christiansen about the prospect of something 
unprecedented. I say to my friends from Montana and Utah, we 
might have multiple fires this fire season across the West. 
Normally, it is Oregon helping Montana and Montana helping Utah 
and we all pitch in. This year we may have, Senator King, we 
may have multiple big fires at the same time in the West, which 
is why I asked Vicki Christiansen about it. So I thought that 
this bill, in addition to protecting rivers and streams, this 
legislation takes unique and extraordinary steps to protect our 
communities from the ravages of catastrophic wildfires. And I 
sure wish this bill had been in effect already because of the 
fire season we are looking at.
    Now, the way this bill does it is, it requires the Forest 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management to develop and 
implement the Wildfire Risk Reduction Plan for every river and 
corridor, and the bill ensures that thinning and carefully 
implemented prescribed fires are going to turn these river 
corridors into fire safety corridors. In addition, the 
legislation establishes new ways for the Forest Service to work 
with local fire response teams so that local crews can respond 
immediately when a fire strikes. So those are the two key 
provisions, colleagues, in the bill, but we Westerners know 
that there are some other important issues that go into writing 
a bill like that, and one of them is protecting private 
property rights. So to do that, I state on page 16, line 7 of 
the bill, that ``nothing in this act or an amendment shall 
affect private property rights.'' Right there, page 16 in the 
bill, private property respected. Same goes for water rights, 
protected on page 17, line 1. So I want my colleagues--because 
I think my friend from Montana said, ``well, you have been 
getting some letters.'' I just want him to know, particularly, 
about two of those issues--protection of private property and 
water rights.
    The last point I want to mention is that we know that 
rivers are a very strong economic engine in Oregon, and 
frankly, throughout the West. Outdoor recreation supports well 
over 200,000 jobs statewide and generates more than $15 billion 
in consumer spending each year. And so, as we add up all of 
those benefits--the beauty, the drinking water, fishing and 
rafting, this incredible salmon and steelhead that we are 
gifted with, and the bonanza of the boost for our economy when 
we need it--I think it really goes to the heart of what the 
West really ought to be all about. Now colleagues, your states 
may not want to do that, and I get that, and that is what we 
love about the West, is that we are independent. We like trying 
to carve our own path in policy and in governance. But this is, 
in my view, what our late, great Governor of Oregon, Tom 
McCall--a Republican, I might note--would really think about 
when he talks about livability, about livability and proceeding 
in a way where you protect four percent of those rivers--four 
percent of those rivers as Wild and Scenic so that during our 
short time on the earth, we can say we did something to ensure 
Oregon's special places would be there for our children and our 
grandchildren, and we got all the benefits today that 
constitute sound policy. That is why I felt it was so important 
to add those unprecedented protections--to make sure that we 
have an added measure of safety against the prospect of 
wildfire that we know well in the West.
    Thank you. I thank both of my colleagues.
    Senator Daines. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator King. Yes, sir.
    Senator Daines. I know we have to keep this moving forward. 
Just a brief comment, Senator Wyden. The wildfire risk this 
season, I think, is extraordinary. I was on a fire line Friday 
outside of Red Lodge, Montana, where we already have a 30,000-
acre fire burning. The incident command center told me that the 
moisture content in the forest, this moment now, in the middle 
of June, is equivalent to usually what we see at the end of 
August, and it was equivalent to what they saw in 1988, which 
of course, were the catastrophic Yellowstone fires that burned 
800,000 acres. So we are in for a huge challenge, I think, this 
season, no doubt in the West, where usually we are sharing 
resources between states. I think the entire West is going to 
face challenges perhaps like we have not seen in quite some 
time with wildfires.
    Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, if I could just very briefly 
add on, because Senator Daines and I are very much in agreement 
on it. I want my colleague to know that when we get Vicki 
Christiansen's memo about the prospect of multiple fires, big 
fires, facing all of our communities around the West, I intend 
to work very closely with my colleague, as we have so often.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator King. As an Easterner, I intend to work with you on 
this issue as well.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Daines. Send us some of your rain.
    Senator King. Yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator King. I won't touch that line.
    Senator Lee.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    No one can deny that there are some real treasures that are 
our public lands. Utahns know this well, and at the outset it 
is easy to see why the Antiquities Act would seem like a good 
means of protecting those treasures. Unfortunately, what was 
once a relatively narrowly targeted tool now poses a looming 
danger to our rural communities in Utah. In 1996, President 
Bill Clinton used the Antiquities Act to create a 1.7-million-
acre monument in southern Utah. Then, in 2016, in the last few 
weeks of his presidency, President Barack Obama created the 
1.3-million-acre Bears Ears National Monument. So this is over 
three million acres of my home state that were locked up and 
heavily restricted within a roughly 20-year timeframe--more 
than two Delawares of land put into this designation.
    For locals, this protection of these lands has come at a 
really high cost in the form of restrictions on travel, 
recreation, and economic opportunities. Activists have 
suggested that Utah's rural communities embrace the tourist 
economy that tends to come, so they say, with monument 
designations. Now, while tourism has certainly contributed much 
to rural western economies, including that of my own state, 
communities cannot survive on tourism alone, especially when 
all other industry can be thwarted by those same things.
    I introduced the ``Protect Utah's Rural Economy'', or PURE 
Act, to protect Utah from future abuses under the Antiquities 
Act by prohibiting the President from establishing or expanding 
a national monument in Utah unless the proposed monument has 
been authorized by an act of Congress and the state 
legislature. Congress has twice granted similar protections to 
other states. Congress first prohibited future monument 
designations in the State of Wyoming in 1950. Then, more than 
30 years later, Congress passed another law requiring 
Congressional approval for any monument designation in Alaska 
larger than 5,000 acres. At a bare minimum, Utahns deserve the 
same protections from the Antiquities Act that the people of 
Alaska and of Wyoming enjoy.
    Additionally in this hearing, we will examine two of my 
proposals related to roads in national parks. The National Park 
Service regulations currently state, ``Unless specifically 
addressed by regulations in this chapter, traffic and the use 
of vehicles within a park area are governed by state law.'' 
Unfortunately, spotty application of the regulation has led to 
inconsistent visitor experiences. While the Grand Canyon, Grand 
Teton, and Yellowstone National Parks defer to state law, some 
park units, including units in Utah, have banned certain motor 
vehicles from park roads when they are allowed elsewhere in the 
state under state law. To be clear, this would not allow off-
roading in national parks, nothing of the sort. It would simply 
ensure that vehicles authorized by a state to operate on roads 
within that state could operate on roads within that state's 
national parks.
    Finally, I would like to take a moment to speak in support 
of S. 535, the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Location Act. 
This bill would create a Global War on Terror Memorial on the 
National Mall at no cost to taxpayers. Thousands of men and 
women have volunteered to defend our nation in the wake of the 
attacks on September 11th, 2001. Nearly 20 years later, our 
service members are still answering the call of duty despite 
uncertainty of when these enduring wars will finally come to an 
end. While a parcel of federal land will need to be designated 
to serve as the area for the memorial, in my view, the use of 
federal land for this purpose is appropriate and within the 
precedents set of memorializing the sacrifices of our fallen 
servicemen and women using the land of our National Mall. The 
creation of the Global War on Terrorism memorial will honor the 
courage and commitment of our military members and their 
families, and will serve as a cautionary reminder of the human 
cost of endless wars for future generations.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator King. Thank you, Senator Lee.
    On that note, we will turn to our next two witnesses. We 
are going to hear from two of our colleagues about the Global 
War on Terrorism Memorial Location bill. I look forward to 
hearing about this. We have Senator Joni Ernst and my friend 
and Congressman from Maine, Jared Golden--two brave veterans 
who have served our country in uniform and here in the halls of 
Congress. Thank you both for your service.
    Senator Ernst.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JONI ERNST, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA

    Senator Ernst. Thank you, Chairman King and Ranking Member 
Daines and thank you as well, Senator Lee, for your words of 
support and for allowing me to speak at this hearing. I am 
honored to be here as an advocate for such an important piece 
of legislation.
    I ask for your consideration in support of my bipartisan 
effort to build a new memorial on the National Mall in 
Washington, DC, to honor the troops who have served during the 
Global War on Terror. As the first female combat veteran to 
serve in the U.S. Senate, and as someone who has had her boots 
in the sand in Iraq and Kuwait, I know firsthand the sacrifices 
the millions of brave men and women of our armed forces made in 
defense of our nation and our freedom. We are approaching two 
decades after the attacks on September 11th. This direct 
assault on our nation sparked the Global War on Terrorism, a 
war that came at great personal cost to our men and women 
serving in the armed forces. This war changed 
the course of American history and the lives of millions of 
service members, military families, first responders, and civil 
servants, including my own.
    The Global War on Terrorism is the longest running conflict 
in United States history. Our country should forever remember 
the sacrifices of these Americans who answered the call to wear 
our nation's uniform. Given the significance and magnitude of 
this sacrifice involved in operations in that conflict, it is 
appropriate to locate the National Global War on Terrorism 
Memorial alongside existing memorials to the major armed 
conflicts of the United States. That is why I sit before you 
today to ask that you honor our veterans by supporting my 
legislation, the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Location Act, 
to authorize the construction of this memorial on the Reserve. 
While nothing will ever restore the lives that we have lost, 
this memorial would serve as a tribute to the brave men and 
women and their loved ones who have sacrificed in defense of 
our freedom. It will serve as a place of gathering with fellow 
brothers and sisters in arms, one post-9/11 veterans can call 
their own.
    It will serve as a commitment to the mothers and fathers 
who lost their whole world--a child--that this country is 
forever grateful and in their debt. It will serve as a place of 
healing for thousands of Global War on Terror veterans 
currently facing injuries of their own--those that are seen and 
those that are unseen. Memorials have the power to heal and 
unite, and mean so many different things to different people 
through the form of art and permanent remembrance. For more 
than 20 years, I had the privilege of serving my state and 
country in uniform while working alongside some of our nation's 
finest soldiers. Like many others, I have raised my right hand 
and taken this oath voluntarily and without reservation, fully 
knowing that this is a conflict that is ongoing and a force 
that is the smallest this country has ever had in respect to 
our other wars. That is why the effort to build a Global War on 
Terrorism Memorial is a personal one, not just to me, but to 
every service member, veteran, surviving family member, and 
civilian who was impacted by this fight.
    For the thousands of Americans who perished protecting our 
freedom, and the many others who were wounded or fought in the 
Global War on Terrorism, this memorial will forever honor their 
sacrifice to our great country. By locating the Global War on 
Terrorism Memorial alongside those honoring veterans of earlier 
conflicts, we are showing the men and women who have served in 
our nation's longest ongoing conflict that their sacrifice is 
equally valued. It will provide the veterans of this war an 
opportunity to visit the tribute to their selfless service and 
will provide a permanent place of reflection, of empowerment, 
and of healing in the heart of our nation's capital. We in 
Congress play a vital role in honoring our veterans and their 
heroic actions, and memorials such as this one are an important 
step to effectively recognize our veterans.
    I again ask the members of this Subcommittee to support my 
mission to build a memorial to empower those who have answered 
the call to serve in the Global War on Terror, who for so long 
protected us while we enjoyed the freedoms that we still have 
to this day. We have the opportunity as a nation to unite 
around a common cause--the simple act of honoring the 
sacrifices of all who have served, through a national Global 
War on Terrorism Memorial. Its placement on the Reserve is 
undoubtedly deserving. I would like to close by thanking my 
partners in this effort, Senator Hassan, who joined me in 
introducing this legislation. I also want to thank the 
Honorable Jared Golden, colleague of Senator King in Maine, for 
joining to speak today, and the members of this Subcommittee, 
who are taking the time to consider this legislation. May God 
bless our beautiful country. May God bless our troops and their 
families.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator King. Senator Ernst, thank you for your moving 
statement today, but more especially for the service that you 
have rendered to this country. Thank you.
    Our next witness is Representative Jared Golden, 
Congressman from Maine's second district, friend and colleague 
of Senator Collins and myself.
    Congressman Golden, welcome to the Subcommittee.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JARED F. GOLDEN, 
                 U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MAINE

    Mr. Golden. Thank you, Senator.
    I want to first begin by saying that the passion and 
emotion that the Senator has put into her testimony, I believe 
to be representative of the same passion and emotions of many 
millions of veterans, families, and Gold Star Families across 
this country, and I want to thank her on behalf of all of them 
for bringing forward this legislation to your Committee.
    Chairman King, Ranking Member Daines, and distinguished 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
discuss an issue of great importance--a Global War on Terrorism 
Memorial on the National Mall in recognition of the 2.7 million 
Americans who have taken part in that mission since 9/11, and 
more importantly, to honor the more than 7,000 who have given 
their lives in service to this country. This memorial will 
provide veterans and their families, especially Gold Star 
Families, a place in our capital for reflection and healing. In 
2017, President Trump signed the bipartisan Global War on 
Terrorism War Memorial Act, authorizing the creation of a 
Global War on Terrorism Memorial and the foundation to oversee 
funding and construction of the project. I am here today on 
behalf of the For Country Caucus, a bipartisan House caucus to 
express strong support for the final step necessary to 
authorize the construction of this memorial on the National 
Mall--S. 535, the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Location Act 
and its companion in the House, H.R. 1115, introduced by 
Representatives Jason Crow and Mike Gallagher.
    I am fortunate to serve as the co-chair of the For Country 
Caucus, a team of veterans committed to working together in a 
non-partisan way to create a more productive government. Each 
of our 25 members served honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces, 
with the majority serving after the September 11th attacks, 
including several of us who have fought in both Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Representatives Crow and Gallagher are members of 
our Caucus, and we deeply appreciate their leadership on this 
legislation as do veterans across the country. The remaining 
question before Congress is not whether we should construct a 
memorial, but when and where to build it. We believe the answer 
is now and on the Reserve within the National Mall. We should 
follow the example set 40 years ago when Congress honored our 
Vietnam Veterans with a memorial on the Reserve less than two 
decades after the beginning of that conflict, when President 
Carter signed it into law on July 1, 1980.
    The nation has witnessed the power of the Vietnam Veterans 
Memorial to bring together veterans of that war, their 
families, and fellow Americans to heal together in honor of the 
fallen. We have a chance to do the same for our Global War on 
Terrorism veterans before this 20th anniversary of 9/11. The 
Global War on Terrorism is the only major military conflict in 
American history fought by an all-volunteer force. It is also 
the longest military conflict in our history, which means the 
personal impact of this war is multi-generational. Indeed, it 
is not uncommon for families to have had both a parent and a 
child serve deployments in this conflict.
    As our soldiers return from Afghanistan in the months 
ahead, now is the time to send a clear message that this nation 
will fully honor those who served in the Global War on 
Terrorism and that we will never forget the many sacrifices 
that have been made. I understand you will receive testimony 
that the Reserve is complete. You and I both know that no 
Congress can tie the hands of a future Congress, but more 
importantly, how could it be complete when the history of our 
nation is not. Others may argue the conflict is not significant 
enough to warrant a memorial. I have heard it said. In my 
opinion, after 9/11, 20 years of combat, tens of thousands 
wounded, and more than 7,000 killed in service, such a 
statement rings truly hollow in the ears of those who willingly 
carried the burden of our nation's security. Others may offer 
concerns about real estate or the cost to build it or maintain 
it. I only ask that you consider that if the many veterans that 
have sacrificed in this conflict--especially those who 
sacrificed their lives or their families--could testify before 
you about the value of this memorial or about its significance 
for not only themselves, but also for the country, such 
concerns would appear trivial at best. For us, this is a truly, 
deeply personal matter.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you 
today and I offer the assistance of our caucus of veterans in 
the House to secure the passage of this bill into law. Thank 
you for this opportunity to join you today.
    Senator King. Congressman Golden, thank you so much. You 
are a veteran of Afghanistan, I know, and Senator Ernst, and I 
don't think you mentioned--you raised your hand and 
volunteered. When people do that, they are literally putting 
their lives on the line. They are saying ``I am willing to 
sacrifice my life for my country'' and the proposal you are 
making today clearly aligns with that supreme sacrifice that 
7,000 made in this war.
    I want to thank you for joining us here today and for your 
powerful testimony. Thank you.
    We will now have--I think we need to change the table--and 
we will have additional witnesses.
    Congressman Golden, the House is sort of over that way.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Golden. I always enjoy getting my fair share of a hard 
time from you, Senator King. Thank you so much.
    Senator Wyden. We call them ``King-isms.''
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Golden. Well said. Thank you.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    I will introduce our following witnesses.
    Michael Caldwell is the Acting Associate Director for Park 
Planning, Facilities, and Lands at the National Park Service.
    Jennifer Eberlien is the Associate Deputy Chief of the 
National Forest System at the Forest Service. Ms. Eberlien 
previously served as the Deputy Regional Forester for the 
Pacific Southwest Region and has more than 20 years of 
experience at the Forest Service at the Bureau of Land 
Management.
    Jennifer Hunter is a Mainer and a Study Coordinator for the 
York Wild and Scenic River Study Committee. Jennifer has worked 
with the Study Committee for the past five and a half years.
    And Andrea Malmberg is a rancher from Union County, Oregon. 
She and her husband have run a direct-to-consumer grass-fed 
beef and lamb business for more than 20 years, and she also 
works as a rangeland consultant.
    Mr. Caldwell, your testimony, please.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CALDWELL, ACTING ASSOCIATE 
 DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK 
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; WITH MARK LAMBRECHT, 
 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONSERVATION LANDS AND COMMUNITY 
            PARTNERSHIPS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

    Mr. Caldwell. Chairman King, Ranking Member Daines, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
present the Department of the Interior's views on the 15 bills 
on today's agenda. I would like to submit our full statements 
for the record and summarize the Department's views. I am 
joined today remotely by Mark Lambrecht, Assistant Director, 
National Conservation Lands and Community Partnerships, Bureau 
of Land Management, who will be available to answer any BLM-
related questions about S. 192, the River Democracy Act.
    S. 31 would bar the use of the Antiquities Act to extend or 
establish new national monuments in Utah unless authorized by 
Congress and the state legislature. The Department strongly 
opposes this bill, as it would eliminate a critical tool 
available to protect objects of historic or scientific 
interest.
    S. 172 would authorize the National Medal of Honor Museum 
Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of 
Columbia. The Department supports this bill.
    S. 192 would designate certain river segments in the State 
of Oregon as components of the National Wild and Scenic River 
System, including approximately 800 miles of rivers managed by 
the Bureau of Land Management. The Department supports this 
bill.
    S. 270 would expand the Brown v. Board of Education 
National Historic Site. The Department supports broadening 
public understanding of the events that led to this landmark 
U.S. Supreme Court decision and we recommend amendments to the 
bill.
    S. 491 would designate segments of the York River in Maine 
as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System. The 
initial review indicates that the segments may be eligible for 
inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System, but 
we respectfully recommend that the Committee defer action on S. 
491 until the final report is issued, which we anticipate will 
occur in the near future.
    S. 535 would authorize the Global War on Terrorism Memorial 
to be located in the area known as the Reserve, the area that 
encompasses the National Mall. We understand the desire to 
build this memorial in a specific location. However, the 
Department does not support this bill.
    S. 753 would reauthorize the Highlands Conservation Act, a 
grant program managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
protect natural resources in four northeastern states. The 
Department supports this bill.
    S. 1317 would transfer 97 acres of land administered by the 
U.S. Forest Service to Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument. 
The Department supports this bill.
    S. 1320 would redesignate the Chiricahua National Monument 
as Chiricahua National Park. The Department supports this bill.
    S. 1321 would authorize the addition of 406 acres of land 
to Casa Grande Ruins National Monument and transfer 
administration of some lands among departmental bureaus. The 
Department supports this bill.
    S. 1354 would designate the Chilkoot as a National Historic 
Trail and provide for a study of the Alaska Long Trail. The 
Department supports the designation for the Chilkoot and 
supports, with an amendment, the study of the Alaska Long 
Trail.
    S. 1526 would authorize the use of off-highway vehicles in 
certain areas of Capitol Reef National Park. The Department 
strongly opposes this bill, as this legislation would likely 
result in damage to sensitive natural resources.
    S. 1527 would require that state law apply to the use of 
motor vehicles on roads within the National Park system. The 
Department strongly opposes this bill, as it would undermine 
the National Park Service's ability to protect visitors and 
park resources.
    S. 1769 would adjust the boundary of Santa Monica Mountain 
National Recreation Area to include lands in the Rim of the 
Valley Corridor. The Department supports this bill but would 
like to revisit the proposed boundary with the bill's sponsor 
and the Committee.
    S. 1771 would authorize reference to the museum located in 
Blytheville, Arkansas as the National Cold War Center. The 
Department defers to the Department of Defense for a position 
on this bill.
    We would be happy to work with the Committee on all the 
bills where we have recommended amendments.
    Chairman King, this concludes my statement. Assistant 
Director Lambrecht and I would be pleased to answer any 
questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Caldwell follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell. We will move on to 
the other witnesses, then we will do questioning of each 
witness.
    Our next witness is Jennifer Eberlien of the National 
Forest System at the Forest Service.

OPENING STATEMENT OF JENNIFER EBERLIEN, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, 
     NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    Ms. Eberlien. Good morning, Chairman King, Ranking Member 
Daines, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to present the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
views on S. 192, the River Democracy Act of 2021 and S. 1317, 
the Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Boundary Adjustment 
Act.
    Our national forests and grasslands offer some of the most 
readily available and valuable outdoor recreation settings in 
the country. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans turned to 
their public lands for respite and relaxation in greater 
numbers than at any other time in recent history. The number of 
recreation visits to the National Forest System rose to over 
168 million in 2020, an increase of over 12 percent compared to 
2019. In addition to accessing a wide array of land-based 
recreational activities, others found restorative water-based 
experiences through enjoyment of rivers and streams, including 
designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act protects more than 13,400 miles of rivers and streams in 
the United States for the benefit and enjoyment of present and 
future generations. Designation as a Wild and Scenic River is 
our nation's strongest form of protection for free-flowing 
rivers and streams, many of which serve as important drinking 
water sources for communities. They have outstandingly 
remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, 
historic, cultural, or other similar values that led Congress 
to add these waterways to the National Wild and Scenic River 
System.
    The River Democracy Act of 2021 under consideration today 
would significantly expand the amount of river miles included 
in this national system in the State of Oregon. Just as the 
pandemic significantly increased visitation to the National 
Forests and our Wild and Scenic Rivers, I am quite certain 
Sunset Crater in Arizona experienced significant visitation 
over the last year too. 
S. 1317, the Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Boundary 
Adjustment Act, will ensure the National Park Service can 
seamlessly administer that recreational opportunity. The 
boundary adjustment will help both federal agencies going 
forward. I look forward to discussing how we can support these 
bills to ensure the public can continue to turn to these valued 
federal assets.
    The Forest Service supports Wild and Scenic Rivers 
designations in alignment with a variety of factors, including 
ensuring any new designations are properly integrated into the 
National Wild and Scenic River System with enough time to 
develop comprehensive river management plans and to establish 
detailed boundaries in cooperation with tribes, state and local 
governments, and interested public stakeholders. We would 
welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and bill 
sponsors to clarify several aspects of S. 192, the River 
Democracy of 2021 Act, including the intent associated with the 
requirements for developing fire management plans and 
culturally significant native species management plans and 
explore options for achieving intended outcomes. S. 192 would 
designate an estimated 3,000-plus miles that flow through 
National Forest System lands. We defer to the Department of the 
Interior on portions of the bill pertaining to that Department.
    As a former resident of Flagstaff, Arizona, I made numerous 
visits to the Sunset Crater, and I can actually see the 
location of the proposed boundary adjustment. This boundary 
adjustment, as proposed in S. 1317, the Sunset Crater Volcano 
National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act, is one the Forest 
Service supports and has previously testified in support of. 
The adjustment includes approximately 98 acres of identified 
National Forest System land immediately adjacent to the 
monument. The bill transfers administrative jurisdiction over 
the land from the Forest Service to the National Park Service. 
Historically, the Forest Service and National Park Service 
coordinated through an interagency agreement where any ground-
disturbing activity in the administrative area requires prior 
approval by the Forest Service. The proposed boundary 
adjustment would eliminate this requirement, thus removing a 
significant compliance burden for both agencies. The adjustment 
will allow better management of natural resources and 
topographic features that pertain to the monument, provide 
clear jurisdiction to better serve the public, and provide a 
stronger basis for cooperation between the two agencies.
    In conclusion, our outdoor recreation provides millions of 
Americans rich opportunities to connect with our lands and Wild 
and Scenic Rivers. The Forest Service is honored to serve this 
vital link and appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony 
on these two bills. I am happy to answer any questions you may 
have.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Eberlien follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator King. Thank you, Ms. Eberlien, for your testimony.
    And now, Jennifer Hunter, who was a study coordinator for 
the York River Wild and Scenic Study Committee.
    Ms. Hunter.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF JENNIFER HUNTER, 
         COORDINATOR, YORK RIVER WILD AND SCENIC STUDY

    Ms. Hunter. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member 
Daines, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Jennifer Hunter 
from York, Maine. I have been coordinator for the York River 
Wild and Scenic Study for the last five and a half years. York 
River is a coastal river in Southern Maine with watershed lands 
in Eliot, Kittery, South Berwick, and York. I am speaking on 
behalf of the York River Wild and Scenic Study Committee in 
support of Senate bill 491, which aims to designate 30.8 miles 
of the York River and its major tributaries into the National 
Wild and Scenic River System. Our local Wild and Scenic River 
study was authorized by Congress in December 2014 and conducted 
over a three-year period. With expert input and community 
engagement throughout the process, our study committee 
evaluated York River's eligibility and suitability for a Wild 
and Scenic River designation using the ``Partnership'' model, 
typical for rivers that flow through non-federal lands. Of the 
226 rivers in the National Wild and Scenic River System, 16 are 
Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers.
    Our study confirmed that York River is an excellent 
candidate for designation. The river miles proposed for 
designation are free-flowing with good water quality. There is 
no shortage of river-
related, outstandingly remarkable values that serve as the 
basis for designation. Our relatively small coastal watershed 
has over 100 documented archeological sites, including Native 
American sites dating back thousands of years and early 
colonial sites, such as the first tidal mill dam in the English 
colonies, built in 1634. The 1,700-acre area surrounding York 
Harbor and the lower York River is a National Register Historic 
District. There are eight individual sites listed in the 
National Register of Historic Places. Sewall's bridge, which 
was America's first wooden-pile drawbridge and is now a 
national engineering landmark, spans the river. There is an 
active, working waterfront that is important to our economy and 
community's character. The watershed supplies clean drinking 
water to residents and to the Portsmouth Naval shipyard. State 
and regional assessments characterized the York River system as 
exemplary for its ecological significance, water quality, 
watershed resilience, and healthy salt-marsh habitats. It is 
one of the most biodiverse areas in Maine and is home to more 
endangered and threatened species than any other area in the 
state.
    Clearly, we have a special river ecosystem. However, there 
are threats. The York River watershed is a fast-growing area 
with concerns of overuse and development impacts potentially 
affecting water quality and natural habitats. As a coastal 
watershed, it is subject to rising seas, warmer water and air 
temperatures, and more intense storms. Proactive stewardship is 
needed now more than ever to preserve the river for current and 
future generations. A culminating product of our study was 
development of the York River Watershed Stewardship Plan that 
can help guide long-term river resource preservation. For our 
study, we also made sure that designation and inclusion in the 
national program is a good fit for the river and our 
communities. We concluded that it is. Designation will provide 
technical assistance, financial support, and a four-community 
coalition to discuss river stewardship issues and take action 
based on local priorities and needs.
    The Partnership model for designation maintains local 
control of land use and river management. A Partnership Wild 
and Scenic River designation will bolster community-led river 
stewardship efforts and enable sustained actions to preserve 
York River. There is widespread local support for Partnership 
Wild and Scenic River designation. In late 2018, voters in 
Eliot and York and town councils in Kittery and South Berwick 
overwhelmingly approved more articles and resolutions to 
designate York River and approve the York River Watershed 
Stewardship Plan. Over two dozen community groups wrote letters 
endorsing river designation. Our Wild and Scenic River study 
process, which began 12 years ago, demonstrated a commitment to 
river stewardship among our four towns, conservation 
organizations, civic groups, landowners, river users, local and 
state agencies, and the National Park Service. We look forward 
to York River becoming a Partnership river in our National Wild 
and Scenic River System so that we can continue our cooperative 
efforts.
    I thank you for your interest and your support.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hunter follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator King. Thank you for your testimony.
    We will now hear from Andrea Malmberg from Union County, 
Oregon.
    Ms. Malmberg, welcome.
    Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly and I 
won't--Senator Daines, I won't take the Finance Committee 
tradition of long introductions, but we especially appreciate 
Ms. Malmberg being up early at home. She ranches cattle in 
Union, Oregon and we are thrilled to have her.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF ANDREA MALMBERG, 
                         UNION, OREGON

    Ms. Malmberg. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member 
Daines, and Subcommittee members. Again, my name is Andrea 
Malmberg and I am a rancher in Union, Oregon. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak with you about an important bill before 
you, the River Democracy Act of 2021.
    I was raised and have lived on the land with livestock my 
whole life. First, as a daughter of a cattle buyer in Montana 
and South Dakota and, as an adult, a ranch owner and land 
steward in Wyoming and now in Oregon. I hold degrees in 
agriculture and natural resources from Washington State 
University. Seeing the need to bring the tools of human 
flourishing to rural communities, I received a master's in 
applied positive psychology from the University of Pennsylvania 
and have been sharing ways for people in agriculture, 
primarily, to enhance their well-being. My husband and I are 
long-time members of the Farm Bureau, the Wyoming Stock 
Growers, and the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. In 1998, we 
were honored to receive the National Cattlemen's Beef 
Association Environmental Stewardship Award. We have 
demonstrated that ecological health and profitable livestock 
production is not a zero-sum game. The land bases we have 
influenced have empirical data to prove up. True and enduring 
profitability can be realized when we regenerate land and water 
resources.
    I am specifically speaking to you today as a citizen of 
Union County, Oregon. For those of you who aren't familiar with 
this beautiful place, we have just under 27,000 residents and 
likely have more livestock than people. For context, my county 
is twice the size of Rhode Island and larger than Delaware. It 
is about half privately owned, divided between forest, 
rangeland, and irrigated pasture, and crops. The other half is 
primarily national forest. Many of the streams in Union County 
still have salmon, steelhead, or bull trout populations, and 
while some wildlife is abundant, much of our biodiversity is 
declining. This is a clear connection between ecological 
degeneration on both private and public lands and the lack of 
vitality to our economies in our region.
    I think that the River Democracy Act of 2021 gives us a leg 
up to build resiliency in the natural resources in which we all 
depend. My business relies on water that flows from our 
national forest lands for my livestock and livelihood. I 
produce forage by utilizing the water from Catherine Creek and 
Little Creek, tributaries of the larger Grande Ronde River. 
These smaller streams are critical for my ranching business and 
essential to the health of the Grande Ronde River Watershed, 
its wildlife, fisheries, and economies. Moreover, my hometown 
of Union's water quality infrastructure and economy depend on 
what happens upstream, whether the waterway is on private or 
federal lands. We all rely on the flows from the headwaters. If 
we continue neglecting our flood plain's health, fires and 
flooding will further erode infrastructure and threaten our 
livelihoods. Windblown trees and ice jams are already 
threatening the city of Union due to channelization and 
outdated infrastructure that disconnects rivers from their 
flood plains. Imagine what would happen if a fire overtook our 
forestlands leaving little bare ground cover to slow snowpack 
melting.
    Fire has always been a natural force and a land management 
tool used by people for millennia, but we are in a new era. Now 
we are faced with massive wildfires having a severe impact on 
forests, clean water, and our communities. With the fire 
management tools offered in the Act, we are less likely to see 
huge amounts of sediment choking creeks, flooding our private 
properties, and silting irrigation systems. The more we can 
appreciate the value of and our dependence on the health of the 
network of streams and rivers in my corner of the state, the 
better off we will all be.
    That is why when Senators Wyden and Merkley announced a 
public process to consider conservation of rivers on public 
lands in Oregon, I really was excited. As someone who has been 
a professional, locally based consensus-building facilitator on 
thorny natural resource issues, it is highly unusual for 
politicians to ask you what they think before they do 
something. Their willingness to listen to Oregonians continues 
even now that the bill has been introduced. This is how 
democracy is supposed to work, and I am proud to say that it is 
the Oregon Way. I strongly support the balanced approach that 
Senators Wyden and Merkley have employed through the 
development of the River Democracy Act. Through this bill we 
have an opportunity to build resilience downstream by restoring 
the waterways upstream, protecting and enhancing the value of 
private property and water rights along the way.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Malmberg follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator King. Thank you very much for your testimony. Now 
we will have questions of the witnesses with a five-minute 
round from the panel.
    Ms. Hunter, first question for you. You heard Senator 
Daines at the beginning talk about the importance of local 
support for these kinds of designations and you mentioned this 
in your testimony, but could you elaborate a bit on the 
outreach that was done along the river in terms of both the 
communities and private landowners on the York River?
    Ms. Hunter. Yes, thank you, I would be happy to. That was a 
goal of the York River Study Committee--to engage the community 
throughout this process. We held over 60 public meetings 
throughout our process. We held a number of watershed events, 
including watershed walks along the river so we could discuss 
different river resources. We attended any public event we were 
able to, including local fairs, festivals, and meetings of the 
Rotary and other civic groups. We had several mailings that 
went to all the river landowners to inform them of upcoming 
meetings and our activities. We had several projects that were 
conducted in the field and we invited citizen scientists to 
take part in those projects so that they could understand the 
resources and provide feedback to us in what was valuable to 
them.
    Senator King. As I understand it, there were several 
referenda in two of the towns that were overwhelmingly 
positive. Is that correct?
    Ms. Hunter. That is correct. Part of the demonstration of 
suitability for a Partnership designation includes town votes 
to endorse designation as well as accept our locally developed 
stewardship plan. The towns of York and Eliot had warrant 
articles on the ballot in November 2018 and the Towns of 
Kittery and South Berwick had council votes on a resolution. 
And in the towns of York and Eliot, the measures were 
overwhelmingly approved by voters, by 63 percent in one town 
and 73 percent in another town. In the case of the council 
votes, they were all unanimous in support of designation.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Mr. Caldwell, you testified that the Department is 
withholding its endorsement of this bill pending the final 
report. I would point out that what we thought was the final 
report was submitted in March 2020, 14 months ago. Eisenhower 
retook Europe in 11 months. Define ``near future.'' You 
testified we would get the final report in the near future.
    Mr. Caldwell. Senator King, thank you very much and I 
certainly want to compliment the local interest of the York 
River study and the work of partners like Ms. Hunter. It's what 
makes a difference all across the country.
    The Department is in its final stages of review. We expect 
departmental action very quickly--imminently--and we are 
certainly monitoring its progress through the review process.
    Senator King. Well, this Committee will be considering 
these bills in the immediate future in terms of the markup. So 
I would hope that the Department--you said ``near future,'' 
``imminently,'' and ``quickly''--so I hope we are measuring 
that in weeks and not months. I urge you to get this material 
to us because we want to have the input of the Department when 
we act on this bill.
    Ms. Caldwell. Yes sir. Thank you, sir.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    The Global War on Terrorism Memorial--you heard the moving 
testimony of the two witnesses earlier, and the issue seems not 
to be whether there should be a memorial, but whether it should 
be on the Mall. Could you expand upon the policy decision in 
terms of future memorials on the Mall and give us some 
rationale for that decision?
    Mr. Caldwell. Yes, Senator, and certainly the Department of 
the Interior supports veterans of all wars and this certainly 
isn't about the act of remembrance. It is about that S. 535 
would allow the Global War on Terrorism Memorial to be located 
in the area identified as the Reserve, under the Commemorative 
Works Act of 1986. Congress amended that act in 2003, 
establishing the Reserve and declaring it a complete work of 
civic art where the siting of new commemorative work is 
prohibited.
    So since the establishment of the Reserve, no new memorials 
have been placed on the National Mall--only improvements to 
existing memorials, such as plaques, have been granted.
    Senator King. So this was a Congressional decision, and as 
Congressman Golden testified, Congress could change that 
designation if they chose. Is the the concern that the Mall is 
getting crowded? Is that what the issue is?
    Mr. Caldwell. I think after--in terms of the Congressional 
action in 2003--after receiving several requests for the 
placement of memorials on the National Mall at that time, 
Congress recognized the need to preserve the L'Enfant Plan, the 
McMillan Plan of the National Mall for the capital city and 
prevent the Mall area from being overbuilt. So it addressed 
this need by creating a new Reserve area, or a ``no-build 
zone'' on the National Mall. And in 2003, Congress amended the 
Commemorative Works Act to prohibit the establishment of new 
memorials in the Reserve.
    Senator King. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
    Mr. Caldwell. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator King. Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. 
Chairman, my office has received a number of support and 
opposition letters on the some 15 bills on today's agenda and I 
ask unanimous consent they be included in the record.
    Senator King. Without objection.
    [The letters referred to follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Daines. Mr. Caldwell, it is my understanding that 
Senate bill 1771, recognizing the National Cold War Center, 
does not require any new Congressionally authorized funds to 
implement. Is that correct?
    Mr. Caldwell. Yes, we are deferring to the Department of 
Defense on position on the Cold War Center.
    Senator Daines. But there are no Congressionally authorized 
funds.
    Mr. Caldwell. As we understand that, that is correct, sir.
    Senator Daines. Okay, great. Thank you.
    What is unique about this museum?
    Mr. Caldwell. Well, once again, I would defer to the 
Department of Defense in terms of the uniqueness of this 
particular museum. Certainly, the National Park Service, at a 
number of sites, interprets the important history of the Cold 
War across the country and we certainly cooperate with 
different museums and institutions such as may be proposed 
here.
    Senator Daines. Mr. Caldwell, another question. We have two 
bills on the agenda that would establish a commemorative work 
in DC. Our existing commemorative works, like the Lincoln 
Memorial, the Washington Monument, and our Vietnam, Korea, 
World War II, and World War I memorials help honor and tell the 
story of America. Could you briefly describe the process that 
Senate bill 172 and Senate bill 535 will have to follow if they 
are signed into law?
    Mr. Caldwell. Yes, Senator. The Medal of Honor Memorial, 
once authorized, the National Park Service guides the memorial 
sponsor through site location, design, and construction 
process. The Commission on Fine Arts and the National Capital 
Planning Commission must review and approve the site and the 
design selection. So the National Park Service would be happy 
to discuss the specific elements of this process of the site 
selection and the design approval with you or members of the 
Committee.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.
    Before I turn to Ms. Eberlien, I want to commend you. I am 
getting good feedback from our park superintendents about the 
work you are doing to implement the Great American Outdoors 
Act, which I know we are very grateful that we had that 
bipartisan--one of the greatest conservation achievements in 50 
years passed last year. Thank you for your help in moving that 
forward.
    Mr. Caldwell. Thank you for your support, sir.
    Senator Daines. Ms. Eberlien, as we noted, Senate bill 192 
would designate about 4,700 miles of new Wild and Scenic Rivers 
in Oregon. Could you briefly describe the local support as well 
as the opposition you have heard related to the bill?
    Ms. Eberlien. Thank you for the question, Senator. As with 
any type of proposed designation such as this, there are 
interests on all sides of the issue.
    Senator Daines. Are all the rivers proposed in the bill 
located completely in Oregon or do any border or enter into 
another state?
    Ms. Eberlien. The majority of the designations are in 
Oregon with a small portion of some of the proposed rivers 
stretching into northern California and northern Nevada.
    Senator Daines. Okay, thank you. And I have not yet seen a 
map. Do you know when the Forest Service will provide this 
Committee with an accurate map?
    Ms. Eberlien. We would be happy to work with the 
Subcommittee and the bill's sponsors to provide a map as a 
follow-up to this.
    Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, Back to you.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Senator Wyden.
    Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I want to thank my constituent, Ms. Malmberg, for 
getting up early at home. She is a rancher who grew up in the 
West. She has won awards from the National Cattlemen. Her 
county is more than 50 percent in public ownership and, 
colleagues, she felt and stated specifically that there was a 
fulsome opportunity--a complete opportunity for people to weigh 
in and that people continue to have that chance to weigh in 
with their views on the River Democracy Act and I just want to 
say thanks, Ms. Malmberg, for that to get us started because 
throwing open the doors of government, in my view, is a prime 
responsibility for a western Senator and I thank you for your 
gracious comments.
    My question to you, particularly with your ranching 
background, is to get your thoughts on the record with respect 
to the bill and ensuring that it takes the appropriate steps to 
reduce wildfire risk, protect private property, and ensure 
access to grazing. Can you just touch on those--wildfire risk, 
protecting private property, access to grazing?
    Ms. Malmberg. Yes, thank you, Senator.
    I think that what is most important is, as we saw last year 
in Oregon and throughout the West, you know, catastrophic fires 
and really feeling, I believe, that we were not prepared. I am 
a livestock advocate and I know that livestock can do wonderful 
things for managing the understory of our forests and our 
grasslands, and so I really believe that, hand-in-hand, we have 
livestock production that's happening on our national forest 
through permits, that we could actually use the ranchers and 
the permits to really create a comprehensive river management 
plan and really assess and look at what we can do to stop the 
catastrophic events of fire that we have seen in the West.
    Senator Wyden. And the private property protection language 
and the grazing protection language, in your view, is adequate 
as well?
    Ms. Malmberg. Yes, I do believe so. And you know, so my 
irrigation water, even though I am obviously on private land, 
comes from upstream, and so being able to ensure that the 
headwaters of Catherine Creek and Little Creek will continue 
to--I have adequate water for irrigating. And so I feel like 
being able to protect those headwaters really is protecting my 
private water rights.
    Senator Wyden. Very good.
    Ms. Eberlien, thank you for your comments, and I want to 
make clear the Agency's position with respect to how we are 
dealing with wildfire--and writing the River Democracy Act, we 
wanted to make sure that land conservation efforts do not 
hinder the ability of public lands managers to respond to 
wildfires. In your view, does this give agencies the sufficient 
flexibility to mitigate fire risk, respond to wildfires, and 
help restore watersheds and infrastructure should a fire 
strike?
    Ms. Eberlien. Thank you, Senator.
    The proposed bill takes into account management needs for 
preparing for and responding to wildfire and the fire 
restoration needs post-fire.
    Senator Wyden. And so it gives you the flexibility that is 
key for an agency, is that correct? I understand that you all 
feel that the flexibility is there for you all to carry out 
your important responsibilities.
    Ms. Eberlien. Yes, it does.
    Senator Wyden. Very good.
    So the final question I have, now that we have established 
that the bill gives you the flexibility to deal with fire risk 
is--we have been working with cattle and ranching families 
across Oregon who want to make sure that grazing is compatible 
with Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. Can you walk us 
through so we can make sure that the Wild and Scenic River 
designations give land managers the flexibility to work with 
ranchers to keep livestock in a Wild and Scenic River corridor?
    Ms. Eberlien. Yes, thank you, Senator.
    The grazing is allowed in Wild and Scenic River corridors. 
There is flexibility to work with ranchers and permit holders 
to keep their cattle on the landscape as well as meet the 
values of the Wild and Scenic River designations.
    Senator Wyden. Very good.
    My time is expired. I just want to say to colleagues that I 
am particularly appreciative of both of our witnesses--Ms. 
Malmberg, more than 3,000 miles away, has described how the 
River Democracy Act works for her and her community in a very 
forthright way, and Ms. Eberlien, I particularly appreciate 
your outlining your views that the proposed law gives the 
agencies the flexibility to mitigate fire risks and also 
protect grazing.
    In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 
to enter letters from Oregonians into the record. Now, 
colleagues--and I will make this very short--the number of 
supportive letters for the River Democracy Act far outnumbers 
the letters from those opposed, but I would like to note that 
all the letters that I am entering into the record are from 
Oregonians who deserve to have their views heard and 
considered. That is what the Oregon Way is all about, and I 
want to make sure that the letters citing concerns as well as 
those that are supportive be entered into the record as well 
this morning.
    Senator King. Without objection.
    [Letters regarding S. 192 follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
[* The attachment mentioned in the above letter is available for 
inspection in the Committee's files.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Senator King. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Caldwell, I would like to start with you. I want to 
talk about national monuments for a minute. President Obama's 
proclamation creating the Bears Ears National Monument states 
that it was meant to preserve traces of ancient human life, 
including baskets, pottery, petroglyphs, weapons, and more. I 
have a lot of material I want to cover so on some of them I am 
going to ask for a yes or no answer to my question, if you can.
    Are these types of objects--namely baskets, petroglyphs, 
weapons and so forth--are they protected by the Archeological 
Resources Protection Act and the Native American Graves 
Repatriation Act?
    Mr. Caldwell. Senator, I would have to get back with you 
with that specific answer.
    Senator Lee. Okay, thank you. The answer there, by the way, 
is yes.
    Now, President Obama's Bears Ears proclamation also cites 
the presence of the Mexican spotted owl, the southwestern 
willow flycatcher, and other species as additional reasons for 
the designation. Are those species and their habitats protected 
by the Endangered Species Act?
    Mr. Caldwell. Once again, I would get back to the Committee 
on your question.
    Senator Lee. Good. And they are.
    President Obama's Bears Ears proclamation also cites the 
presence of big sagebrush as a reason for the designation. Do 
you know in which states big sagebrush naturally occurs?
    Mr. Caldwell. Not specifically, I do not, but we can 
certainly reply to you and the Committee.
    Senator Lee. Big sagebrush can be found in Washington, 
Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, 
Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and 
Utah.
    From your answers and from the basis from which I have 
drawn those questions, it seems like the Antiquities Act is 
being used as a guise of protection, but in reality, it has 
been used for political gain. It is despicable that despite 
archeological treasures and species having their own 
protections under other laws, the Administrations have used the 
Antiquities Act proclamations and designations to feed this 
sentiment that fakes the dire, pressing need for expansive 
national monuments. It creates this false, binary choice 
between do you want this national monument or do you want to 
disregard all of these treasures that will otherwise be 
devastated? These are interests that are already protected by 
other federal laws and I think it is laughable that an 
Administration would cite the presence of a species so 
ubiquitous and massive as big sagebrush to justify a national 
monument--a massive monument like those designated in Utah. 
Entire economies can be uprooted. This power has been abused 
with respect to my state and others.
    Some members of this Committee represent states that have 
been exempted from unilateral Presidential designations of 
national monuments under the Antiquities Act, and I think it is 
time that Congress review the Antiquities Act for that very 
reason.
    Now, it is not just people in this branch of government 
that see the need for this. Recently, Chief Justice John 
Roberts stated, specifically in reference to the Antiquities 
Act, that ``A statute permitting the President in his sole 
discretion to designate as monuments `landmarks,' `structures,' 
and `objects,'--along with the smallest area of land compatible 
with their management--has been transformed into a power 
without any discernible limit to set aside vast and amorphous 
expanses of terrain above and below the sea.'' Does Chief 
Justice Roberts make a fair point that national monuments have 
exceeded their statutory limits? And I am going to ask for a 
yes or no answer.
    Mr. Caldwell. Sir, I haven't read the Chief Justice's 
opinion. So I will have to defer.
    Senator Lee. Okay.
    I think it is important that anyone in the Administration 
who deals with these issues in public lands really ought to 
read them, and I think anyone who, after reading them, after 
reading those statements, anyone who cannot commit to a yes or 
a no response to such a question and the possibility that the 
Antiquities Act has been abused, I think that would be very 
troubling if they could not commit to that. In my opinion, an 
inconclusive answer in response to that would mean that the 
Antiquities Act is, in fact, something that has become a 
political football--something that has been used in many, many 
cases by Presidents of one party to go after states that have 
not supported members of that party, that happen to have a lot 
of federal public land, turning our states into virtual pinatas 
where the President's own base responds with loud applause 
every time that president acts, even to the detriment of the 
local communities.
    I see my time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator King. Senator Kelly.
    Senator Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by 
thanking you and Ranking Member Daines for holding today's 
hearing on legislation that Senator Sinema and I introduced to 
enhance three national monuments in Arizona. Our bills span our 
incredible state. One monument, Sunset Crater Volcano National 
Monument, is located in Northern Arizona. The other, Casa 
Grande Ruins National Monument, is in Central Arizona, and the 
third, the Chiricahua National Monument, is in Southern 
Arizona. When most Americans think about their national parks, 
they envision world famous attractions like Grand Canyon or 
Yellowstone, but national monuments are just as important for 
admiring geologic wonders and protecting the legacy of 
indigenous cultures. National monuments also attract tourists, 
which support jobs and economic growth in rural communities. 
Our three bills would ensure the continued enjoyment of these 
special places for future generations of Arizonans.
    Sunset Crater is a volcano that last erupted only about 
1,000 years ago and is just outside of Flagstaff. Our 
legislation would adjust its boundaries to make it easier to 
maintain the entrance road and a visitor center that hosts 
200,000 people annually.
    The Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Boundary Adjustment 
Act would allow the Park Service to preserve land containing 
archeological discoveries dating back to the 14th century that 
belong to the ancient Hohokam people. The Hohokam were builders 
of a vast canal system along the Gila River, which was later 
reestablished in the 1860's by pioneers who named the place 
Phoenix.
    The last bill, the Chiricahua National Park Act, would 
rename the Chiricahua National Monument as a national park. 
This would be Arizona's fourth national park. I have letters 
from several communities in southeastern Arizona supporting 
this bill and they are excited, they are very excited for the 
visitors that the park would attract. I also have a letter from 
the San Carlos Apache Tribe that wants to ensure the 
legislation would not open the park to mining or impact 
visitation by tribal members.
    So Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that those 
letters be added to the record.
    Senator King. Without objection.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    [Letters regarding S. 1320 follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Kelly. Now Mr. Caldwell, thank you for your 
testimony today. I only have a few questions for you. Under 
your interpretation, would this bill establishing Chiricahua 
National Park open the park to mining or change your agency's 
obligation to provide tribal members access to this site?
    Mr. Caldwell. Well, the NPS requirements to consult with 
local communities and tribes in the management of the national 
park would not change with the nomenclature designation being 
changed.
    Senator Kelly. But would it open the park to mining?
    Mr. Caldwell. Not to my knowledge, sir.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    Would the Sunset Crater bill help the Park Service improve 
the visitor experience at the monument?
    Mr. Caldwell. Yes, it would. I think with the bill there as 
we have supported it, it would certainly assist the National 
Park Service in providing a more efficient visitor service and 
experience.
    Senator Kelly. Would you briefly describe in the remaining 
time some of the archeological resources that the Casa Grande 
Ruins bill would be protecting?
    Mr. Caldwell. Yes, Senator.
    The sensitive and significant resources this bill would 
protect include a prehistoric canal, above-ground prehistoric 
standing ruins, a platform mound, a compound wall, and a 
prehistoric ball court. There are numerous archeological sites 
there that exist on these parcels and this--certainly, the 
perseveration of these resources would be our mission there, an 
incredible resource there.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.
    Mr. Caldwell. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of 
my time.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    I have visited Casa Grande and the Chiricahuas. I can 
attest to their beauty and powerful impact on anyone who visits 
there.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My questions, Mr. Caldwell, relate to legislation that is 
being offered, both the Global War on Terrorism Memorial 
Location Act and the Medal of Honor Commemorative Work Act. And 
so I guess, really, my questions to you are--what are some of 
the logistical challenges in terms of how it relates to our 
Mall if we are able to move forward with those--with that 
legislation and then actually establish those memorials? Have 
you started any kind of planning process or do you have some 
kind of planning process for new memorials?
    Mr. Caldwell. Sure, we have an active planning role with 
our regional office. We work with--once a memorial is 
authorized--we work with those groups and discuss the processes 
that need to happen for monuments and memorials to take place 
in Washington, DC, and we certainly would welcome an 
opportunity to brief Committee staff on those specific steps, 
but we do have an active role in working with partners--the 
World War I memorial just opened up at Pershing Park--a long 
history of the National Park Service working with groups.
    Senator Hoeven. Do you actually have a site plan 
anticipating additional memorials or not? I mean, do you do it 
on a block or do you actually have kind of a development or a 
site plan?
    Mr. Caldwell. I would, sure, I would defer to our National 
Capital Area for that, for a briefing at what is laid out for 
the Reserve area as well as Area 1, which is adjacent to the 
National Mall.
    Senator Hoeven. And then how about concepts? How do you 
develop concepts, whether it would be more relative to the 
Global War on Terror or relative to our Medal of Honor winners? 
Conceptually, how do you go about developing those?
    Mr. Caldwell. We work with--as we do across the country 
with community groups--non-profit groups that have been created 
for the establishment of these memorials and monuments. So we 
interact with them, go through the process, go over the 
planning requirements, the requirements of the National 
Commission, those types of things that need to take place here 
for those memorials, and we would be happy to review the 
specifics of that with you and other members of the Committee.
    Senator Hoeven. Do you have specific recommendations 
regarding either one of those, the Global War on Terror or the 
Medal of Honor proposals?
    Mr. Caldwell. Sure. The Department, in terms of the 
monument placement on the Reserve, we do not support the 
monument placement on the Reserve for the Global War on Terror. 
For the Medal of Honor commemorative work, we would welcome the 
opportunity to work with the group, both identifying locations 
as well as design and the elements that go into producing that.
    Senator Hoeven. I am sorry, in regard to the Global War on 
Terror, you say you do not support what aspect of it?
    Mr. Caldwell. The location on the Reserve area of the 
National Mall.
    Senator Hoeven. So you would have alternative locations 
identified?
    Mr. Caldwell. What we would do is work with the group that 
is working on creating the monument if it was passed and go 
over different areas, different locations, based on our 
experience in the National Capital Area on that. So we would 
review potential areas.
    Senator Hoeven. And in regard to the Medal of Honor 
Memorial?
    Mr. Caldwell. We would do the same thing with the 
Commemorative works for the Medal of Honor, go over different 
options available to the folks that are working to establish 
that.
    Senator Hoeven. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Caldwell. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator King. Any further questions?
    Mr. Caldwell and our other witnesses, thank you so much for 
joining us, and from Oregon, early in the morning, and from 
Maine. We appreciate your testimony and the work, and also from 
the Forest Service. So thank you all for your testimony here 
today.
    We will be working on these bills in the very near future 
and I appreciate the input.
    Some members of the Committee may submit additional 
questions in writing and I would ask our witnesses to submit 
their answers for the record. Committee members will have until 
6:00 p.m. tomorrow to submit additional questions for the 
record. We will keep the hearing record open for two weeks to 
receive any additional comments.
    The Subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[* The attachments mentioned in the above letter are available for 
inspection in the Committee's files.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[* The attachments mentioned in the above letter are available for 
inspection in the Committee's files.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[* The attachment mentioned in the above letter is available for 
inspection in the Committee's files.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[* The author of the above letter attached a 423-page packet of letters 
and articles in support of S. 192, which is available for inspection in 
the Committee's files.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[* The author of the above letter attached a 145-page packet of letters 
and articles in support of S. 192, which is available for inspection in 
the Committee's files.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[* The author of the above letter attached a 428-page packet of 
materials to support opposition to S. 1526 and 1527, which is available 
for inspection in the Committee's files.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]