there's going to be a half hour delay due to votes on the floor committee are now her resources will come to order the committee is meeting today for the consideration of h r three zero nine for the national parks and ten year old fund act the national park service is without question one of the greatest conservation agencies in the world it manages three hundred ninety one natural cultural and recreational sites in the united states and americans are justifiably proud of their parks but as we approach the one hundredth anniversary the national park service in the year tw we are well aware that our national park service faces many challenges the fact the matter is at its existing budget cannot keep abreast of the cost of maintaining the system in world class shape and in a condition that visitors expect and deserve certainly we are all aware of the maintenance backlog in the parks and as well the reduction in visitor services such as ranger guided tours the pending legislation and initiative and interior secretary dirk kempthorne is an effort to address a separate dedicated fun to address the deficiencies in the park system the intent is for these funds to be matched by the private sector so that we would have a true partnership effort on behalf of our parks as we approach this in any further just like the wild wildfire funding bill this committee recently approved the funds in h r three zero nine four which separate men rather than replace those made available under the annual appropriation process i would like to thank secretary camp norn as well as our first lady laura bush for their leadership on this matter i would also recognize all the work that the national parks conservation association has put into this initiative and i commend our parks committee chairman the gentleman from arizona mystery older of the bill sponsor for his tireless efforts in championed this matter and i now recognize the ranking member mr young of alaska for any remarks he may have low i have reservations this legislation because of the funding mechanism which occurs here i will yield back the most of my time the chair recognize and i'm sorry let's get some technical stuff out the way for us percent appreciation for for your work on this legislation as we know the national park service has been forced to make due with inadequate funding and staffing levels for far too long there was a significant disagreement over the spending priorit priorities which created this problem but there is a universal agreement that the hundreds anniversary of n p s is a once in a lifetime opportunity to fix it last year the administration proposal proposed a broad outline of  centennial program to provide m p s ten years of significant funding increase including new mandatory spending however that proposal did not include an offset nor did it in our view sufficient guidance regarding expenditure of this funding since since that first proposal we worked closely with the administration our colleagues in the committee and a variety of outside organizations led by the national parks conservation association to craft a consensus proposal for the a number of significant compromises were reached prior to the introduction of thirty nine hundred four at the appropriate time will be offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that represents even further consensus the aim of the legislation and the substitute is to provide the new funding as requested but to ensure that congress will play a significant oversight role in how the funds are allocated over the next decade for their legislation six to make sure that while there will be additional funding available for traditional bricks and mortar construction projects the funding will also be used to support new in it including programs to provide more opportunities for education and professional development and our door outdoor recreation of the units of the national parks the park system this combination of traditional capital construction projects and new initiatives will provide the national park system with the right tools to continue succeeding well into the second century i colleagues to support the substitute when it is offered to support a chart thirty nine fo chair thanks to jump in arizona now recognizes the ranking member of the seven committee mr bishop of utah thank you mr chairman america is blessed with an abundance of public parks that are unsurpassed natural beauty rich in historical significance and provide recreation education opportunities found nowhere else on earth mars yes but not here on earth as the national park system approaches its one hundredth year it is appropriate we act to ensure proper care of our vast national park sources h r thirty ninety four as chairman grow while this version of the national parks intended challenge fund the idea of such a fund was first proposed by the bush administration as a way for the country to celebrate the national park service the centennial in two thousand and sixteen and prepare the parks for another century of enjoyment as originally proposed up to one hundred million dollars annually in federal funds would be matched dollar for dollar with private funds resulting in two hundred million dollars per for ten years to carry out projects of significance to the park system despite the popularity of the national parks with the public and congress there remains a backlog of repairs maintenance and restoration projects needed to bring the parks into a condition of which we can be proud properly manage the centennial challenge program could go a long way to meeting this long sought goal the new director mrs vollmer brought an exciting vision for the future a vision congress could embrace she clearly saw the need to involve the private sector in projects to enhance the physical aspect assets of our in our parks not vaporous initiatives that do not preserve the natural historic physical treasures she envisioned a greater commitment from sources we have never before involved in our public park system such a partnership would grow assume to a better future director paul maher accurately noted that we need to expand the visitation in parks especially from a younger generation who are not now attracted to the system and she recognizes a park to fill the measure of its purpose must be seen for the future we must make our parks more user friendly and exciting and this demanded a new strategy to take the vision of the past and excite a new generation of americans the department of interior placed before us a legislative initiative forced us to think outside the box and common vision a future greatness it was a brilliant proposal unfortunately it's not before us today you'll back my time the chair and i reckon as any other member wishes to speak on legislation if not then we're ready to start a member process and the gentleman from arizona is recommended for fat mass to explain his amendment and major steps to that objection amendment is considered read and printed in record dragnet thank you very much mr chairman since introducing a chart thirty ninety four we have circulated to full discussion drafts of proposed changes to the legislation among all the stakeholders interested in the in the legislation and the back and forth process over many months we have hammered out when and which with input from the administration our committee colleagues and a coalition of conservation and business groups the substitute i am now offered as a result of that lengthy negotiation the administration and the coalition led by m p c a fully support this substitute this amendment provides the administration more flexibility in creating their list of proposed centennial projects strengthens the priority given to projects with was committed not federal matching funds and they had two new centennial program areas cultural resource protection and outdoor recreation for the substitute removes the placeholder offset provision included in the bill as introduced and replaces it to be frank with another placeholder several of our colleagues of several outside groups objected to the new fee authority contained in the bill as introduced to accommodate those concerns we have replaced that provision with language repealing contract authority contained in the land and water conservation fund act this new provision does not rate does not raise sufficient funds but it is our intention to continue working with the minority and the leadership in the house to craft an adequate offset if and when this legislation is considered on the floor it is that it is included here because it is our understanding that this place holder is acceptable to the minority we have said from the beginning that the centennial of the national park service is too important to get bogged down in part and that spirit we have conducted in completely transparent process through which we have made significant changes to the original legislation at the request of stakeholders well we have more work to do on the offset we are proud of the consensus of the amendment and ur seldom does the congress have the foresight to take action eight years before an event and that's exactly what we're doing here today getting ready for the centennial anniversary but it's not unprecedented and similar thing happened fifty years ago mission sixty six to get ready for the fiftieth anniversary of the park system and i think some of the modifications have been made been very very helpful in moving this forward i do have a question to mr green hall in regards to striking the commercial  authority as an attempt to pay for it and instead using the or abolishing the contracting authority on the land and water conservation fund act it's my understanding that by abolishing that contracting authority that would generate about thirty million a year but the goal is an appropriation of about one hundred million per year under this act is there something that would make up the difference there is there other revenue sources that we're that we're hoping to acquire perhaps businesses that would be interested which would be wonderful if they're willing to step up and help support it but one of the concerns has been raised in hearings and been discussed by a variety of people is whether or not they'll be a selling of naming rights to follow on the comments and question of my colleague from wisconsin it is noteworthy and important that we were planning this far ahead and i appreciate the attention that mister and the chairman have given to the dealing with the problems that might occur in this and of course we wish that we could fund of this from public funds and we should do everything we can to make sure we do that it's not inappropriate to accept private contributions and this is set up in such a way that we can  we have to make sure that those private contributions don't begin to dominate the process which is why we have to keep the federal contribution larger than it than we now see the way to do it because i would like to think that none of us would approve a mcdonald's golden arches national park or a baskin robbins glacier national park or a gateway computers national park or american funeral directors death valley national park or victoria's secret grand tetons national park it is you know i understand i understand there are prohibitions against actual naming  rights but we must i think guard against over commercialization of our national parks and i know that is the intention of the chairman and the subcommittee chair and the intention of this legislation but we must be vigilant chairman isn't quite extensive amendment and i want to thank you i appreciate your role in the majority's interests as my interests of national parks and we can recreational activities but again i'd like to remind my colleagues that this committee has jurisdiction over all federal lands including those lands containing tens of billions of barrels of untapped american energy and given the fact that america is in our pain huge prices for record amounts of opec oil i'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that most americans are more concerned about energy prices than they are bought hiking trails and park maintenance legislation particularly when that legislation has no funding offset as for although those americans who actually still can actually still afford to gas up that clean family trucks for a family road trip to one of our national parks this summer i'm sure they wouldn't mind at the cost of this bill were covered by federal reserves collected by american energy companies so mr chairman i'm offered this amendment really to do two things my men will pay for the entire cost of this bill by opening two thousand acres two thousand acres of three hundred sixty five thousand acres of one point six million acres of the arctic national wildlife range for american energy development that congressional budget office more lease it would totally billion dollars four billion of which would go directly to the federal government the congressional research c r s other estimates that develop man or ten point four billion barrels of oil and that's very minimal actually is probably thirty six mary barrels of oil would generate one hundred thirty one hundred eighty three point five billion dollars in corporate tax and royalty revenues of federal government that's based on a hundred twenty dollars hundred twenty two dollars a day even more important while i'm arguing one million barrels per day fourteen times as much as it is and if we can i argue that it is most of all mr chairman this is really not the way to do the things we are faced with a real crisis in this country a crisis when we can develop and where it's only three seventy four miles away from an existing pipeline is the only or we can drill and deliver oil and three years the only area and we ought to be able to do it but nowhere address it is parksville i'll probably end up voting for it but again we're not recognize the importance and they effect upon people on fixed income on the cost of fuel the cost of fuel four dollars a gallon and i will it predict mr chairman will probably go to maybe ten dollars a gallon and a very near future and all of us in this room are responsibility for that and i'm tired of hearing by your by the way mr chairman i know you know a majority and you're not part of it whining and blaming mr bush for everything we're pandering we're not solving the problem i think we ought to really start thinking about solution this committee right now the opportunity to do it i think we ought to do the right thing for this nation right thing to do instead we're passing a bill very frankly is going to improve hiking trails by the way i just want to ask you one question or someone could answer this it i information is that our population is getting older and yet we have now or part direction we're going to make it more attractive to the young what are you going to do about the baby boomers are we going to have accessibility in these parks are we going to have trails  are things going to be addressed or always going to take and try to just get the young involved mr chairman again i know this doesn't have much of a chance but i want my my members on this side and those on that side it have an interest and solve an energy problem to vote to open  long overdue i heard the chairman of the subcommittee say we're looking ahead for ten years i've been singing this song now for thirty years open and water and rice was not the time release not do it today it's only a little bit of oil when is the time when are we going to solve this problem of energy is this kind of going to step on the plate and solve it no unless we open the drilling efforts in this nation we're not going to be and i'll be the first one to tell you mr chairman you can solve all the problems by just really but it is lucian's a part of it and i've we don't addresses then shame on all of you because you're not going to solve the problem i may be waving a magic wand and talking about you know said wages and all these other good things you're go have to solve the problem of getting fossil fuels one of you in this room in our sand in your dollars overseas my dollars overseas and your grandchildren dollars overseas to foreign countries foreign countries five hundred billion dollars are over oil development we ought to be doing it and you know back to balance there you go again  the chair will respond first in no way do i want to diminish the american people's concerns with the rising price of gas it is certainly an issue in my district as it is every member's destry it's a real concern a real worry and something that we certainly need to address this particular member coming from a coast a as i do it's certainly not adverse to developing all of our domestic stressed domestic sources of energy in order free ourselves from reliance on foreign oil i think we should not be raising false hopes and we should be looking at the facts that continue to argue that opening more lands some members will say that is the way to address this issue that we should open more lands and that's essential low in gas prices the facts do speak otherwise we simply cannot drill our way to lower prices at the pump since two thousand for example the amount of federal lands as  three hundred and sixty one percent gasoline prices have risen dramatically there is simply no correlation further despite the federal government's willingness to make public lands available to energy developers the forty two million acres of on shore federal lands that are currently being leased by all and gas companies only about twelve million acres are actually in production and production or are producing oil and gas so that this tendency to stock pow leases has been evident for at least the past decade stockpiling of leases on domestic lands and two thousand and seven the government issued seven thousand five hundred sixty one permits to drill yet only four thousand seven hundred four wells were started over the past four years there have been nine thousand oil and gas development that they are not using to increase domestic production so despite the fact that john from alaska seeking to inject a good deal of controversy enter relatively noncontroversial bill and the jim and all due respect to you've got to solve this problem and we're not doing it and if you think this is going to solve the problem then give me an example of what will solve the problem it's only seventy four miles away three years i can deliver a million barrels a day of the american public not that he plays and that's just what chavez is producing to us today and right now he's some of his nose out of so i'm suggesting this is the way to solve this problem pay for this bill put money in the bank and solve  i'm sorry i'm sorry and when you talked about the forty two million acres twelve million was on the contract where they all come is they just use it just all the exploration in effect is a multi use land or is it available for hiking trails and involved to use if the jam and days are leases that have been granted for development that may or may not be oil rigs on and i don't know but they are leases that been granted cost is associated with a lot of people back in my district that was having difficulty getting back and forth to work because of the ever increasing price of gasoline i think it's about three dollars or six percent of his regular and i support it i know that we're using now twenty one million barrels of all every day and some thirteen billion barrels of that is imported and like he said that's a cost of our trade imbalance of over five hundred billion dollars a year and we not doing anything to become more energy independent and i think it's almost a security risk as every day you see it as a pipeline being exploded or just about everywhere we getting our imported all i mean it's nothing there we talk about we talk about an area as large as the state of south carolina my state and we talk about using about two thousand acres to address maybe it won't solve the problem with that we just said we got thirteen billion barrels deficiency now on imports this would help but i think it would show to vericut people that we willing to do something to try to relieve them of this ever increasing cost which seems like nobody's got a solution you know somebody has got these things about premium and all this stuff that was all about rhetoric we need to find some solutions we're looking for some leadership to step forward and give us some comfort to the american people that we really are up here also kill the bill as i mentioned earlier we have struggled for many months to craft legislation that would attract ball broad bipartisan support we took the approach that because of the hundred ton of mercy of the national park system it is too it is too important  milestone to allow other policy or part of some disagreements to derail this legislation and that and that is what the inclusion of this provision would do it would sensually do rail the bill setting aside the substantive issue here which in my view are very significant the fact is that this proposal has been rejected by both the house and the senate this proposal failed to achieve senate approval even during the previous congress and i understand the offset in the underlining substitute is far from perfect but it is at least non controversial and provides us with a framework and an opportunity to move the legislation forward this amendment would insert in the bill arguably the most divisive environmental issue in the country and virtually guarantee that h r thirty ninety four will never be enacted into law i think in support of the centennial i would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment  washington that it's so big and controversial i know there's environmental the jump on the bandwagon but if we got realistic from here and talked about the real effect that it would have to drill  now we've hired one representation that carob across there once a year or something like that we are back when the pipeline was man built up there that we were going to wipe out the last twenty seven hundred mining had a carob turns out pop  oil going through there was warm and now when caribou want to go on a diet they invite each other go to pipeline because it makes a memory and now we're up to thirty thousand head of a hard back in the sixty's if you allow these oil and gas platforms out in the gulf of mexico it will destroy all the fishing in the gulf of mexico now you want to go fishing though usually to do what we came an artificial reef with those things out there in the gulf of mexico and the environment can work together we can get the resources we need and this not only would provide revenue to help hold the parks in america and i'm not going to try to tell you how to run your party's business because we're we're in the minority for a reason right now but i'm telling you thousands and thousands of people that we have heard from lots of issues a very important we're hearing about the mortgage crisis we've got eighty five or six million people paying their mortgage on time paying their rent on time but they're i'm here and they're in trouble they're maxing out their credit cards to pay these ridiculously high gasoline prices and all they get is demagoguery from washington now whose fault we're here in the twenty to thirty percent of the price of a  gallon of gasoline is speculation because the speculators are smart they're seeing that all the legislation coming out of the out of this congress is making it more difficult to use our own energy and making it elation if they saw how serious we were about not only addressing the parks and making those nice but actually bringing down the price of gasoline so people can go see them and not run out of their credit card limit and not run out of their colorado utah and wyoming now they're saying there may be three to five times that much coverable oil that we're not going to go after now there are some places i understand might be available for eight years but it's go take seven years or so to get the permits even have a chance well nobody's going to invest capital in a deal like that week in fact that twenty thirty percent just like that if we got serious and showed america we're interested in trying to solve our a new group in washington i'm just saying this could be the issue brings about trouble for whoever's in power and congress and the white house but more important forget which party is in power we need to do it for the american people and then they can thank you mr chairman of course the simple statement is that some places are just too special to drill i suppose everyone here admires the persistence of of the gentleman from alaska in making looking for every opportunity to make this case i suppose we have to persist in answering it look at it this way if the gentleman had succeeded as he wanted years ago to to undertake this drilling what we would have seen slight bump a little blip in the energy production graph years ago it would have been over with it would have come and gone what we would have been left with would have been spoiled land disrupted it's a logical systems disrupted wildlife compromise culture of  and ourselves deeper in the hole of climate change and not much to show for it clearly what we should be doing is investing our in our technological this isn't special when you said some places are too special i wouldn't be surprised if there are some places in texas that are too special for drilling also but i do know having visited and studied about the alaska wildlife refuge that it is too special to be drilling in now thank you mr chairman i appreciate the chairman's response to mr young's proposal the dad at you gave us about the number of permits to the number of drilling that were taking place is interesting as well as it is irrelevant to the issue is not a matter of the number of permits that are there the kinds of permits and where you actually are drilling and i would just note for the record that the numbers you were talking about were all drilling of natural gas and oil and to be honest the majority of those permits to which you referred were for natural gas not for oil totally different animals in fact what we're talking about here is trying to find a paygo solution for this particular bill and in contrast to what the gentleman from new jersey said the cultural area is going to be preserved because the people who live in this area who know the land are totally in favor of this project going forward i might add we are also inaccurate in what we say we're not talking about drilling  anwar is a reserve the size of south carolina what we're talking about is a section on his ten ten zero two lands that were set aside in the carter administration for the sole purpose of energy development this area in which we drilling which is the size of dulles airport not south carolina was established for drilling for oil production it's not part of the anwar reserve that was its purpose when it was it was originally established and the fact that we are not allowing it to maintain its purpose is our fault and our faulty assumption of what is going on at there not the reality of what is on the ground down there so we're talking about anwar which once again to set the record straight has passed in the house and has passed in the senate unfortunately never in the same bill and that's the difficulty in which we have right now or it would have been in place by now and we would not be talking about but we have the opportunity of trying to do something with this particular bill by growing the economy to find the revenue to actually do a pay go offset for this issue what we have before us right now is a bill that i'm willing to allow go forward under the assumption that someday down the road we can do the placeholder to which we will approve today someday find an area that actually fund this in the process but what the gentleman we're from alaska whether this is sure maine or not has simply done is provide a commonsense rat reliable obvious way of actually funding not just the thirty million but one hundred million for this particular bill and doing it in a way that i painless because it's in an area in which it was supposed to be done in the first place that's why the carter administration put the ten o two section aside for oil development not as part of the refuge and we should not confuse the two they are they are separate they are different and once again the number of permits isn't significant actually the production is significant and this is the area where that production can take place so regardless of how you rule as far as whether this is germane or not it still is a good and perfect solution to the problem situation in the m r not a single drop would be produced for ten years that if we are really interested and there's no reasonable way of arguing that if the markets the speculators saw that there was going to be perhaps a purse drop of oil ten years from now that that would drop the price of a barrel of oil on the world market today what we could do today of course is have the president at something that's ten dollars a barrel cheaper we could be doing that right now sending a real message to the speculators these twenty eight year olds thirty year olds that are in the you know in this speculation business see everything as a commodity but the administration is not doing that so the immediate message to speculators should come as a marketplace response by the bush administration with regard to the fact that we're not going to buy any more oil it's mine seventy thousand barrels of oil today at  should stop that and we should do a swap which would actually wind up with with the light crude which really sets the whole price that marketplace knowing that we deploying seventy that we're deploying the president can pick a number thirty thousand forty thousand fifty thousand one hundred thousand barrels a day of the sweet crude which is what sets the one twenty three price and be repurchasing on the same day the heavy crude so the spro stays the same number that combination would i think immediately pricked the bubble instead what people are doing is they're continuing to talk about these releases when  percent of all these is even today and not acted upon by the oil industry they've already gone to so one of the things that we've done out of this committee historically mr chairman is to talk about whether or not we should impose a fee on oil companies that don't drill on even because otherwise they're asking for more leases that they might be sitting on so if they could demonstrate more activity in in the areas where they already have their leases that would be great but mostly so they have the not even drilling on right now and we have with the number here is quite astounding that the number of new new leases which we have given them as a government we we that is the bush administration and this congress have offered big oil more than two hundred sixty eight million acres for drilling in the last six years that's what they've been able to pick up so most of that they don't even drilling on yet that's a lot of acreage that you know that the bush administration this congress has pas housekeeping here as we were obviously i have a series of votes on the floor now the chair would hope we could include a debate on this amendment roll call this man as expected and then have no more votes i would hope that final pass the debate gentleman said that the private sector match is it still in there or is it out of the legislation for the federal funding arguments over the decades about this but i do want to say that since we last discussed this issue there have been some changes and i'll just mention a couple i was in california last weekend meeting with about one hundred entrepreneurs venture capitalists and o s of these companies and since we last argued about this there have been such breakthroughs happening in other non carbon based energy systems that it's just we met a guy who  signed a contract with israel to totally electrify the transportation system of israel by using advanced batteries and recharging systems he's now signed a contract with denmark and he started to talk to folks in the us talk to a guy that had signed the first contract for solar thermal generated electricity or use mirrors to generate heat molten salt they've signed their first contracts in florida california and i just want to point out that since we last argued this we've just had a lot of brilliant americans who are looking above their shoulders instead of just below their feet for energy and i think as time goes on we're seeing the wisdom of start really focus between our ears then above our feet and i just want to add that to the to the discussion thank  you gentleman from nevada thank you i'll just ask a question and that's all right i'm sorry if i just heard an argument that seventy five thousand barrels a day would have a good impact on the market how can we with that in mind turn down a and if i can you actually can do this before we go to vote you want to say well we're down to five minutes maybe i guess we should come back it's up to you though i think there are other people who want to do  amendment as well but i understand they will not be here to offer to let me i do have an amendment that i'd like and maybe if the gentleman would yield i could ask a couple of questions that may eliminate the need for doing that here and on page three think it so that line twenty we have a unique language that we use in there on must and i realize legally there's a difference between shall and may may is are may is voluntarily shall is mandatory the word must is unique there is the chairman's position that must and shall mean the same thing yes it is can i then ask a hypothetical as to the word should i realize may is one that gives  voluntary should would make it somewhat to get some discretion but certainly shows a tendency of where the intent of congress would be as opposed to show it or must which means they have to do it now is the chairman agree with me on that kind of definition that but i will say should is meant to give a little more leeway yes on this issue i felt that i still do i think have many and i'd like to make it some time ok well then then mr chairman i do have an amended i think it's at the desk which deals with the language on page three lines twenty twenty one of the current language said it must contain falls under each of the initiatives set forth i would propose them to use the word should as opposed to must with a simple concept that in the language we have right now tends to be micromanaging at best if i can see very easily the scenario of the parks department park service having a situation where there are six different areas now and you need to have something in those areas there may be the situation where you find it that there are five proposals for five areas but not one for the six which within that case simply mean do you then do none of them or do you try and prioritize in some way it would seem logical that if you have three proposals and three areas that are really outstanding and three that are less than outstanding you may want to try and mix and match with that i have no problem with trying to give some direction and you have some problem we try to match dry to micromanage the park service and simply tell them you have to find something in each of those areas when sometimes you may not have a legitimate project in one of those areas and i think should at least in my estimation tries to cut the difference between may and shall by providing providing some kind of inference of what our goals were without having to micromanage the  department it's a gentleman from utah would yield i understand there were three issues that you had with a set to staff level yesterday two of which we agreed and have incorporated this and now this third one is mean sprung on us i'm this was the third one and i ask for the word may i'm trying to see if i can cut the difference now and give should instead instead of the word  may i can always find they will just have to continue discussion on it we're not ready except it to disappoint and if it's the staff will continue working with me because i do want to try and see if we can get a boy micromanaging this department i can see down the road such circumstances in which there may not be adequate proposals in all six areas and where they may want to do some kind of prior to sation within the department and with that with the understanding we can still keep talking on this because i realize we have a long way to go before we find out a pay for it anyway withdraw that amendment ok