U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–668 PDF 2014

H.R. 3286, PROTECTING STATES 

OPENING NATIONAL PARKS ACT; 

H.R. 3294, STATE-RUN FEDERAL 

LANDS ACT; H.R. 3311, PROVIDE 

ACCESS AND RETAIN CONTINUITY 

(PARC) ACT; H.R. 3492, RIVER PADDLING PROTECTION ACT; AND 

H.R. 915, THE PEACE CORPS COMMEMORATION ACT 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Thursday, November 21, 2013 

Serial No. 113–52 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cox, Hon. Spencer J., Lieutenant Governor, State of Utah .......................... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 9 

Kennedy, Hon. Joseph P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 6 

Nelson, Dr. Robert H., Professor, School of Public Policy, University of 

Maryland ....................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 51 

Petri, Hon. Thomas E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wisconsin ................................................................................................... 8 

Pruzan, Aaron, Wilson, Wyoming ................................................................... 42 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 43 

Sease, Matthew, Treasurer, Montana Lodging and Hospitality 

Association ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Sheaffer, Bruce, Comptroller, National Park Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ................................................................................................ 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

American Whitewater, Prepared statement of ............................................... 36 

American Packrafting Association, Prepared statement of ........................... 39 

Letters submitted for the record by Representative Grijalva ....................... 57 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 70 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Prepared statement on H.R. 3492 ........... 68 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON: H.R. 3286 (DAINES), TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO REIMBURSE STATES THAT USE STATE FUNDS TO OPERATE NATIONAL PARKS DURING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 

‘‘PROTECTING STATES OPENING NATIONAL PARKS 

ACT’’; H.R. 3294 (YOUNG), TO ESTABLISH A STREAMLINED PROCESS THROUGH WHICH A STATE MAY 

CLAIM AUTHORITY OVER AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR 

MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL LANDS LOCATED IN 

THE STATE WITHOUT CLAIMING OWNERSHIP OF 

THE LAND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘STATERUN FEDERAL LANDS ACT’’; H.R. 3311 (STEWART), 

TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO 

ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH STATES TO ALLOW 

CONTINUED OPERATION OF FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE A 

DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON TOURISM, MINING, 

TIMBER, OR GENERAL TRANSPORTATION IN THE 

STATE AND WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE CEASE OPERATING IN WHOLE OR IN PART DURING A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN THAT IS THE RESULT OF A LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘PROVIDING ACCESS AND RETAIN CONTINUITY (PARC) ACT’’; H.R. 3492 (LUMMIS), 

TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF HAND-PROPELLED 

VESSELS IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, 

GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, AND THE NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; 

AND H.R. 915 (KENNEDY), TO AUTHORIZE THE 

PEACE CORPS COMMEMORATIVE FOUNDATION TO 

ESTABLISH A COMMEMORATIVE WORK IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ITS ENVIRONS, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

Thursday, November 21, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, Young, Lamborn, Lummis, 

Labrador, Daines, LaMalfa, Smith, Grijalva, Tsongas, Shea-Porter, 

Garcia, and DeFazio. 

Also Present: Representatives Kennedy, Farr, Petri and Stewart. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Noting the presence of a quorum, we will 

call this subcommittee hearing together and assume I just banged 

2 

the gavel because I have no idea where it is. Oh, there it is. Who 

cares? Bang. 

The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation is meeting today to hear testimony on five bills. Under the 

rules, opening statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent to include any 

other member’s opening statement in the hearing record if submitted to the Clerk by the close of business today. 

And hearing no objections, that will be ordered. 

Today’s bills will include H.R. 3286 by Mr. Daines, to protect 

States and Open National Parks Act; H.R. 3294 by Mr. Young, the 

State-Run Federal Lands Act; H.R. 3311 by Mr. Stewart, the 

PARC Act provides for continuous operation of parks by States during a Federal shutdown; H.R. 915 by Mr. Kennedy, to authorize 

the Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work; and H.R. 3492 by Mrs. Lummis, the River Paddling Protection Act. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. If I may begin, before we call the first panel, in 

1989, the Berlin Wall fell down, and the entire world realized that 

large, centralized, bureaucratic entities do not work. They do not 

move us forward. 

Everyone has understood that. The Entrepreneurial work has 

learned that as large companies were succeeded by lean and aggressive companies to provide product. Eastern Europe understood 

it. They all recognized the free market principles were the best. Everyone understood that, except for Washington, DC, where most of 

our agencies intended to become more centralized, more bureaucratic in an effort to try and enlarge their particular role. 

Throughout this year we have had hearings which have illustrated that leaner, smaller entities are much more effective. We 

had a hearing that illustrated how the State of Idaho and Native 

American tribes in the Northwest were far more effective in their 

management of forestlands than the Federal Government was. 

We had testimony in here on how the National Park Service has 

harmed individuals in Washington by prohibiting church groups 

because they are too loud; in Nevada in prohibiting individuals for 

searching for the remains of their dead relatives; and we have had 

a hearing of individuals from New Mexico to Montana and all 

points in between of how they had been bullied, and that was the 

proper word, and harassed by the Interior Department. 

In the 1990s, without legislation, the Interior Department was 

able during that shutdown to open parks, accept money from 

States, and then return those funds. We are going to ask why that 

should not be the case again today with certain bills, and why if 

the Park Service is now claiming that they have already spent $1.5 

million of those donations from the States and they now have their 

CR funding in place, which should supplant that original $1.5 million, what are they doing with the extra cash laying around here? 

If obviously this Park Service and the Interior Department find 

it difficult to solve these kinds of initiatives on their own, Congress 

3 

needs to step in with a template for future situations that may or 

may not develop. 

We will also hear bills that simply tell us once again this large, 

centralized, bureaucratic entity is not listening to people; that the 

experts in these agencies have become large and lethargic and simply unaccountable. They have ignored what people want to do on 

public land and have forgotten the idea that a national park that 

is not visited is of no value whatsoever to anyone. Tradition has 

trumped responsibility. 

We will have also shown in the shutdown that States are capable 

and competent to continue on. In my State, the Sand Flats recreation area was an area the Bureau of Land Management could not 

and would not regulate until a near riot broke out. Since that time, 

with the statutory law already on the books, they have contracted 

with the county so that that recreation area is now run and managed in an effective and efficient way and at a profit. 

Coral Pink Sand Dunes or something close to that in southern 

Utah is Federal land managed by the State and has been recognized by national publications as one of the most efficient and effective parks in the Nation. As one of our witnesses will testify, 

many Eastern States have a significant portion of their State already owned, managed, and controlled by the State itself. They do 

so efficiently, and at the same time want to deny Western States 

for that same kind of opportunity. 

This kind of Soviet era mindset has become unfortunately the 

norm. About a decade ago there was another publication that I 

think was entitled ‘‘Outside its Time,’’ and the question has to be 

what do we do with agencies who are simply outside their time. 

There have to be some new concepts we are talking about. 

And the last bill we will talk about is specifically allowing those 

States, those lower entities, those leaner management associations 

to take over and provide those types of services. We are talking 

about new ideas going forward to us, which should be based on the 

lessons we should have learned in the past. The world has learned 

those lessons. The free market system has learned those lessons. 

Government in Washington has simply not learned the lessons. In 

fact, some of the testimony that we will hear today is outstanding 

in its degree of arrogance. 

We also have a bill, and we will start with that one first, that 

deals with the commemorative effort to recognize the Peace Corps, 

which will not, as I understand, be on the Mall, but will be using 

the leftover mesh tapestries from the Eisenhower Memorial to try 

and build it by itself. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

Today we will consider several pieces of legislation that will empower the States 

against the whims of Federal land managers. During the lapse of appropriations in 

October, several States offered to pick up the tab to keep popular national parks 

open. Understandably, States were concerned that the closures would have damaging impacts to local businesses and would prevent the American public from enjoying their parks—in many cases, unnecessarily. However, almost as soon as these 

offers were made, the Obama administration rejected them. 

4 

When States inquired why their Federal partners did not want the funds to open 

National Parks, the answer was about as clear as heathcare.gov. The responses varied from ‘‘we can’t,’’ to ‘‘it wouldn’t be appropriate,’’ to ‘‘it’s too complicated.’’ 

It didn’t seem to matter that the Park Service accepted their donations in the previous shutdown and even took third party funds just this year to keep a visitor 

center open. So what was different about this shutdown? I don’t understand the hostility toward cooperation with the States. 

After 10 days, the administration finally relented and accepted donations from the 

States, but with the strict understanding that the Park Service would not commit 

to making reimbursements and the States had to fork up not just enough money 

to keep the gates open, but a much higher rate that would fund a park completely. 

I’d like to hear from the Park Service why they are sitting on the States’ money 

even though the continuing resolution funded them from the start of the shutdown. 

Do they think the States’ money is some sort of bonus? This is the sort of accountability, or lack of accountability that makes Mr. Young’s legislation timely. It is beyond time for us to explore ways in which State governments can take a more active 

and invested role in improving the management of the Federal lands within its borders. 

Mr. BISHOP. With that, I wish to yield to the Ranking Member 

because (a) he is one of the most thoughtful and nicest guys we 

have on this panel and (b) it is the rule. If it was not that, otherwise you would be—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. With that I recognize Mr. Grijalva. 

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

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

That is kind of cold on the tapestry thing though, you know. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I do want to thank you and the full Committee 

Chair and the Ranking Member of the full Committee for considering H.R. 915 today for a hearing and hopefully moving it rapidly 

to committee action. It has been a 5-year process and a wait, and 

we do it at a very appropriate time today, and I think it is a fitting 

tribute in many ways to the fine work the Peace Corps has done 

and to a legacy of public service and I think we need to acknowledge, and so thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, the National Geographic channel has a show called 

‘‘Doomsday Preppers,’’ and it chronicles people who go to extreme 

preparation for cataclysmic events. Obviously it is extreme behavior that is always worthy of a reality show. 

Today I feel like we are bringing ‘‘Doomsday Preppers’’ to Capitol 

Hill. The bills before us today are variations of extreme behavior 

regarding the past and now the projected future government shutdowns and our beloved National Park system. I welcome the discussion about the value of public lands. 

I am glad to see the Majority acknowledge that our national park 

and wildlife areas are economic engines in our rural communities 

and to their economies, but like so many of the Majority’s bills considered by this committee, the legislation we will discuss today 

takes those shared values and twists them into divisive partisan 

extremes. 

First I want to address the legislation H.R. 3286. During this irresponsible Majority-led government shutdown, my colleagues on 

5 

the other side must have had an epiphany. Guess what. National 

parks are part of the Federal Government, and when you shut 

down the government, you also shut down the parks. 

And guess what. Americans love their parks, and they gave those 

responsible for the shutdown more than an earful. When Secretary 

Jewell allowed States to open national parks, she made it pretty 

clear—there was no guarantee that these States would ever get reimbursed. Governors of States who signed these donation agreements knew they would need to come to a cash-strapped Congress 

and argue that the Federal Government should cut their State a 

check. 

What troubled me about the agreements and what troubles me 

today is that the States want to have their cake and eat it too. 

Both the Utah legislature and the Arizona legislature passed legislation requiring the Federal Government to turn over Federal lands 

to the State. Governor Herbert signed the legislation. Governor 

Brewer did not, citing correctly concerns with constitutional issues. 

From what I can piece together, the State of Utah has already dedicated at least $2 million to implementing that legislation, H.R. 

148, which is more than they are asking for today. 

If that is not enough, we have another bill that prepares for 

perhaps another future Majority-led shutdown. H.R. 3311 would 

automatically allow States to take over national parks if there is 

another shutdown. 

Then, the icing on the cake is H.R. 3294. This legislation just 

turns over control of the lands. It not only turns over control of the 

lands, but treats Uncle Sam like a sucker. First, the bill would 

allow State law to overrule Federal statute. 

Second, it does not appear that the State assumes any liability 

for Federal lands. The States are not required to waive their sovereign immunity. So the States would take over control of our 

Federal lands, but the Federal Government would be on the financial and legal hook if something were to go wrong. 

Finally, the Federal Government has limited recourse to take 

back control of the lands if the States are poorly managing their 

assets. On the other hand, States are given authority to end any 

agreement if they no longer find it beneficial. 

From what I can tell today this hearing is about creating cover 

for Members who finally felt the sting from voters upset that their 

views were not being represented in Congress. A recent Hart 

Research Poll found that the American public had very negative 

feelings about the government shutdown. 

More relevant to today’s hearing is that over half of the electorate believed that closing national parks and public lands during 

the shutdown was a big, major problem. As for members of this 

committee who advocate for turning over Federal lands to the 

State, the polls showed overwhelmingly that the forced shutdown 

of national parks served to remind people of the importance of their 

national parks and public lands. 

We should not be funneling Federal money to States that are actively trying to take over Federal lands. We should not be coming 

up with doomsday preparations for the next shutdown. And we certainly should not be turning over public lands, economic assets that 

belong to all Americans, to individual States, especially if the FedVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04NO21 1ST SESS\85668.TXT DARLEN
6 

eral Government will still hold all of the liability. This is not right. 

We should view this hearing like people view the Doomsday 

Preppers, for its entertainment value only. 

And with that I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Now, we are going to deal with each of these bills, bill by bill. 

So we will start first with the Peace Corps commemorative work. 

We welcome Mr. Kennedy. We also welcome Mr. Petri. I am assuming you want to talk to this particular piece of legislation. 

I would also ask the committee for unanimous consent that anyone who is a presenter of a bill who wishes to stay for the rest of 

the hearing would be allowed to join us on the dais. 

Hearing no objection, we will do that. So you will have an open 

invitation to stay with us if you would like to. No one has yet taken 

me up on that offer, for which I am deeply hurt. 

I am also aware that even though we try and organize things so 

that we have the morning for committee work, there will be a vote 

on the Floor that will come roughly within 40, 50 minutes. So as 

much as I hate to have people just sit here and wait till votes are 

done, that may, indeed, be the case. 

With that I am going to call up the first panel to talk about that 

particular bill. I understand Ms. Tsongas wishes to introduce the 

sponsor of the bill, and I will recognize you for that. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Yes. It is my honor to be here to introduce my 

newest colleague from Massachusetts, although we are soon to be 

joined by yet another who has gained a seat held by our longstanding Ranking Member here, Mr. Markey. But it has been my 

honor to serve with Representative Kennedy, and I very much appreciate the legislation that he is introducing today and I am 

strongly supportive of it. 

To give you a sense of history, my husband Paul was in the first 

group that went to Ethiopia after the Peace Corps was formed. My 

daughter Ashley went to Madagascar in early 2000, and their experiences changed their lives. 

So, yes, we have had over 200,000 Peace Corps volunteers make 

their way into the developing nations and have added great value, 

and I think increased our moral standing as a result of it, but it 

is no denying that it also changes the lives of those who serve, who 

come back to seek to find many ways to contribute to our country. 

And I know that is the case for Representative Kennedy, and I 

introduce you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Kennedy, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank, Congressman Tsongas, for the extraordinary introduction. 

I want to thank the Ranking Member and the Ranking Member 

of the full Committee as well and my colleagues for making the 

time for me this morning and for this bill this morning. I cannot 

promise that it is going to be as entertaining as maybe you had 

hoped or perhaps certainly not speaking of the doomsday scenarios 

7 

that we might be envisioning, but nevertheless, an important piece 

of legislation in my mind. 

I also want to thank Congressman Petri for his extraordinary 

history of service, a former fellow Peace Corps volunteer, and his 

dedication to public service throughout his career. 

I think we might be joined by some other Peace Corps brethren 

at some point over the course of the hearing. Congressman Farr, 

Congressman Honda and Congressman Garamendi, I know also expressed their interest and they might try to stop by. 

H.R. 915, otherwise known as the Peace Corps Commemoration 

Act, is a bipartisan piece of legislation that seeks to authorize to 

erect a small commemorative here in our Nation’s Capitol in honor 

of the Peace Corps. The modest memorial will be funded completely 

through private contributions and require no taxpayer funds. 

I appear before this committee today as 1 of over 210,000 return 

Peace Corps volunteers who have served collectively in 139 different countries across the globe for the past 52 years. I think like 

many of my fellow volunteers trying to find the right words to sum 

up over 27 months of service is always difficult, and I will spare 

you the long stories, but I hoped to share a brief one with all of 

you that, I think, illustrated my time and the effect it had on me. 

About a year into my service in the Dominican Republic, I was 

on a bus, kind of a larger minivan called a ‘‘guagua’’ on the way 

back to the capital, Santa Domingo, to have some meetings at our 

Peace Corps office. The minivan was meant for about 8 or 10 and 

there were probably about 18 people in it. I was in the second to 

last row with a backpack on my lap, and I got a tap on my shoulder. The gentleman behind me, an older gentleman, asked, 

[speaking in foreign language], inquiring if I was a Peace Corps 

volunteer. Apparently I did not blend in quite as well as I had 

hoped. 

I said yes, and he went on to tell me that decades before when 

he was growing up, he lived in a small village on the outskirts of 

Santa Domingo in the mountains that did not have access to running water until a Peace Corps volunteer arrived, and he with the 

community helped construct a set of pipes to bring drinkable water 

to the village to save them hours of treks each way every day. 

Without ever asking my name or offering his, he then thanked 

me not for my work, but for the work that other volunteer had 

done all of those decades before whom as a little boy he never got 

the opportunity to say thank you to. 

A couple moments later, he got off the bus and I never saw him 

again. That to me is what I believe Peace Corps is all about, not 

about the accomplishments of any one person or volunteer, but 

about the way the combined contributions of service comes together 

to tell a story of a country that is at its very best version of itself, 

a country that might be an example and a beacon for the rest of 

the world. 

Tomorrow this country remembers a young American President 

that called a Nation to serve, a constant dreamer with a distinct 

Boston accent who put his faith in a country that at the time was 

struggling to keep faith in itself. In spreading a missive of service 

and citizenship, President John F. Kennedy moved a generation of 

civil soldiers to get off the sidelines and put their talent to work 

8 

for this Nation. Today you can find those men and women in the 

Peace Corps, in our Armed Forces, in a soup kitchen in Chicago, 

a community health center in Georgia, and a legal aid clinic in 

California. You can find them right here in the halls of Congress, 

a generation inspired to change their country by a President who 

knew that they could. 

But as the years pass, the distance will grow between the current day and those that bore witness to that time in our history. 

So we will have to work harder to remember not just President 

Kennedy’s individual accomplishments as we do any leader of our 

great Nation, but the faith and the fearlessness that he brought to 

a people who were in need of someone to cheer them on, and that 

unshakable belief that he held that if we could export the fruits of 

our labor and the fruits of our land, then we could surely export 

the most fundamental and precious commodity of all, our values. 

That is the conviction at the very heart of the Peace Corps and 

the legacy that this legislation hopes to help commemorate in its 

own simple and modest way, not the achievements of one man, but 

the potential of a people who are challenged to change the world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Petri, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. PETRI. Well, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I am here 

to demonstrate broad support for my colleague, Joe Kennedy’s bill, 

H.R. 915. 

I was in the Peace Corps. I actually would have been in Paul 

Tsongas’ group but decided to go to law school, and then was in 

Somalia. When I was there, we were taught that we were representing the American people, not necessarily the American Government, and I think a memorial to mark some 50 years of service 

by our fellow Americans that is paid by voluntary contributions is 

an appropriate indication of the public support for the volunteers 

who are representing them in many different societies all around 

the world. 

It has always been my hope over time, as you had indicated, that 

rather than it being sort of a bureaucratic thing that over time it 

could evolve to being supported by, and it is gradually happening, 

by voluntary contributions and support rather than necessarily by 

being a government-centered institution. We are nowhere near 

there yet, but institutions have been developing that support individual volunteers as they do their efforts all around the world, and 

I think my other colleagues will testify to the impact the Peace 

Corps had on them as individuals and actually their ability to communicate our role in the world as a result of that experience. 

So I strongly urge that this be dealt with in the spirit in which 

it is offered, which is as a legitimate memorial and commemorative 

effort rather than any sort of partisan football and urge that the 

committee give it favorable consideration. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Petri. 

I notice that Mr. Farr has joined us here. Mr. Farr, you came 

right on time. You are recognized for 5 minutes on this bill. 

9 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members. 

I am very excited about this bill, and I think it is an appropriate 

historical moment to be considering it when you think that tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. 

I will just tell you I was 22 years old. I was in graduate school 

studying Spanish because I already knew I wanted to be in the 

Peace Corps. I think when Kennedy made that call of, Ask not 

what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your 

country, it really stimulated young people all across America to 

thinking about service. 

I initially thought about military service. I wanted to fly planes 

but my eyesight would not allow me to do that. I think the flying 

of the planes was also related to Kennedy’s call to, you know, compete with the Russians in space and that we were going to go into 

space. 

I thought about it later, and it was really interesting. I think the 

Peace Corps was sort of go where no person has never gone before 

because what we ended up doing is sending these Americans to all 

the places of the world where nobody had ever seen anybody from 

this country, and certainly what I learned from my African friends. 

I went to South America as a Peace Corps volunteer and lived in 

a very poor barrio. I lived in a place without water, without lights. 

I grew up in Carmel, California. We had plenty of water and lights. 

It was really kind of a cultural shock to do this, but, boy, what a 

change, what a change. 

My sister came to visit me and was killed, not killed, but she 

died from an accident in a hospital there because they did not have 

adequate medical devices to determine her head injury. It was just 

the most dramatic time, but most rewarding time in my life. 

And I just came back, going through a lot of anger and a lot of 

despair because my mother had also died of cancer while I was a 

Peace Corps volunteer, but it had nothing to do with being Peace 

Corps. The Peace Corps woke me up as to when I went going back, 

thinking about, well, why am I doing this. Why am I going back 

to this country? 

And it was, well, did you not realize that there were places in 

the world where you do not get access to health care and you do 

not get access to education and you do not have access to essentially a safe place to sleep? That is what the culture of poverty is 

about, and if you are going to bust the culture of poverty, you are 

going to do it through trying to empower people to provide education for themselves, provide, you know, access issues, all of the 

things here you and I joined Congress to do, why we are in public 

service today. 

So I think what is interesting about this moment, and I think we 

are going to begin reflecting on it is this call to service. You all answered that call, and I want to thank you for being in public service, and I want to thank all of those in service, whether it is the 

military or Peace Corps or all of the War on Poverty, the domestic 

programs we have. 

And this bill just allows us to sort of rethink that at a time when 

I think it is really important that our Nation recognize this kind 

10 

of service, and I want to say that I just looked up the number of 

Peace Corps volunteers that you represent just on this subcommittee alone. It is 422 people serving around the world that 

you as Members of Congress represent, and I think the largest is 

Congressman Daines, but also Jared Huffman and Peter DeFazio 

represent an awful lot, you know, over 35 Peace Corps volunteers. 

So I ask of you as a colleague, as it is with Dom Petri, and we 

have become really close friends because of our common backgrounds of being young folks going overseas, is that we pass this 

bill in the spirit of a call for service and a recognition that that 

service is important to this country and to the world. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

I appreciate our colleagues joining us. Once again, you all three 

have the invitation to stay with us if you wish, though I realize 

that you have a busy schedule. So I will understand if you just 

blow me off like that and go away. 

Unless there is a specific question that any member has for these 

witnesses, then we thank you for your testimony and appreciate 

your time being here. 

This concludes our discussion on H.R. 915. 

We are now going to go and take two bills. So I want to do 

H.R. 3286 and H.R. 3311 together. Both of them deal with park 

lands and potential shutdown. 

I would invite Bruce Sheaffer, who is the Comptroller from the 

National Park Service in the Interior Department, if he would come 

forward, and also I would ask Lieutenant Governor Spencer Cox 

from the State of Utah, newly sworn in as lieutenant Governor. We 

welcome you here to your first dealing with Congress. You will find 

that Utah is much better than us. 

And also Matt Sease—did I pronounce that properly?—the Treasurer of the Montana Lodging and Hospitality Association. 

If they would come forward with this next panel. 

Mr. Sheaffer, what I would ask you to do, and especially as we 

are running out of time, could I ask you if you would give your testimony to cover not only these two bills, but the Lummis and the 

Young bills as well, but if I would then ask you to stay at the dais 

so that you could be available for questions on the other bills as 

they come up? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. You are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

For those of you who have never been here before, the timer is 

in front of you. The green light means you are free to go. Yellow 

light means you have got a minute left. At the red light, I wish you 

to stop in midsentence if possible. 

Mr. Sheaffer. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the Department of the Interior’s views on the four bills 

under immediate consideration. 

11 

I have a full statement for the record and will summarize my 

view here or the Department’s views here in a quick message. 

The Department will not be presenting its views today on the 

fifth bill, as I am not sure if it is even under consideration at this 

time, regarding Wyoming paddle use issue. Protecting Parks, 3286 

directs the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse States for funds 

expended for activities conducted during the government shutdown 

that were necessary to operate a national park. 

Under the terms of the agreements that funded National Park 

Service personnel to reopen specific national parks, the States donated to the National Park Service lump sum payments in advance 

to cover the cost of operating the parks for a specific number of 

days. When Congress passed a continuing resolution providing appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014, the National Park Service was 

able to stop charging employees’ time against that account and has 

returned the unused donated funds. 

The Park Service immediately began the process of reimbursing, 

and we did so very quickly, a total of $1.6 million as expended. 

However, the National Park Service does not have the authority to 

reimburse States for the portion of funds that was expended. An 

act of Congress is needed for that. H.R. 3286 would provide that 

authority. 

We estimate this legislation would cost the U.S. Treasury 

approximately $2 million. 

H.R. 3311, Access and Retain Continuity, the other bill you 

would like to consider at this time, would require the Secretary of 

the Interior to enter into agreements with States to allow them to 

conduct Federal Government activities that are necessary to operate facilities or programs that have a direct economic impact on 

tourism, mining, timber, and general transportation. 

The agreements would be for activities a State conducts during 

a time when the Federal Government was not conducting the activity due to a partial shutdown resulting from lapse in appropriations. The Department strongly opposes this bill. 

We have a great deal of sympathy for businesses and communities that experience a disruption of activity and loss of revenue 

during last month’s government shutdown and that stand to lose 

more if there is another funding lapse. 

However, rather than only protecting certain sectors of the economy from the effects of a shutdown of this nature, it is the position 

of the Administration that Congress should protect all sectors of 

the economy by enacting appropriations on time so as to avoid any 

future shutdowns. 

In addition, the proposed legislation would be a poor use of departmental resources to prepare what would be an enormous number of agreements with State governments just for the possibility 

that a funding lapse might again occur. 

Furthermore, similar to H.R. 3294, this bill would undermine 

the longstanding framework established by Congress for the management of Federal lands under the stewardship of the Department 

of the Interior by aligning States to carry out activities that are inherently Federal in nature. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheaffer follows:] 

12 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CONCERNING H.R. 3286, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO REIMBURSE

STATES THAT USE STATE FUNDS TO OPERATE NATIONAL PARKS DURING THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 3286, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse States that use State funds to operate National 

Parks during the Federal Government shutdown, and for other purposes. 

H.R. 3286 directs the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse any State for funds 

expended for an activity conducted in fiscal year 2014 during the government shutdown that was necessary to operate a national park located within the State. Reimbursement would be provided only for activities authorized under Federal law and 

conducted in a manner and at approximately the same level in scope and cost as 

they would have been conducted by the Federal Government. 

From October 1 through October 16, 2013, the National Park Service, along with 

other bureaus and offices of the Department of the Interior, implemented a shutdown of our activities due to a lapse in appropriations. Under the closure determination and notice issued by the Director of the National Park Service, and consistent 

with applicable law, the National Park Service closed and secured all 401 national 

parks across the country, suspended all activities, and furloughed more than 20,000 

National Park Service employees. 

In response to the economic impacts that the park closures were having on many 

communities and local businesses, as the shutdown entered a second week, 

Secretary Jewell announced that the Department would consider agreements with 

Governors who indicated an interest and ability to fully fund National Park Service 

personnel to reopen specified national parks in their States. Six States—Arizona, 

Colorado, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah—signed donation agreements with the Department to open a total of 13 park units that are all significant 

contributors to tourism in the States where they are located. State donations 

through these agreements totaled approximately $3.6 million. Once these agreements were signed and the funds were transferred, the National Park Service reopened the national parks in accordance with the specific agreements. 

Under the terms of the agreements, the States donated to the National Park Service lump sum payments in advance to cover the cost of operating the parks for a 

specific number of days. The employees who returned to work in these parks during 

the shutdown were paid for these days out of the funds donated by the States. When 

Congress passed a continuing resolution providing appropriations for the first 31⁄2

months of fiscal year 2014 on October 16, the National Park Service was able to 

resume operations on October 17 and stop charging employee time against the funds 

that had been donated by the States. 

Once the shutdown ended, the National Park Service immediately began the process of reimbursing the six States for the portion of donated funding that was not 

expended to operate the parks, which totaled approximately $1.6 million. However, 

the National Park Service does not have the authority to reimburse States for the 

portion of funding that was expended; an act of Congress is needed for that. 

H.R. 3286 would provide that authority. 

We estimate this legislation would cost the U.S. Treasury approximately $2 million and would be subject to Pay-As-You-Go requirements. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

CONCERNING H.R. 3294, TO ESTABLISH A STREAMLINED PROCESS THROUGH WHICH A

STATE MAY CLAIM AUTHORITY OVER AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL LANDS LOCATED IN THE STATE WITHOUT CLAIMING OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide the views of the Department on H.R. 3294, a bill to establish a streamlined process through which a State may claim authority over and responsibility for 

management of Federal lands located in the State without claiming ownership of 

the land, and for other purposes. 

The Department strongly opposes H.R. 3294. This bill would seriously undermine 

the longstanding framework established by Congress for the management of Federal 

lands under the stewardship of the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. The lands 

managed by these bureaus belong to all Americans, not just the residents of the 

13 

States in which they are located, and therefore should continue to be managed in 

accordance with laws established by the Federal Government, not individual State 

governments. 

H.R. 3294 would allow a State to submit a petition to enter into a cooperative 

agreement with the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) 

for purposes of managing certain qualifying Federal lands located in the State. The 

bill would require the Secretary to approve or deny such a petition not later than 

90 days after the date on which the Secretary receives the petition if the Secretary 

determines that the petition meets certain criteria identified in the bill. The bill provides conditions for the submittal of a petition by the State, and for the denial of 

a petition by the Secretary. 

The bill provides that State laws shall supersede Federal laws on the qualifying 

Federal lands administered by a State under a cooperative agreement to the extent 

that such laws are more restrictive than the corresponding Federal laws. The bill 

also provides that the United States shall retain all right, title, and interest in and 

to such lands, and provides for conditions under which a cooperative agreement authorized under this bill shall terminate. 

The Department has a number of concerns with H.R. 3294. Our fundamental concern is that the bill would erode the idea of a Federal system of public lands, and 

the system of laws, regulations, and policies that govern the management of those 

lands. The management of Federal lands involves the exercise of inherently Federal 

functions and decisionmaking by land managers to make decisions for the long-term 

benefit of all Americans. State governments have very different responsibilities for 

the management of State lands than the Federal Government, and are accountable 

only to residents within their particular States. Accordingly, each State would be 

under strong pressure to manage according to local rather than the national interest. 

H.R. 3294 would allow a State to take over the administration of lands that are 

currently managed by four separate bureaus with different missions. Each of these 

land management bureaus is governed by different laws, regulations, and policies, 

and they are responsible for managing resources for different purposes. It would be 

virtually impossible for a State to fully carry out each of the individual missions of 

these bureaus, and to provide for the long-term management of these Federal resources for the benefit of all Americans. 

For example, many National Wildlife Refuges were established as stopover and 

wintering habitat for migrating birds. They are managed as a system so that the 

location and timing of food and cover are available to waterfowl and other migratory 

birds where and when they need it—during spring and fall migrations and breeding 

and wintering seasons. Ensuring the coordinated management of these migratory 

species across multiple States and even international borders is most effectively coordinated by the Federal Government. 

This bill would not only compromise the statutory protection that Congress has 

provided to these lands, but may also cause legal confusion for Federal agencies, 

partners, and stakeholders. State management of Federal lands would eliminate 

consistency and predictability for companies and partners that invest resources in 

long-term or large-scale projects on Federal lands, or that rely on Federal laws that 

authorize partnerships, business services and uses related to these lands, such as 

lease-holders, miners, ranchers, right-of-way holders, commercial guiding operations, concessions, cooperative associations, and non-profit educational institutions. 

It may also introduce a new risk of potential liability for the Federal Government, 

States, and others conducting activities on Federal lands during the interim. 

While the Department opposes being required to enter into agreements with 

States to manage Federal lands, we recognize that it is productive to have some discretionary authority to enter into agreements to share management responsibilities 

with States and localities, where it is appropriate. Land management agencies already have the necessary authority to enter into cooperative agreements with States 

to carry out legally authorized activities for a public purpose. In addition, other authorities exist that promote shared responsibilities. 

The National Park Service, for example, has authority to enter into cooperative 

management agreements with States where the sharing of resources provides for 

more effective and efficient administration of the park lands. But the law that permits cooperative management agreements for park lands specifically prohibits the 

transfer of administration responsibilities for National Park System units to other 

entities. Similarly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has authority to enter into 

agreements with States under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956, but 

is not authorized under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act to 

transfer administration of the Refuge System. And, the Bureau of Land Management also has broad authority, under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 

14 

to enter into cooperative agreements related to the management, protection, and development of public lands. The Bureau of Land Management has a variety of agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies, including contracting with a 

State law enforcement agency to provide dispatch services and supplemental patrols 

on public lands during high-use periods. 

In addition, there may be individual cases where it makes sense to have a cooperative management arrangement between a Federal land management agency and 

a State. For example, the city of Rocks National Reserve, which is federally owned, 

is cooperatively managed by the National Park Service and the Idaho Department 

of Parks and Recreation. That management arrangement was authorized by Congress specifically for that site. The Department believes these types of management 

arrangements should continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may have. 

CONCERNING H.R. 3311, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ENTER INTO

AGREEMENTS WITH STATES TO ALLOW CONTINUED OPERATION OF FACILITIES AND

PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE A DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACT ON

TOURISM, MINING, TIMBER, OR GENERAL TRANSPORTATION IN THE STATE AND WHICH

OTHERWISE WOULD CEASE OPERATING, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, DURING A FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN THAT IS THE RESULT OF A LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide the views of the Department on H.R. 3311, a bill to direct the Secretary 

of the Interior to enter into agreements with States to allow continued operation of 

facilities and programs that have been determined to have a direct economic impact 

on tourism, mining, timber, or general transportation in the State and which would 

otherwise cease operating, in whole or in part, during a Federal Government shutdown that is the result of a lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes. 

The Department strongly opposes H.R. 3311. We have a great deal of sympathy 

for the businesses and communities that experienced a disruption of activity and 

loss of revenue during last month’s government shutdown and that stand to lose 

more if there is another funding lapse in the future. However, rather than only protecting certain narrow sectors of the economy (and only the portions of those sectors 

associated with Department of the Interior activities) from the effects of a government shutdown in the future, Congress should protect all sectors of the economy by 

enacting appropriations on time, so as to avoid any future shutdowns. In addition, 

the proposed legislation would be a poor use of already strained Departmental resources to prepare what could be an enormous number of different types of agreements with State governments, just for the possibility that a funding lapse might 

occur in the future. Furthermore, this bill would seriously undermine the longstanding framework established by Congress for the management of Federal lands 

under the stewardship of the Department of the Interior by allowing States to carry 

out activities that are inherently Federal in nature. 

H.R. 3311 would require the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements 

with States to provide for those States to conduct Federal Government activities 

that are necessary to operate facilities or programs that have a direct economic impact on tourism, mining, timber, or general transportation. The agreements would 

be for activities a State conducts during a time when the Federal Government was 

not conducting the activity due to a partial shutdown resulting from a lapse in appropriations. The bill sets out a process for States to petition the Secretary to enter 

into an agreement and for an agreement to be approved whether a Federal Government shutdown appears imminent or not. It also requires the Secretary to reimburse a State for activities conducted by the State within 90 days after the funds 

are made available to the Secretary. 

The lapse in government funding that resulted in a partial shutdown of the Federal Government from October 1 through October 16, 2013, was the first such shutdown to occur in 17 years. As the shutdown entered its second week, the National 

Park Service entered into donation agreements with six States to accept from those 

States the donation of funds necessary to allow the National Park Service to temporarily reopen 13 national park units. In these cases, the States were concerned 

enough about the loss of economic activity associated with certain national parks 

to use their own funds to alleviate the impact of park closures. 

These agreements did help a select number of businesses and communities. 

However, even as we appreciated being able to help those few businesses and communities around the parks that were reopened, we recognized the unfairness of the 

situation across the country. These agreements did not begin to address the impacts 

15 

of the closure of all 401 national park units, let alone all of the other activities managed by the Department or the Federal Government. These agreements should not 

be held up as a model of how the Federal Government should do business. They 

were designed to be temporary, emergency measures for some individual situations, 

and would not necessarily work for other Departmental activities associated with 

the four industries identified by H.R. 3311, nor could they come close to ameliorating the many negative impacts of a shutdown. Such agreements are not an appropriate solution for allowing appropriations to lapse and causing a shutdown. 

Additionally, the types of temporary, emergency measures contemplated by 

H.R. 3311 would introduce further uncertainty for businesses that rely on Federal 

land activities, as the entity responsible for managing the lands could change depending on the status of appropriations. Furthermore, the variety of activities which 

occur on these Federal lands, including mining and timber harvest, would be particularly difficult to manage on an interim, individual basis. It may also introduce 

a new risk of potential liability for the Federal Government, States, and others conducting activities on Federal lands during the interim. 

Finally, H.R. 3311 would allow States to carry out activities, including the operation of facilities or programs, which would otherwise be conducted by the Federal 

Government. The management of Federal lands involves the exercise of inherently 

Federal functions and decisionmaking by land managers for the long-term benefit 

of all Americans. State governments have very different responsibilities for the management of State lands than the Federal Government, and are accountable only to 

residents within their particular States. Accordingly, each State would be under 

strong pressure to manage according to local rather than the national interest. 

The recent Federal Government shutdown had terrible impacts for American citizens, businesses, communities, States and the economy as a whole. These impacts 

are summarized in the report released by the Office of Management and Budget this 

month entitled ‘‘Impacts and Costs of the October 2013 Federal Government Shutdown’’ (November 2013). The report makes clear that the economic effects of the 

shutdown were felt far beyond the tourism, mining, timber, and transportation sectors. Any change in law to try to address the impacts of a shutdown on these particular industries, or on any sectors of the economy, in advance of a future Federal 

Government shutdown, is not a responsible alternative to simply making the political commitment to provide appropriations for all the vital functions the Federal 

Government performs. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may have. 

CONCERNING H.R. 915, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE PEACE CORPS COMMEMORATIVE

FOUNDATION TO ESTABLISH A COMMEMORATIVE WORK IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AND ITS ENVIRONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to H.R. 915, a bill to authorize the 

Peace Corps Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the 

District of Columbia and environs, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports H.R. 915, which would authorize a memorial commemorating the formation of the Peace Corps and the ideals of world peace and 

friendship upon which the Peace Corps was founded. This proposal provides that no 

Federal funds be used for establishing the memorial. 

Although this proposal does not seek any exceptions to the Commemorative Works 

Act (CWA), it should be noted that this proposal to honor the ideals upon which the 

Peace Corps was founded does not fit the typical mold for commemoration. The concept of establishing a memorial to ‘‘ideals’’ is not explicitly described in the CWA. 

When testifying on H.R. 4195, a similar bill introduced in the 111th Congress, we 

identified our concerns that a bill such as that could set an unwelcome precedent 

for any and all future concepts identified only as ‘‘ideals,’’ resulting in an untenable 

influx of memorial proposals. However, there is precedent for such commemoration: 

specifically, the National Peace Garden, which Congress authorized in 1987, and the 

Memorial to Japanese American Patriotism in World War II, which was authorized 

in 1992. 

Our support for this proposal is based upon our understanding that this memorial 

will recognize the establishment of the Peace Corps and the significance of the 

ideals it exemplifies, not the organization’s members. The CWA precludes a memorial to members of the Peace Corps as the commemoration of groups may not be 

authorized until after the 25th anniversary of the death of the last surviving member of a group. 

The Department notes that H.R. 915 reflects suggestions made to strengthen the 

language in this proposal as recommended in our testimony on H.R. 4195 in the 

16 

111th Congress, and by the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission 

(NCMAC) at its meeting on April 21, 2010. The National Capital Memorial Advisory 

Commission has not reviewed H.R. 915, but in their June 23, 2011 review of the 

112th Congress’ H.R. 854, which is almost identical to this bill, they expressed support for the concept of a memorial to the ideals of the Peace Corps. NCMAC found 

that the provisions of H.R. 854 connect the ideals to the exceptional aspects of 

American character that are exhibited in the ideals of the Peace Corps. We share 

the Commission’s support for the idea of commemorating volunteerism and international cooperation as worthy ideals and practices of the Peace Corps. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to 

any questions from you and members of the committee. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you. 

And then once again, I would ask you if you would stay there at 

the panel through all the succeeding bills we deal with. 

Let me go first and we will talk specifically about H.R. 3311. So 

what I would like to do is recognize Mr. Stewart as the sponsor of 

that bill, then Lieutenant Governor Cox. You would have time after 

him, and then we will go to H.R. 3286. I will recognize Mr. Daines 

and then Mr. Sease. 

So Congressman Stewart. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for holding the 

hearing and for allowing us to participate. 

I am pleased to appear before your subcommittee to introduce 

H.R. 3311, ‘‘To Provide Access and Retain Continuity Act,’’ or the 

PARC Act as it has become known, and again, thank you for considering this legislation, and to the witnesses, thank you for participating as well. 

When the Federal Government shut down in October of this last 

year, it seemed as if the administration used all of the lessons, 

frankly, from years of Chicago land style politics to do what they 

could to make this shutdown as painful for as many people as possible. It is estimated that Utah tourism suffered something like $30 

million losses due to the Federal shutdown. 

Now, tourism provides roughly 40 percent of the employment in 

southern Utah, which I happen to represent, and as a side note, 

I would recognize that the reason that it is such an important employer in that part of the State is—one of the primary reasons is 

due to the fact that the Federal Government has shut off nearly 

all access to the invaluable resources that are available in those 

lands. 

Because of this, businesses and communities were hard hit by 

the government shutdown. In Utah there are five national parks, 

seven national monuments, two national recreation areas, six national forests. In fact, 70 percent of my State is controlled by the 

Federal Government, as I am sure the lieutenant Governor may 

mention in his testimony. 

The State of Nevada is 84 percent controlled by the Federal Government. In Idaho, Alaska and Oregon, the Federal Government 

controls something like 50 percent. In California, Wyoming, 

Arizona and New Mexico, it is over 40 percent. 

Now, all of this is to say that if the administration wants to 

make a shutdown painfully felt, it is very easy for them to do that. 

In the West where there is so much Federal land, it is detrimental 

not only to tourism, but to other industries such as mining and 

17 

timber and transportation and cattle production. All of them are 

impacted by this as well. 

This is not a situation that we welcome in the West. You know, 

to be very honest, we wish we controlled more of our land, such as 

they do in the East, but that is not the case. But whether you are 

from the West or the East, the recent Federal shutdown with its 

closure of public lands constitutes a loss of billions of dollars in 

business revenue around the Nation. 

And I have proposed the PARC Act to allow States, territories 

and even the District of Columbia to enter into agreements with 

the Department of the Interior to keep economically important Federal facilities open during a potential shutdown in the future. 

Now, I note that some have called this a doomsday scenario, but 

I think it is wise for us to prepare for an eventuality such as that. 

If we keep savings in our personal finances as families, that is not 

because we are doomsday. That is because we want to be prudent 

and careful, and I think this is a similar situation. 

These agreements would be in place and could not be altered as 

a result of just political vicissitudes, and they would allow for continued operation of public lands and for an avenue for which the 

government has reopened and States can be compensated for expenditures on behalf of the Federal Government. 

And finally, let me just end with this. If you love the national 

parks as I do and if you want to keep the national parks open as 

I do, and if you think it is a good idea to prepare for an uncertain 

future, if you want to protect small businesses and rural communities as I do, and then finally if you think it is a bad idea for the 

Federal Government to have such power over the States as I do, 

then this is a good bill. It does all of these things, and for that reason I ask for your support and I encourage its passage. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back my time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

We would now like to turn to Lieutenant Governor Cox in the 

State of Utah and recognize you for 5 minutes to talk specifically 

about the Stewart bill. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SPENCER J. COX, LIEUTENANT 

GOVERNOR, STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, Mr. 

Grijalva. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the State of Utah. 

Governor Gary Herbert sends his apologies. He would prefer to be 

here but is otherwise engaged at the time. 

Congressman Stewart has very eloquently stated the position of 

the State of Utah, and I do not wish to tread upon his remarks in 

any way, but I would like to maybe pull back the curtain just a 

little bit if I could in the happenings that kind of led to this. 

During the shutdown, as has already been stated, the results 

were devastating for the small rural towns and cities surrounding 

our national parks, and we felt that very severely throughout the 

State. When we were reaching for solutions to that, Governor 

Herbert made a call to Secretary Jewell, and I really cannot state 

forcefully enough the importance of that personal relationship, two 

people who do not always see eye to eye, but have worked very diligently to have a personal relationship. 

18 

So when that call was made, the Secretary was very willing to 

talk. I can tell you that at the end of the day this was on a 

Wednesday after the parks had been closed for several days. We 

were coming up on Columbus Day weekend, which is one of the 

biggest weekends in the fall time of our national parks, and we 

were very concerned about the economic devastation that was taking place. 

At the close of the day on Wednesday, we thought there was no 

way a deal could be done. On Thursday morning, Secretary Jewell 

called back and said, ‘‘I think we can make this happen.’’ By Thursday night, we had a deal in place. It was a real testament, again, 

to personal relationships. It was a testament to what can happen 

when we put aside our personal prejudices and work together. It 

was, I believe, a real triumphant example of leadership within a 

Red State and with Secretary Jewell. 

I am very pleased with the results of that as we have seen the 

positive effects of that effort. What this bill is attempting to do, I 

think, is just to lay the groundwork for what has already been 

done. It worked. We have proven it can work. It can be done. It 

makes sense. It is something that the American people, the citizens 

of my State would hope would happen in the future so that we do 

not run into this again: again, a $30 million loss to the economy 

of Utah. 

One business in particular estimates $2 million alone. We had 

several businesses that were literally on the verge of closing for the 

year, and some on the verge of bankruptcy. 

Now, during that negotiation, the initial negotiation was that the 

State would be paid back as soon as the government was reopened. 

We felt like that is what we were negotiating toward. We were told 

that that would happen, and then as things kind of wound down, 

we were told that the attorneys said that that was not possible because of the Anti-Deficiency Act, but that they fully expected that 

we would have no problem getting Congress to get us the money 

back when that was over. 

I realize the joke was on us, right? In fact, The Interior told us 

they would draft the language to make sure that that happened. 

So there was a real spirit of collaboration, and we sincerely hope 

that that spirit will continue forward. 

I know I appear to be speaking a little bit to 3286. That was not 

my intention, but again, the benefits of 3311, the bill, are that the 

next time we will not have to worry about getting paid back. That 

would be in statute. We would be able to make sure that that happened. 

I would just close with a little story, if I could. I had a young 

man that I was very close to who found himself in some financial 

trouble. He hesitantly asked me if I could help him, and I did that, 

told him not to worry about paying me back. 

A few months later he came with the money in hand. I said, ‘‘I 

told you not to worry about it.’’ 

He said, ‘‘No.’’ 

And I said, ‘‘Well, why?’’ 

And he said, ‘‘Because it is the right thing to do.’’ I know that 

may be asking a little too much of this Congress, but it is the right 

thing to do, and we would surely appreciate your support. 

19 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SPENCER J. COX, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE

OF UTAH

CONCERNING H.R. 3311—PROVIDING ACCESS AND RETAIN CONTINUITY (PARC) ACT

Good morning, I am Spencer J. Cox, Lieutenant Governor of the great State of 

Utah. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, for holding this 

important hearing. I appreciate you inviting me to speak to you and members of 

this subcommittee regarding the ‘‘Providing Access and Retain Continuity (PARC) 

Act’’. 

Utah paid approximately $1.67 million ($166,572 per day) to operate Utah’s national parks and monuments until the budget crisis was resolved. The intent of the 

State of Utah in allocating State funds for the operation of these Federal facilities 

was meant to be a temporary solution until the budget impasse was resolved and 

the funds could be repaid. The important principle is that when States agree to help 

in a time of need, they should be fully compensated for this assistance in a timely 

fashion. 

Utah’s national parks and monuments were severely affected by the recent Federal government shutdown. These national treasures are estimated to add $100 

million per month to Utah’s economy. This money goes to support Utah’s rural communities, like Moab, Hanksville, Panguitch, and Springdale, whose economies are 

symbiotically tied to the tourism dollars brought in by the domestic and international visitors who come to Utah. 

When the Federal Government partially closed on October 1, the effects were immediate, and they were dramatic. Local hotels went from being full to virtually 

empty in a matter of days and bus companies shut down. Many outfitters received 

cancellations that threatened their entire season and supporting businesses were 

facing the prospect of going bankrupt because of actions out of their control. 

However, the State of Utah and the Department of the Interior were able to 

quickly negotiate an agreement in which the State would upfront the money to the 

National Park Service in order to operate Utah’s national parks and monuments 

until Federal budget crisis was resolved. The State committed approximately $1.67 

million ($166,572 per day) to operate these facilities for 10 days. The Federal budget 

crisis was resolved 6 days after the State began subsidizing the operation of Utah’s 

national parks and monuments. 

Ultimately, the Federal budget crisis was resolved 6 days after the State began 

subsidizing the operation of Utah’s national parks and monuments. As of today, the 

Department of the Interior has refunded the unused portion (approximately 

$666,000) of the money that the State wired to the Federal Government. However, 

Utah has not yet received the remaining $1 million that it committed to operate 

these facilities. 

There are several reasons why the State of Utah should be compensated for this 

expenditure: 

1. The National Park Service continued to collect all fees and profits generated 

from the national parks and monuments while the State of Utah paid to operate these facilities. 

2. The National Park Service receives an annual budget allocation to operate 

these facilities, and this money was not reduced to account for the amount 

funded by State funds. 

3. In the continuing resolution passed by the Congress, which reopened the Federal Government, section 116 instructs that when States use State funds to 

continue carrying out a Federal program, the State shall be reimbursed for 

expenses that would have been paid by the Federal Government during such 

period had appropriations been available. 

The intent of the State of Utah in allocating State funds for the operation of these 

Federal facilities was meant to be a temporary solution until the budget impasse 

was resolved and the funds could be repaid. It is also clear that the intent of the 

continuing resolution passed by Congress was to fully reimburse States for State 

funds used to operate Federal programs. I support a Congressional solution in which 

the Interior Department is instructed to reimburse States for these expenditures as 

stated in the ‘‘Providing Access and Retain Continuity (PARC) Act’’ 

However, the important guiding principle that must be upheld is that when 

States agree to help in a time of need, they should be fully compensated for this 

assistance. 

20 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Daines, I would like to recognize you now to introduce your 

legislation. 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 3682, the Protecting States and Opening 

National Parks Act. 

I want to also thank the 26 bipartisan co-sponsors on this legislation, many whom are representing States who stepped up to the 

challenge as Utah did to open up our parks while the Obama administration refused access during the partial lapse in appropriations. 

It is rare we see much bipartisan agreement in this town. It is 

nice to see seven Democrats joining already as co-sponsors on this 

bill on the House side. In fact, H.R. 3286 has a Senate companion 

bill already, Senate Bill 1572, sponsored by Senators Alexander, 

Hatch, Udall, and Bennett. 

Because we need to support our States who stepped up to the 

challenge during this most difficult time with this strong bipartisan 

support, and I urge passage of this solution to make these States 

whole for the expended costs due to inaction in Washington. That 

is what H.R. 3286 will provide. 

Nobody wanted to see the shutdown. It is important that when 

we see DC fail in its most basic responsibilities to govern, it is imperative we have contingency plans when the government cannot 

do its job, and this is what will help to remove the uncertainty because many families are planning vacations well in advance to our 

great national parks. 

I grew up an hour away from Yellowstone National Park. I went 

from kindergarten through college in Bozeman, Montana. We love 

our national parks. We love going up to Glacier Park in the State 

of Montana. They are truly treasures for this country, and when 

DC fails to do its job, we do not want the people to suffer, and 

when the States are willing to step up and be part of the solution, 

in fact, most folks back in Montana will tell me we would like to 

see DC look more like Montana, not the other way around. 

I come to Congress with a degree in engineering. I do not have 

a law degree. So I guess I am one of those endangered species up 

here. I am not a lawyer. I am an engineer. You are trained in engineering to identify a problem and then find a solution. In Montana, 

we get up early. We go to bed late. We work hard. We want to get 

the job done. 

And during the month of October, we knew that Washington, DC 

had a problem. However, the implementation of the partial shutdown when the administration forcefully prohibited access to public 

lands, it seemed that the administration was seeking to avoid a solution and only increase hardship. 

We saw that with the Department of the Interior responding on 

day one by barricading the veterans from the World War II memorial. The Department had signs prepared and displayed right away 

to ensure the public could not access public lands, even where 

there was normally no presence of Department officials whatsoever. 

I spoke to hunters in Montana who were seeking to cross some 

sections of Federal land, of public lands, and suddenly these signs 

were erected saying these public lands are closed, and for many in 

21 

Montana it was a realization that these are not public lands. These 

are government lands with the government keeping the public out 

of their lands. 

This partial shutdown demonstrated almost too clearly what 

many have grown to understand, the fact that our public lands are 

anything but that. They are controlled by the government. During 

those 17 days, Montanans could not enjoy Yellowstone and Glacier 

Parks and other public lands, including many of our favorite places 

to hunt and fish. 

This year Yellowstone and Glacier lost over 50 percent of their 

visitors for the month of October as the administration did everything it could to make clear to the public that our parks were not 

open for business. Mr. Matt Sease, General Manager of the Super 

8 in my home town of Bozeman—we are thrilled to have you here 

today—will testify on behalf of the hotel and lodging industry. He 

will describe the financial hardships our local economies endured 

during those 17 days that cost millions of dollars to our gateway 

economy. 

Teddy Roosevelt established the first national park, and that is 

Yellowstone National Park. On top of the Roosevelt Arch at 

Gardiner, Montana, are the President’s words: ‘‘for the benefit and 

the enjoyment of the people.’’ During those 17 days the Obama administration failed to even try to uphold President Roosevelt’s 

mantra. 

The administration’s posturing during the partial shutdown had 

devastating effects on Montana and other States reliant on access 

to public lands. Luckily those several days into the shutdown on 

October 10, the administration finally allowed our States to provide 

what the Federal Government said it needed to allow access to our 

parks. While I am disappointed Montana did not take advantage 

of this flexibility, six States did step in and rose to the challenge 

of solving the problem of allowing the public back into their lands. 

These States deserve to be made whole, and that is why I introduced H.R. 3286 and urge its passage. I yield back my time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Sease, we are happy to have you here. It is always tough to 

be the last one on the panel, but your testimony is still great. 

You have 5 minutes. Please go for it. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SEASE, TREASURER, MONTANA 

LODGING AND HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SEASE. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 

distinguished members of the Natural Resources Committee, I 

would like to thank you as well as Representative Steve Daines for 

inviting us to today’s hearing. 

Montana has more spectacular, unspoiled land than anywhere 

else in the Lower 48. For those of us who call Big Sky Country 

home, we consider the mountains, rivers, and public lands a cherished part of our heritage. We take very seriously our inherent 

duty to balance, for both our residents and our millions of annual 

visitors, the responsible use of land and the unfettered access to it. 

It is with great interest and some trepidation that we, who call 

Montana home and depend heavily on the tourism that springs 

forth from the visitors to our Federal lands, are here today to supVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04NO21 1ST SESS\85668.TXT DARLEN
22 

port the Protecting States and Opening National Parks bill sponsored by our own Representative Steve Daines. 

The recent government shutdown essentially barred the people 

from their land. We hope this bill along with other congressional 

action will work to prevent this from ever happening again. Neither Montana’s residents nor the thousands of tourists visiting at 

the time could access our two national parks. They had limited to 

no access to about a dozen wildlife refuges and were blocked from 

hundreds of fishing access points along our many rivers. 

The last item hit too close to home. Many Montanans had observed little or no Federal presence in the wildlife refuges in the 

months following the sequestration, but were astonished to see 

small armies of them the days leading to the shutdown and placing 

concrete barriers to block fishing access sites along rivers and 

warning locals not to trespass. 

Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks by all accounts are the 

crown jewels of our State’s tourism industry. Nearly two-thirds of 

our first time visitors come to Montana to visit one or both of the 

parks, and though a passion is ignited among many first time visitors to return and explore Montana, it is undoubtedly Yellowstone 

and Glacier National Parks that drive our industry and in large 

part our State’s economy. 

In 2012, almost 11 million nonresident visitors traveled to 

Montana and spent $3.25 billion. Yellowstone country, the area of 

southern Montana bordering Yellowstone Park accounted for almost one billion of those dollars. Glacier country in the northwest 

part of the Montanas surrounding Glacier National Park accounted 

for over $700 million of that year’s revenues. 

Those of us who live in Montana know that without the two national parks we could still spend our time in State parks, forests, 

rivers and trails, lakes and ski and wilderness areas, as well as the 

vibrant and charming gateway towns that we call home. But have 

no doubt the government shutdown had an incredible impact on 

our State’s economy and our Montana brand because for millions 

of visitors across the world, the parks are Montana and Montana 

is the parks. 

It is incredibly important to understand just how far reaching 

the effect of the shutdown has been to our State’s brand. For many 

of us when the shutdown ended on October 17, the impact did not. 

Dozens of hotels lost hundreds of reservations for the entire month 

of October and November as guests decided not to wait until the 

shutdown ended and then canceled their trips. 

Just this past weekend, local news in the Flathead Valley and 

Glacier Park reported that the park had a 52 percent drop in visitation for October compared for the same month in 2012. This is 

the single largest drop since the National Park Service has kept 

records since 1979. 

In the gateway town of West Yellowstone, Montana, a single 

business lost over $200,000 and closed two of its three properties, 

resulting in layoffs far ahead of those anticipated with the annual 

winter downsizing. 

It is also important to debunk a common myth that the shutdown had little impact on business because it happened in October. 

Admittedly, there is a change in Montana’s business cycle following 

23 

the peak summer season. For many of our small businesses who 

depend on nonresident travelers as their largest customer base, 

they depend heavily on the peak summer season not to make a 

profit but to make up the losses from the first two quarters of the 

year. 

The months of September and October proved to be the pure 

profit months. That is when the visitors and families who are not 

tied to a school calendar can visit the parks, attractions, and when 

winter begins to close them down, people drive forth in the thousands. 

Another small business owner who continues to suffer long after 

the shutdown is in Cooke City, Montana, on the scenic Beartooth 

Highway. She and her husband depend wholly on the profits made 

in October. These profits enable them to get through the end of the 

year until the snowmobile season begins in mid-January. Though 

their profits for that month might average less than $220,000 annually, it is these September and October revenues that allow them 

to make payroll in November and December and also reinvest for 

the future in their infrastructure. 

Though we will have to wait until the end of the current quarter 

to understand the full impact of the parks’ closures through indicators like the monthly unemployment claims or drops in resort and 

bed tax revenues, we do not think anyone can argue the impacts 

are significant. Many hotels and tour companies are already getting phone calls from nervous booking agents concerned that the 

next government deadline in January will have a comparable impact on snowmobile tours and groups. Understandably these tour 

agents are hesitant to confirm bookings and reservations. 

In closing, Federal lands belong to the people. We are encouraged 

by this committee’s hard work and Representative Daines’ proposal 

to ensure access to these public lands. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sease follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. MATTHEW SEASE, TREASURER, MONTANA LODGING

AND HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION

Chairman Rob Bishop, Ranking Member Rau ́l Grijalva and distinguished members of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental 

Regulation. I would like to thank you and thank Representative Steve Daines for 

the invitation to attend today’s hearing. 

Montana has become known for having more spectacular unspoiled nature than 

anywhere else in the lower 48 States. For those of us who call Big Sky country 

home, we consider the mountains, rivers, and public lands a cherished part of our 

heritage. We take very seriously our inherent duty to balance, for both residents 

and our millions of annual visitors, the responsible use of the land as well as unfettered access to it. 

It is with great interest and some trepidation that we, who call Montana home 

and depend heavily on the tourism that springs from visitors to our Federal lands, 

are here today in support of the ‘‘Protecting States and Opening National Parks’’ 

bill sponsored by our own Representative Steve Daines. 

The recent government shutdown essentially barred the people from their lands. 

We hope this bill, along with other congressional action, will work to prevent this 

from ever happening again. 

Neither Montana’s residents, nor the thousands of tourists visiting at the time, 

could access our two national parks. They had limited to no access to about a dozen 

wildlife refuges, and were blocked from hundreds of fishing access points along our 

many rivers. The last item hit too close to home. Many Montanans had observed 

little or no Federal presence in the wildlife refuges in the months following sequestration, but were astonished to see small armies of them in the days leading up to 

24 

the shutdown, emplacing concrete barriers to block fishing access sites along the rivers and warning locals not to trespass! 

Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks are, by all accounts, the crown jewels of 

our State’s tourism industry. Nearly two-thirds of our first time visitors come to 

Montana to visit one or both of the parks. And though a passion is ignited among 

many first-time visitors to return and explore more of Montana, it is undoubtedly 

Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks that drive our industry and, in large part, 

our State’s economy. 

In 2012, almost 11 million non-resident visitors traveled to Montana and spent 

over $3.25 billion in our State. Yellowstone Country, the area of southern Montana 

bordering Yellowstone Park, accounted for almost a billion dollars of that revenue 

. . . Glacier Country, the area of western and northwestern Montana surrounding 

Glacier Park, accounted for over $700 million of that year’s total revenues. 

Those of us who live in Montana know that without the two national parks you 

could still spend a lifetime exploring our state parks, forests & trails, rivers & lakes, 

and ski & wilderness areas, as well as the vibrant & charming small towns we each 

call home. 

But have no doubt the government shutdown had an incredible impact on our 

State’s economy and the Montana brand; because for millions of our visitors, the 

Parks are Montana . . . and Montana is the Parks. 

It is incredibly important to understand just how far-reaching the effect of the 

shutdown has been to our State’s brand. For many of us, when the shutdown ended 

on October 17th, the impact did not. Dozens of hotels lost hundreds of reservations 

for the entire month of October and November as guests decided not to wait out 

the shutdown and canceled their trips. 

Just this weekend, local news in the Flathead Valley near Glacier Park reported 

that the park had a 52 percent drop in visitation for October compared to the same 

month in 2012. This is the single, largest drop since the park service began keeping 

records in 1979. 

In the gateway town of West Yellowstone, MT, a single business lost over 

$200,000 and closed two of its three properties, resulting in lay offs far ahead of 

those anticipated with the annual winter downsizing. 

It is also important to debunk a common myth that the shutdown had little impact on business because it happened in October. Admittedly, there is a change in 

Montana’s business cycle following the peak summer season as we transition into 

winter. 

For many of our small businesses who depend on non-resident travelers as their 

largest customer base, they depend heavily on the peak summer season not to make 

a profit, but to offset the dismal revenues from the first two quarters of the year. 

The months of late September and October prove to be the ‘‘pure-profit’’ period. 

That is when the visitors and families who are not tied to a school calendar can 

visit the parks’ attractions before winter begins closing them down . . . and they 

do so in the thousands! 

Another small business owner who continues to suffer long after the shutdown 

ended is in Cooke City, MT on the scenic Beartooth Highway. She and her husband 

are wholly dependent on the profits made in October. These profits enable them to 

get through the end of the year until the snowmobile season begins in mid-January. 

Though their profits for that month might average less than $20,000 annually, it 

is these September and October revenues that allow them to make payroll in 

November and December, as well as to make small reinvestments in their infrastructure. 

Though we’ll have to wait until the end of the current quarter to understand the 

full impact of the parks’ closure through indicators like rise in monthly unemployment claims or drops in resort and bed tax revenues, we don’t think anyone can 

argue the impacts will have been significant. 

To make one final point about the continuing impacts of the shutdown, I mentioned the snowmobile season. There are over 4,000 miles of groomed snow machine 

trails in Montana, predominantly on Federal lands, in addition to those trails maintained in Yellowstone National Park. 

Many hotels and tour companies are already getting phone calls from nervous 

booking agents concerned that the next government deadline in mid-January will 

have a comparable impact on snowmobile tours and groups. Understandably, they 

are hesitant to confirm bookings and reservations. 

In closing, Federal lands belong to the people. We are encouraged by this committee’s hard work and Rep. Daines’ proposed bill to ensure access to those lands. 

This concludes my public statement. With the Chairman’s permission, I would ask 

to submit these and the rest of my prepared remarks, in writing, for the record. 

25 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. 

Unfortunately, as you heard by the bell, the votes have been 

called. Members have about 9 minutes left to make it to the Floor. 

So we are going to suspend this hearing. I hate to do this to you. 

I apologize deeply. We will go take the votes, and then we will 

come back. 

For those of you who are planning, I would estimate, well, it depends on if the other side is going to do a motion to recommit. It 

could be a lot faster if they do not, hint, hint, hint. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Probably. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. So it is going to be longer. But I would 

estimate at the minimum it is going to be 45 minutes before our 

return; probably more likely to be closer to 12. Well, that clock is 

off. It would be closer to 12 o’clock. It will be about an hour anyway. 

So I apologize for this. We do not like to do that, but I appreciate 

your patience with us. When we return we will take up questions 

on these two bills and then go to the other two bills that are still 

on the agenda. 

We are suspended. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BISHOP. We will begin our panel again. I appreciate our 

three witnesses for joining us again at the podium. I know some 

of the other members will be making their way briefly here, but for 

those of you who have not experienced the joy of the elevators in 

Longworth, you realize that that experience by itself will consume 

an eternity. 

We appreciate the testimony. We will pick up from that point 

with questions at this time. At this time, Mr. Grijalva, do you have 

any questions of these witnesses on these bills? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I do, but let me defer. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. DeFazio, would you like to go first on questions 

for these witnesses on these two bills? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sheaffer, what is the National Park Service budget today in 

relation to Fiscal Year 2011? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. In relation to Fiscal Year 2011? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. It is down. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is it down 12 percent since Fiscal Year 2011? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So we have this donation by the States. If we 

repay, mandate donation repayment, where does it come from? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, as the bill is written, it would come out of 

the Treasury, not out of the National Park Service appropriation. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It is my understanding that Appropriations would 

take it out of the Interior account. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Oh, that is possible. At the scoring level I supposed it could be. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. It could, yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But at a 12 percent reduction, you are not really 

at a place to reimburse it yourselves. 

26 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I would say not. It would be difficult to find yet another $2 million. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. There is a third bill which is not yet on the 

table. I mean if you sort of compare the three bills, we have one 

bill to reimburse the States for their donations, a second bill which 

is 3311 which says that we will just set up a system proactively 

to deal with this, and I am a bit puzzled by it. Mr. Cox, you testified in favor of it, and I am wondering your interpretation because 

it appears to me that the States would immediately take over the 

parks and run them. 

Is your State equipped, say, if you are notified on January 15 

that on January 16 the parks are going to be shut, to bring in a 

mass of well trained and already oriented State employees or contractors to run the park? 

Mr. COX. I believe that we would contract with the parks as we 

did with this previous shutdown. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Well, the language then in the bill, I think, 

needs a little tightening because it says that the State seeks to conduct, and it is a very broad language, not to just contract. 

Now, during this last shutdown, you did not ask for the Park 

Service to reopen all of the parks in Utah. I believe it was 12 of 

18; is that right? 

Mr. COX. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And so if you were looking at future proactive 

agreements in case of another one of these self-inflicted wounds, 

would you endeavor to reopen all 18? 

Mr. COX. Yes, I believe we would. The time constraints and the 

financial restraints because we were not sure exactly how this 

would work out, we tried to get the biggest bang for our buck from 

an economic standpoint. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And we did see some pretty high numbers 

from you about revenue that was lost to, I guess, tourism. I assume 

that is all categories, small businesses, et cetera. 

Mr. COX. Correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But some percentage of that probably would have 

flowed to the State in tax revenues. I do not know what your tax 

system is like. 

Mr. COX. Yes, that is correct. Our taxes are lower than many 

States, but that is also correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So, Mr. Sheaffer, can you envision how much 

time it would take? I mean, how many units of the Park Service 

are there around the country? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. About 400. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Four hundred. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So if all of the Governors in all of the States wanted to have proactive anticipatory agreements, this would probably 

take some fairly substantial amount of resources, particularly if 

they varied their requirements or requests or specified things. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Absolutely. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. I would note that I think that (a) the language would need tightening and (b) for something that has 

happened twice since I have been in Congress for 27 years and 

hopefully will never happen again, I would think that this would 

27 

be really a waste of taxpayer money to enter into these proactive 

agreements with the States. 

So, you know, I would not support legislation, and the third bill, 

which is not subject to this panel but the next panel, would allow 

States to basically take any asset of the Federal Government under 

their management, still be reimbursed by the Federal Government 

for half the cost. 

So what do you think about that one? I mean, take Denali and 

Alaska takes it over. We pay them 50 percent of what it takes to 

run it. I mean, do our gate revenues provide what percentage of the 

cost of a park like that? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. It varies by park, some higher than others, but 

I believe it is in the 7 to 8 percent range service-wide. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Stewart, do you have questions? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Make sure your mike is on and you are talking into 

it. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. Is that better? 

Mr. BISHOP. Better. 

Mr. STEWART. Is this even better? 

Mr. BISHOP. Personally I like it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Sheaffer, if I could spend just a little time 

with you, sir, recognizing that you represent the National Park 

Service. I guess to attain your position you have been with the 

parks for many years; is that true? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Over 40, yes, sir. 

Mr. STEWART. Over 40 years, and I am guessing you have spent 

some time in Washington. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. All 40. 

Mr. STEWART. All 40 years. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEWART. I did not expect that. Well, that tells me you know 

a little bit about politics then, and in your 40 years here, you have 

seen a number of government shutdowns, true? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I have seen two of consequence, and then there 

was a very brief one in 2011, but the ones that affected us were 

1995–96 and the most recent one. 

Mr. STEWART. And this one, yes. I appreciate that, and they were 

the ones that most people remember. There is no doubt. 

But I am sure that you know, and I will not ask the question because I know you know this, but you know, some of those were 

caused by Republicans when Republicans were held in power, but 

some of them were caused by Democrats when the Democratic 

Party was the party in power. 

And I will ask you a rhetorical question, but I would like your 

response. Would you be willing to bet your life savings that the 

government will never shut down again? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I would not. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Under these circumstances I would not. I thought 

you said it was a rhetorical question. 

28 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, I do not think any of us would be willing to 

bet that because we hope that it does not, but politics being what 

it is, it has happened before more than once or twice. It has happened more than a dozen times, and it might happen again as 

much as many of us would like to avoid that. 

And I guess the essence of my question then is: if that were to 

happen again and, in fact, not if, but when it happens again I 

think many of us would say, would we not want to be prepared to 

keep our national parks open in that eventuality? 

And as I read your testimony, I have to tell you that I am not 

convinced by the reasonings the National Park Service has put forward in their objections to this bill. In fact, I am kind of puzzled 

by it because it seems to me that our objectives in this are the 

same. You would like to keep the parks open. I would like to keep 

the parks open. We are trying to find the best way to do that, and 

it seems to me, and I would like your answer to this; it seems to 

me like the Park Service is saying we do not want to do it because 

it is hard or because it is going to be expensive. 

But in comparison to the cost and the cost not just in dollars but 

in, you know, human costs, it seems like it is worth doing. Could 

you give me your thoughts on that? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, first of all, to be clear, the position represented here is the Administration’s position on the issue, and 

that is, I think, a reflection that they do not want to have one-off 

solutions to stopgaps in the event of another lapse of appropriation, 

and I think that was reflected in decisions that were made 

throughout this past shutdown. 

Mr. STEWART. Right. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. So it is not solely an issue regarding the National 

Park Service, but raising it to a higher level. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. And I understand that, and I understand and 

will concede the point. This is not a perfect solution, but it is a 

much better solution, in my opinion and in the opinion of many of 

us, than doing nothing or not preparing for this eventuality, which 

most of us agree will come. 

Mr. Cox, if I could turn to you for just a minute, sir, would you 

elaborate just a little more on some of the benefits that you think 

occurred to the States and particularly to the rural communities 

many of which are stressed? And many of them are stressed because of the point I made in my opening statement about the fact 

that the Federal Government has in many cases cut off access to 

just enormous slots of land, and the resources and the jobs that 

would be created from that, and I have left you nearly a minute, 

but help us understand what good benefits came because your 

Governor and you and the Administration, and to her credit the 

Secretary, and I am so grateful she was willing to do this, to her 

credit working with the State in a fashion to reopen the national 

parks very quickly. 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Representative Stewart. 

Prior to serving as lieutenant Governor, I had the opportunity to 

serve as a County Commissioner for 4 years and am deeply knowledgeable when it comes to the impacts that our Federal lands have 

on small local rural communities. I come from a town of 1,200 people where I am raising my family. 

29 

And the impacts are very serious. We are, again, talking about 

70 percent of the State of Utah is covered with Federal lands and 

public lands, and so this was one instance where we were able to 

work together. The impacts were very real, were very severe, to the 

tune, again, of millions of dollars impacting very small communities that do not have that type, as Mr. Sease has said, that do 

not have those types of margins. 

For southern Utah especially as the weather starts to cool, this 

was the time when people spend their time in our national parks, 

and not just the citizens of Utah, not just the citizens of the United 

States, but across the world. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Let me, if I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sheaffer, under the cooperative agreements that are articulated in H.R. 3311, would State employees, just to go over that point, be allowed to operate and staff 

the national park units? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I, frankly, as Mr. DeFazio said, think it appears 

that that is true. It appears that that is the authority that is granted there, yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Is there any precedent for this arrangement that 

we know of? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Where the States perform Federal functions? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I am not certain that I know of any, no. I mean, 

we have cooperative agreements with States where we are collocated or located closely together. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And each unit of the National Park Service is 

unique. They have unique sets of rules and regulations that guide 

the management of those units in each individual park; is that correct? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. And legislation guiding that as well, yes, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And does the Park Service right now, just to get 

the information for us, have the authority to allow States to manage or co-manage units in the national park system? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. No, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. During the shutdown, how many employees did 

the National Park Service have to furlough? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Roughly 16,000. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may, Mr. Lieutenant Governor, let me jump 

ahead to the legislation that has been signed by the Governor in 

Utah, H.R. 148, which has similarities to the legislation that was 

introduced by my colleague, Mr. Young, and it also ties into this 

question of a cooperative arrangement in preparation for the worst. 

A 2012 report, Mr. Lieutenant Governor, issued by the Utah’s 

Constitutional Defense Council, recommends that the State of Utah 

increase funding for existing State parks to further demonstrate 

Utah’s commitment to conserving and protecting its natural landscapes. This suggests that previous funding had not been sufficient 

to maintain those State parks. 

Given complete management prerogative by the State over the 

13 national parks, how does the State intend to fund the operation 

of those 13 additional national parks that would then become, 

30 

given the legislation the Governor signed and is being litigated at 

this point or is going to be litigated, how do you fund that? 

Mr. COX. I am sorry. I am not sure I understand the question. 

There were lots of subplots in that question. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, the one subplot is that the Constitutional 

Defense Council said the operational budget for the national park 

units in Utah is $40.8 million in 2011. If Utah is successful in its 

bid to take over this Federal land, would Utah expect Congress to 

give a direct appropriation to that amount or half that amount in 

order to operate the parks, or would Utah now having complete authority over those lands be in a position to fund it itself? 

Mr. COX. OK. So, again, trying to parse the portions of that question, so as it refers to H.R. 3311, we would set aside funds in the 

eventuality that there was another shutdown sufficient to, again, 

just like we did in the past shutdown, to pay for the operations of 

the parks, to contract with the park and their employees, and then 

we would expect to be reimbursed upon reopening of the parks. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. In a full takeover of the lands—you are talking 

about H.R. 3311—in a full takeover of the land consistent with the 

legislation that passed and was signed by the Governor in Utah, 

how would the States deal with issues like suppressing wildfires? 

Is a legislative framework in place to provide protections for all 

the laws and the mandates that are on Federal land now? Would 

they be similar to—— 

Mr. COX. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA [continuing]. Six thousand abandoned mines in 

Utah. 

Mr. COX. I am not sure how that is germane to the bills at hand, 

but I would say that the legislation passed by the State of Utah 

specifically excluded national parks. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sheaffer, my question, you are testifying on behalf of the 

National Park Service today; is that correct? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. That is correct, but some of these bills reference 

the other land managing agencies as well. So I am representing the 

Administration’s position on those bills. 

Mr. SMITH. OK. But in regards to H.R. 3286, you are testifying 

on behalf of the National Park Service? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. OK. And let me get this straight. The taxpayers of 

the United States pay your salary as a Federal employee? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Correct. 

Mr. SMITH. And you are testifying against them having access 

and availability in more ways for their lands to be open? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I do not understand the question. 

Mr. SMITH. Is the National Park Service in your testimony, you 

are opposing H.R. 3286? You are opposing that, correct? 

In your testimony you said that the National Park Service was 

opposed to H.R. 3286. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. That is correct. I believe I have the right number. 

31 

Mr. SMITH. And H.R. 3286 apparently to the language is providing another avenue of keeping our Federal parks open to the 

public, correct? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I believe that is its intent, yes. 

Mr. SMITH. And you all are testifying to limit the parks from 

being open to the public. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. We are testifying we are opposed to the language 

as written, yes. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, I hope the committee sees the direct irony 

in this case of where the National Park Service is trying to limit 

access to the people that pay for the National Park Service to even 

be in existence. I think that is absolutely unacceptable, and whether it is the Administration or whoever it is that is advising the National Park Service, it needs to be addressed and looked into. 

With that I will yield the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mrs. Lummis, do you have questions to these two specifically or 

do you want to hold on? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will defer until later. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me ask what may be the last round of these 

questions, and, Mr. Sheaffer, I appreciate you being—‘‘Shaeffer’’ or 

‘‘Sheaffer’’? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. ‘‘Shaeffer.’’ 

Mr. BISHOP. ‘‘Shaeffer.’’ I appreciate you being here. I realize you 

are the Comptroller, which means you have expertise on some of 

the questions we are going to ask, and I realize you do not have 

policy decisionmaking power down there, and you are not essentially responsible for the testimony that has been given to us, but 

I hope you would take back the message that some of the testimony 

that is presented on these three bills are some of the most atrocious testimony that we have actually heard in this particular committee. 

Now, let me go with a couple of the elements that are just being 

given. It is the testimony of the Department that legislation is necessary to actually give this money back to the States that was donated. Yet in the 1990s, you were able to work out agreements in 

which you actually accepted money and returned the money without legislation. 

Is that actually what the Park Service and the Department of 

the Interior is testifying today? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. The distinction, if I may, Mr. Bishop, between the 

two is that the money that was given to us in 1995–96 was very 

late in the shutdown operation and no charges were ever made to 

the donation account. That is very different from what happened 

here. 

Mr. BISHOP. This has been very late in the shutdown process situation as well. So let me ask you: who initially rejected the offer 

of help from the States? Who in the Department made that decision to initially reject their States’ offers? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I do not know who was on the phone with the 

State at that time, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you know whose decision it was to close the 

parks despite the offers from the States? 

32 

Mr. SHEAFFER. To keep the parks closed despite the offers? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I do not. I know that there were conversations between the Governor’s Office and—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Then do you know who made the decision to change 

the policy to accept the money? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Ultimately I think the Secretary was engaged in 

all of those conversations and Director Jarvis and maybe others. I 

do not know. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Let me go back to something which you 

should definitely have control over. The $2 million that has been 

expended for money sent to the States that you do not want to give 

back, that $2 million was covering what was suspended that could 

have been given you had the CR gone forward, correct? In lieu of 

not having the money because there was no CR. 

You now have the CR, which means you have the original 

amount of money. What the States gave you is in addition to that 

money. Where is that extra $11⁄2 to $2 million floating around in 

your Department? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, at this time, the money that was spent by 

the State and then replaced, spent by the individual parks that 

was later replaced by appropriations, the answer to the question is 

the money would be in those parks. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you still have the $2 million there. You have an 

additional roughly $2 million that is floating around in your budget 

that was not appropriated and you were not planning on when you 

originally had the appropriation. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Well, that is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. And you still do not want to give that $2 million, 

which is still a surplus that you have, back to the States that originally gave it to you, even though now your budgets are whole. Is 

that the testimony, once again, of the Department? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Mr. Bishop, it is not an issue of want. We do not 

have the authority to return money that has been obligated from 

a donation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Did you have the authority in the 1990s to do that? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. The money was not used, just as we return 

money that was unused this year, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Oh, so just because you actually gave a check, you 

do not have the authority to fix it. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I do not have the authority to—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Which would indicate why it would be essential for 

somebody like Congress to come and give you that authority and 

give you the plans so you do not have to face this kind of ludicrous 

situation in the future, would it not? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. The authority to repay them? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. If you are not willing to do it even though you have 

done it in the past by finding some condition of technicality, then 

obviously Congress needs to step up and do it for you since the 

Department is not willing to do it on their own account. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. We need congressional authority to repay money. 

33 

Mr. BISHOP. How long did it take to make this deal with the 

States? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. It took a very short time actually. We worked it 

through in a—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Cox, how long did it take for you to make a deal 

with the Park Services? 

Mr. COX. Less than 24 hours. 

Mr. BISHOP. Your testimony is you took in less than 24 hours the 

concept to do here, but if you were to do future planning so this 

situation was avoided in the future, the testimony of the Department is it would take you too long to actually work through that? 

The workload to actually make prior preparations for what could 

happen is too onerous that the Department cannot actually spend 

the time and effort to do that, when you were able to solve this 

problem in less than 24 hours? Is that really what this Department 

is testifying? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I think part of it is. I think part of it is, as was 

said by Mr. DeFazio, is that it depends on the conditions under 

which they would be willing to sign an agreement. If they were as 

straightforward as these, it probably would not take very long. 

Mr. BISHOP. So would it not be wise to do it now in legislation? 

Why is the Department so adamantly opposed to solving the problem ahead of time? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I can only say, sir, that the Administration is opposed to solving one problem in one Federal program under the 

conditions that might present themselves in the future. 

Mr. BISHOP. I do have other questions, but I want to allow others 

to go forward before I do because I have run out of time. 

Mr. Grijalva, do you have more upon this bill? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I will go after him. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Stewart, do you have more questions on this 

one? 

Mr. STEWART. No, I am enjoying listening to you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Sheaffer, you made a point, and I think it is 

a valid point because this whole discussion is about, and appropriately so, a value judgment, that the parks are a value, economic, 

aesthetically, to the States. I think it was mentioned in Montana, 

that it is part of our brand. Part of our marketing is the national 

parks, and that because of that brand and that marketing, and 

when it is not available to the public we lose money. So it is a 

value judgment that we are making here. 

There are equally compelling value judgments of the people that, 

because of the shutdown, were hurt in other areas other than the 

parks. So the consistency point that you brought up, that why does 

one area get spared when you set up legislation for reimbursement 

and for cooperative agreements with the States around the issue of 

parks, but we do not set them up around the issue of Head Start. 

We do not set them up around the issue of our public schools. We 

do not set them up about the issue of cancer treatment centers and 

other places that depend on Federal funding, Meals on Wheels, our 

defense industry in a variety of States. 

So, you know, while this is an appropriate value judgment, there 

are across the board value judgments. I wondered if the State of 

34 

Utah or Arizona would be willing to sign a cooperative agreement 

that if we shut down again, the Head Start centers are going to 

stay open and that Indian Health Services is going to continue to 

function at the level that it should. 

I wonder if they are prepared to do those kinds of agreements. 

I would suggest they are not. This is a neutral feel good, and it 

should be a feel good issue because our parks are about the American people feeling good, but you know, this whole shutdown did 

not just linger here at the parks. It lingered in every other funding 

area in this country, and everybody suffered from it. 

You know, if we want to be consistent, then bring us cooperative 

agreements and legislation that ties States to continuing funding 

in all areas affected by a shutdown, not just this one. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. I do appreciate what Mr. Grijalva has just said, and 

I would like simply to point out that while the shutdown was going 

on, the House did vote to open up all of these. We did vote to actually do that kind of stuff, and I actually would not be opposed to 

that, but unfortunately, the tenor of this committee is only dealing 

with public lands, and what we are dealing with is public lands. 

Mr. Sheaffer, I want to correct one of the statements that you 

made, and once again I understand you are not a policymaker in 

the Department. However, there are Federal lands that are being 

managed by State and local government by an agreement, and, yes, 

you do have the power to do that. We do them in Sand Flats, Coral 

Pink Sand Dunes in Utah, and, yes, that does mean, to answer one 

of the other questions that was brought up, that State employees 

do the same function that Federal employees would do. It is just 

a matter of who actually signs the particular check. 

Mr. Sheaffer, I want to say, well, two other things here, and then 

we will move on to the other pieces of legislation. The question has 

been made of whether the State is willing to actually fund any obligation. Mr. Cox, you stated clearly that the State Law 148, which 

was referenced, does not ask for taking over the parks or wilderness and several other areas. 

Is the State prepared if this bill were passed to actually pony up 

and pay for these things? 

Mr. COX. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Which simply indicates that if the Federal Government has a backlog that in Alaska itself is $121 million, States certainly could do no worse than what the Federal Government is 

doing in ownership and management of these particular pieces of 

land and actually should be given the opportunity. 

Mr. Sheaffer, when you go back what is so galling to me about 

the testimony the Department gave is ultimately—and you can correct me if I am wrong—but you ultimately are saying the Administration opposes these two pieces of legislation because there should 

not be a shutdown at all. That is the bad point. 

You are strongly opposed to it because it would take too much 

work to try and implement a solution ahead of time. That testimony is the indication of some entity that has simply spent too 

long in bureaucratic excess and not actually trying to do things 

that help people. 

35 

Mr. Cox, I will ask one last question and I will be done with my 

time. If what we are hearing now in the Department’s testimony 

is they do not want to work with States and they do not want to 

have solutions in the future, what in the hell does that tell your 

businesses that work around these parks? I mean, you open it up 

because of the business activity. What are you now going to tell 

those businesses that simply say the Park Service strongly opposes 

any type of effort to solve this problem in the future? 

Mr. COX. Well, I must admit we were really surprised and 

shocked at the testimony that was submitted by the parks because 

the reaction has been so incredibly positive. Everywhere we go we 

just hear, ‘‘Thank you so much for working. Thank you so much for 

not being dysfunctional. Thank you for making this happen. Thank 

you for reopening the parks. We realize that people actually care 

about us.’’ 

And it would seem that we would now have to tell them that 

that is not necessarily the case. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

I will ask one last question of you, even though I did not mean 

to. Can you tell me your hometown, so that somebody whose roots 

go back to Mount Pleasant—— 

Mr. COX. I am from Fairview. My wife is from Mount Pleasant, 

and we are Sanpete County kids. 

Mr. BISHOP. I do that for my staff and my staff only. 

Mr. COX. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me say one last thing. I am actually at the end 

of the questions. Then on these two pieces of legislation I wish to 

appreciate your being here, Mr. Sease. We did not actually have a 

chance to go into much more detail, but I appreciate the testimony 

you have given. Your written testimony is in the record. 

There may be other questions that will be asked by committee 

members. We would ask you to be responsive to those in writing 

in the period of time. 

Mr. Sheaffer, we would ask you to stay on the panel for the rest 

of it. 

May I state just before we go on to the other things because I 

am going to be even nastier as we come forward, I recognize you 

are the Comptroller. You did not write the testimony, but this is 

the testimony. My problems, my complaints are not necessarily for 

you and what you are doing with the counting of the money. It is 

with the testimony that was submitted by the Department of the 

Interior. 

I apologize that you are having to face the brunt of that testimony. 

With that we will dismiss the Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Sease. 

We appreciate your time and effort of being here. 

Let me bring both of the witnesses and we will do these two bills 

again together here. We have H.R. 3294, Mr. Young, and also 

H.R. 3492, which is going to be extremely difficult if you are 

dyslexic, for Mrs. Lummis for that. 

So I would like to bring Robert Nelson, Dr. Robert Nelson from 

the University of Maryland, who is parenthetically a great author. 

I have enjoyed reading his books, and also Aaron Pruzan, if I have 

36 

pronounced that properly, from Wilson, Wyoming, who will be talking about these two particular bills. 

Let me for the sake of continuity, did you mind which order we 

go in these things? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Either one. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, that is kind of you. All right. 

Mrs. Lummis, I would ask you if you would introduce your bill 

that deals with activities in wild and scenic rivers, and then we 

will turn to Mr. Pruzan if he would like to testify for 5 minutes 

about this particular piece of legislation. Then we will go to Mr. 

Young to introduce his legislation, and then, Dr. Nelson, if you 

would bat clean-up on that particular legislation, and then we will 

see if there any other questions that could be applicable to all three 

of you. 

Mr. Sheaffer had the opportunity of commenting on all of these 

bills in his opening statement. 

So, Mrs. Lummis, 5 minutes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I really do appreciate the opportunity to present legislation to 

provide for paddling in Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton 

National Park, and the National Elk Refuge. 

H.R. 3492 would remove from the Code of Federal Regulations 

a 60-year-old ban on paddling. Now, that ban was put in place 

after World War II to limit fishing. This bill’s intent is to vest river 

management decisions in the Superintendents of the park where 

they can be properly considered. 

This legislation is in response to the Comprehensive River Management Plan environmental assessment that was published for 

public comment under the Craig Thomas Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 2009. Requests to increase paddling access were denied 

by the Park Service and labeled an alternative considered but dismissed from detailed evaluation, and the reasoning for that was it 

conflicts with existing regulations. 

Mr. Chairman, I just believe the paddling community deserves a 

seat at the table. Organizations like American Whitewater have 

tried to engage the Park Service on this issue for decades, and 

groups like the American Packrafting Association were founded in 

Wyoming to represent this recreational community. 

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to 

include their comments and testimony on the River Paddling Protection Act in the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. Without objection, so ordered. 

[Testimony of American Whitewater and American Packrafting 

Association on the River Paddling Protection Act follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN COLBURN, NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN WHITEWATER, MISSOULA, MONTANA

H.R. 3492—RIVER PADDLING PROTECTION ACT

l am writing to voice my appreciation for the introduction of H.R. 3492, the River 

Paddling Protection Act, on behalf of American Whitewater and our over 5,500 

members. Founded in 1954, American Whitewater is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to conserving and restoring our Nation’s whitewater resources, and 

enhancing opportunities to enjoy them safely. Our members are primarily noncommercial and conservation-oriented kayakers, canoeists, and rafters. 

37 

Americans are prohibited from canoeing, kayaking, and rafting on hundreds, or 

likely thousands of miles of exceptional rivers and streams in Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton national parks. These paddling bans have had a profound personal impact on many Americans. Standing on the bank looking at a river is just not the 

same as floating down it, interacting with each current, watching the landscape unfold around you and above you. Paddling requires an intense focus not just on your 

path through a rapid or pool, but on the landscape, the weather, the arc of the 

sun—literally everything around you. The act of paddling creates rich, vivid, memorable experiences that are unique to each river, each day, and each landscape. For 

paddlers that live near or travel to these parks, the paddling bans have prevented 

them from establishing this unique connection with one of the most iconic and beautiful landscapes on earth. Many simply avoid the area. For many Americans, the 

paddling bans make the region a less attractive place to live, raise a family, start 

a business, or vacation for many Americans. 

The paddling bans are based on outdated regulations from the 1950s, and have 

denied three generations of Americans the outstanding experience of paddling the 

rivers in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. These regulations were aimed at stemming 

rampant over-fishing, a concern now easily managed by other means without impacting those that simply want to float downstream. Today we know that both fishing and paddling can be managed in an environmentally sustainable manner with 

common management tools. On the vast majority of rivers across the country, no 

special management of paddling is needed at all. Paddlers simply park at existing 

parking areas, launch at bridges, hike on existing trails, and silently float downstream. With that said, American Whitewater fully supports reasonable limits on 

paddling and other forms of recreation to protect natural resources and their enjoyment. 

It is well worth noting that the paddling prohibitions run counter to modern 

National Park Service policies and priorities. These policies are perhaps best summarized in the following quote from Section 8.1.2 of the National Park Service Management Policies manual: 

To provide for enjoyment of the parks, the National Park Service will encourage visitor activities that: are appropriate to the purpose for which the 

park was established; and are inspirational, educational, or healthful, and 

otherwise appropriate to the park environment; and will foster an understanding of and appreciation for park resources and values, or will promote 

enjoyment through a direct association with, interaction with, or relation to 

park resources; and can be sustained without causing unacceptable impacts 

to park resources or values. 

Paddling meets all these standards perfectly, and is indeed supported across the 

National Park System. The National Park Service is an outstanding partner in river 

management and protection. The issue addressed by H.R. 3492 is endemic to only 

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and is distinct from the otherwise 

largely exemplary management of paddling throughout the National Park System. 

American Whitewater recently requested that Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks consider allowing non-commercial paddling on several newly designated 

Wild and Scenic Rivers that are within their borders. The parks refused, stating 

that paddling was prohibited by Federal-level regulations that were beyond their 

control. These parks claim to not have the discretion to manage paddling commensurate with other activities. As far as we are aware, all other parks have this discretion, and these antiquated Federal-level prohibitions are a regulatory anomaly. 

The River Paddling Protection Act, under Sections 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) would restore management authority over paddling to the park managers. We believe that 

this is a worthy and necessary goal that would set no precedents nor in any way 

limit the National Park Service’s authority. In fact, we believe it would eliminate 

a bad precedent and restore standard National Park Service authorities. We fully 

support this language. 

American Whitewater believes that outdoor recreation and conservation are two 

sides of the same coin. Our Nation’s great conservation leaders each had a direct 

connection to the outdoors through recreation; be it hunting, hiking, mountaineering, paddling, or something else. Future leaders will also without a doubt draw 

on these same experiences for inspiration. Direct experiences on wild and natural 

rivers forge a strong stewardship ethic among paddlers. In short paddlers care about 

rivers and want to see them protected. It is thus imperative that the authority of 

the National Park Service to preserve the natural resources of Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton national parks remain unaffected by this legislation. If Congress determines that H.R. 3492, as written, affects these authorities we welcome the opportunity to discuss and endorse friendly amendments. 

38 

Specifically, if the statement ‘‘and the Secretary of the Interior may not issue substantially similar regulations that apply to hand-propelled vessels’’ in Section 2(a) 

is determined to limit the National Park Service’s ability or authority to manage 

paddling commensurate with other similar uses, using the full suite of management 

tools and following Agency protocol, then we ask that the language be struck, modified, or clarified to meet the interests described above. 

It is no secret that past park managers have valued the paddling bans as part 

of the unique tradition of managing Yellowstone and Grand Teton. Paddling rivers 

through these iconic landscapes has a long and storied history involving early explorers as well as famous conservationists like Olaus Murie. It is not a new use; 

it is an old one, and the 60-year ban is but a blink in the cultural history and future 

of Yellowstone. The paddling bans are not a tradition of the American public, and 

the American public needs opportunities for a direct connection with nature more 

than ever. 

We trust that the current park managers, in the absence of the Federal-level prohibitions, will prioritize healthy and sustainable outdoor recreation, and restore 

Americans’ opportunities to float rivers within the parks. We believe that Yellowstone Superintendent Dan Wenk and the incoming Superintendent of Grand Teton 

will be up to this challenge, and look forward to working with them to implement 

positive changes in the management of the parks they oversee. 

As a final matter, National Elk Refuge managers have recently decided that paddling is not compatible with the purposes of the Refuge. We question this decision, 

and the Refuge offered no analysis to support their position. H.R. 3492 seeks to 

remedy this arbitrary determination by declaring that paddling is one of the priority 

‘‘wildlife-dependent’’ activities on the National Elk Refuge. This declaration however, would alter or subvert system-wide organic legislation and have no practical 

effect. Subject to governing rules and laws, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may 

choose to prohibit paddling or allow it whether they view it as a wildlife-dependent 

activity or not. Their regulations allow for non-wildlife-dependent recreation, including paddling, under many circumstances. While we believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is arbitrarily excluding the public from floating rivers in the Refuge, we 

can see no appropriate legislative remedy for this unsupported Agency perspective. 

We ask that Section 2(b) be struck or substantially modified based on these concerns. 

The River Paddling Protection Act is an essential step in restoring the same management authorities and mix of potential recreational opportunities that exist in 

other National Parks to Yellowstone and Grand Teton. We recognize that the bill 

will be discussed at length, possibly improved upon, and fully vetted. We look forward to being an active participant in this process. I welcome questions and feedback regarding this testimony. 

Thank you for considering the interests of the many Americans who deeply value 

the opportunity to paddle wild rivers. 

39 


85668.001.eps
40 


85668.002.eps
41 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

These groups, of which many were instrumental in designing the 

Snake River Headwaters as wild and scenic, expected the new 

management plan for those rivers to include a public discussion on 

the benefits of paddling. What H.R. 3492 would allow for is simply 

that discussion. 

This bill does not prohibit Park Superintendents from proposing 

park management plans on paddling or restricting access in their 

annual compendiums. It does, however, remove the Federal regulatory prohibition on paddling that has been cited as a reason for 

not doing a detailed evaluation. 

Now, there may be ways to improve on this bill as written, and 

I will continue to work with the Park Service and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to clarify its provisions. I can attest that local 

rafters like Aaron Pruzan, our witness today, are looking for a balanced solution to river access. 

And I want to welcome Aaron to Washington and to this panel. 

Aaron is the owner of Rendezvous River Sports and Jackson Hole 


85668.003.eps
42 

Kayak School. He is a long time advocate for stewardship of the 

rivers and one of the community leaders on the Craig Thomas 

Snakehead Waters Legacy Act. He loves paddling as an outdoorsman, as a business owner, as a guide, a coach, and as a father. 

Aaron, I look forward to hearing your testimony today. Thank 

you for being here. Welcome. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Pruzan, you are recognized for 5 minutes as well to give us 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF AARON PRUZAN, WILSON, WYOMING 

Mr. PRUZAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Grijalva. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and 

speak before you, and thanks to the rest of you who are here as 

well. 

Representative Lummis gave me a great introduction. So I will 

not go on further, and I have submitted testimony. So you are welcome to read all of that. 

You know, over the years I have introduced thousands of people 

to the sport of paddling. It has been my life, and I will say that 

the river running community and paddlers in general are great 

stewards of the resource that we enjoy, and my own work on river 

stewardship in the Jacksonville area is extensive. I was one of the 

founding board members of the Snake River Fund, which is the 

river stewardship organization in northwest Wyoming, and we created one of the first nonprofit and public partnerships that exist 

and one of the only nonprofit partnerships that exist where we actually help the U.S. Forest Service manage the Snake River 

through Jackson Hole with private donations and funding from outfitters. 

I was also instrumental in taking a leadership role in the Craig 

Thomas Snake River Headwaters Legacy Act, which protects over 

400 miles of the upper Snake River Watershed. It was a 

groundbreaking Act in that it took a watershed approach to conservation. 

And you know, when the management plan came forward, we 

thought this was a great opportunity to look at paddling again. I 

will note that even though I am in the commercial outfitting business and I do have a retail store, I am not here representing my 

own commercial interests or any commercial interests. I am here 

representing the thousands of paddlers from our region and tens of 

thousands of paddlers beyond that are interested in paddling in 

Yellowstone National Park. 

And the fact is that this boating ban as Representative Lummis 

pointed out is extremely outdated. It was initially intended to prevent overfishing. They did not want float fishing on these rivers because the fishery in Yellowstone was in trouble in the 1950s. 

And it did not really look at the unforeseen consequence of the 

fact that these are great recreational rivers for paddling and other 

low impact uses, canoeing, small rafts, et cetera. So it is outdated, 

and it really needs to go. 

When we have tried to have discussions with Park Service people 

at the regional and local level, we have pretty much been 

43 

stonewalled by the fact that this paddling ban exists. So if it is gotten rid of, then we would at least be able to have that discussion. 

And we know because there are many great examples throughout 

our region that paddlers can access these rivers and enjoy this resource without any harm to the resource. Many other rivers in the 

region are managed successfully. For instance, the Selway River 

only allows one launch a day during the season, but paddlers understand that, and they realize that access to that river is very special, yet you can get access. Whereas the rivers of Yellowstone are 

completely shut off to access and many of the rivers of Grand Teton 

are as well. 

So we are not asking for any additional facilities to be built. 

Parking areas, trails to the rivers already exist. This could be done 

in a very inexpensive fashion, would not cost a lot of money, and 

is a great form of recreation, again, human powered recreation. 

When you look at Yellowstone, I mean, it is a sad fact most people enjoy Yellowstone from the seat of their cars. I mean, they just 

do. It is a roadside park. Very few people ever get away from the 

boardwalks, and you know, here we have from the highest Federal 

levels a mandate to get people outside, get people recreating, get 

people enjoying the outdoors. 

I have taken part in listening groups in the past with Forest 

Service and Park Service personnel saying, ‘‘What are the impediments to outdoor recreation?’’ Well, this is a big one that is outdated and it would be easy to get rid of. It is a great way to enjoy 

the outdoors. It is a healthy activity that is extremely low impact 

to the environment. 

We understand and I have had many conversations with my colleagues in the conservation community about this bill already, and 

we understand that the language needs to be tightened up, and I 

will say it is vitally important that the final language of this bill 

be very specific to ending the antiquated boating ban in Yellowstone and Grand Teton and this bill not be misconstrued or set a 

precedent that may apply to other parks or other uses in the future. 

We are not looking to take away management responsibility from 

the Superintendents of Yellowstone and Grand Teton. We are looking to give it back to them, and by passing this bill, that is exactly 

what it will do. 

And I just want you to know if you do not have one of these currently in your wallet, if anybody in the room does not have one of 

these in their wallet, it is an incredible value. For a very low cost 

and no interest rates, you can get a National Parks pass, which 

gets you into all 400 parks in the Nation, and look at what is on 

the cover of the pass. It is a kayaker going through rapids. So it 

is an accepted activity in most parks and many wilderness areas. 

Thank you very much. 

The prepared statement of Mr. Pruzan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AARON PRUZAN, WILSON, WY 

CONCERNING H.R. 3492, RIVER PADDLING PROTECTION ACT

I am Aaron Pruzan and I live in Jackson Hole, Wyoming with my wife Tamsen 

and our three children, Noah, Nate and Neve. As a retailer, instructor, guide and 

coach I have introduced thousands of people of all ages to the joy of paddling rivers 

44 

since I began my career in 1993. In 1995 I started Rendezvous River Sports and 

Jackson Hole Kayak School, a retail sales and outfitting destination which quickly 

became the hub of paddling activities in Wyoming. I am very fortunate that I have 

turned my passion for river running into my career and can share that passion with 

so many people from all walks of life. 

In 1996, in response to the youth skiing community wanting more summer activities, I founded the Jackson Hole Kayak Club to give the opportunity for kids in the 

Jackson Hole area to understand and experience the waterways of the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. Since that time I have taken generations of young 

kayakers—now including my own kids—to rivers throughout the West to enjoy 

healthy outdoor recreation. 

In 2009 I began working with Teton Adaptive Sports to provide free adaptive paddling opportunities for special needs kids and adults. In addition we provide free 

paddling and rafting programs for Honoring Our Veterans, which facilitates outdoor 

experiences for returning veterans and wounded warriors. We have worked extensively with the City Kids Wilderness Project which gives inner city kids from Washington, DC the opportunity to experience the rivers and mountains of Wyoming. 

Over the past three decades I have enjoyed paddling in many spectacular places 

as a team member on numerous whitewater expeditions, exploratory descents and 

in individual kayaking competitions. This includes exploratory river running in 

Wyoming, British Columbia, Chile, Argentina, New Zealand and Siberia. 

Paddling has fostered in me, as it has in others, a deep sense of stewardship for 

the rivers I experience. I have worked extensively for river stewardship as a founding board member of the Snake River Fund and a board member of American 

Whitewater. This work included being one of the leaders of the Campaign for the 

Snake River Headwaters. Through this 6-year process I worked with numerous 

conservation organizations, hosted planning meetings at my store, met with landowners, presented the campaign at public forums and helped build lasting partnerships between different river users and political affiliations. This culminated in 2009 

with the passage of the Craig Thomas Snake River Headwaters Legacy Act, which 

protects 400 miles of the upper Snake River and was one of the largest conservation 

measures in Wyoming in many decades. 

In 2010 I spearheaded the special excise tax funding proposition which was approved by voters in Teton County and provides funding to facilitate the transfer of 

riparian lands from the Bureau of Land Management to Teton County for river access and preservation. I am currently working to complete this process with the addition of private lands and the creation of riverside parks and access points at South 

Park, Wilson and Hoback Junction on the Snake River in Jackson Hole. 

As a current member of the Jackson Hole Travel and Tourism Board I am working to promote outdoor recreation and sustainable travel. Jackson Hole and the 

Greater Yellowstone Area are a national treasure and we are working to be a world 

leader in sustainable tourism as well. 

I have traveled to Washington, DC twice before. Both times were to meet with 

our Wyoming Members of Congress to advocate for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. LWCF funding is very important to Wyoming as LWCF funds have been 

used to acquire valuable lands in river corridors, with more riparian lands targeted 

for purchase via LWCF in the upcoming year. 

While I make my living sharing rivers with people, I am not testifying on behalf 

of my own or anyone’s commercial interests. I am testifying on behalf of the many 

people that cherish the opportunity to experience rivers and special places in their 

kayaks, canoes, and rafts. This is a community of people that have a deep land and 

river stewardship ethic and a strong connection with the natural world. Through 

nearly every aspect of my life I am part of that community, and it is an honor to 

testify on their behalf. 

The rivers of Jackson Hole are one of the main reasons many visitors come to our 

area. This is part of a long tradition; river running was one of the original and primary means of travel throughout the West. Today, whether using traditional hard 

shell kayaks, inflatable kayaks or pack rafts (small one-person rafts that fit in a 

backpack) paddling down a river is still one of the most enjoyable and low impact 

ways to experience the outdoors. A day paddling on the river offers an almost magical connection with the landscape and the water, and different stretches of river 

offer something for everyone, from floating tranquil waters flowing through quiet 

canyons to the rush and roar of rapids and the challenge of paddling whitewater. 

Paddling teaches skills and awareness, fosters an appreciation of nature and protected areas, and is truly a lifetime activity enjoyed by all ages. 

There is a current push from the highest levels of government to get more people 

outside and involved in fitness activities and specifically outdoor recreation. My staff 

and I are actually doing that all summer long by getting kids and adults away from 

45 

their computers, tablets and smart phones and out on the water paddling. In this 

over-stimulating era, rivers require kids and adults alike to focus on natural forces 

and the natural world, to calm their minds, and exercise their bodies. It is exactly 

the type of activity that our National Park System was set up to support. 

In the late 1920s the great conservationist Olaus Murie embarked on a canoe trip 

on the Upper Yellowstone River with his two sons. Reflecting on the experience in 

his book Wapiti Wilderness, he wrote: ‘‘When you go into country by pack train the 

streams are only for crossing, or to camp beside. To know a stream you travel on 

it, struggle with it, live with it hour by hour and day by day.’’ 

I am very fortunate to have gotten to know many rivers while kayaking with my 

own family, my 6- and 8-year-old boys in their kids kayaks, my 4-year-old daughter 

in the front seat of my tandem with me and my wife paddling alongside. River running is an incredible family activity, it provides endless excitement and is something 

real we all share together that is an experience far beyond anything that a TV, 

video game or amusement park can offer. Unfortunately though, I am forbidden 

from replicating Olaus Murie’s trip, or taking my family on any river trip in Grand 

Teton or Yellowstone National Park except for on portions of the Snake and Lewis 

rivers. The National Park Service forbids floating all other rivers in these parks. 

As someone who has paddled many of the world’s most formidable whitewater rivers, as well as many that are perfect family floats, I can attest that Yellowstone 

and Grand Teton National Parks offer some of the best paddling opportunities in 

the World for all abilities. Not only would the rivers themselves offer wonderful rapids, currents, and pools, but floating quietly though these areas and taking in the 

unique scenery would be an experience of a lifetime for many people. It would give 

Park visitors a truly wild experience of a very special place. 

Visitors to our area often ask incredulously why these rivers are closed. The history of the boating ban in Yellowstone and Grand Teton dates back to the 1950s 

and was solely intended to curb the overfishing the plagued the Parks. This resulted 

in the unforeseen consequence of banning future access to rivers and streams for 

enjoyment by paddling. Even though rivers like the Yellowstone had been paddled, 

the high value of the river recreation resource that exists in both national parks 

was not envisioned 60 years ago. This ban lives on, while in other national parks 

and wilderness areas paddling is a regular activity (check out the kayaker on the 

latest National Parks Pass) that is managed in a simple and sustainable manner. 

To live so near to these amazing rivers and yet be unable to experience them is 

a constant frustration for me, many other residents of the area surrounding the 

Parks, and many visitors. Many of our students and kids that I coach strive to be 

able to run rivers like the Yellowstone and have trouble understanding why the 

boating ban still exists. They simply can’t understand why floating a river should 

be a crime in these parks, while it is supported as a great way to experience the 

natural world virtually everywhere else. 

Despite efforts over the years by American Whitewater to have boating managed 

like other similar activities in these parks—the ban persisted. With the 2009 Wild 

& Scenic designation of the upper Snake River and its tributaries—which includes 

several rivers in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks—a new river management plan was required and thus a new opportunity to consider suitable uses 

for the resource. Again despite a flood of comments in favor of paddling, including 

recommendations by river stewardship organizations that paddling be considered, 

and the requirement by law that all kinds of use be looked at, paddling was explicitly excluded from the draft Comprehensive River Management Plan. The authors 

of the plan cited the unusual 1950’s Federal regulations that ban paddling, claiming 

that these rules made considering paddling a moot point, since they were forbidden 

from allowing the activity. Park managers do not have the discretion to manage 

these Parks consistent with modern National Park Service policies, priorities, and 

practices because of these outdated and unusual Federal rules. 

It is clear that these 1950’s regulations are outdated and the National Park 

Service needs to manage with modern methods and standards. Yellowstone visitors 

no longer watch the bears at open dumps, the National Park Service no longer stock 

exotic fish or engage in other outdated management practices. Changes to park 

management can improve visitor experiences and natural resource protection. The 

paddling prohibitions in the Park need to change. 

While I do not feel that opening every river all the time in both parks is the correct course of action, I support the active management of paddling in Yellowstone 

and Grand Teton and feel there are many stretches that can be opened with minimal impacts. There is already a boat registration system in place for both parks and 

all non-motorized boats are required to have a permit. Boat registration requires a 

fee, is a source of revenue for the parks and provides boaters with the park boating 

regulations. Backcountry use is already tightly controlled and paddlers would need 

46 

to adhere to current regulations as hikers and back packers do. There are also numerous simple templates for river management from other western rivers that flow 

through sensitive areas which would allow paddlers to be easily, cheaply, and 

sustainably managed just as hikers are. 

It is important to recognize that managers have many tools to manage paddling 

and other forms of recreation. This is not an all or nothing issue. The paddling community appreciates and supports well-supported limits on river use and here again, 

there are many great examples of river management from popular rivers in the region like the Middle Fork of the Salmon, the Selway, Yampa or Green. Furthermore 

there is no need for additional infrastructure to facilitate paddling. Trails and parking already exist for access and kayaks or pack rafts can be easily carried. 

I realize that legislation regarding management issues, like litigation, is a last resort and it should only even be considered when there has been a dramatic failure 

in the administrative process. The 60+ year paddling ban, and recent refusal to consider paddling, is evidence that just such a failure has occurred in Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton. I do not like the idea of legislating this issue, but given that antiquated Federal rules are preventing modern management planning, the paddling 

community is at a loss as to how else to move forward. 

In this case, the NPS feels they are constrained by roughly 60-year-old Federal 

regulations that are no longer serving their purpose. It makes sense to grant the 

Parks the discretion to manage with the full suite of modern management tools. By 

getting rid of the boating ban, an old regulation that ties the hands of the current 

park managers, it is not taking away the authority to manage but rather restoring 

it. We greatly appreciate Representative Lummis for seeking to remedy this problem 

with the River Paddling Protection Act, and would likewise consider any ideas the 

National Park Service may offer. 

In discussions with my colleagues in the conservation and paddling communities 

about this legislation, it is evident that regardless of what Congress does concerning 

this issue, the National Park Service must retain their typical discretion to protect 

the natural resources of the Parks through fair, reasonable, and well justified limits 

on all forms of recreation, including paddling. The paddling community is not 

seeking special treatment. Paddlers simply want to be considered like other similar 

low-impact, human-powered, wilderness-compliant visitors. Likewise, we do not seek 

priority over the preservation of natural resources. Quite the opposite, we feel 

strongly that the conservation of natural resources should be granted priority over 

all forms of recreation. We are confident that the parks can support sustainably 

managed paddling opportunities in concert with other existing similar uses. 

It is also vitally important that the final language of this bill be very specific to 

ending the antiquated boating ban in Yellowstone and Grand Teton and that this 

bill not be misconstrued or set a precedent that may apply to other parks or other 

uses in the future. 

When we consider human-powered recreation, particularly in a Nation that is currently striving to improve the fitness of our citizenry, it is a sad statement that the 

vast majority of all visitors to Yellowstone experience the park only from their cars, 

as a roadside attraction. Most rarely venture beyond the boardwalks. Getting people 

outdoors and out of their cars is important. Whether it is this legislation, a modified 

version, or NPS action, it is important to encourage the sustainable and healthy exploration and enjoyment of our Parks via ancient, fun, and low-impact means. 

Both Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks have highly adept land managers as their Superintendents. Both the departing Mary Gibson Scott of Grand 

Teton and Dan Wenk of Yellowstone have years of experience dealing with challenging management issues. I ask that you help them with this issue by ending the 

boating ban and allow both parks to welcome Americans to once again experience 

two of our Nation’s most prized National Parks through sustainably managed paddling. 

I encourage you to move forward with the River Paddling Protection Act. The bill 

would address a very real problem that has hindered healthy outdoor recreation for 

decades. I hope this bill continues to be vetted, discussed, and if needed improved 

to meet the conservation and recreation goals I have outlined in this testimony. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and to appear before this 

subcommittee. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

47 

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY AARON PRUZAN FOR THE RECORD

TETON ADAPTIVE SPORTS, 

OCTOBER 1, 2013. 

Aaron Pruzan 

Rendezvous River Sports 

P.O. Box 9201 

Jackson, WY 83002 

Dear Aaron, 

Thanks so much for your support again this summer of Teton Adaptive Sports’ 

Adaptive Paddling Program. Your donation of instructors, kayaks, stand up 

paddleboards, and accessories for our 2 adaptive paddling days on String Lake was 

a value of $2800.00. Your generous gift provided boating opportunities for over 35 

individuals with disabilities, along with family members, and volunteers. Your continuing commitment to our community is greatly appreciated. TAS Adaptive Paddle 

Days are by far the most popular outings we offer. We could not offer these experiences without your help. No goods or services were exchanged for this donation. 

Best regards, 

KURT HENRY, 

Executive Director. 

HONORING OUR VETERANS, 

MORAN, WY, 

NOVEMBER 18, 2013. 

Honoring Our Veterans has been offering OEF/OIF combat wounded veterans rehabilitative/recreational therapy in Jackson Hole, Wyoming since 2008. To date, we 

have helped 106 combat wounded Marines, Soldiers, and Navy Seabees heal and 

move forward with newfound confidence and hope. We are able to offer these programs through the partnerships we have built with businesses and organizations 

that have expertise in outdoor recreation. The instruction and guidance of Rendezvous River Sports is critical to our ability to operate. 

We offer four weeklong sessions each year. One of the most popular is the Water 

Sports Therapy Session. Rendezvous River Sports/Jackson Hole Kayak is the key 

player in the creation and implementation of this program. Each Water Sports 

Therapy session consists of seven to ten combat wounded warriors. Through the 

generosity of Rendezvous River Sports, we offer our most popular activity; an instructional rafting day on the Snake River. In addition to rafting, we also offer an 

instructional paddle day on String Lake in Grand Teton National Park. The special 

use permitting process enables us to utilize Grand Teton National Park in this manner. Rendezvous River Sports does such a good job caring for our important water 

resources, and with the quality of their instruction, the Park is always happy with 

how we conduct our sessions. 

We find the wounded veterans we can help by working with the different VA Medical Centers from across the country. We also work with Brooke Army Medical Center’s Warrior Transition Unit and the Marine Corps Wounded Warrior Battalion 

Detachment West. 

Honoring Our Veterans is grateful to have the support of Rendezvous River 

Sports. Without their involvement and continued dedication to our wounded veterans, we would not be able to offer these important healing programs to our 

Nation’s heroes. 

Thank you! 

SANDRA BOCKMAN, 

Executive Director. 

48 

JACKSON HOLE KAYAK CLUB, 

JACKSON, WY. 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

The Jackson Hole Kayak Club is very excited about a potential lift of the historic 

ban on boating in both Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park. 

The Jackson Hole Kayak Club is a non-profit organization based in Teton County 

Wyoming that provides youth the opportunity to safely enjoy the waterways of the 

Greater Yellowstone area through youth programs, competitive events, conservation 

and education. The JHKC has been teaching youth how to paddle since 1996, and 

the hundreds of alum will attest that the JHKC programs teach more than just 

learning how to kayak. The programs teach a love of the outdoors, a passion for conservation, and a deep respect of both the power and beauty of our natural rivers. 

Our coaches and athletes are all enthusiasts who have dedicated part of their 

lives to follow their passion for paddling. This passion has taken many of our athletes and coaches around the world to explore new rivers, yet we are not allowed 

to explore the two national parks with amazing whitewater opportunities in our 

backyard. The historic boating ban is outdated, It is time to update the regulations 

so they reflect the actual impacts of paddling on the rivers. 

Paddling is a very low impact activity used by the first explorers to the Greater 

Yellowstone region. It is potentially the least impactful way of traveling through an 

environment because boaters leave no trace on the water. The Jackson Hole Kayak 

Club feels strongly about conservation, and wants to protect the natural state of the 

rivers in all of the National Parks. That is why we feel it is important for the NPS 

to manage each river based on its potential user impacts and regulate use based 

on these impacts. 

The Jackson Hole Kayak club believes that paddling is a healthy activity that 

deserves the same management plan considerations as any other recreational activities in the park. We hope to see the outdated ban lifted and new science-based regulation put into place. The youth of our community and the country will greatly 

benefit from these decisions. Thank you for your consideration in passing the bill 

to remove the boating ban in GTNP and YNP. 

Sincerely, 

JONATHAN SOUTER, 

President of the Jackson Hole Kayak Club Board. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

I suppose he gave the fish back when he got done with his 

kayaking, right? 

Mr. Young, I would ask you if you would introduce to us now the 

other number that was the same except the numbers reversed, 

H.R. 3294, if you would please. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and the 

Ranking Member for holding this hearing and this legislation, and 

all of these pieces of legislation. 

The purpose of this legislation is to jumpstart a discussion about 

the failure of our Federal land management agency to officially 

manage our public lands. Further, this bill suggests an alternative 

management regime that would provide State management agencies an opportunity to do better. 

Time and again before this committee we have heard testimony 

from Governors’ State managers about their continued ability to 

outperform their Federal counterparts. States have a proven record 

of success in managing public lands. For example, Alaska manages 

an array of wildlife resources and their habitat, as well over three 

million acres of State parks, forests, historic sites, and networks of 

trails and public use cabins, et cetera. 

Regardless of the perspective of my proposed solution, I think we 

can all agree that Federal management is both expensive and it is 

not working well. H.R. 3294 would allow the Federal Government 

49 

the ability to manage Federal lands through cooperative agreement 

with the States after they provide 50 percent cost share of the 

management cost. 

Again, I thank you for this, Mr. Chairman. May I say respectfully for the Park people, you run your parks terribly, especially in 

Alaska. You run them for the tourists and the Park Service people. 

You prohibit Alaskans from using the parks for what they were 

originally intended for: hiding, not without a permit; hunting, definitely not; canoeing, paddling, no, because you cannot get a permit. 

And you have money being spent, and we are working on this, 

money being spent by the billions of dollars on the Park Service for 

Taj Mahal tourist centers, for big park headquarters, for workers 

who do nothing but prevent Alaskans from enjoying that land that 

was God-given to them, and the Forest Service is equally as bad. 

The Forest Service is probably one of the worst. 

Our forests are in the worst condition they have ever been because of the Forest Service action of not managing forests: fires, 

pollution of the air, no management, loss of fiber, all related to the 

Forest Service. 

Yet when I drive by a Forest Service parking lot, I see 27 brand 

new, Mr. Chairman, Chevrolet trucks sitting there. I see six boats, 

big boats, with 250 horsepower motors on them. Then I see 27 

kayaks in the Forest Service’s parking lot. 

They are running these forests now as, I would say respectfully, 

as parks, that do no management at all. The Park Service has outlived its time if you keep managing it the way it is. It is for the 

people. It is not for the Park Service agency, wearing their uniforms with SWAT jackets on, pistols on their hips now, walking 

around like they are the Gestapo. 

Mr. Chairman, I can say respectfully I see this government today 

as King George and his lords around him. Forget the servants and 

the serfs. American people have become the serfs because we have 

to respond to the agencies, and the Park Service and Fish and 

Wildlife, the Interior Department are fraught with not considering 

the people, the people that deserve a right especially in the States. 

This will give the opportunity for the States to manage lands efficiently for not only tourists but for the State people that live 

there. 

I know you are just a lower lying person here right now, but you 

tell your Park Service people they stink, and they have gotten 

worse over the years, and I have been here 40 years. I have seen 

what has happened to the agencies: non-acceptance of people individually. Do not bother me. I am the Park Service. Do not bother 

me. I am the Fish and Wildlife. I am the government. You have 

no right to ask me. In fact, I am going to refuse to listen to you. 

That is not right. That is not the America we were built on. That 

is not the thing that we originally established the parks for. Go 

back through the history of all our parks and Teddy Roosevelt. We 

said on those parks we would preserve it, but hunting was allowed. 

You do not allow hunting on parks anymore. That is bad. You do 

not allow any activity by the individuals. That is bad. 

But we can have our airplanes, and we can have our snow machines, and we can have our boats because we are the government. 

That is what is wrong with our government today. You have forgotVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04NO21 1ST SESS\85668.TXT DARLEN
50 

ten the people because you live within the castle walls, the castle 

walls of King George, the President of the United States who believes he is a monarch. 

Shame on America. Let us wake up to really what has happened 

to us. With that I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Other than that, you do not have a strong opinion. 

Mr. YOUNG. No, I do have a strong opinion. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Dr. Nelson, I appreciate you being here. I am 

perhaps giddy because I have enjoyed reading your book, but you 

are now recognized for 5 minutes to present your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT H. NELSON, PROFESSOR, 

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND 

Dr. NELSON. My name is Robert Nelson. I am a professor in the 

School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, and a Senior 

Fellow of the Independent Institute. 

From 1975 to 1993, I worked as a Senior Economist in the Office 

of Policy Analysis within the Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and based on this experience since the 1980s, 

I have written three books and many scholarly and also many more 

popular articles about the system of public land management by 

the Forest Service and the BLM. So it has given me a perspective 

that this particular piece of legislation is obviously, from the comments we have already heard, raising fundamental questions about 

the whole management regime in contrast to some of the other 

bills, which are quite particular in their orientation. 

I am encouraged by the introduction of H.R. 3294, the State-Run 

Federal Lands Act. There has been a virtual consensus since the 

1990s among public land experts on a bipartisan basis that the 

Federal land management system is not working well. The inability 

to deal effectively with forest health and Western wild land fire in 

recent years is only the most visible symptom of a wider set of public land management dysfunctions. 

Major change of some kind is, therefore, desperately needed. The 

relationship between the Federal Government and the Western 

States for the management of the public lands is based on outmoded ideas that are now 100 years old. This relationship needs 

to be rethought in light of contemporary realities. If we can avoid 

partisan acrimony, H.R. 3294 can valuably help to open the discussion. 

I specifically like the idea in the bill of developing a FederalState relationship for significant areas of public lands in which the 

Federal Government retains the underlying land ownership and 

certain broad guidance responsibilities, but the main management 

function is devolved to new administrative units at the State level 

and in some cases, which is not made clear in the legislation but 

I think it would allow for it, even to lower levels of government, 

such as counties and municipalities. 

I would also recommend in other cases additional forms of devolution that would make provision for giving new administrative responsibilities to non-governmental groups organized at the local 

level that would have a Board of Directors. This would build on the 

widespread development in recent years of self-organized, local adVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04NO21 1ST SESS\85668.TXT DARLEN
51 

visory groups in the West seeking to work with the Forest Service 

and BLM. This past advisory role might now shift from being merely advisory to taking on suitable direct administrative functions. 

Seeking to respond to increasing evidence of public discontent, 

the Congress in the 1970s enacted a wave of major public land legislation, including the Resources Planning Act of 1974, the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976. The Congress failed, however, 

to resolve the large tensions between the progressive era ideal of 

management by government experts that still retains significant 

influence in a new, post-1990s concern to give non-government organizations and popular democracy a much larger decision role. 

The mandated Federal land use planning from the 1970s legislation soon became bogged down in public controversy and widespread litigation. As has been the case in many areas of American 

governance in recent decades, the Federal judiciary stepped in to 

fill the vacuum. This increasing judicial role was a major factor in 

a radical 1990 shift in the goals of public management, the move 

to a new philosophy of ecosystem management focused on environmental goals, such as biodiversity, replacing the previous longstanding public land management philosophy of multiple use and 

sustained yield. 

Ecosystem management has been no more successful, however, 

in providing a clear direction for public land management than the 

ineffective land use planning spawned by the 1970s legislation. By 

the 1990s, the 1970s management framework was judged a failure 

on a bipartisan basis at conferences and other meetings of public 

land experts to describe the workings of the Forest Service and 

BLM land management. 

The most important role for the Congress at present is to create 

a statutory basis for opening up a much wider range of devolved 

land administrative alternatives and to set the terms for review 

and approval and subsequent oversight of these alternatives as 

they are put into place. There should be ample opportunities not 

only for State governments, but also local governments and local 

citizen groups to propose initiatives that involve devolved public 

land administration arrangements and a process by which these 

proposals can be fairly and expeditiously reviewed. 

H.R. 3294 is an important step in that direction. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. NELSON, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC

POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

CONCERNING H.R. 3294, THE ‘‘STATE-RUN FEDERAL LANDS ACT’’ 

My name is Robert H. Nelson. I am a professor in the School of Public Policy at 

the University of Maryland and a senior fellow of The Independent Institute. From 

1975 to 1993 I worked as a senior economist in the Office of Policy Analysis within 

the Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Based partly on this 

experience, since the 1980s I have written three books and many scholarly—and 

also more widely accessible—articles about the system of public land management 

by the Forest Service and the BLM. 

I am pleased to be able to testify today on such an important subject. The public 

lands are an important part of the history of the United States, dating to the 

Louisiana Purchase, the Homestead Act and the railroad land grants in the nineteenth century and then to the creation of the Forest Service, the Minerals Leasing 

Act, and the Taylor Grazing and Grazing Service (a forerunner to the BLM) in the 

52 

first half of the twentieth century. The Federal lands still represent today 28 percent of the land area of the United States, including around 50 percent of all the 

land in the western States. 

I should say at the outset that I am encouraged by the introduction of H.R. 3294, 

the ‘‘State-Run Federal Lands Act.’’ For reasons that I will briefly review, there has 

been a near consensus since the 1990s among public land experts that the Federal 

land management system is not working well. The inability to deal effectively with 

forest health and western wildland fire in recent years is only the most visible 

symptom of a wider set of public land management dysfunctions. 

Major change of some kind is therefore desperately needed. The relationship between the Federal Government and the western States for the management of the 

public lands is based on outmoded ideas that are now 100 years old. This relationship needs to be rethought in light of contemporary realities. H.R. 3294 can valuably help to open the discussion. 

Especially promising is the proposal for a Federal-State relationship for significant areas of public lands in which the Federal Government retains the underlying 

land ownership, and certain broad oversight responsibilities, but the management 

function is devolved to the State level—and in some cases probably even lower to 

the local government level. I would also recommend in other cases making provision 

for devolving management responsibilities to non-governmental citizen groups organized at the local level and including a Board of Directors of the group. This would 

build on the widespread development in recent years of self-organized local advisory 

bodies in the West seeking to work with the Forest Service and BLM in hopes of 

overcoming some of their large management problems. 

At this point I review briefly some of the history that has brought us to our current state of such deep dissatisfaction with public land management. In this long 

history, the management objective of the Federal Government has changed radically 

three times. In the nineteenth century, the goal was to dispose of the Federal lands 

which resulted in the transfer of 1.3 billion acres to private parties and to the 

States. The States themselves received a total of 328 million of these acres. 

In the progressive era around the beginning of the twentieth century, the Federal 

goal shifted to one of making the management of the lands more efficient in the 

service of the public interest. As it was believed at the time, this could best be accomplished by retaining the remaining public forests, rangelands and other lands 

in Federal ownership for their management by government experts. 

By the 1970s, there was ample evidence that this progressive-era vision was failing. Mostly trained to maximize the uses of the lands, the government experts were 

paying insufficient attention, many people thought, to the environmental amenities 

of the lands. Partly owing to the politicization of the management of public lands, 

leading economists such as Marion Clawson, a former director of the BLM, then located at Resources for the Future, sharply criticized the economic inefficiency of 

Federal land management. Others pressed for a more democratic system of decisionmaking that would include a greater role for public participation. 

Responding to these public concerns, Congress in the 1970s enacted a host of 

major public land laws including the Resources Planning Act of 1974, the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976. At the heart of the new legislation were requirements for a more comprehensive and effective systems of land use planning for the national forests and 

the BLM lands, including both the writing of formal written plans and environmental impact statements. 

The Congress had failed, however, to resolve the large tensions between the still 

influential progressive ideal of management by government experts and a new post1960s concern to give non-government organizations and popular democracy a much 

larger role in management decisions. Federal land use plans soon became bogged 

down in public controversy and litigation. As they emerged after many years frequently in their preparation, they typically failed to provide an adequate basis for 

decisionmaking to address the most pressing current public land problems. 

As has been the case in many areas of American governance in recent decades, 

the Federal judiciary stepped in to fill a vacuum. This increasing judicial role was 

a major factor in the third radical shift in the goals of public land management, the 

move to a new philosophy of ecosystem management focused on environmental goals 

such as biodiversity, replacing the previous longstanding public land management 

philosophy of multiple use and sustained yield. This shift occurred after 1990 and 

was closely associated with the spotted owl controversy in the Pacific Northwest and 

the large changes in land management that occurred there on the national forests 

and BLM lands. 

Ecosystem management was troubled, however, by an inability to resolve fundamental tensions between the environmental goal to preserve nature in a wild state 

53 

and continuing strong public demands to put the lands to good use. By the 1990s, 

the word ‘‘dysfunctional’’ was increasingly being heard at conferences and other 

meetings of public land experts with respect to the workings of Forest Service and 

BLM land management. The strong criticisms in those days were heard on a bi-partisan basis including many Democrats such as Frank Gregg, the former director of 

the BLM in the Carter administration, Jack Thomas, the first chief of the Forest 

Service in the Clinton administration, and Daniel Kemmis, a prominent western 

public intellectual who had also served as a Democratic Party leader at the State 

level in Montana. 

Congress, however, failed to address the large management problems on the public lands that were becoming evident by the 1990s. No major public land legislation 

has passed since the 1970s. The courts continued to play an active role but the slow 

and cumbersome judicial procedures often merely aggravated the public land management problems. 

The Forest Service in 2002, almost in desperation, pleaded to Congress for relief 

from its troubled circumstances, as described in an agency published document, The 

Process Predicament, declaring that it was operating ‘‘within a statutory, regulatory, 

and administrative framework that has kept the agency from affectively addressing 

rapid declines in forest health,’’ including the development of explosive wood fuel 

buildups on many western national forests. Writing about the Forest Service, Sally 

Fairfax, a leading student of the public lands at the University of California at 

Berkeley, would ask in 2005 about ‘‘what to do when an agency outlasts its time.’’ 

As recently as an October 2013 report, Professor Jay O’Laughlin, Professor and 

Director of the College of Natural Resources Policy Analysis Group at the University 

of Idaho, wrote that ‘‘large areas of Federal lands in the western States are currently at high risk of severe wildfire and have many insect and disease problems, 

indicating a significant decline in forest health and resilience,’’ recommending more 

active management measures but wondering how they might be accomplished under 

the existing public land management regime. 

As noted, H.R. 3294, the subject of the hearing today, offers an opportunity to revisit the historic Federal-State relationship for the management of the public lands 

in the West. I have long proposed that the Federal lands be divided into three categories. Some public lands are of clear national significance where a large Federal 

role is most appropriate but I would estimate these as probably no more than 20 

percent of the national forests and BLM lands. 

A much larger area of public lands is of primarily State and local significance, 

most heavily used by hikers, ranchers, hunters and other people from the surrounding area. These are the lands for which a basic rethinking of the Federal-State 

relationship is most necessary. On the western public lands of mainly State and 

local significance, the types of decisions made are those that elsewhere in the 

United States would be made by State and local governments. It is difficult to understand why the Federal Government is still spending its scarce resources to decide 

the times and places where federally determined numbers of cows, owned by local 

ranchers, can be grazed. The Federal administrative costs of all this greatly exceed 

any Federal revenues returned by grazing fees. 

Other public lands serve mainly commercial purposes such as the 57 million acres 

of Federal mineral rights below privately owned surface lands (about 2.5 percent of 

the United States). The O&C lands in Oregon, owing to their unique history, were 

long managed by BLM for mainly timber harvesting purposes, providing large revenue streams to local counties that are now much missed. Some of the commercially 

most valuable public lands might be privatized outright. This might also include an 

expanded program of land sales for those current public lands with a high private 

value for real estate and other developmental purposes, including particularly high 

quality sites for more intensive recreational development. 

H.R. 3294 is at present an outline of a plan for rethinking the Federal-State relationships on the public lands. But the States, working with their local governments, 

are better positioned to make the changes in public land management that are now 

so greatly needed. In recent years, it has often been State governments, not the Federal Government, that have taken the key leadership roles in American government 

efforts to deal with key policy problems and issues. 

With a greater State role, there would likely be differences in land management 

approaches from one State to another, appropriately reflecting their diverse State 

circumstances, as compared with the current one-size-fits-all Federal system. States 

could also learn from a trial and error process if each of them had greater freedom 

of land management experimentation. 

It is a little known fact that the State with the highest percentage of State-owned 

land is New York State, equal to 37 percent of its total land. In 1894, New York 

State exercised its management prerogatives to set aside Adirondack Park, now 

54 

equal to 6 million acres, 2.6 million owned by the State, setting a management policy to keep these lands ‘‘forever wild’’ long before the wilderness concept was introduced to the Federal lands. Other eastern States with large acreages of State owned 

land include New Jersey (16 percent), Florida (14 percent) and Pennsylvania (13 

percent), more than any western State except Alaska (29 percent). It is ironic that 

eastern States have often been reluctant to extend a similar prerogatives to develop 

their own internal State land management strategies to western States. 

In proposing the administrative devolution of public land responsibilities, a useful 

analogy might be the establishment of charter schools in large public school systems 

that often serve the disadvantaged. A growing body of research from leading scholars at universities such as MIT, Harvard and Princeton is concluding that the better-run urban charter schools, free to pursue educational innovations previously unavailable in traditional public school systems, have been achieving remarkable gains 

in student achievement and parental satisfaction. The current Secretary of 

Education is among those who agree with this assessment. 

Perhaps we should be similarly flexible and innovative in trying out land management innovations on the public lands that might be analogous in many ways to 

charter schools. Local boards of directors, like those of charter schools, could have 

wide latitude in hiring staff, contracting out work, and other important management matters. While H.R. 3294 is an encouraging step, there are many possible approaches to public lands administrative devolution and many details would need to 

be resolved for each such approach, possibly on a State by State basis. 

The most important role for the Congress at present is to create a statutory basis 

for opening up a much wider range of devolved public land management alternatives and to set the terms for subsequent oversight of these alternatives as they 

are put into practice. There should be opportunities not only for State governments 

but also local governments and private local non-governmental groups to propose innovative devolved land management strategies and a process by which these proposals can be fairly and expeditiously reviewed at the Federal level. 

The creation of the existing public land system 100 years ago was predicated on 

an assumption that clear goals and policies could be established for the whole 

Nation, including the uses of the public lands. That was the time of the American 

‘‘melting pot’’ when common national values were taken for granted. Today, however, the American Nation has become more diverse. When core values are being 

contested, it is more difficult to establish nationwide goals and policies, an important contributing factor to the large current problems of Federal land management. 

Devolution of greater administrative responsibilities to State-level bodies would 

allow for greater diversity in land use goals and policies, reflecting the actual greater diversity of the United States at present. 

Additional Comments on H.R. 3294 

The title of the bill, ‘‘State-Run Federal Lands Act,’’ perhaps might be changed. 

Some people might read ‘‘State-run’’ to mean ‘‘government-run.’’ Also, while the 

States would necessarily play a prominent role in any devolution plans, other public 

and nongovernment groups within the State might also be significantly involved, 

proposing appropriate boundaries for land units, developing a plan for their devolved administration, and ending up with many of the final management responsibilities. An alternative possible title might be the ‘‘Federal Lands Administrative 

Devolution Act.’’ 

Including all the Federal land agencies might be too much for one bill. It might 

be better to have separate bills for the national forest system and the BLM lands. 

The National Park System is a special case, combining national treasures such as 

the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone with some national park units of minor national 

significance. If one Federal land agency had to be chosen to pioneer new administrative devolutionary approaches, it might be the Forest Service, the oldest of the 

Federal land systems, and the one currently experiencing many of the most severe 

problems of adaptation to new land use demands and forest health. 

The development of innovative proposals for public land administrative devolution 

does not need to be limited to State governments. Others within the State, public 

and non-governmental, might be able to devise their own proposed management 

plans and devolution strategies, perhaps submitting them directly to Federal officials and negotiating the details with these officials (with overall State approval of 

such efforts). 

Where the State would assume the primary administrative role itself, the State 

would be the one to submit directly a land administration devolution plan. For example, States might propose that State trust land administrators add new manage 

responsibilities for current Federal lands—with some arrangements provided for the 

allocation of some portion of the revenues from these lands to the trusts. Given the 

55 

importance of energy minerals, States might want to take direct responsibility for 

the devolved administration of such critically important lands through some new 

State administrative mechanism. (It is questionable that a game changing event 

such as the oil shale development of the Bakken formation in North Dakota could 

ever have occurred within the current federally run system of management for the 

public lands.) 

Rather than one instrument for administrative devolution as proposed in 

H.R. 3294, the use of a ‘‘cooperative agreement,’’ it might be appropriate to offer 

a tool kit of possible administrative devolution instruments, including separate provisions and procedures in the law for various forms of devolution to States 

themselves, to local governments, and to local non-government organizations. The 

legislative provisions could then be tailored more specifically to the forms and circumstances of each type of administrative devolution instrument. 

Some State proposals for public land administrative devolution might be so large 

and important that they should be approved by the Congress itself (rather than the 

relevant Secretary). Other proposals might be more routine and could be handled 

within the executive branch alone. Provision might be made in the law for such a 

distinction and separate approval procedures established. 

After administrative devolution, the Federal Government would no longer directly 

manage the lands. However, it would be appropriate for the Federal Government 

to set some certain broader goals and standards for the devolved administration. 

Environmental ‘‘sidebars’’ of performance, for example, might be established. There 

might be formal Federal reviews say every 5 or 10 years. In cases of severe mismanagement, the Federal Government might step in immediately to cancel the 

devolution agreement. Such provisions should probably be spelled out more explicitly in the legislation. 

The issue of existing rights in public lands should probably be more explicitly and 

fully addressed in the legislation. What would happen, for example, to rancher grazing permits that traditionally have always been renewed? How much if any discretion would State, local or non-governmental administrators have in altering the 

terms of livestock grazing. If a non-government body took over the responsibility, 

for example, for administering a wilderness area, how much discretion would it have 

in implementing wilderness use policies? 

Given the very large expenditures currently being made in the West for fire fighting, this important area of Federal-State relations probably should be addressed 

specifically in the legislation. How would fire fighting responsibilities be handled for 

newly devolved administrative units? How would the costs be shared? What would 

be the continuing Federal Government role in fire fighting in the West? 

It might prove difficult to fully resolve some of these issues on a general basis 

in a short time. The first steps of public land administrative devolution thus might 

have to occur more incrementally. Perhaps somewhat in the manner of a wilderness 

designation approval package, State governments might be authorized to put together packages of administrative devolution plans for specific areas and specific 

kinds of devolved administrative bodies, and to submit these to the Congress for its 

negotiation and approval on a State by State basis. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you. 

And I will turn to the committee for questions of any of the witnesses. Mr. Young, do you have questions? 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Nelson, I have read your testimony, and of 

course, you are speaking my language, and I do appreciate that because a Park Service, bless your heart, and a Fish and Wildlife and 

a BLM have done a terrible job of management, period, and communicating with one another. 

This bill is just a thought frame. I like that you brought up the 

fact it may not just be the State. There could be local. You are 

thinking local counties or boroughs or something being involved. 

Dr. NELSON. And even non-governmental organizations. 

Mr. YOUNG. It would be non-government? 

Dr. NELSON. You could think of it as like a charter school, but 

on a national—so the charter school is still in a framework of public education, but it is independent in terms of hiring and firing 

56 

and all kinds of other things, and it has a Board of Directors, and 

so you could have something like that on the public lands, I think, 

and it would be a way of opening the whole system up, but without 

trying to take on the fundamental challenge of the whole question 

of Federal land ownership in the West, which is so contentious that 

if you challenge that, it would immediately become completely polarized. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, under my bill, I do not propose that they relinquish the ownership, but they relinquish the management. 

Dr. NELSON. Right. 

Mr. YOUNG. So it is more of a party. 

Dr. NELSON. I am agreeing with your bill in that respect, but you 

are proposing mostly to do it through cooperative agreements. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, yes. 

Dr. NELSON. It is not really clear, but it sounds like reading your 

bill that you are thinking that it is mostly going to be cooperative 

agreements between the State and the Federal Government. And 

I am suggesting going beyond that and allowing, you know, arrangements for counties and municipalities, but even going beyond 

that and creating things that would be a public land equivalent of, 

say, a charter school. That is, it would have a Board of Directors. 

It would maybe have recreationists and environmentalists, economists and whatever. It would still be within the public framework, 

and it would still get some public money, but it would be free of 

many of the limitations of public land management that exist at 

present. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I am glad he brought this up, Mr. Chairman, 

because in our areas in Alaska, again, it is the management of the 

parks with no input from the local people, period. In fact, we 

moved the one park lady there because she was totally obnoxious, 

moved her out because no input, and yet the Native corporations, 

which are adjacent to and around these parks, they do not hire 

anybody out from Alaska, you know, and let them be part of the 

management system where they are ignored now, and yet they 

have been living there for centuries, and they have the expertise 

to do it. 

This is what I envision so that there is more of an understanding 

what the parks are for. 

Dr. NELSON. If I could. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Dr. NELSON. So for a suitable national park unit in Alaska, you 

could envision a system where there would be a Board of Directors 

appointed to oversee the management of that national park. The 

hiring process would be freed from the standard bureaucratic Civil 

Service that makes it extremely difficult and it takes forever and 

so forth. 

Contracting would be freed from the normal Federal contracting 

rules. You would be freed from some of the normal environmental 

impact statement requirements and land use planning, which are 

mostly just an invitation for litigation. But it would still be a national park. 

And so the Board of Directors of the national park would hire the 

supervisor of the national park. So that person would be hired 

through this. The Board would be the representative board involvVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:50 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04NO21 1ST SESS\85668.TXT DARLEN
57 

ing various affected parties, but it would basically be mostly local 

people or State people. 

Mr. YOUNG. And this is what I am looking for. 

Mr. Chairman, I know I have got letters from the park conservative group and the park agency itself, but the system is not working. 

Dr. NELSON. I think there is general agreement. I mean, frankly 

I have been going to conferences for 20 years, and not as many recently because not that much has been happening, but people have 

been saying, very well recognized scholars, people who study the 

public lands, former public land administrators. I mean even I have 

been in a conference with Jack Ward Thomas and, you know, not 

a Republican. He would not use your language, but he would basically say the system is not working, and the Forest Service says 

the system is not working. 

So there is agreement on that. The question at this point is: how 

can we get past the gridlock and the partisanship and everything 

else when there actually is substantial bipartisan agreement out 

there that the current system is not functioning. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, three communications, 

National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) on all of the legislation before us; Greater Yellowstone Coalition; and 14 other environmental organizations for the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. Without objection. 

[The communication from NPCA, Greater Yellowstone Coalition 

and 14 environmental organizations follows:] 

LETTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE GRIJALVA

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION (NPCA), 

WASHINGTON, DC, 

NOVEMBER 20, 2013. 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

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

DEAR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

SUBCOMMITTEE: 

Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been the 

leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing our National Park 

System. On behalf of our more than 800,000 members and supporters nationwide, 

I write to urge you to consider our positions on the following three bills they come 

before the subcommittee tomorrow, November 21. 

H.R. 3294, the State-Run Federal Lands Act and H.R. 3311, Providing Access 

and Retain Continuity (PARC) Act—NPCA strongly opposes these bills. The funding and protection of our national parks is a fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government. The generalized failure of Congress, which has the power of the 

purse, to meet its fundamental responsibilities should not be used as an excuse to 

attempt a State takeover of national parks or other Federal public lands. It has 

been 3 years since Congress funded national parks through any measure other than 

a continuing resolution. What the American people deserve and our national parks 

need is a functioning Federal budget process, not measures that would undermine 

58 

the legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren through strongly protected 

national parks. 

National parks are protected under a suite of bedrock Federal environmental, natural and cultural resource laws, which together provide for the protection of nationally important resources protected by national parks. The National Park Service is 

the appropriate governmental entity to protect our parks and to provide for the safety and enjoyment of park visitors. National Park Service personnel, not State officials, are charged with implementing the laws and policies that govern national 

parks. The idea that state park officials, however well meaning or talented, could 

readily step into the shoes of the National Park Service and do the job that is legally required is simply incorrect, and would constitute an abdication of responsibility by the Interior Department and the Congress of the United States. 

Instead of proposing legislation to pave the way for another Federal shutdown or 

a State take-over of our national parks, Congress should be working to avoid future 

shutdowns. Using the threat of another Federal shutdown as an excuse to promote 

a State takeover of national parks is cynical at best, and does nothing to address 

the genuine threats to our national parks from underfunding and other issues. 

These bills propose nothing to address the long-term problems facing our national 

parks; a meaningful proposal would actually provide national parks with the funds 

they need to be fully open. We need real solutions that will help our parks, visitors, 

and businesses who depend on them, not damaging solutions that do nothing to stop 

the slow-moving shutdown that is already occurring throughout our national parks 

as a result of budget cuts. 

H.R. 3492, the River Paddling Protection Act—NPCA strongly opposes this legislation that would undermine existing laws and regulations which for many years 

have served to protect the values of river sections in Yellowstone and Grand Teton 

National Parks. Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks (NPS) and the National Elk Refuge (NER) have been managed under long-standing regulations that 

prohibit boating on limited undesignated and designated wild and scenic river segments. The draft Snake River Headwaters—Wild and Scenic Planning Project already proposes to provide paddling access to over 300 miles of river or 86 percent 

of all rivers under analysis of this plan. NPS and NER have determined that keeping a paddling closure on the remaining 14 percent is not only consistent with current law and policy but also will provide for appropriate protections for sensitive 

park and refuge wildlife, including grizzly bears, and appropriate range of non-boating recreational experiences. This legislation would open all of the park and refuge 

rivers to ‘‘hand-propelled’’ recreational boating, without considering the recreational 

and natural values for visitors who seek solitude and wild nature along the rivers 

in Yellowstone and Grand Teton. 

Thank you for considering our views. 

Sincerely, 

CRAIG D. OBEY, 

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs. 

GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION, 

BOZEMAN, MONTANA, 

NOVEMBER 20, 2013. 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

Washington, DC 20515. 

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

For 30 years. the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) has worked, with communities, landowners, recreationists and others around Yellowstone and Grand Teton 

National Parks, to conserve the world renowned land, water and wildlife resources 

found in this region. GYC strongly opposes this legislation. H.R. 3492 strips away 

the discretion of the National Park Service and sets a perilous precedent for legislating uses into some of our Nation’s most cherished natural areas without a public 

process or adequate environmental analysis. This legislation would undercut existing laws and regulations which for years have protected the many values of rivers 

in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks have been managed under long-standing regulations that allow boating 

59 

in many areas. The draft Snake River Comprehensive River Management Plan already proposes to provide paddling access to over 300 miles of river or 86 percent 

of all rivers under analysis of this plan, The National Park Service and National 

Elk Refuge have determined that maintaining a paddling closure on the remaining 

14 percent is not only consistent with current law and policy, but also will provide 

for appropriate protections for sensitive park and refuge wildlife and a range of nonboating recreational experiences. 

This legislation is not the right mechanism to address recreational use in our national parks. It is a blunt approach that fails to consider the recreational and natural values provided by waters in some of the world’s most popular and pristine 

places—Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and the National Elk Refuge. 

Sincerely, 

CAROLINE BYRD, 

Executive Director. 

NOVEMBER 20, 2013. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: November 21, 2013 Subcommittee Hearing 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA: 

We the undersigned organizations, on behalf of our millions of members, are writing to you to express our opposition to three bills being considered this week by the 

House Natural Resources Committee: H.R. 3286, H.R. 3294 and H.R. 3311. These 

bills would allow States to demand management authority over our public lands (including but not limited to National Parks, National Forests, National Conservation 

Lands and National Wildlife Refuges), pave the way for future shutdowns, and undermine Federal environmental protections and land management laws. 

If anything is to be learned from the unnecessary and damaging government shutdown it is that Americans love their national parks and public lands. Just this week 

a new report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) showed that 75 percent 

of voters oppose any additional budget cuts to our public lands. Allowing State management of our Federal lands is not the answer to management or budget shortfalls 

and these bills do nothing to address the long-term problems facing our public 

lands. 

Instead of working to prevent a future government shutdown and to provide more 

resources to our drastically underfunded public lands, the committee is considering 

a slate of bills that would pave the way for more shutdowns and State takeovers 

of public lands. H.R. 3294 essentially requires Federal land managers to hand over 

control of national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and other lands to States upon demand. Once in State control, Federal environmental and land management laws 

could be superseded by State laws, and revenues generated by resource extraction 

on public lands that would normally be used to benefit all Americans would be 

transferred to the State. H.R. 3311 and H.R. 3286 pave the way for future government shutdowns, rather than ensuring they do not happen again, and would open 

the door to additional costly litigation aimed at the Federal Government by waving 

the Federal Government’s sovereign immunity. 

The unnecessary government shutdown was just the latest blow to the agencies 

that manage our national parks, forests, conservation lands and wildlife refuges, all 

of which have faced significant budget reductions for years, putting Federal spending on conservation and the environment at the lowest point in decades. 

Rather than addressing the real budgetary and management issues facing our 

public lands these bills seek to address a symptom and not a cause, shifting responsibility to the States instead of addressing Congress’ obligation to keep the government open and adequately fund our public lands. In sum, H.R. 3286, H.R. 3294 and 

H.R. 3311 are irresponsible and ineffective approaches to the management of our 

public lands, undermining Federal environmental law, paving the way for future 

shutdowns, opening the door to increased litigation and failing to address the true 

problems facing our public lands. 

60 

We strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 3286, H.R. 3294 and H.R. 3311. 

Sincerely, 

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

CROW CANYON ARCHAEOLOGICAL CENTER

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

ENDANGERED SPECIES COALITION

EPIC—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INFORMATION CENTER

FRIENDS OF THE MISSOURI BREAKS MONUMENT

FRIENDS OF IRONWOOD FOREST

GRAND STAIRCASE ESCALANTE PARTNERS

HIGH COUNTRY CITIZENS’ ALLIANCE

KLAMATH FOREST ALLIANCE

OREGON NATURAL DESERT ASSOCIATION

SIERRA CLUB

THE LANDS COUNCIL

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. YOUNG. I can tell you what they say already. Why put them 

in the record? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I am going to read them right now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Nelson, let me just follow because you used 

some very interesting examples. If the Federal Government, based 

on the legislation that my colleague Mr. Young has, retains title 

but management authority is given to the States—— 

Dr. NELSON. Or some other groups. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, I was going there. Or even a non-governmental organization, I think you used the chartered school example 

as a governance example. 

Dr. NELSON. Well, yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Who would be liable? OK. Let us talk about liability. Who would have liability for the activity of the land? 

Dr. NELSON. Well, think about the charter school model again, 

which is—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So that would be retained by this governance 

group then? 

Dr. NELSON. So it is actually. It is not literally a non-governmental organization, although it functions a lot like one, but anyway, it operates under certain rules and guidelines and so forth. So 

this would not mean the Federal Government would disappear. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. 

Dr. NELSON. The Federal Government would set the context and 

set certain broad guidelines and maybe then review the operations 

on an annual basis. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Accepting that there is no non-disappearance entirely of the Federal role, who pays the bills? 

Dr. NELSON. That would be part of the whole discussion. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. 

Dr. NELSON. I mean, you would have to look at the specific situation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And compliance with Federal laws would fall 

where? 

Dr. NELSON. That would also have to be part of the discussion. 

I mean, part of the reason why the system does not work now, as 

I said, is—— 

61 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So a step—— 

Dr. NELSON [continuing]. It is again—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA [continuing]. I call them bedrock laws. Other people have other descriptions for them, but you know, things like 

NEPA, Endangered Species, Clean Water Act, Historic Preservation, Native American Grave Protection. 

Dr. NELSON. I would leave all of those applying. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. 

Dr. NELSON. The ones that I would look at are the Civil Service 

hiring procedures, which I think frustrate good governance; the 

contracting procedures, if you happen to notice Obamacare. I would 

also look at and basically get rid of the land use planning requirements and the EIS requirements which are just invitations for litigation that turn the management of these lands over to some other 

parties to exercise their management role through the courts. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Let me ask Mr.—— 

Mr. PRUZAN. Pruzan. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Pruzan, and excuse me. You know, I have a lot 

of vowels. 

Mr. PRUZAN. That is all right. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And I get irritated when people mispronounce it. 

My apologies. 

As I understand it, on the management plan that you were talking about, the draft Snake River Comprehensive River Management Plan that I think the sponsor of the legislation referenced, 

that draft has proposals to provide paddling on 300 miles of river, 

86 percent of all rivers, which leaves 14 percent where the ban is 

going to be in place. 

So as I understand the legislation and your position, and I do appreciate you saying that whatever we do with the legislation has 

to be careful and meticulous because you do not want to set a 

precedent. I appreciate that comment. 

So we are talking here about an absolute 100 percent? 

Mr. PRUZAN. You know, paddling has always been allowed on 

that other 386 miles. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So that 14 percent is what? 

Mr. PRUZAN. This goes a little broader than just the Wild and 

Scenic. The Wild and Scenic was another opportunity to look at 

those sections in Grand Teton and Yellowstone that have been 

closed. This bill goes a little broader in that, you know, Yellowstone 

itself, Yellowstone National Park is, you know—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. But so in that 14 percent there is your estimate, and being a recreationalist there and a paddler there, there 

is no area that either wildlife habitat, other reasons that that 

should be protected and set aside from paddling activities? 

Mr. PRUZAN. Yes. I mean, some of these are roadside areas. No, 

I do not think there is. People hike into these areas. I feel like any 

of those 14 percent in particular are acceptable for paddling. 

When we look at Yellowstone as a whole—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So with that kind of management plan—— 

Mr. PRUZAN. Can I finish please? 

Mr. GRIJALVA [continuing]. That is your point of contention, the 

14 percent. 

62 

Mr. PRUZAN. Well, it goes beyond that because it also looks at 

Yellowstone. We do not feel that every river in Yellowstone should 

be open all the time. That is not what we are saying at all, and 

it says that in my testimony. But we feel there are many stretches 

that could be opened and managed successfully, and there are 

many great templates for that. 

And we do not feel there has been opportunity to even look at 

that. The Wild and Scenic was just an opportunity to look at a portion of those, and it was denied, which was, you know, unfortunate 

because Yellowstone itself, it has some of the most outstanding 

river running opportunities in the world. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, but I remain—— 

Mr. PRUZAN. Of that portion—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I am just looking at percentages. 

Mr. PRUZAN. Of that 14 percent, absolutely, all that section could 

be opened to paddling with very, very—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No mitigating information or—— 

Mr. PRUZAN. Well, no. I think you would have to look at them 

individually. We want to give that authority to the Superintendent, 

but as I know those sections, you know, I do not see any harm and 

I do not see anyone really standing up saying—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And giving the authority to the Superintendent in 

this particular issue and this legislation, you are very confident 

that he would open up the 14 percent? 

Mr. PRUZAN. I cannot speak for the Superintendent because right 

now, you know, that is in flux, but given the opportunity to allow 

the discussion and look at the actual impacts, then we could open 

the door to opening these. Right now, you know, the opening is not 

there. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. PRUZAN. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Grijalva, thank you for that dialog because it gets to 

the heart of what we are trying to accomplish with this bill. 

The intent is not to open all rivers all the time to paddling in 

the parks. The intent of the bill is to remove a prohibition so paddlers can sit down with the Superintendents of the parks and discuss where paddling makes sense, when it makes sense and when 

it does not make sense. 

I recognize that the bill was drafted so that the Superintendent 

could still say no more paddling ever in these places, but at least 

there would be a public process where kayakers and other paddlers 

could come in and make their case. 

Mr. Pruzan, I would like to ask you to explain how other rivers 

are managed, how their management plans do provide for limits on 

paddling. 

Mr. PRUZAN. Yes, thank you. 

You know, of all the rivers that people run all around the country, there are less than 30 that I can think of that actually have 

a permit system, and many rivers very close like the Clarks Fork 

and the Yellowstone, for instance, which is just adjacent to the 

park, it is totally open to river running at all times. People can use 

it when they want, and there are really no issues. It is a wild and 

63 

scenic river. It flows through an incredible wilderness area, and 

there have been almost immeasurable impacts to the resource by 

the paddling that has been done there. 

But there are many great templates, you know, particularly in 

the State of Idaho, rivers like the Middle Fork of the Salmon, the 

Selway, in Arizona, of course, the Grand Canyon, where there is 

very tight river management. You have to draw a permit. There is 

a lottery system every year. 

The Selway, for instance, as I mentioned, one launch a day during the season. That is all you get, and the paddling community, 

the river running community, they understand that very well, and 

they feel that is, you know, a fair resolution. 

But as you mentioned, we have never even been able to have 

that discussion. I mean if there are wildlife concerns, there are 

other avenues and other tools that could be used, such as a season. 

You know, maybe some of these rivers are open in April and May, 

and then when the park gets very busy they are closed and they 

open again in late August and September, but again, we have 

never ever been able to have that discussion. 

And it was very different from the Forest Service approach to 

creating the management plan for the forest sections of the river, 

which was a very open process, lots of public meetings, lots of opportunity to comment, as opposed to the Park Service process 

which did not really give a lot of opportunity for the community to 

be involved. 

And I will say that for the most part in the greater Yellowstone 

area, there is great collaboration between the local community and 

the parks and the forest, and that is something that our area is 

known for, and there have been great partnerships that have been 

created about that, that just result in better management. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, it has been a head-scratcher to me that we 

do allow controlled, managed, planned access for snowmobiles in 

the winter into Yellowstone, and yet during times of year when 

kayakers would like to use certain waters in the park, they cannot, 

and it is simply because of a regulation. 

So let us lift the regulation and give the park managers the tools 

that they need to actually have a dialog with the paddlers and find 

a way to put together a management plan that would allow for appropriate and limited use of these waters for another recreational 

outdoor opportunity that is very minimum impact. 

Let me also mention that the reason we put some language in 

here about the Elk Refuge is there are some waters that border 

both the Elk Refuge and Grand Teton National Park. The river is 

actually a border, and so we included some language for both so 

we can allow for a rational way to allow Grand Teton’s Superintendent and the Elk Refuge to have some discretionary management authority to manage there. 

And my time is up. I want to really thank Mr. Pruzan for coming 

to Washington to testify on behalf of this bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Allow me to ask some questions, if I could. Mr. Pruzan, let me 

start with you again here. Thank you once again for being here. 

64 

I guess it comes down to the bottom line which is: is the old paddling prohibition still relevant to managing fish stock? 

Mr. PRUZAN. Well, I do not think it was a provision that really 

even envisioned paddling. No, it is not relevant anymore. It was 

relevant to float fishing. 

I would say, you know, kayakers, we mostly throw ourselves in 

the water. We do not really throw lures or fishing lines in the 

water. So, no, I do not see it is relevant at all. 

Mr. BISHOP. So allowing paddling certainly would not underlie 

the values for which this river was established or is used? 

Mr. PRUZAN. No, absolutely not. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, do you see any potential pitfalls in changing 

the regulations to allow this activity? 

Mr. PRUZAN. Well, again, by ending the ban, I think we can look 

at individual sections of river and we can recognize, well, what is 

appropriate and what is not appropriate. You know, I am sure 

there are—I have never heard any of my colleagues in the conservation world say, ‘‘I am against paddling in Yellowstone,’’ and 

especially with this bill they are more concerned about the process. 

So I do not—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So really what you are talking to me about is people 

simply will not talk to you all and they hide behind a regulation 

passed a half century ago that may or may not and probably is not 

still relevant to the issue for which it was established. 

Mr. PRUZAN. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. We are tradition bound and we hide behind that, 

and we refuse to think outside the box, which is what all of you 

have been talking about so far. 

All recreation, not just kayaking and paddling recreation, but all 

recreation in the United States seems to be under attack by different kinds of groups. I do not care whether it is hunting or fishing or water recreation, bicycling, motor vehicles. We find as soon 

as there is something that is established, there are groups then 

that go after that. 

And establishing protection for these activities ought to be one 

of the goals that we look at, and one of the goals that I hope this 

committee takes a greater emphasis in dealing with to make sure 

that those things are protected so that if you have an assumption 

something is there and somebody has this wild idea because he or 

she happens to be a land manager and we are going to close it 

down, they had better find an alternative way to guarantee that activity has some place to go forward. 

I am sure you know nothing about this, but would there be any 

illegal kayaking that goes on on these rivers, people gone in places 

where they are not supposed to be? 

Mr. PRUZAN. It has probably happened. I mean, when you think 

about—well, it definitely has happened. 

Mr. BISHOP. You know, there may be a felony here. I do not want 

you to insinuate yourself—— 

Mr. PRUZAN. No, I just need to say something about the section 

that Representative Lummis mentioned, which is the Grovont 

River, which forms the border primarily between the Elk Refuge 

and Grand Teton National Park, and it flows through a little triangle of water. 

65 

That was a section that people regularly floated around the 

Jackson Hole community. It is a pretty easy section. It goes right 

into the Town of Kelly, and for a long time nobody really was concerned about it, and then all of a sudden it was probably early 

1990s, mid-1990s, there was enforcement, and a lot of people did 

not even realize it was illegal. So that is just one example. 

Mr. BISHOP. And you did not destroy the fish habitat when you 

did that. 

Mr. PRUZAN. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. We have had many hearings over the course of this 

year in which we are talking about decisions that are made that 

are arbitrary, that are not really conducive to helping people out. 

We seem to have lost the concept, and unfortunately, the Park 

Service has their fair share of that. 

Mr. Sheaffer, the Interior Department did not write testimony on 

this particular bill. I wondered if you wanted to say anything about 

it, if you want to step into that quagmire with the other stuff. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I would certainly not, but I will say what I can. 

We had a very brief time to look at this bill and did not get a 

chance to vet it; talked briefly to the Superintendent of Yellowstone 

who coincidentally was in town, as I believe you may have as well. 

So I do not think we were in a position to comment at this point. 

Mr. BISHOP. We will be looking forward to comments if you wish 

to add those in the future with the same literary zest as the other 

comments that we have had here. 

I am running out of time, but I do have a few more questions 

for Mr. Nelson. Do you have other questions, Mrs. Lummis? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I do not have a question, but I would comment. I 

did meet with the Superintendent of Yellowstone, and we are open 

to suggestions about how the language could be drafted in a way 

that makes that Park Service comfortable. Our intent is just to 

give them the authority to make these decisions pursuant to a 

plan, and that hiding behind a regulation that actually bans it is 

contrary to the current intent of Congress certainly if this bill 

passes. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Be careful. You guys are sounding too rational. You 

are sounding too green for me. You had better be careful on what 

you are saying here. 

Do you have other questions though before I finish up? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No. I am just intrigued by the example that my 

colleague, Mrs. Lummis, used about snowmobiles and paddling. 

And as I mentioned to the Chairman while this was going on, that 

any day I will trade some paddling for a reduction in the snowmobiles in Yellowstone. I think that would not be a bad idea. 

But having said that, I think that, Mr. Sheaffer, I have questions. They will be in writing, and I appreciate your being here, 

and thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. I want to, if I could, just ask Mr. Nelson a couple 

of last things. 

In your written testimony, you make reference to the fact that 

there are six million acres in the Adirondack Park in New York; 

that New Jersey has 16 percent, Florida 14 percent, Pennsylvania 

66 

13 percent of their land already under State control and some kind 

of State—— 

Dr. NELSON. Well, it has been that way for a long time. 

Mr. BISHOP. And yet you notice in here—— 

Dr. NELSON. It goes back in history that most of these State 

lands, you know, have been that way for just—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, I just want you to comment on the next sentence that you wrote. ‘‘It is ironic that Eastern States have often 

been reluctant to extend a similar prerogative to develop their own 

internal State land management strategies to Western States.’’ 

Would you just like to comment on that? 

Dr. NELSON. Well, it is an amazing thing that the percentage of 

State land ownership in New York State is about 35 percent, and 

it is actually greater than Alaska, and Adirondack Park is the most 

important part of that, which is six million acres, which is three 

times as big as Yellowstone, but it is an innovative or it is a different kind of management structure. 

A little more than half of the land is private, but it is subject to 

control by the Adirondack Park Commission. So there is a regulatory apparatus, and then the other half or a little less than half 

is actually State of New York land. 

And interestingly enough, in 1894, when Adirondack Park was 

set up, the State of New York designated that the State-owned 

lands in New York should be maintained in a forever wild status. 

So I just offer that as an example of how a State, when it has its 

own lands, in fact, it was anticipating by about 40 years the wilderness ideal. So New York State has, in effect, been maintaining 

about three million acres, which again is bigger than Yellowstone 

in a wilderness status since 1894. 

Mr. BISHOP. In 1894 I think there were only two national parks 

we had, Yellowstone and Yosemite and Mackinaw had been given 

back to Michigan by that point. So this predates a lot of those particular efforts. 

Obviously, the Young language has apparently touched a nerve 

at Interior. What does the Federal Government have to lose by allowing States a greater place in the management of the lands between their borders? 

Just estimate why do you think? Of what are they afraid? 

Dr. NELSON. Well, I think, I mean, a lot depends on how it is 

done, and frankly, I think that Representative Young would agree 

that this is really just the outline of a proposal, and that it would 

be a tremendous number of details that would have to be, or not 

tremendous, but quite a few details. A lot of things would have to 

be looked at and worked out to even come close to operationalizing 

this idea that he is putting on the table. 

But the question is why would the Interior Department resist it? 

I mean, what you are talking about is maintaining Federal lands, 

but you would be cutting down in a rather dramatic fashion the bureaucratic apparatus of the Bureau of Land Management. 

And the same would apply to the Forest Service. If you were to 

do it, you know, the Forest Service has 35,000 employees. If you 

actually implemented the Young legislation, you might be looking 

at 5,000 employees, and obviously that is going to, you know, provoke some pretty strong reaction. 

67 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that, and that is one of the reasons why 

I prefaced our meeting today by simply saying the idea of large 

centralized, bureaucratic institutions making decisions has been 

discredited and ought to be, but apparently we do not do that in 

Washington often enough. 

I think you mentioned a 2005 work that said what to do when 

an agency outlasts its time, and I think what you are talking about 

is looking at new ways of thinking about that. 

Mr. Sheaffer, I will end with this last diatribe if I could. Once 

again, I do appreciate what you are doing as Comptroller. I have 

no qualms that you are doing a very good job at what you are 

doing, although I want you to find those two million bucks that you 

got extra and they had better go back to the States at some time. 

But the testimony the Department sent you up here to defend 

and suffer the slings and arrows that go along with it on this bill 

and the Young bill especially said the same thing. They basically 

said States could not possibly manage these lands. They were incompetent to do it. The Federal Government knows better. 

There are three conventional wisdom concepts that I would like 

you to take back to your agency. The first one is only people in 

Washington have the grand view of what is necessary and important for the United States. 

Number two is only people in Washington should be recognized 

whenever there is a conflict between Washington and local government. 

And the third conventional wisdom is that the West needs to be 

protected from itself. 

All three of those principles and standards are crap. They should 

not be used, but unfortunately, many of the decisions that are 

being made not only by agencies in Washington, but some of the 

managers on the ground seem to be based on those same three 

principles, and those principles were, once again, reinforced in the 

testimony that the Interior Department sent up here. 

It is mind boggling to me why the Interior Department seems to 

insist that they know better, and they have this apprehension of 

ever having any kind of partnership with Interior projects, especially when they keep crying poverty at all times. If, for example, 

in Alaska you have one employee for every 54,000 acres of property 

in Alaska and still have a backlog that is over $120,000, you are 

obviously extremely efficient managers or you are simply an absentee landlord. 

And that is part of the problem. That is why I object to the testimony which they saddled you and brought you up here to defend 

and present to us. The verbiage had a message that is simply 

wrong, and we need to start thinking about new ways of handling 

our lands and new ways of making decisions because old and large 

is not effective. Young, lean, and different is what will be effective, 

and I hope this committee has the opportunity to keep spreading 

that message as time goes on. 

Unless there is something else, Mr. Grijalva? 

I want you to know I appreciate you taking the time to come 

here. I hope at different times we can invite you to come back 

again, Mr. Sheaffer. I do not know if you ever want to come back 

again, but you are certainly welcome to come back here again. 

68 

Mr. Pruzan, I appreciate the input. I appreciate you coming from 

Wyoming and alerting us to a situation where once again individuals are harmed where they ought not to be, and this does not 

make any sense at all. We need to resolve these types of things. 

Mr. Nelson, we hope to invite you back here again. We appreciate your testimony and appreciate your patience. 

I also want to officially apologize once again for having to make 

you wait here for over an hour. It was what is like an hour and 

15 minutes when I originally said we might be able to be back here 

as short as 45, and just remind you that is the way things used 

to run in the old time before a couple of sessions ago when we 

made some changes to try and alleviate that time. 

So I apologize for putting you in that situation. Thank you for 

your patience. 

There once again may be some additional questions, as the Ranking Member suggested for Mr. Sheaffer, that will be submitted in 

written form. We would ask you to please submit a written response back in a timely manner. 

And if there is no further business, without objection we stand 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CONCERNING H.R. 3492, TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF HAND-PROPELLED VESSELS IN

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, AND THE NATIONAL

ELK REFUGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 3492, a bill to provide for the use of hand-propelled vessels in Yellowstone National Park, Grand 

Teton National Park, and the National Elk Refuge. 

Although the Department supports expanding outdoor recreation opportunities, 

we strongly oppose H.R. 3492 as introduced. By overriding existing regulations and 

regulatory authority over hand-propelled boating, this legislation would set a troubling precedent by disrupting the carefully balanced management of recreational activities and resource protection that the National Park Service (NPS) provides at 

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) provides at the National Elk Refuge. It would diminish the ability 

of Federal managers to meet their responsibilities under the NPS Organic Act, the 

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, and other laws to provide for public 

enjoyment, ensure visitor safety, and address adverse effects to resources at those 

three units. 

H.R. 3492 would nullify regulations that prohibit boating on rivers and streams 

in Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park with regard to handpropelled vessels and prohibit the promulgation of similar regulations. It would 

specify that the use of hand-propelled vessels on rivers and streams in the National 

Elk Refuge is a wildlife-dependent recreational use, changing the statutory definition of that term for a single national wildlife refuge. Proponents of H.R. 3492 contend that it would restore management authority over paddling to park and refuge 

managers but, in fact, it would deny managers the authority to exercise their professional judgment and management discretion regarding the use of hand-propelled 

vessels throughout the parks. H.R. 3492 would also circumvent the not-yetcompleted public process to finalize the Snake River Headwaters Comprehensive 

River Management Plan. 

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks 

In Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, all waters are open to handpropelled vessels unless they have been closed to that activity by special regulations 

in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR). 

69 

In Grand Teton National Park, special regulations in 36 CFR Section 7.22 have 

allowed abundant opportunities for paddling or floating on almost all the waters except for those in the remote, mountainous high country. Many thousands of visitors 

enjoy kayaking, canoeing, floating, and paddle boarding on the many lakes, including Jackson, Jenny, Phelps, Emma Matilda, Two Ocean, Taggart, Bradley, Bearpaw, 

Leigh and String Lakes. And, the iconic 26-mile stretch of the Snake River along 

the Teton Range though the park, considered one of our Nation’s premier float trips, 

attracts over 60,000 paddlers each year to the park. Only a 1,000-foot stretch section 

of the river, immediately downstream of the Jackson Lake Dam, is closed due to 

public safety and Homeland Security concerns. 

Many paddling opportunities also exist in Yellowstone National Park. Of the 168 

lakes within the park, only five are closed to boating, which provides ample opportunities for paddling, while also providing at least some opportunity to experience 

lakes in a pristine natural state. Over 1,300 paddlers recreate annually on the 

Lewis River Channel between Shoshone and Lewis lakes. The park issues an average of over 2,000 permits per year for non-motorized boating vessels. 

Since 1971, special regulations in 36 CFR Section 7.13 have closed certain waters 

in Yellowstone National Park to vessels, including Sylvan Lake, Eleanor Lake, Twin 

Lakes, and Beach Springs Lagoon and on all park rivers and streams, except on the 

channel between Lewis Lake and Shoshone Lake, which is open only to handpropelled vessels. 

While our regulations do close some waters to boating, they provide a balanced 

approach that includes opportunities for a wide variety of recreation, including the 

use of hand-propelled vessels. 

The National Park Service Organic Act requires the NPS to provide for the enjoyment of park resources and values. This includes both opportunities for recreational 

activities and to experience the parks in their natural state. For over 40 years, the 

balanced approach provided by these regulations has successfully allowed for a variety of uses, including paddling, while also protecting the ability of park visitors to 

experience the solitude and wildness of pristine rivers in their natural state, without the visual intrusion of vehicles or watercraft. Millions of visitors come every 

year to Yellowstone to experience the natural wonders of the park. People from all 

corners of the planet are able to view the iconic Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, 

paddle on Shoshone Lake, watch wolves in the foggy mornings along the banks of 

the winding Lamar River and experience the roar of the Yellowstone River as it 

travels through the Black Canyon. 

The National Park Service Organic Act also requires the NPS to make and publish such rules and regulations necessary or proper for the use and management of 

the parks so that they remain unimpaired for future generations. H.R. 3492 would 

fundamentally alter this authority by preventing the NPS from promulgating new 

regulations to prevent potential future impacts associated with boating in 

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. 

Many of the areas that would be opened to boating by H.R. 3492 see very little 

human activity and represent some of the most intact, pristine landscapes anywhere 

in the contiguous United States. There may be no other scenic resource like this in 

the United States, and possibly the world, where large intact river systems and 

their environments are allowed to remain in a wild, ecologically pristine state. The 

National Park Service has a responsibility to recognize and protect this uniquely 

Yellowstone experience. H.R. 3492 would not only arbitrarily open all of the waters 

in both parks to boating, but would prevent the NPS from promulgating any future 

regulations that might be necessary to ensure the proper management of boating 

on these waters. 

The National Elk Refuge 

The primary purpose of the National Elk Refuge, as identified in statute and executive order, is the conservation of wildlife resources. The Gros Ventre River corridor 

between the National Elk Refuge and Grand Teton National Park is a heavily used 

ungulate winter range, a spring and fall migration corridor for elk and bison, and 

vital year-round habitat for moose. Management of this area as wildlife habitat is 

key to meeting the purpose of the refuge. 

H.R. 3492 redefines the term ‘‘wildlife dependent,’’ a bedrock term in the National 

Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, as amended by National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105–57, ‘‘Improvement Act’’), as it is applied to the 

National Elk Refuge. A key component of the act is that individual national wildlife 

refuges across the country (currently numbering 561) be managed as a coherent 

‘‘system.’’ Enactment of H.R. 3492 would undermine this basic tenet by micromanaging activities at a single national wildlife refuge through Federal statute. 

70 

Conclusion 

This precedent-setting bill as introduced would prohibit land managers from 

meeting their statutory responsibilities to properly regulate the use of Federal 

lands. The Department believes strongly that the existing authority granted by 

Congress to the NPS and FWS through the Organic Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act is critical to the proper management of these lands 

for all Americans. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 

Department on this legislation. 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

—‘‘Free the American West—Get the federal government off 

public lands that are of no importance’’, latimes.com Op-Ed, 

March 7, 2012, by Robert H. Nelson. 

—‘‘Our Languishing Public Lands’’, Policy Review, February & 

March 2012, No. 171, by Robert H. Nelson. 

Æ