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

80–900 PDF 2013

OPEN TO VISITORS? ASSESSING THE FEDERAL EFFORT TO MINIMIZE THE SEQUESTER’S IMPACT 

ON ACCESS TO OUR NATION’S CAPITAL AND 

NATIONAL TREASURES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 16, 2013 

Serial No. 113–16 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 16, 2013 .............................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable David S. Ferriero, Archivist of The United States, National 

Archives and Records Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

The Honorable Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, U.S. National Park Service 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Mr. G. Wayne Clough, Ph.D., Secretary, Smithsonian Institution 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

APPENDIX 

Responses to follow-up Questions from Mr. Christopher P. Salotti, Legislative 

Counsel, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 68 

Responses to Questions sent to Mr. Jarvis, Director U.S. National Park Service .......................................................................................................................... 69 

(1) 

OPEN TO VISITORS? ASSESSING THE FEDERAL EFFORT TO MINIMIZE THE SEQUESTER’S IMPACT ON ACCESS TO OUR NATION’S CAPITAL AND NATIONAL TREASURES 

Tuesday, April 16, 2013, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Darrell Issa [chairman of the committee], presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg, 

Lankford, Amash, DesJarlais, Farenthold, Hastings, Woodall, Collins, Meadows, Bentivolio, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Tierney, 

Connolly, Speier, Davis and Horsford. 

Staff Present: Molly Boyd, Majority Parliamentarian; Lawrence 

J. Brady, Majority Staff Director; Daniel Bucheli, Majority Assistant Clerk; Caitlin Carroll, Majority Deputy Press Secretary; Steve 

Castor, Majority General Counsel; Drew Colliatie, Majority Professional Staff Member; John Cuaderes, Majority Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of Member Services and 

Committee Operations; Linda Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Tyler 

Grimm, Majority Senior Professional Staff Member; Christopher 

Hixon, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Michael R. Kiko, 

Majority Staff Assistant; Mitchell S. Kominsky, Majority Counsel; 

Mark D. Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; Kristin L. Nelson, 

Majority Counsel; James Robertson, Majority Senior Professional 

Staff Member; Laura L. Rush; Majority Deputy Chief Clerk; Scott 

Schmidt, Majority Deputy Director of Digital Strategy; Matthew 

Tallmer, Majority Investigator; Peter Warren, Majority Legislative 

Policy Director; Sang H. Yi, Majority Professional Staff Member; 

Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Krista Boyd, 

Minority Deputy Director of Legislation/Counsel; Susanne 

Sachsman Grooms, Minority Chief Counsel; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Press Secretary; Chris Knauer, Minority Senior Investigator; 

Adam Koshkin, Minority Research Assistant; Elisa LaNier, Minority Deputy Clerk; Brian Quinn, Minority Counsel; Rory Sheehan, 

Minority New Media Press Secretary. 

Chairman ISSA. Before we begin, I think it fitting that we say a 

few words and express our condolences and our heartfelt sorrow for 

the events in Boston yesterday. Regardless of how it came to happen, it was a terrible tragedy, and our prayers go out to the victims 

2 

and their families, and our thanks to the brave men and women 

who were first on the scene. 

America watched yet again an act of terror in horror yesterday 

at one of the icons of the American sports and recreational scene. 

We will not soon forget it, and I want to thank all of you for this 

moment of silence. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come to order. 

The Oversight Committee exists to fundamentally do two things 

and do them well. First, because Americans have a right to know 

that the money Washington takes from them is well spent, and second, America deserves an efficient, effective government that works 

for them. 

The oversight side of our committee’s responsibility is to protect 

these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know 

what they get from their government. Our job is to work tirelessly 

in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the fact to the 

American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. 

With oversight comes reform, if it is done right. Today, we are 

continuing our oversight of, in fact, the first real down payment on 

reducing the size of government in my 12 plus years on the Hill. 

Sequestration is by definition the worst possible way to save 

money. Across the board cuts make no sense. 

However, as we now have come to know, within sequestration, 

within departments, sequestration is not across the board. You do 

not buy 2.4 percent less toilet paper. You do not turn lights on 2.4 

percent less bright. The truth is that agencies have had an obligation to make decisions. The decisions, as we will see today and as 

we have seen in previous hearings, vary widely. 

Our initial discovery is that independent agencies not told by Office of Management and Budget to ignore the impending sequestration cuts for the most part have taken steps. Those steps have consistently meant sequestration was less onerous than it would otherwise be. However, within agencies that were held to make their 

cuts later rather than sooner, it appears as though there is a wide 

variety of decision process. It appears to me, at least, that politics 

of sequestration need to be ended and ended soon. 

Americans deserve to know that we in fact can reduce the size 

of government. We can make decisions that impact Americans less 

or not at all. As we will hear today, some made decisions that in 

fact mean a win-win, not the least of which is an example of simply 

shipping answers or mailing more efficiently. It seems like a small 

thing. But it is a small thing that came from the necessity to cut 

a budget. 

Having come from the private sector, these kinds of boom and 

bust occur within the economic cycle regularly. Almost every company has a hot season and an off season, years that are better and 

years that, in fact, they need to be more efficient, times in which 

market share is being gained at all cost and times at which, within 

a given amount of market share, the stockholders would like you 

to make a little more profit. 

3 

This does not occur ordinarily within government. Perhaps for 

the first time since the end of World War II, our government is facing a clamor from the stockholders, the American people, to make 

fundamental changes in how much we spend and to do it wisely. 

That is one of the reasons I think there was such a strong reaction 

to the White House canceling tours due to sequestration. There are 

many things that the White House could have canceled. There are 

many decisions they could have made. This one appears to be symbolic and political. 

Now, the fact is, something did have to be cut. Changes had to 

be made. And we will hear today, among others, from the Park 

Service, who has a great deal of control over Camp David and the 

White House, in addition to the monuments throughout Washington, and of course, our beloved parks around the Country, including my personal favorite, Yellowstone. 

Director Jarvis has been very public about his perceptions and 

the effects of sequestration. In public statements, he has fed fears 

that trash will not be picked up, that bathrooms won’t be cleaned 

and that access roads to national parks won’t be plowed. However, 

there is an inconsistency in what Director Jarvis has said publicly 

and what the Park Service has told us when they briefed the committee just last week. We hope to reconcile these differences, because in fact, they are profound. 

The Budget Office representative from the Park Service told both 

Democratic and Republican committee staff that 99 percent of visitors will not even notice adjustments. I would notice if there were 

no toilet paper. I would notice if the road were unplowed. This is 

a far departure from Director Jarvis’ public statements prior to 

today. I am hoping we can clear up the ambiguity between his previous statements and the briefings we received on a bipartisan 

basis from his staff. 

But it goes far beyond this. The fundamental question is, can we 

do better with less? In the case of the Park Service, in constant dollars, they still have 5 percent more money today than they had 

when President Obama took office. Yes, there were plus-ups for the 

period of time of the stimulus. But the truth is, when looking at 

their major budget, representing 80 percent of their total expenditures, in other words, the non-capital budget, we find that in constant dollars they have more money today than they had in 2008. 

And in 2008, quite frankly, Mr. Jarvis, the roads were plowed, the 

trash was taken out, and most of the time, there was toilet paper. 

Early this year, the committee sent letters to the Department of 

Interior asking just the kinds of questions that Congress needs to 

know, how can Congress help change the most difficult sequester 

cuts facing agencies like the Park Service instead of an across the 

board. To date, including today, we have still not received an answer to that question, meaning the Park Service has not asked us 

for any authority that would help reduce sequestration. We can 

only presume that their position is, we need all the money we have 

had, including the 5 percent increase in our operating budget since 

2008, or we will have to make these cuts. 

That does not make sense. There has to be a few percent better 

way to spend money. 

4 

We will also hear today from witnesses representing the National 

Archives and the Smithsonian. I understand they are not planning 

to furlough employees and have been far less vocal discussing the 

possibilities of public inconvenience caused by the sequester than 

the Park Service. At the end of the day, this hearing is about how 

we can best work together to ensure the American people are not 

adversely impacted by outcomes that can be avoided by planning, 

coordination and managing. 

With that, I recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I address the topic of today’s hearing, I want to take a 

moment to express our deepest sympathies to the victims of yesterday’s bombings at the Boston Marathon. As I did on the Floor yesterday, yesterday was a holiday in Boston, Patriot’s Day. What was 

supposed to be a celebration turned into a horrible tragedy for 

these victims and for their families. Our thoughts and prayers are 

with them. 

Also I want to commend our first responders. Many of them are 

Federal Government employees, State employees, local employees, 

emergency medical teams, health care providers and especially the 

law enforcement officials at the local, State and Federal levels who 

no doubt will be working on this case in the days and weeks to 

come. As we all glued our eyes to the television sets, we heard over 

and over again of the many instances where so many Americans 

who were there were told to stay away, but they made decisions 

to go and help their neighbors. 

That is what America is all about. In our toughest times, we 

have a way of showing the best of ourselves. 

So that leads me to today’s hearing. To Mr. Ferriero, to Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Clough, I am going to start off with the presumption 

that I trust you. I trust that you are in jobs that are very difficult, 

I trust that you did not come to these positions to do harm to the 

public, but to help the public a life that is well-seasoned, to have 

experiences that will live with them until they die. You do not walk 

into these offices that you hold trying to stop the public from having the kind of opportunities that they deserve. 

And I refuse to believe that. I just do not. All my dealings with 

public employees, and I have said it on the Floor of the House and 

I will say it again, most people who come to government service, 

that I know of, come because they have a commitment to lifting up 

the public, whether they be at NIH, whether they be in the Park 

Service, whether they be on our staffs. People on both sides sometimes are sitting up until 3:00 and 4:00 o’clock in the morning, 

sending emails, looking over records. Why? Because they want to 

do something good for the public. 

And I believe that that is what you all are about. And I am begging you, I would ask you, but I am begging you, to make that 

clear today. I do not know, we all make mistakes. We all have to 

sometimes change our plans. Sequestration I am sure has caused 

a lot to happen for all your folks. But from what I can see, you all 

started planning early, trying to make the right decisions. And in 

many instances, you are faced with situations where you cut, cut, 

cut. 

5 

But again, and I will say this over and over again, cuts have consequences. Duh. They have consequences. I do not care where they 

are. Unless you just got a pile of money that is just floating down 

from the sky, there are going to be some consequences. It is either 

going to hit you today or hit you later. It is going to be seen here 

or it is going to be seen there. It may not be felt right now, but 

it will be felt at some point. But they do have consequences. 

So there are two things. One, I trust you. I trust that you are 

trying to make the right decisions. I am not starting with the presumption that you are trying to screw the public. I am not starting 

with that. Number two, I am assuming that you will show us what 

you did when you first heard about sequestration, the acts you took 

and tell us not just about what you are doing right now, but what 

you see up the road. This is a long road. The cuts are going to continue. 

So we want, all of us want our constituents to be served well, as 

I know that you do. So today the committee is holding a second 

hearing on how Federal agencies are implementing massive across 

the board cuts imposed by sequestration. I fully support this hearing, because Congress needs to understand how these indiscriminate cuts are negatively affecting our constituents. 

The committee has called three agencies to testify, the National 

Park Service, Smithsonian Institution and the National Archives 

and Records Administration. All three agencies have a significant 

presence here in Washington. And all three are suffering from the 

negative effects of sequestration. 

As I understand it, the National Park Service plans to furlough 

all 767 Park Police employees. It may continue its hiring freeze, 

which has left about 900 positions vacant. And it expects about 

three-fourths of its cuts to be taken from facility maintenance, visitor service, park protection and resource stewardship. 

Somebody has to pay. Something has to give. It may delay road 

openings, deploy fewer park patrols, obviously if you have to furlough people, there are going to be some folks who are not present. 

And close entire facilities, such as campgrounds and visitor centers. 

The Smithsonian may have to take similar measures, including 

reducing guard forces at its facilities. It may reduce or close certain 

exhibits, galleries or museum, and it may postpone maintenance 

and defer capital projects. It also may delay the opening of the new 

National Museum of African American History and Culture by cutting funds to hire critical staff. 

The National Archives also may have to eliminate exhibits and 

public programs, reduce hours for researchers and cut contracts to 

preserve paper and electronic records. It also may be forced to reduce public access to records, including records sought by veterans 

and their families to verify eligibility for Federal benefits to which 

they are entitled. 

At our last hearing, we discussed how Speaker Boehner and the 

House Republicans insisted on these massive cuts in exchange for 

averting default on the national debt. They considered this a political victory. Today, although Republican leaders take credit for 

these cuts, they do not take responsibility for their negative effects. 

Some critics argue that the Federal agencies could avoid these 

negative consequences simply by transferring funds from different 

6 

accounts or by selectively cutting only certain programs. They even 

suggest that agencies might be making cuts unnecessarily to inflate their negative impact for political reasons. 

As we learned in our previous hearing, however, Congress did 

not give agencies wide discretion to implement sequestration. Congress imposed these across the board cuts at every programmatic 

level and Congress has passed multiple restrictions to prevent 

agencies from transferring or pre-programming funds. 

Critics seem unable and unwilling to acknowledge this one simple fact: these massive cuts do have consequences. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, serious negative and harmful consequences for the American people, anyone who blames the President for closures and cutbacks in Washington, D.C., whether at the 

White House or at the three agencies here today, is either unfair 

or misinformed. 

I would like to put up some photos, if I may. These are pictures 

of office buildings right here in the Capitol. Republican leaders 

drastically cut funds for the Capitol Police this year. So office 

buildings throughout Congress have been forced to shut their 

doors. Lines for the general public now spiral into the street. I am 

sure almost every Congressional staffer in this room has been affected by this as well. 

Is this somehow the President’s fault? Of course it is not. Cuts 

have consequences. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we 

can begin working with Federal agencies to protect them and the 

American public from these mindless, across the board cuts. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. I would note that that 

picture could have been taken five years ago. It is not uncommon 

to have those kinds of lines at that point. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you just said. 

The picture was taken this morning. 

Chairman ISSA. I have little doubt of that. 

Members may have seven days to submit opening statements or 

enter extraneous material into the record. We will now welcome 

our guests. The Honorable David Ferriero is the Archivist of the 

National Archives and Records Administration, and a returning 

guest. The Honorable Jonathan Jarvis is the Director of the Park 

Service, and again, returning. And Dr. Wayne Clough is the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Thank you all for your service. 

Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses will rise and be 

sworn. Please raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you will give will 

be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Chairman ISSA. Let the record indicate all witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. 

As is the custom here on the Hill, your entire opening statements 

will be placed into the record. I would ask that you limit your opening statement, which some of you are bound to read, whether we 

ask you not to or not, or a summary thereof, but please try to stay 

as close to the lights in front of you. As now my retired predecessor 

7 

used to say, it is easy to remember, it is just like a street light. 

Yellow means go real fast so yo don’t end up on red. 

And with that, Mr. Ferriero. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF DAVID S. FERRIERO 

Mr. FERRIERO. Let me begin by thanking both of your for acknowledging yesterday’s events. Having crossed that finish line 

seven times myself and had friends and relatives at the finish line, 

this was a very personal attack for me. 

Chairman ISSA. I notice you are not giving us your times, 

though. 

Mr. FERRIERO. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member 

Cummings and distinguished members of the committee. Thanks 

for inviting me to testify this morning on the impact of sequestration on the National Archives and Records Administration. Our 

mission is to store, preserve and provide public access to the permanently valuable records of the Federal Government. We provide 

agencies with records management services and temporary records 

storage. 

In total, NARA holds 33 million cubic feet of permanent and temporary records in more than 40 facilities across the United States, 

including the presidential libraries of 13 former presidents. NARA 

performs its mission through its workforce of approximately 3,300 

employees and an annual appropriated budget of $391 million. 

We serve the public by providing access to records that help 

Americans of all ages to better understand their history and their 

democracy, document the rights of citizens and allow Americans to 

hold their government accountable. Last year alone, NARA responded to over 1 million requests from American veterans and 

their families seeking documentation of military service, which is 

necessary to qualify for health benefits, military burials and the replacement of medals. 

We support government accountability by ensuring public access 

to records that document and explain government decisions. We 

publish the daily Federal Register, operate the National Declassification Center, and improve the administration of FOIA through 

the Office of Government Information Services. And although we 

care for billions of pages, we are perhaps best known for displaying 

the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of 

Rights. Over 3 million people visit NARA exhibits nationwide every 

year. 

Sequestration has reduced NARA’s budget to $371 million, or 

$19.7 million below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2013. All 

but $1 million of this reduction must come out of NARAs operating 

expense appropriations. Because sequestration occurred with only 

seven months remaining in fiscal year 2013, our sequestration 

amount is equivalent to a 7.7 percent reduction in available funds 

for the remainder of the fiscal year. Our primary objective for implementing sequestration cuts are to preserve the agency mission 

and to minimize disruptions in agency services to the public. We 

identified specific cuts to contracts, grants and other spending consistent with these principles. 

8 

Our plan relies in part on budgetary savings from an agencywide hiring freeze. NARAs workforce has shrunk by 299 employees, 

or 8.5 percent of the workforce, since the hiring freeze was implemented in November of 2011. Sequestration has required that we 

reduce public hours at two of our largest facilities, the buildings in 

Washington, D.C. and College Park, Maryland. Research rooms in 

both facilities are normally open six days a week, from 9:00 to 5:00, 

with extended hours to 9:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, Thursdays and 

Fridays. Due to sequestration, NARA will no longer offer extended 

hours, but the research rooms will remain open from 9:00 to 5:00, 

Monday through Saturday, year around. 

The museum in Washington, D.C. has been impacted by sequestration. In the past, NARA has extended public hours for the museum until 7:00 p.m. from March 15th through Labor Day. Due to 

sequestration, NARA will no longer offer these extended hours, but 

the museum will remain open from 10:00 to 5:30, seven days a 

week, year around. 

We decided to reduce public hours after reviewing attendance 

data that showed extended hours were under-utilized by the public 

and that they extended beyond the visitor hours of comparable museums and institutions. NARAs decision to reduce public hours in 

two facilities is only a small part of a much larger and detrimental 

impact of sequestration on NARAs mission and operations. 

Sequestration will require NARA to defer preservation actions 

necessary to protect low and moderate risk records from deterioration and will delay efforts to conserve film, audio and other special 

media. We will also reduce spending on the Electronic Records Archive and will not be able to address concerns raised by ERA users 

and other Federal agencies and by NARAs Inspector General. 

We will reduce spending on maintenance of 17 buildings that 

NARA owns and will defer all building repairs except where necessary to protect the safety of building occupants, visitors and the 

records we hold in trust. 

NARA has prepared a responsible plan that implements fiscal 

2013 sequestration cuts in a way that preserves the agency mission 

and minimizes the impact on the public to the greatest possible extent. Much as NARAs sequestration cuts have been taken from administrative and support functions, however, sequestration imposes 

significant budget reductions on NARA that cannot be fully implemented without some noticeable impact on service to the public. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal statement. I look forward to continuing the discussion with you and members of the 

committee. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Ferriero follows:] 

9 


Insert offset folio 1 here 80900.001
10 


Insert offset folio 2 here 80900.002
11 


Insert offset folio 3 here 80900.003
12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 80900.004
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 80900.005
14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 80900.006
15 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you, I do too. 

Before we begin questions of Director Jarvis, I want to note, this 

committee sent you on March 27th a request for documents. The 

committee is used to receiving documents in a timely fashion. Our 

request for documents from the National Park Service on how you 

were managing sequestration, the date to respond was April 10th, 

2013, and no written official response has been received. 

When it became clear the Park Service was not going to meet its 

deadline, committee staff posed just five simple questions to your 

legislative affairs representative. We will place them on the board. 

They really are pretty simple to answer. The questions were completely ignored for two days, until an in-person staff briefing on 

April 12th. At that briefing, the congressional affairs representative attempted to provide vague answers to the questions, and 

when pressed by staff, promised email answers to these questions. 

Four days later, we still have not received answers to these questions. 

Director Jarvis, although I will permit you to testify, your lack 

of transparency and frankly, your obstruction as to the internal activities of the Park Service relative to sequestration, is troubling. 

We put deadlines that were reasonable and attainable, and for reasons we cannot understand, you have deliberately thwarted our 

oversight. 

Last Congress, getting answers from the DOI after repeatedly requesting them was like pulling teeth. This is an unacceptable pattern of behavior. Director Jarvis, we already have your written 

statement in the record. As we on the dais have had an opportunity 

to read it, instead, we ask you to summarize your testimony and 

to use all or part of your five minutes to answer these five simple 

questions. 

When did the Department and National Park Service begin collecting information responsive to the Chairman’s letter? How many 

staff does the Department of Interior or National Park Service are 

involved in search for responsive materials? Who are the individuals at the Department and/or the National Park Service conducting the search? 

What search items are being used to find responsive materials? 

How many responsive documents have you identified so far? 

I don’t believe these are unreasonable questions, considering you 

have not been able to deliver us any responsive documents. I ask 

you to at least answer the questions, and you have staff behind you 

that we know know it, about why you are here at a hearing testifying on clear inconsistencies between your own staff’s briefing and 

your public statements. This is not a surprise to you. 

I might note as you begin your testimony that a little over 400 

parks received this one-page questionnaire. It simply asked for simple numbers, and then a comment line. It was a pretty good idea, 

a one-page question to 400 plus of your superintendents to get a 

basic idea where they thought there were savings and perhaps collate them. 

I don’t have any question that they are all sitting on one desk 

in your offices. I also have a whistleblower who tells me that in 

some of these documents they said, we have no problem, we can 

do it, we will not have to be absent toilet paper. We had a right 

16 

to see these documents before you came. We had a right to know, 

the American people had a right to know, that over 400 different 

parks and monuments had differing problems, differing opinions on 

what they could do to save money. We were denied that, and we 

know they are sitting on a desk, they are assembled and they simply were not delivered to this committee. 

It is your right to collect documents and look at them. It is not 

your right to provide delay. And when you look at 400 pieces of 

paper, the time necessary would be less for your staff than it took 

you to get over here this morning. 

With that, you are recognized for your opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard, please? 

Chairman ISSA. Of course. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Let me say that, Mr. Jarvis, I certainly agree with the Chairman 

with regard to any kind of effort and failure to provide us with the 

information that we request. I have said many times that I believe 

that this committee should be operated almost like a Federal court, 

with high standards and fairness. 

I am concerned, too, that we have not gotten this information. I 

agree with the chairman that the five questions that were just listed, you need to answer. I would also, I am concerned that requests 

were made for information which, I don’t know what kind of difficulty you all ran into, but it is my understanding from staff that 

your folks said that they were gathering the information, or had 

gotten the information together, but that general counsel had to go 

through it. I think you need to make it clear, we have to move forward, Mr. Jarvis. 

I think it is so important that we maintain the trust that I 

talked about a little bit earlier. Whenever there is a lack of trust, 

relationships fail. I don’t care what kind of a relationship it is. I 

note from Chairman Issa’s letter of March 27th, he noted these 

other things that he was concerned about, he wanted a list of 

names and titles of individuals at NPS who submitted, solicited, 

collected or evaluated proposals related to the NPS’s budget modification resulting from sequestration. He wanted all documents 

that refer to or instruct the National Park Service on the process 

which proposals for budget modifications are to be handled at NPS 

due to sequestration. He wanted all copies of each budget modification and how they were solicited and evaluated, and he wanted all 

documents and communications, including handwritten notes referring to it, relating to the National Park Service plans to budget adjustments under sequestration. 

I do not think that those requests are unreasonable. I know the 

chairman has said that he wants you to limit your response to the 

five minutes, and Mr. Chairman, I would ask that if it need be, 

given two extra minutes or three extra minutes to address this. 

This is very serious, Mr. Jarvis. As I said from the very beginning, 

I trust you guys. I trust that you are doing the right thing for the 

public. 

But you have to make sure that there is the greatest degree of 

transparency. If counsel, your lawyers are going through the papers, sometimes lawyers have to work late, they have to bend over 

backwards to get it done. But we have to move forward. 

17 

So Mr. Chairman, again I would ask that if he needs a few minutes to answer your concerns, I would appreciate it. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. With the indulgence of the other witnesses, and 

without objection, so ordered. Please continue. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN A. JARVIS 

Mr. JARVIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to talk 

about sequestration within the National Park Service. 

I will summarize my opening remarks so that we can get to the 

questions. The sequestration really required the Park Service to reduce its spending by $153 million, of which $113 million was taken 

directly from the National Park Service operational account. The 

remaining $40 million kind of came from projects and grants. 

I think the key point here is that the National Park Service’s 

budget is park by park, so that the 5 percent sequestration was applied at each individual park and program. 

Over the last three years, we have been on a slight decline. So 

we began our planning exercise for this sequestration actually in 

the middle of 2012. We instructed every park, every program and 

every organization to really develop a financial model to handle 

what we thought would be a very tough coming fiscal year in 2013. 

We asked them to leave vacant positions unfilled, plan for fewer 

seasonal hires, and reduce short-term spending. We applied that 

strategy across the entire organization, preparing for fiscal year 

2013. 

When it appeared that sequestration was going to occur, I implemented a hiring freeze on all permanent positions that resulted in 

1,300 positions that remain vacant. We are holding 900 of those to 

remain vacant through the rest of the fiscal year. That resulted in 

about $43 million in savings in 2013. 

I instructed them next to eliminate spending on travel, overtime, 

supplies and materials and contracts. We have had strict travel 

controls in place since 2003. That resulted in an additional savings. 

I can give you those numbers. 

Those that were unable to meet their sequestration targets after 

that were then asked to reduce the numbers of seasonals, to extend 

furloughs, to subject to furloughs. And lastly, that if they can’t 

meet their sequestration targets by then, they needed to look at 

furloughing permanent employees, all of them for the same amount 

of time. 

As a result of all of these I think very conservative efforts, the 

only part of our organization that is going to result in actual furloughs of permanent employees is the U.S. Park Police, because 

they are predominantly a salary, non-grant, non-construction side 

of our house. 

These reductions definitely are having impact. Reduced hours of 

operations, later and delayed road openings, fewer programs and 

fewer services, every park and activity will have some kind of impact. We think those impacts will accumulate over time. 

So actually, I think we have approached this very conservatively. 

We do not want to impact the public, so our focus has been principally on the shoulder seasons of our national parks. Keep in mind 

the sequestration came mid-year and we are going into our peak 

season. So what we had to do is to reduce the hours and operations 

18 

around the edges of the prime season, so that the principal visitors 

would not be impacted during our prime summer season as well. 

We gave each individual park the opportunity to make choices 

about how they could implement it, and then we reviewed all of 

those products that you saw, Mr. Chairman, back at the Washington level to ensure there was consistency in how it was applied 

across the system and to make sure that the numbers that they 

were providing actually made sense for the Service. 

Let me just say one thing, in light of the very, very tragic attack 

in Boston yesterday. As you well know, the National Park Service 

through its Park Police and our other law enforcement organizations participate in the Joint Terrorism Task Force. I can assure 

you that these sequestration impacts are not compromising our responsibilities for icon security here in Washington or in our other 

sites around the Country, the Statue of Liberty or the Golden Gate 

Bridge or other sites, as well. 

So getting to your questions. The first one, when did the Department and the NPS begin collecting information. On April 8th, the 

National Park Service was forwarded your letter and we began immediately to collect that information in response to your request. 

In terms of how many staff in the Department of Interior and the 

National Park Service, we have five employees in the Washington 

office that are working directly on the responsiveness. We tasked 

at our regional level, we have seven regions and there are staff at 

each of those seven regions collecting specifically the information. 

I am aware there are nine individuals working at the Department 

of the Interior in responding to your request. 

Essentially within my staff, which I can speak to specifically, is 

my chief of staff, who has the responsibility of responding to all 

these types of Congressional requests to collect this information, 

and have it reviewed. 

In terms of search terms, we draw directly from your request. We 

use, I can’t tell you off the top of my head what those terms are, 

but specifically we want to be comprehensive. So using just sequestration isn’t really going to get it. We really look at all of the planning and documents. That results, frankly, in thousands of pages. 

I want to be clear that the general counsel and solicitors do not 

work for the National Park Service. They work for the Department 

of the Interior. They require their review of these document before 

they are sent. I have no control over that whatsoever. And that is 

the standard that the Department of Interior is applying, that 

those have to be reviewed by them before they are submitted. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:] 

19 


Insert offset folio 7 here 80900.007
20 


Insert offset folio 8 here 80900.008
21 


Insert offset folio 9 here 80900.009
22 


Insert offset folio 10 here 80900.010
23 


Insert offset folio 11 here 80900.011
24 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Dr. Clough? 

STATEMENT OF G. WAYNE CLOUGH 

Mr. CLOUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee, for this 

opportunity to testify. The Smithsonian appreciates the support of 

the Administration, Congress and the American people. 

Spring brings the cherry blossoms, tourists and school children 

to our Nation’s capital. I love to see the buses pull up in front of 

our museums and galleries and watch all those visitors pull out 

with smiles on their faces, knowing they are going in for a great 

learning experience at the Smithsonian. 

Our mission is to make the resources of the Smithsonian available to all Americans and help our Country address critical challenges through programs in education, the humanities and 

sciences. With the help of our 17-member board of regents, which 

includes six members of Congress, we have embraced a culture of 

change, to create a more responsive and relevant Smithsonian. 

Last year, our 19 museums and galleries and the National Zoo 

opened nearly 100 new exhibitions and hosted more than 30 million visitors, the highest number in the last decade and up 5 million from 2007. We are open 364 days a year and admission is free. 

We are expanding our reach through digital access. With more 

than 100 million unique visitors to our websites, with more than 

2,000 online lesson plans and courses that meet State standards, 

we are now delivering Smithsonian content to schools in all 50 

States. About 60 percent of our art collections are now available online. 

The foundation for all of our work is based on impeccable research, scholarship and art, science, history, culture and education. 

Every day, more than 500 Smithsonian scientists are working on 

some of the most perplexing problems we face: protecting our imperiled natural resources, keeping our ports and waterways safe 

from invasive species, halting the spread of pandemic diseases, saving endangered species, keeping commercial and military aircraft 

safe from bird strikes, and helping guide Curiosity, the Mars 

Rover. 

We are stewards of America’s collection, some of which date back 

even before the founding of the Smithsonian. They include 137 million objects and treasures, from a tiny fossil, a giant squid, the Star 

Spangled Banner, the desk upon which Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, Harriett Tubman’s shawl, the Wright 

Flyer and the Space Shuttle Discovery. 

I am honored to lead a dedicated staff of 6,400 employees plus 

6,200 volunteers who are all passionate about their work. That is 

why for the third year in a row, the Smithsonian was named as 

one of the top four best places to work in the Federal Government. 

Guided by our 2010 strategic plan, we measure everything we do 

to ensure we are continuously improving. There are great opportunities ahead, but there is no question sequestration will have an 

impact on our ability to serve the American people. We did our best 

to anticipate sequestration, and so as the fiscal year began, the 

Smithsonian acted, recognizing that the reduction of our Federal 

budget of 5 percent would amount to nearly $42 million. 

25 

Over time, we restricted staff travel, cut funds for collections, 

care and research equipment, and our Latino pool and our collections information system and facilities maintenance were reduced 

investments for research, education and outreach and imposed a 

hiring freeze, and did not backfill critical curatorial and staff positions. We did this to ensure we had funding to allow us to bridge 

the early impact of sequestration. 

Although holding these funds back has affected our basic operations, it allowed us to continue to serve the American people in 

the short term, keeping our museums open and continuing to deliver all the educational materials we had promised. However, we 

now see the full impact of sequestration, and we will face hard decisions for 2014. We have little budget flexibility remaining. 

Sequestration will affect almost everything we do. We expect to 

have to close some of the galleries in our museums through the end 

of this fiscal year. We will reduce the ability to offer new exhibitions and programs for next year. It certainly will impact our research capacity. It will slow the process of digitization, which we 

are very excited about for the future of the Smithsonian. It will 

defer needed maintenance and hamper educational outreach. 

Previous actions that we undertook this year will become permanent with a prolonged sequester and will translate into permanent 

staff reduction. Sequestration will also affect our budget in areas 

that we believe are already underfunded, such as facilities maintenance and collections care. Sequestration also could affect the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Interrupting its funding for construction could increase its cost in later 

phases and might delay acquiring the right numbers of personnel 

to open the museum. 

For 167 years, the Smithsonian has served our Nation as a 

source of inspiration and discovery. Our goal is to create a Smithsonian for the 21st century that gives all Americans a chance to benefit from this remarkable institution. I grew up in a rural town of 

5,000 people in South Georgia, Douglas, Georgia. I paid my way 

through college working as a surveyor for the Louisville National 

Railroad Company. I did not discover the Smithsonian until I was 

an adult. 

When I came here nearly five years ago, I challenged our people 

to reach out to the underserved people of America, and we have 

been doing just that. The sequester is going to limit our progress 

and make it more difficult to achieve that particular goal. 

Again, I thank you for your support. I will be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Clough follows:] 

26 


Insert offset folio 12 here 80900.012
27 


Insert offset folio 13 here 80900.013
28 


Insert offset folio 14 here 80900.014
29 


Insert offset folio 15 here 80900.015
30 


Insert offset folio 16 here 80900.016
31 


Insert offset folio 17 here 80900.017
32 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. I will now recognize myself for first 

round. 

First of all, Mr. Ferriero, Dr. Clough, I appreciate the fact that 

you were able to reach sequestration and I appreciate the detail 

you have given us in writing and now some orally on the cuts. 

I would like to share with you something, just so you know that 

we do feel your pain on this side of the dais. In 2011, Congress, 

the House specifically, cut our budgets in real dollars, this is not 

Compton dollars, we cut 5 percent over the previous year. In 2012, 

the Speaker reiterated and we cut 6.4 percent. This year, the budget decreased on my staff, on the ranking member’s staff, 10 percent. 

We are 21.4 percent less than we were in 2010, and those are 

written dollars. Obviously due to inflation, it is a greater amount 

than that. And the ranking member is right: we have had to make 

some decisions, and I don’t make light of it. We have also, I hope, 

begun the process of asking, can we be smarter. Here in the House, 

for 11 years I asked, why is it we are using a phone system that 

isn’t voice over IP? Why do we in fact buy countless lines that normally go down when somebody decides to attack our phones by 

endlessly calling because they don’t like some piece of legislation? 

And the answer was, well, we will get to it. Well, now that they 

figured it could pay for itself in less than three years, we are getting to it quicker. So necessity is the mother of invention. 

Doctor, in your case, I believe, if I understood your statement, 

many of the ways that you achieved this year’s sequestration was 

in fact unsustainable going forward, that without material changes 

in revenue, perhaps philanthropic revenue, without potentially taking a 100 percent free museum and charging an entrance, or without cutting services, currently you forecast that you will have to 

make actual cuts in service. Is that a summation? 

Mr. CLOUGH. Our goal, obviously, is to try to keep our museums 

open. Because the American people come here, some plan for a lifetime to make their visits here. We recognize the importance of our 

services there. 

We are going through a process now that will allow us to understand and appreciate exactly how we can accommodate these cuts 

in the long run. 

Chairman ISSA. And I would reiterate our offer, that if we receive 

an adjustment request from any fund from any part of government, 

I have agreed to author it and send it up for consideration to the 

House immediately. That would include in order to maintain the 

schedule on the African American portion, your new portion that 

is under construction. You figure out how we should reallocate 

funds and I personally will author it. I am sure the ranking member will be my co-sponsor, so at least you get immediate consideration. 

Mr. Ferriero, I think yours is a great example where there are 

services that are being prioritized lower. But in fact, you began this 

process quite a bit earlier. Was that really what gave you the advantage, perhaps, over the Park Service, is when you began making, for example, hiring freezes? 

Mr. FERRIERO. I am sure that that put us in a good position. It 

forced the agency to analyze every opening and make a decision, 

33 

is there a smarter way to do the work, is the work a core mission. 

And it created a kind of urgency within the agency around reduced 

funds. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Jarvis, you said earlier that you began process of polling, figuring out where money could be saved. But that 

was actually not for sequestration, that was just for the 2013 budget. Isn’t it true that it wasn’t until January 25th, many, many days 

after sequestration was clearly a law of the land, that you then 

sent out the request for information from your 400? This is actually, again, I know it is not you, it says the United States Department of Interior, but it does say National Park Service underneath. 

And it was sent with your signature, and that is the 25th of January, to regional directors, associate and assistant directors of the 

Park Service. 

I understand that is the one that generated this one-page request. Isn’t that true? Isn’t that when you polled people to say, to 

400 plus locations, how can we save money? 

Mr. JARVIS. Mr. Chairman, our first memo to the field regarding 

anticipation of a very, very conservative fiscal year actually went 

out in June of 2012. 

Chairman ISSA. No, I understand. But sequestration appears to 

have, and I am going to quote from your own letter, ‘‘This memorandum and the attached materials outline the actions you are directed to take to develop a sequestration plan in response to the 

Administration and Congress.’’ Now, I don’t know any other way to 

say it, but you haven’t given us any evidence that you did something before that. And my time is very limited, I don’t want to run 

any further over. And there will be a second round of questioning. 

But my only question to you at this moment is, why is it, when 

on January 25th you sent it out, in March we request these documents specifically, that 400 or so of these documents, one page 

long, shouldn’t be given to us as turned in? In other words, make 

a xerox copy for yourself. But since we have a right to see it as it 

was turned in, what lawyer has any right not to turn those 400 

plus documents over to us? And I want that answered, because we 

are used to getting what we call rolling discovery on this committee. We get the easy stuff first, we get the slightly harder to collate second and we get the stuff the lawyers have to go over endlessly, usually we call that the embarrassing stuff, last. 

In this case, if these are embarrassing, they certainly are not 

hard to gather, you have them all in a single stack on somebody’s 

desk. And they are pretty straightforward, they are a one-pager directly from people you trust. 

And in your opening statement, you said you wanted to essentially make sure they were all the same. These documents, from 

what we can tell, are the best source of finding out where one out 

of 400 people had a great idea, and you should send out to the 

other 399 or 400 and some, hey, what about so and so that this 

park service came up with in their memo answer. We can’t know 

what that says until you deliver those documents. Quite frankly, if 

you made a look over your shoulder to one of your assistants, we 

could have it before the end of this hearing. 

With that, I yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. 

34 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. MICA. At what point in the proceedings would it be appropriate, if I was to offer a motion to subpoena those 400 documents 

for the committee? 

Chairman ISSA. It is now being heard, but I would consider at 

this hearing that that motion would probably not come to be in 

order, or if so, it would be suspended until the end. 

Mr. MICA. I would be prepared when it is appropriate and at 

what hearing to offer that motion. I yield back 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. We now recognize the 

ranking member. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Not a part of my time, just a further parliamentary inquiry. 

Chairman ISSA. Of course. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, as you well know, we do everything in our power to try to avoid subpoenas. 

Chairman ISSA. Including here. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. One of my questions was going to be, and 

I heard Mr. Jarvis saying that counsel for the Interior controls 

things. I am trying to figure out how we can expedite that and get 

the records. I know you don’t have control. And maybe that is a 

discussion that would come up with regard to the motion. But it 

just seems like there is something, there is somebody we should be 

looking at in the counsel to get things done. As I understand it, the 

records are ready to roll, right? 

Chairman ISSA. And I agree with the gentleman that we are 

shooting the messenger some. But I recognize that within the hierarchy of the Administration, it is not exclusively within your jurisdiction. So I think the gentleman is right. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Would the gentleman yield on this? Would the 

gentleman yield for one moment? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I didn’t know I had time. 

Chairman ISSA. He has all the time in the world. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thought that you had recognized the ranking 

member. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I just wanted to say that I came in a little bit 

late, when you were going over this data, or lack of getting this 

data. I just want to say, as the chairman of the Natural Resources 

Committee, this is a pattern that I see very, very prevalent in Department of Interior, just asking for documents. It is very frustrating to me, and for the ranking member, how you get this is, it 

should be information that should be shared with us. I have a deep 

sense of frustration when I talk to my oversight people, and I see 

that shared with you. Hopefully we can shake that loose here. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It is my hope, and I said this earlier, that we 

will shake that loose. I said to Mr. Jarvis that I agree with the 

Chairman, there are documents that we must have. And that they 

must take reasonable actions to make sure we get those documents. Because you are usually not around to hear this statement 

that I make, we have a limited amount of time here. We have to 

be effective and efficient. If they are blocking us from being effecVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:18 May 29, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\80900.TXT APRIL
35 

tive and efficient, then we have to do what we have to do to make 

sure we can be that. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And I noted Mr. Jarvis’ response, he had the information but apparently there was somebody higher, I understand 

there has to be some review, don’t misunderstand. But boy, that 

seems to be very prevalent with the Department of Interior from 

my point of view. 

I thank the gentleman for the recognition. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman is recognized for his round of 

questions. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. To all of you all, I want 

to thank you for your testimony. To Mr. Clough, you provided me 

with a moment of, an emotional moment, actually, because you 

were talking about trying to make sure, you realize that people 

came to Washington and maybe they had planned the trip for so 

long. 

Sometimes, Mr. Clough, I sit out in front of the Smithsonian, or 

in front of a park in this area, and I watch the families. The reason 

why I say it is emotional for me, is although I lived in Baltimore, 

the first time I went to a Smithsonian Institution, I was 21 years 

old. So I know what you are talking about when you say people 

plan these trips, and the mothers and fathers are excited, they 

have talked about it, they have read books about it, the kids are 

pumped up. 

And that leads me to my question, and what I started with earlier. I assume that you all really want the public to enjoy those experiences. I tell people, people in my district, although they live 40 

miles away, they are in the same position I am. Some of them are 

18, 19, 20 years old, and have never even been to D.C. Never been 

to the District, and they are 40 miles away. They don’t even know 

about some of the parks and the things you offer. They don’t even 

know about them. 

But when they come with their families and their eyes are 

opened to what this Nation is all about, it gives them a vision of 

what they can be. So I am assuming that you all feel the same way 

I feel, that you want these families, just like you would want for 

your own family, to have the maximum exposure to whatever you 

are offering, Park Service, Smithsonian, that they can have this. Is 

that a fair question? Is that true? 

Briefly, Mr. Clough. 

Mr. CLOUGH. Absolutely. And the American people in essence 

have already paid for the Smithsonian. They have paid for the 

buildings in large part, and they paid for the collections. So we are 

thrilled when they make that all-important visit to come to our 

museums. And we want to maximize it. 

One way we are trying to connect with people is digitally. We can 

reach everybody digitally. And a lot of young people who may not 

think initially about museums use these digital devices. So we are 

developing a lot of mobile apps to get people encouraged to think 

about the Smithsonian. We encourage them to communicate with 

us. In the past, they couldn’t do that. But with these mobile devices, they can communicate with us. And when they come, they 

can tell us whether they liked or didn’t like the visit or we need 

to work on it. 

36 

So we are really working hard to try to communicate and after 

people leave to provide them with supplemental materials about 

what they saw. And to particularly provide it to teachers, so teachers can wrap that into the bigger experience. 

But clearly, every person who visits the Smithsonian walks way 

with this one thing in mind, I have seen something very special 

that I may only see once in my lifetime, and that is maybe the 

most important thing we have done. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And I assume you two gentlemen feel the same 

way? Is that accurate? Be brief, because I have another question. 

Mr. Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. Certainly that is our mission, to provide these extraordinary locations, over 400 of them, to not only the American 

public, but to the entire world. That is what we do and we do it 

well. 

Mr. FERRIERO. And we collect and protect the records of the 

Country, so that the American public can hold their government 

accountable for their actions. And we also believe in civic literacy. 

Civics is not being taught in schools any more. We have a huge responsibility to educate that K–12 community about how their government works. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. To me, the question I am about to ask you is the 

question of the day. So listen carefully. I believe you, I believe that 

your mission is to bring light to life for the American people. I believe that you think about it 24–7, you are trying to figure it out. 

So when sequestration came about, first of all, did you get some 

commands from up high saying, close this, don’t close that, don’t 

close this? And how were these decisions made? 

This is the question. How were the decisions made in relationship to what the appropriators told you to do under sequestration? 

What limitations did you have? That is what we need to know. Because I am sitting up here and I am thinking, maybe we ought to 

be apologizing to you all. We are the ones who are responsible for 

sequestration, we are, because of what we didn’t do. 

So would you answer my question, one by one? 

Mr. CLOUGH. I think that particular challenge with sequestration 

was, even though we had a understanding this would happen, was 

the short period of time in which we have to implement it. So there 

is this immediate response that we have tried to develop that will 

allow us to minimize the impact on the public. As we are moving 

on our next stage, we are looking at how we deal with this in the 

long term and taking again the guiding principle, let’s try to protect the public’s interest. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And is that guided by our legislative, what we 

have done up here in Washington, in Congress, sequestration, that 

is? 

Mr. CLOUGH. Unfortunately, sequestration is an across the board 

cut. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Jarvis, I only have a few minutes. 

Mr. JARVIS. First of all, we received no commands from on high 

about how to implement this. We did this from the bottom up, from 

the park level. The decisions were made at the park level, we did 

review them for consistency. 

37 

To your question about, yes, the way that the sequestration law 

was written required us to take it at the park-program level. We 

were not given reprogramming authority, we were not given transfer authority. So we were not allowed to move money around to 

balance this out. It was a very, very difficult law to implement 

halfway through the year, as well, an across the board, line by line 

budget reduction. 

Mr. FERRIERO. Four appropriation categories, 5 percent for each. 

And OMB directives gave guidance around other things to be looking at, like travel, conferences, and those kinds of activities. We 

were very lucky, early in my administration, to have hired a new 

chief financial officer. So from the very beginning of my assuming 

my job, we have been giving new fiscal attention to the National 

Archives budget. So I am very thankful for this new chief financial 

officer’s advice. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. [Presiding] Thank you, and I will recognize myself for 

a round of questions. 

This may not be the highlight of the hearings held on Capitol 

Hill today. Nonetheless, it is very important. The three individuals 

before us have some of the most important responsibilities, I believe, in our government. You are the stewards of our national 

treasures, whether it is Mr. Jarvis with our parks and the things 

that he oversees that we are stewards for of the public, the Smithsonian director, some of our treasures, and our records and documents in the Archives. You have several different examples of how 

we have had to address responsible financial commitments. The 

Congress has to deal with issues, huge issues of incredible public 

indebtedness. Everyone knew some of this was coming. 

You have two excellent examples as to how this was handled 

fairly appropriately. I think the Archives did an excellent job in the 

review of the documents, preparing the new. The Smithsonian likewise limited the impact but planned in advance. I am disturbed to 

read that the National Park Services, and specifically the acting 

Parks director, gave specific instructions and got some of the language to continue, spending sort of unabated, not planning for the 

future. You are aware of that directive, Mr. Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. I am not sure what you are referring to, sir. 

Mr. MICA. It is an OMB directive and it was, well, also we have 

in January of, January 25th of 2013, the Park Director, that is you, 

said you expect it will result in a reduction to visitors service 

hours, of operation shortening, of reasons and possible closing of 

areas. That was your statement back then. Then we have a directive from OMB, July 31st, 2012, and the acting director, Jeffrey 

Zentz, instructed agencies to continue normal spending and operations, since more than five months remained for Congress to act. 

So you have the Administration directing you, and again, your 

lack of taking any anticipatory action and your statement in January. You have two agencies that did act in a proper manner and 

now we are faced with, and I thought I heard you say, too, you are 

going to cut Park Service police. Did you have numbers there? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. We anticipate, since we had to absorb the 

$5.1 million cut in the U.S. Park Police operating budget, we are 

38 

anticipating furloughing each of the 767 employees of the U.S. 

Park Police for up to 14 days. 

Mr. MICA. Given the events of the last 24 hours, do you think 

you will also continue with that directive? 

Mr. JARVIS. We are going to ensure that our responsibilities, particularly for icon security, are maintained at current levels. That 

will require reductions in some our outlying responsibilities. 

Mr. MICA. How many people work at the National Park Service 

in Washington, D.C.? I am talking about the office, administrative 

personnel. 

Mr. JARVIS. I am not sure of that. 

Mr. MICA. Anyone have an idea? Five hundred, a thousand? 

Mr. JARVIS. Can I ask for clarification on the question? You said 

how many administrative? 

Mr. MICA. Again, not National Park Service officers, but how 

many administrative people, how many in your headquarters? Nobody has a clue? 

Mr. JARVIS. About 900 here in Washington. 

Mr. MICA. And it would appear to me, if you had the authority, 

that some of these people could be moved around and we could address some of the services that we provide to the public including 

important security service. Would that be possible if you had that 

authority? 

Mr. JARVIS. What we would need, and we have talked about this 

before, is we need transfer authority. The sequestration law did not 

allow us to move expenses between accounts. And so it came down, 

as we have said, line by line, existing budget. The only way we 

could do that, where if you affected one program and used it in another, was if we had transfer authority. 

Mr. MICA. The other thing too is that when you face a situation 

like this, you have to put in, implementing measures. I have visited 

many of the parks across the Nation. I have one of the little passes 

and all of that. But I have always been impressed with the volunteer programs and there are hundreds of thousands of volunteers 

that would step up if asked. Has there been a specific plan to implement the use of volunteers, given the budget challenges that you 

face? 

Mr. JARVIS. Absolutely. We have an incredible group of volunteers out there, about 180,000 volunteers. 

Mr. MICA. Have you had a new plan since you have heard about 

these budget cuts, and could you provide the committee with a 

copy? 

Mr. JARVIS. We have not implemented any new plan at the park 

level. At each individual park level, they are working to find new 

sources of funding. Friends groups are stepping up, philanthropy. 

Even in some cases communities are providing support and funding. In some cases States are stepping up to provide assistance in 

getting roads open. 

Mr. MICA. And finally, there may be some suggestions from some 

of those parks in those 400 documents that you sent out. When do 

you think we will be able to get those? Any idea? 

Mr. JARVIS. As soon as they are reviewed at the Department. I 

have no problem with sending them to you. They are perfectly legitimate details. 

39 

Mr. MICA. I have additional questions I will submit for the 

record. 

I recognize Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. It would be Mr. Davis’ time. If he would yield to 

me? 

Mr. MICA. Okay, Mr. Davis, your time? 

Mr. DAVIS. I will yield. 

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that very much. It is Emancipation 

Day in the District, and they are about to embark on a parade, the 

least emancipated city in the United States is about to march in 

an Emancipation Day parade. Take that and see what you can do 

with it. 

Let me just quickly go through a few questions. Dr. Clough, you 

indicate, of course, and some of the questions you’ve heard from my 

colleagues apparently don’t always digest the process or notion that 

these are across the board cuts. You indicated that there might be 

some slowdown in the African American museum. I want to know, 

what was the President’s budget for the African American museum, how much was it cut, if it was. 

Mr. CLOUGH. There was a cut of about $5 million, the percentage 

was taken, because it was an across the board cut, directly out of 

the construction budget. Fortunately, the budget was funded at $75 

million this year. So we can keep the budget going. But as we have 

to absorb additional cuts, that could present a problem for us. 

Ms. NORTON. What about sequester? Has that affected the African American museum? 

Mr. CLOUGH. That was the sequester cut that affected the construction cost. 

Ms. NORTON. I see. 

Mr. CLOUGH. It also affects the staffing funding that we need, because staffing has to grow now to get ready for the opening. 

Ms. NORTON. I recognize that as we ask all of you questions, I 

am interested in all three of your agencies. Because this is, of 

course, a tourist destination. And we are in the middle of, the season is beginning full-fledged now. I also recognize that each of 

these agencies is, like most of the Federal Government, labor-intensive. 

Mr. Jarvis, I know a lot about the underfunding of the Capitol 

Police and of the Park Service because you own most of the parks 

in the District of Columbia and because of my work on the mall. 

I was amazed to find, though, is this figure correct, that the National Park Service budget is only one-fourteenth of the Federal 

budget? 

Mr. JARVIS. I don’t know what percentage we are. I know it is 

very small. 

Ms. NORTON. I wish you would confirm or not that. Because my 

office says that is what it is. That will be, of course, quite amazing, 

considering that it is a nationwide service. 

Do the parks produce economic return? As one-fourteenth of the 

budget, what kind of economic return do you produce for the Country? 

Mr. JARVIS. It is a ten to one return. For every dollar invested in the National Park Service, there is $10 returned to the American economy. 

40 

Ms. NORTON. I understand, I am already receiving calls, for example, because there was a story run about closing some of the 

late-night hours at the mall. I said, well, what is late-night hour, 

and apparently because of the beauty of the Lincoln Memorial and 

the lights, we have had that memorial open with some staff there, 

including restrooms, until 11:30. And then we are told, well, it 

might be 10:00 o’clock. I must say, if you are sitting where I am 

sitting and seeing the cuts you are making, that might not seem 

so bad. Because at least it could go until night, and people could 

see the Lincoln Memorial and the mall in all of its night-time glory. 

Are you considering reducing the hours of the restrooms and of 

the late-night, the night-time visitation to the mall? And is it true 

that this is not related to sequestration? 

Mr. JARVIS. Let me assure you that the monuments and memorials are open 24 hours a day. The question is, whether or not they 

are staffed for rangers to do interpretive programs. As with any organization, we are constantly looking for efficiencies. At the lowest 

period, we realized that after 10:00 p.m. the station drops, not to 

zero, but it drops significantly. And so as a part of our cost savings, 

we are looking at reducing the ranger presence, not security, not 

closing the facilities, but after 10:00 p.m. 

Ms. NORTON. How about the National Mall? This is the time of 

year when we have major events on the National Mall. I know 

what has just happened in Boston. Nevertheless, you must be preparing for events like July 4th. We ourselves have National Dance 

Day on the Mall. There are many activities on the Mall, precisely 

because of the season. 

What are you doing to, especially in light of what happened yesterday, to enhance the security of the mall, in light of sequestration 

and cuts that you say will also come to the Capitol Police? 

Mr. JARVIS. We host a number of events on this Mall. Obviously 

the 4th of July, Rolling Thunder, certainly this year we have the 

March on Washington And these are very, very important events 

for the American public, as certainly for the District. We intend to 

hold them all. Obviously our responsibilities for the public safety 

and security and good experience for everyone is at the top of our 

responsibilities. 

That does mean, though, for instance, the 4th of July costs the 

National Park Service over $1 million for that one day, operating 

budget, for overtime, for security, screening, for traffic control, all 

of those things. That means we still have to absorb that cut somewhere else, and that is basically what we are looking at in terms 

of reducing overall overtime for our U.S. Park Police, looking at 

how we can reduce in some of the outlying areas, so that we can 

cover these major events. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope some members will 

join me in asking that the Congress look again, in light of the Boston tragedy, at the cuts that are occurring to public safety as a result of this sequestration. Because these events must go on. And 

I am not convinced that, with these services and these police agencies not able to move around money, that we will have in place the 

same kind of security that we have enjoyed in the past. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. I recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Walberg. 

41 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

panel for taking our questions and responding today. 

In light of what has been talked about this morning, and some 

comments made, I think we need to go back in history a little bit 

and remember that when the President offered the sequester, as an 

alternative to dealing with the budget deficit and debt we all 

should have known was there, he undoubtedly thought that the 

House Majority wasn’t serious about the deficit or debt. 

When he signed it, he probably thought it would never go into 

effect, the thought of across the board. We cut good programs along 

with unnecessary programs without any real discretion. However, 

I think the three of you and others at the front line of leading very 

important functions that our citizens expect to see and that their 

tax dollars pay for, I being one, Mr. Jarvis, who started out my university career majoring in forestry and land management, love the 

out of doors. My favorite place on earth is Glacier National Park. 

I will be in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park here in just 

a few short weeks. So I understand the taxpayer loves these places 

and should be afforded their opportunity. 

But you must have been worried, as you looked at it and said, 

well, they can be political and they can do their fighting in Washington, but ultimately it comes down to what we have to do for the 

projects that we have the Departments, the functions we have and 

the citizens we serve. Did any of you make contact with the Administration through whatever sources you have available to you and 

what chain of command you have, did any of you make contact 

with the Administration to call for caution and reality in dealing 

with other ways of approaching our budget concerns and still keeping the functions in place that you see as priority? Any of you can 

go first. 

Mr. FERRIERO. I did not. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. Our contacts were principally with the Office of Management and Budget, as we were implementing the sequester order 

or planning for it. We had been planning for this well in advance 

and we were making them as aware as possible that they were 

going to have direct impacts on the ground in every one of the national parks. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Clough? 

Mr. CLOUGH. We had no direct contact other than the normal 

OMB processes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Let me follow this up, then. Mr. Jarvis, you indicated you made contact, and the others, through OMB to some degree. But it doesn’t sound like a great amount of intensity was put 

toward this issue. Mr. Jarvis, you have referred to the sequester 

cuts as sudden and significant in your full testimony. Can you explain to me how something that has been on the horizon since August of 2011 qualifies as sudden? 

Mr. JARVIS. What I mean by sudden is that we anticipated the 

sequester in January. The later in the fiscal year that we get the 

sequester, the more difficult it is for an operational agency like the 

National Park Service. So we, in spite of what is being stated here, 

we anticipated this and planned well in advance. Otherwise, we 

wouldn’t have 1,300 permanent vacancies and saved ourselves $43 

42 

million. That is actually what is saving the public appreciation and 

use of the parks, is that we are able to hire seasonals and backfill 

that this coming summer for its prime operation. 

So we had anticipated it. We just didn’t know when it was going 

to come. And coming this late in the year makes it much more difficult to absorb in the last remaining months. 

Mr. WALBERG. We had an idea of when it was going to come by 

the date that it was set initially for certain. And then pushed off. 

Also, the issue of significant. When the American taxpayers had 

to tighten their budgets significantly over the past number of 

years, including our House budgets, committee and individual staff 

offices, a 5 percent cut. No matter how mindless that is, when it 

is across the board, compared to 7.4 percent higher level of funding 

for your department, since 2008. I say there has to be better ways 

of dealing with the increased dollars, preparing for the sequester. 

But also as I stated earlier, if there was great concern about this, 

it boggles my mind that there wasn’t intense pressure put on the 

Administration to say, you know something, Congress just might 

let sequestration happen. This is the impact it will have. We can’t 

suffer it. 

The question that I would ask, and I see my time has expired, 

Mr. Chairman, but I will submit it for the record, of asking direct 

questions on how Congress can help each of you in your responsibilities to achieve further efficiencies and save more of the American taxpayers’ money. Maybe in the second round of questions I 

can add to that. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. They can answer. We have been giving everybody a 

few minutes. If you want to quickly respond. 

Mr. WALBERG. I appreciate that. Let me ask the question again. 

What can Congress do to help you achieve further efficiencies and 

save more of the American taxpayers’ money? 

Mr. JARVIS. For the National Park Service, because of the way 

our budget is crafted, which is park by park, we would need what 

is known as transfer authority. 

Mr. WALBERG. I have that written down. What else? 

Mr. JARVIS. One thing I want to mention is that the National 

Park Service will be celebrating its 100th anniversary in 2016. We 

do have a legislative package that we are submitting through our 

authorizing committees that would grant additional authorities for 

philanthropy, for cooperative agreements to work with our private 

sector partners in a much more entrepreneurial and innovative 

way to bring that side to the operation and financial health of the 

organization. We would be glad to work with you on that. 

Mr. MICA. Do the other two witnesses want to quickly respond? 

Mr. CLOUGH. I would just say that it would help us, I have been 

in the non-profit sector as an executive for a long time, president 

of a university. We need stability. It would be helpful for us to have 

more stability and a long range view of the budget so we can plan. 

It is difficult to plan now because things are not stable. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, I would suggest you talk with the Senate 

about that. I agree with you, stability is important. Mr. Ferriero? 

Mr. FERRIERO. This committee has done some great work in 

marking up PRA, Presidential Records Act, Federal Records Act, 

43 

legislation. I would encourage pushing that forward. That would be 

a great help to us. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. We will turn now to the gentleman from 

Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much. 

So just to put this in a little context, it seems to me what we 

are dealing with here is a massive act of legislative malpractice, 

and then an attempt to blame it on the people that have to deal 

with the consequences on that. That happens when you go around 

ideologically trying to convince the American people that every 

dime spent of your tax money is wasted in fraud or abuse, and then 

go around exclaiming that you want to make cuts but don’t have 

the political courage to actually determine where the cuts are going 

to be. 

And certainly nobody here should be under the illusion that Congress abdicated its authority and gave the President discretion of 

where to cut. Because if they had a full appreciation of the sequestration law and its reference back to early iterations, they would 

know that as you have already discussed, every program, project 

and activity has to suffer the cuts. 

So this is a consequence of that malpractice that people should 

have known, I suspect many of them didn’t know what they were 

doing in that regard. And so we all should be concerned that that 

is what is going on. We should not be looking to all of you to lay 

blame as to what you implemented. Your hands were tied, just as 

those people that were interested in pushing on the sequestration 

tied their own hands behind their back, laid down on the rails and 

screamed when the train came, on that basis. 

So looking forward, I have some real concerns. If this stays in, 

and it sounds like my colleagues are all excited about having sequestration stay, in fact, its mindless arbitrary cuts will continue 

on that basis, what is it going to do for the National Parks’ impact 

on local communities’ economic well-being? Mr. Jarvis, in my community alone, we have a number of groups that work regularly 

with the Park Service. It really enhances the economy of that district, all the way up and down the coast, all the way from the Atlantic Ocean to the Merrimac River. It is very important for them. 

So what do you envision for the future, if these cuts stay in effect? What is the Park Service going to have to do as it goes forward? I suspect that you can’t have the seasonal hirings backfilling 

for the others as a future plan of how you are going to react, right? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. These cuts, if they remain, really creates a 

significant problem for the National Park Service. The impacts will 

accumulate, particularly to the gateway communities. Many of our 

gateway communities, as you well know, their economies are based 

on the tourism that comes to our national parks. They basically 

succeed based on their shoulder seasons. Many of these operations 

can’t survive on a three-month, they need a five-month season. As 

a consequence, we are having to reduce, in those shoulder seasons. 

In talking to our hospitality association, they are concerned that 

people are not booking. They are already seeing a reduction in 

bookings as a result of the American public feeling that the parks 

are not going to be available to them or services will be reduced. 

44 

So I think this is a significant problem over the long term for us, 

if the sequester reductions do apply. 

I just want to make one very strong point that the National Park 

Service is, as with my colleagues here, these are investments that 

need to be made that have reaped great benefit to the American 

public. We draw international visitors from around the world. We 

provide extraordinary experiences for the American public. And we 

return ten to one to the economy. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I couldn’t agree with you more. I am as frustrated 

as you and others that this mindless sort of approach to things 

would be taken on that basis. Congress could have given the President the authority to do this in a way that was flexible, which he 

then could have passed on to all you folks. But of course, they 

chose not to give up their authority in that regard. But they also 

chose not to take their responsibility in identifying where they 

thought all of this waste, fraud and abuse was, identify it and then 

give you a plan going forward. 

So Mr. Clough, let me ask you, the Smithsonian, I understand, 

by now plans to defer preventive maintenance, facility inspections, 

technology upgrades, is that correct? 

Mr. CLOUGH. That is correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. How long can you continue to defer those costs 

under this plan without some really significant damage to what it 

is you see as your mission? 

Mr. CLOUGH. It is a cumulative toll. In time, it gets worse and worse. We normally by industry standards should get about $100 

million a year, given our facilities base. But a lot of it is historic, 

and we are open every day of the year but one, so it is heavily 

used. And we have to keep our energy supplies going almost continuously, because we have collections, valuable collections in the 

museum. 

And we should nominally have about $100 million a year. We have been running about $75 million, and sequester is going to cut 

that down now by probably another $5 million. And that obviously 

cumulativly will take its toll. 

Now, what we try to do is to examine each and every case. We 

have a priority list, and we try to attack that priority list each and 

every year that we can when we are doing our work. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Now, do you term all that waste, fraud and abuse? 

Is that the way you think spending that money is? 

Mr. CLOUGH. We don’t obviously see that as waste, fraud and 

abuse. I would say we are working hard to use technology to increase our productivity. I talk a lot about digitization at the Smithsonian as creating access, which it does. But it also, as we digitize 

our collections, it is less wear and tear on the collections. For example, we have lots of re-enactors who love to come see our Civil 

War uniforms. If we can show them a great digital image and they 

don’t need to actually hold in their hands the real thing, it cuts 

down on wear and tear in the collection. 

So we are trying to invest in new technologies to help us address 

some of these problems. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Hasn’t the Inspector General given you some pretty 

good recommendations on how to improve your maintenance and 

preservation of all your collections? 

45 

Mr. CLOUGH. Yes. We have a very good Inspector General, and 

we pay very close attention to the recommendations from the Inspector General. In some cases they recommend things that they 

believe will reduce costs, but in some cases their recommendations 

actually increase costs. They go to a collection center and find that 

we don’t have up to date cabinets, for example, it costs us money 

to put those cabinets in. So from time to time, the Inspector General’s recommendations will actually increase our costs. 

But we pay very close attention to their recommendations. 

Mr. TIERNEY. What is going to be the practical implication to the 

Smithsonian if you are not able to implement their recommendations? 

Mr. CLOUGH. Well, we hope we will continue to do our very best 

to meet those recommendations. And we have a board of regents 

and we discuss these issues with our board of regents very carefully, six members of Congress are on our board. And we take these 

recommendations very seriously. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman, and recognize now the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bentivolio. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, is there ever a case where a program has more than 

enough funding? 

[No audible response.] 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. That is what I thought. How about, I understand that the National Park Service, Mr. Jarvis, spent $7 million 

in bonuses to employees in 2011. Did the National Park Service 

issue bonuses in 2012? 

Mr. JARVIS. Not yet. We have reconsidered all bonuses and have 

put them through a second review, looking at only those that are 

required by law. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Is there criteria for giving bonuses? Is that 

readily available for me to review or for the committee to look at? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Okay. Could you provide the committee with information on where I can find that? Thank you very much. Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. MICA. No further questions. Then let’s see, Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our 

representatives from Archives and National Park Service and 

Smithsonian. 

I am kind of perplexed by this conversation today. Because if the 

American people don’t want to increase their taxes, that is their 

choice. And then there is a shrinking in the services that we provide. Now, to Dr. Clough, in terms of the Smithsonian, it is an extraordinary gift to the American people. And in many respects, I 

think postponing deferred maintenance is a problem and it should 

be something that you think long and hard before you forego that. 

But have we come to a point in time where offering the Smithsonian free to everyone is something we can afford? The Newseum 

charges $25 a person. Have you explored whether or not charging 

$5 a person, children free, would be something that would augment 

your budget significantly? 

46 

Mr. CLOUGH. We have talked a lot about that. I think my general 

philosophy, I will tell you that first, and then I want to indicate 

that my board of regents are very much in support of keeping the 

admission free to the Smithsonian, is that the American people 

paid for the buildings, they paid for the collections. I don’t think 

they should have to pay a third time to get into the museum. 

If you look at the demographics of the people coming to the 

Smithsonian, many of them do not have a lot of money. I walk the 

mall, I stand in front of the museums, and I watch the folks go in. 

Many of them don’t even buy food in our museums. They go back 

outside and they eat their lunches outside. And there is a great joy 

in their ability to go into one museum and then go into the next 

museum without having to worry about the admissions cost. 

Admissions, if you want to apply them, cost to collect. There 

would be an initial big bump in cost, actually, to put in the equipment, to put in the people, to put in the time, to put in the accounting and the oversight all associated with admission. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right, if that is where you are, and I respect that, 

then if the American people are saying no to more taxes, shrink 

government, then we have to comply with that. You need to decide 

where you are going to shrink in terms of the Smithsonian. 

Mr. Ferriero, I have had the opportunity to visit the National Archives on a number of occasions. It is an extraordinary experience, 

there is no question about it. Again, we have to live within our 

means. It is something that we are just going to have to do. 

In terms of providing crucial services to our veterans, documentation so they can get their medals replaced or apply for disability services, whatever it may be, that is critical as a function 

that I think you absolutely have to perform. 

Now, have you costed out what, first of all, do you charge for 

that, and if you don’t charge for it, what does it cost per request? 

Mr. FERRIERO. We have transactional data on what it costs per 

request. I don’t have that at my fingertips. Maybe someone in back 

of me does, $30 per request. 

Ms. SPEIER. And do you presently charge for that? 

Mr. FERRIERO. We do charge for that. 

Ms. SPEIER. Enough to cover the cost? 

Mr. FERRIERO. It covers the cost, that is correct. 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay, that is good to know. 

Mr. FERRIERO. And it is our number one service. The veterans’ 

service is the number one service that the National Archives provides. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Jarvis, in terms of the National Park Service, 

I agree that it is an extraordinary treasure that we have. What do 

you charge now? 

Mr. JARVIS. We charge a variety of different rates, depending on 

the park size. They range from $5 to $20. We collect about $160 

million a year in fees. 

Ms. SPEIER. Is it true that if you are a senior citizen you can buy 

a pass for your lifetime for a certain amount of money? 

Mr. JARVIS. That is correct. 

Ms. SPEIER. And how much is that? 

Mr. JARVIS. Ten dollars. 

47 

Ms. SPEIER. All right, I think we need to look at that. Ten dollars 

for your lifetime, at the age of 65? A lot of people at 65 that can 

pay a little more than $10 for the rest of their life. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for being here today. You all have important positions, and I guess 

part of the reason we are here today is to understand sequester 

and the effects it is having on you. 

I think it is important to look and acknowledge that we as a 

Country have a major debt problem and we have a major spending 

problem. Can you all agree with that? If this was the situation you 

were in in your own home you would probably think you needed 

to make cuts somewhere, would that be correct? Everyone agrees. 

Okay. So sequester was not the perfect outcome, we all know 

that. But I think everyone agrees that we have to do something to 

get our debt and deficit spending under control. And because of the 

failure of the Super Committee, here we are, we have these cuts 

called sequester. 

It is the responsible thing to do to reduce your debt and deficit, 

would you all agree with that? Okay. 

So Mr. Jarvis, do you think that, even though it is the responsible thing to do, do you feel, let me just ask you outright, do you 

feel that maybe you over-exaggerated the effects or the consequences of sequester? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. You think that everything you said was right 

in line as it should have been in terms of you doing your fair share 

to help get rid of some of this debt and deficit? You feel like your 

actions were appropriate? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. In January a memo you wrote that the 

sequester will result in reductions to visitor services, hours of operation, shortening of park seasons and possibly closing park areas. 

Yet in March, you told the Hill there will be no park closures, that 

you are not closing down. So which is it? 

Mr. JARVIS. Two different things. I said, and I stand by it, that 

we are not closing any national park units. There are no national 

parks that are closing. What we are doing is reducing the operating 

hours, reducing services at some of them and reducing the rangerled programs as well as maintenance. So you really have two options. You can close parks, and to take a $113 million cut, we could 

close maybe 70 to 100 smaller parks, or we could close all parks 

in the system for up to a month, or you spread the impact across 

all units. You really have only those options. So we chose to spread 

the impact across all units, reducing services but not actually closing any individual park. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. In your testimony today you stated NPS 

excluded from furloughs positions that are required to ensure the 

health and safety of visitors. Yet you also said that due to sequestration, if there is an emergency, it might be slower to get our folks 

out of there. So why are you saying emergency response times 

might be slower, while you are also saying you are not furloughing 

health and safety personnel? 

48 

Mr. JARVIS. We are not furloughing health and safety employees, 

but we did not hire 900 permanent positions, which includes some 

our law enforcement and EMS and firefighting employees, as well 

as we are not hiring 1,000 seasonals. Our seasonal operation is the 

lifeblood of the field rangers that are out there responding in the 

summer. If I don’t have as many employees on the ground, that is 

going to have a direct result in response time. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So do you worry about the safety of visitors 

then, because of sequestration? 

Mr. JARVIS. I always worry about the safety of our visitors. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. I am assuming then you have asked Congress 

for the ability to reprogram search and rescue funds? 

Mr. JARVIS. We have requested through OMB that we have some 

reprogramming and transfer authority. But we have not received 

it. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. I thought the question about bonuses was very 

interesting as well. It is something that the private sector doesn’t 

fully understand, how the law requires the Federal Government to 

pay more. I will be interested to see what exactly that is. 

You said in your testimony that finding long-term efficiencies 

within park-based budgets is challenging and that NPS strives to 

eliminate contracted services that could be deferred within minimal 

short-term repercussions. But since August 2011, when the President signed legislation that mandated sequestration, NPS entered 

into 45 advertising contract totaling more than $5 million. Are you 

aware that the President signed legislation August of 2011 mandating sequestration, correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. Though the sequester wasn’t implemented until 

March of this year. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, but you knew it was signed, you were 

just hoping for the best, that it wouldn’t happen? 

Mr. JARVIS. I really don’t know what you are talking about. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Why did you enter into more than $5 million in advertising contracts, including a $58,000 contract for a solar-powered message board, knowing that this might be coming? 

Mr. JARVIS. I am unaware of those contracts. I don’t know what 

you would be referring to in terms of advertising contracts. We 

don’t purchase advertising. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. You said that sequester would result in 

such things like trash not getting collected, restrooms not being 

cleaned, toilet paper being out, road not being plowed, less interpreters on the ground, is that correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. And those are things that people would notice, 

wouldn’t they? 

Mr. JARVIS. There probably would be some notice of that, yes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Well, you are aware that your budget staff told 

committee staff that they were not sure 99 percent of visitors 

would even notice the cuts? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think what they are referring to is that in the peak 

season, which is really the middle of the summer, that most visitors would not notice, because that is what we have done. It is the 

shoulder seasons, when the visitation is significantly lower, that 

there would be notice of those impacts. 

49 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. I just think it is important we do something responsible as a Country, even if sequestration is not the perfect way to do it. Using messaging to basically scare people into 

thinking that doing something responsible has to be painful is really unnecessary. I know that you don’t think you did that, but some 

of this evidence would point otherwise. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, 

gentlemen, for coming and sharing with us this morning. 

The Executive Order for implementing the sequester was issued 

in late March. Federal agencies are now beginning to implement 

across the board cuts required by statutory language and determine how precisely the cuts will impact their mission and the public. It appears to me that many agencies, including those before us 

today, planned for the possibility of cuts since last year. I would 

like to better understand what went into those planning efforts and 

how they are assisting the agencies to accommodate the cuts required by sequestration. 

Mr. Jarvis, for example, I understand that prior to sequestration 

and in anticipation of tightening budgets, the Park Service began 

a process of trimming expenditures at parks and other units last 

year. For example, your agency implemented a hiring freeze on 

permanent positions, which left vacant a number of staff positions 

going forward, allowing you to accrue about 1,300 funded vacancies. It is my understanding that you plan to leave about 900 of 

those positions unfilled, which will save your agency about $43.5 

million through the end of the fiscal year. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir, those figures are correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. I also understand that in anticipation of forced cuts, 

you also eliminated some lower priority support costs, such as travel, overtime pay, merit awards, supplies and contracted services, to 

save money. Is that correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Were there any other planning actions that you implemented or plan to implement as we go through the sequestration? 

Mr. JARVIS. We are deferring anything to the next fiscal year 

that we can as well. We are looking at, in terms of our deployment 

of employees, to make sure that they are deployed to the highest 

visitor use areas. We are building our philanthropic side of our organization, the National Park Foundation, the legislatively-created 

foundation here to raise funds, to provide assistance. And we are 

looking to partner with our other sister agencies, the other Federal 

and State agencies, to ensure that facilities can be open. For instance, at Badlands National Park we are working with the State 

there to ensure that a highway road stop that also serves as a 

small visitor center for the park would remain open. 

So across the system, we are looking for volunteers, local assistance, shared use agreements and all of those to ensure that we provide quality service to the public. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

50 

Mr. Ferriero, I understand that your agency also began planning 

for the possibility of cuts early last year. For example, I understand 

that you imposed a hiring freeze beginning in November of 2012, 

which reduced your workforce by 300 employees. How much did 

you save by that action? 

Mr. FERRIERO. That 300 employees translated into about $9 million. 

Mr. DAVIS. I also understand that your agency cancelled certain 

non-mission essential conferences, reduced travel budgets and attempted to pre-identify approximately $20 million in cuts to contracts, grants and other non-labor expenditures that could be implemented if the sequestration came about. Is that correct? 

Mr. FERRIERO. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Quickly, Secretary Clough, similar to the other two 

agencies, I understand that your agency also implemented a hiring 

freeze and began other efforts to defer some maintenance activities. 

Mr. CLOUGH. That is correct. I should point out that when I came 

to the Smithsonian and looked at the statistics for the last 10 

years, it became obvious to me that over time the Smithsonian lost 

about 600 Federal positions against the cost of inflation. So we 

began thinking about how to do business more efficiently. 

In addition, because there were concerns about possible budget 

cuts in the last few years, we developed a menu of opportunities, 

or places, I should say, where we would adapt to these kinds of 

cuts. So we have been thinking about this for a long time. So we 

are implementing something that we have been thinking about, 

some of these measures are temporary and we will have to readjust 

our strategy as we move forward to a permanent cut. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. We’ll recognize Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. Jarvis, you issued a memo on January 25th of this year, 

‘‘The lateness of the implementation will intensify the effects of the 

sequester.’’ I want to go back to where Dr. DesJarlais was, what 

was the date again when sequester was passed into law? August 

2nd, 2011? 

Mr. JARVIS. August 2nd, 2011. 

Mr. JORDAN. Almost 20 months ago, or actually I think probably 

a full 20 months ago. Why did you have to wait until January? Mr. 

Ferriero at the Archives implemented a hiring freeze in 2011. Did 

you guys implement a hiring freeze in 2011? 

Mr. JARVIS. We issued a memo in June of 2012. 

Mr. JORDAN. No, it is yes or no. Did you have a hiring freeze in 

2011? 

Mr. JARVIS. We did not have a hiring freeze at the time. 

Mr. JORDAN. So you hired more people in 2011 after the sequester was enacted into law? 

Mr. JARVIS. That is correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. You did. Okay. Did you enact a hiring freeze in 

2012? 

Mr. JARVIS. We put a hiring control. 

Mr. JORDAN. What does that mean? Did you hire more? Are there 

more people working now than there were before, in 2012? 

51 

Mr. JARVIS. There are less. 

Mr. JORDAN. No, no, in 2012. Did you have more people working 

later in 2012 than you had at the start of 2012? 

Mr. JARVIS. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. JORDAN. So we don’t know if you had a hiring freeze or not? 

Mr. JARVIS. We know we had a hiring control. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay, but I didn’t ask that. I asked did you have 

a hiring freeze? 

Mr. JARVIS. We did not put a hiring freeze until January 2013. 

Mr. JORDAN. So in 2011, you didn’t do a hiring freeze, 2012 you 

didn’t do a hiring freeze. The Archives decided to do one, because 

they knew the law was the law in August 2nd, 2011. You didn’t do 

that. Did you have bonuses in 2011? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you have bonuses in 2012? 

Mr. JARVIS. No. Not yet. 

Mr. JORDAN. Not yet? You mean you are going to have some bonuses? 

Mr. JARVIS. There are some required by law. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. What about did you have travel and conferences that you attended in 2011? 

Mr. JARVIS. Very few. 

Mr. JORDAN. But you did? 

Mr. JARVIS. There were some, yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay, what about 2012? 

Mr. JARVIS. Very few. 

Mr. JORDAN. So you continued it in 2012? 

Mr. JARVIS. Sir, the National Park Service is a large geographic 

area. 

[Simultaneous conversations.] 

Mr. JORDAN. The point is, I ask the questions and you answer. 

Here is the point. The law was enacted August 2nd, 2011, 20 

months ago. You issue a memo this January 2013, saying, oh, the 

lateness of sequester is going to cause terrible things to happen. 

And yet you gave bonuses in 2011, potential bonuses in 2012, you 

hired more people in 2011, you can’t tell me if you hired more people in 2012, you took additional, you took conferences in 2011 and 

travel in 2011 and conferences and travel in 2012. And yet we have 

a gentleman right beside you who implemented a hiring freeze 

clear back in 2011 because he can plainly understand what might 

happen. 

All true. 

Mr. JARVIS. The National Park Service is a very different organization than Archives. 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me do something different here in my remaining two minutes. The White House, I want to know if this plan not 

to take action was driven by you or by the White House. So on the 

White House website, February of this year, it states relative to the 

national parks, ‘‘Many of the 398 national parks across the Country 

would be partially or fully closed, with shortened operating hours, 

closed facilities, reduced maintenance and cuts to visitor services.’’ 

Did the White House put that up? Did they consult with you before they put that up? Did you give them that information? Did you 

52 

talk to someone at the White House? Tell me how that was put on 

the White House website. 

Mr. JARVIS. I have no idea how that got on the White House 

website. We did provide information about the impacts of sequestration through OMB. 

Mr. JORDAN. So did you talk to anyone specifically at the White 

House about what may happen to the national parks? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. JORDAN. You did not. But this sounds vaguely familiar to 

your statement on January 25th, I assume maybe the same memo, 

where you said, we expect the sequester ‘‘will result in reductions 

to visitor services, hours of operation and shortening of season and 

possibly the closing of areas during periods where there is insufficient staff to secure protection of visitors, employees and resources.’’ It sounds pretty similar. But there was no coordination 

between you and the White House? 

Mr. JARVIS. Not between me and the White House. 

Mr. JORDAN. You didn’t talk to anyone at the White House? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Did anyone on your staff communicate with 

White House officials about details and impacts of the potential sequester? 

Mr. JARVIS. No one on my staff. 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me ask you this, then. Because I don’t know 

where the blame has to go for lack of preparing. Let’s look at, what 

about this memo from Acting OMB Director Jeffrey Zentz, who 

said, ‘‘Continued normal spending and operations,’’ this was July 

31st of last summer, of 2012, ‘‘Continued normal spending and operations since more than five months remain for Congress to act.’’ 

Do you remember receiving that memo? Did that have an impact 

your decisions not to reduce hiring, not to reduce travel and conference attendance, and not to forego bonuses? 

Mr. JARVIS. We did reduce travel. We did reduce conferences. 

And we put hiring controls on. So actually, we did get that memo 

and we implemented a restriction across the board in the National 

Park Service planning for this. We did not put a hiring freeze on 

until January. 

Mr. JORDAN. But that is not, but this is communication from the 

White House that says, continue normal things. Is it normal for, 

so what I am trying to figure out is, when do you pay attention to 

the White House, when you don’t, when do you plan ahead, when 

you don’t. Because this memo says, keep doing the normal things, 

and based on what you did in 2011, it is normal to give bonuses, 

it is normal to have travel and conferences, and it is normal not 

to having a hiring freeze, is that right? And then here you have the 

OMB director saying, continue normal spending and operations, 

since more than five months remain for Congress to act. 

So you just told me you contradicted what the OMB director said. 

My first question you said no, I can’t tell you whether we have a 

hiring control, not a hiring freeze, so you couldn’t give me an answer. But now you are saying no, we contradicted what the OMB 

director said. So I am just trying to figure out, what did you guys 

do, who did you listen to, how did you make your decisions. 

53 

Mr. JARVIS. What we decided to do is be as conservative in our 

application of our budget and travel, supplies, materials, beginning 

in the middle of 2012 in anticipation of the sequestration. Our 

paper will prove that to you. We took a conservative approach to 

this from the very beginning in spite of what OMB said. We knew 

that our responsibilities, that is an OMB memo that covers the entire government. 

Mr. JORDAN. Respectfully, I think the American people might disagree. Because as I said earlier, you have another director of an 

agency right beside you who decided to implement a hiring freeze 

in 2011. You had the opportunity to do the same, you chose not to. 

And now we have this contradiction based on what the White 

House OMB director had sent to you. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. I appreciate the 

extra time. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. 

I recognize Mr. Horsford. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The benefit of being a new member is I get to actually listen to 

all of my colleagues and their concerns and also the witnesses. It 

has been more than 100 days now since I have been here. I for the 

life of me don’t understand why we keep having these hearings 

that, to take my colleague’s quote that he just said, I don’t know 

where to place the blame or where the blame has to go. 

Why do we have to be in the blame game at all? Why can’t we 

focus on what needs to be done to get our economy moving so that 

these cuts don’t happen to begin with? My constituents sent me 

here, I believe the majority of the American people want us to work 

together to solve problems and to avoid the harm that the sequester has caused. 

Now, I think it is critical that the public understand that this reprogramming authority is not some kind of unrestricted power that 

the agencies have to pick and choose which funding priorities they 

want to make. It is a highly limited authority. Claims that agency 

officials are not being straightforward with the public about their 

implementation of sequestration is simply not true. And I think 

that it is rhetoric and gamesmanship and brinkmanship of turning 

these hearings into something that they are not. 

I would rather work with the agencies to figure out what we 

need to do to benefit the public. So with the time I have remaining, 

I would like to raise some concerns of constituents from my district 

as they relate to the National Park Service. 

A part of Lake Meade’s 1.5 million acres lies in Nevada’s Fourth 

Congressional District, which is the fifth most visited national park 

unit last year, with over 6.3 million visitors. Mr. Jarvis, you said 

that there is a ten to one return on investment based on the work 

of our National Park Service. It is my understanding that the visitor center at Lake Meade National Recreation Area will be closed 

two days a week now, and that the national park unit has braced 

for cuts in park security, operations, and efforts to curtail an 

invasive species, the quagga mussel, which is affecting the oxygen 

levels in the water, disrupting food chains and causing damage to 

facilities. 

54 

Mr. Jarvis, what efforts is the National Park Service undertaking 

to address issues like this that I imagine aren’t just happening at 

Lake Meade but potentially at other national parks? 

Mr. JARVIS. As I indicated earlier, each of the individual National Park units had to take the 5 percent cut at the park level. 

For Lake Meade National Recreation Area, that is an $889,000 cut 

to their operation, halfway through the fiscal year. And there is no 

way you can take that kind of cut at a highly operational park like 

Lake Meade without having direct impacts on the operations. 

One of the key components here is that most of our parks operate 

at about 85 to 90 percent fixed cost. That mean permanent salaries, utilities, fleet, just basic operations. When you take a 5 percent cut, that hits the discretionary part of the budget, which is basically supplies, materials and seasonal operations. So they are directly having impacts. We tasked the park to make decisions on 

what they can do. 

In terms of some of the key drivers in that area, such as quagga 

mussels, we are looking to use the fee accounts and we have a request in the fiscal year 2014 budget specifically to improve overall 

our control on that invasive species. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. I know my time is expiring, but I 

think in part if we could get some more information of what the 

additional cost could be, based on the implementation of the sequestration. Again, this is an example of now, if we cut back it is 

actually going to cost us more in the long run. That is a fool’s 

choice, in my opinion, and on behalf of my constituents. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we can refocus our committee’s efforts around solutions that will get our economy moving 

and less on the blame game between our Federal agencies. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, you are recognized. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for coming to testify today. As we look at that, as 

my esteemed colleague opposite has just mentioned, it is not about 

gamesmanship. One of the problems that I get concerned about is 

that we have essentially made this into a game of rhetoric, placing 

false blame and false consequences at times. That is what we are 

trying to get to. 

Mr. Ferriero, with regard to the National Archives, you and I 

both know that I have been there to see your operation. I want to 

compliment you on a job well done. With that, and you didn’t know 

that this was going on, but at that particular time, I asked you 

about sequestration and the effects of it on your agency. You gave 

me a non-political response, which I appreciated. You said, we are 

managing through it. Obviously any cuts are painful, but we are 

managing through it as a good manager would. I want to thank 

you and go on record as thanking you for that type of response. We 

need to see more of that in Washington, D.C. 

With that being said, I would ask that you highlight perhaps two 

areas that you are most concerned about with regard to sequestration that we should address from a Congressional standpoint. 

55 

Mr. FERRIERO. Two that I would highlight, preservation. We are 

sitting on 12 billion pieces of our records in parchment paper, and 

deteriorating. And audio visual materials that are deteriorating. So 

our ability to keep up with ensuring that they are going to be available for future generations is something that worries me. 

The other thing is the investment needed in the Electronic 

Records Archive. We have moved from development into operations 

and maintenance. We have the agencies on board in terms of delivering their records to us electronically. But there are some enhancements that have to be made to make it much more functional. 

This is input from the agencies who are using it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank you for that. I can tell you as one, I am 

more inclined, when someone manages through these situations, to 

look at the requests that they make in a more germane way. It is 

something that adds additional credence and credibility in terms of 

responses from that. 

Let me go on to Mr. Jarvis. With regard to the National Park 

Service, there is a thing here in Washington, D.C. that many times 

they call the Washington Monument syndrome. Are you aware of 

that? I think some of the heated rhetoric that you are hearing 

today is because we are concerned that some of that Washington 

Monument syndrome has crept into this sequestration. 

Even your staff, I believe, has told people that they are not sure 

that 99 percent of the visitors will even notice that there was a sequestration cut. Yet you have talked about trash collection, toilet 

paper, things like that. Would you say that those are things that 

people would notice? 

Mr. JARVIS. I think they would notice. I notice it. Having worked 

almost 40 years for the National Park Service, I walked around the 

Tidal Basin during the middle of the Cherry Blossom Festival, and 

I noticed trash cans a little over-full, and I noticed fewer rangers 

than would be normal for that kind of operation. So we don’t want 

the public to notice it, because we take a great deal of pride in providing these places. We don’t want to impact the public. That is 

why we have concentrated the reductions on the shoulder seasons, 

rather than in the center of their prime operation. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am glad that you said that. Because in my district, there are signs that have gone up that say, we are closing operations. Printed due to sequestration, on permanent signs that 

have been placed in my district. Why would you say that that 

would have happened if indeed we were not trying to make a political statement? 

Mr. JARVIS. I am unaware of any signs. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I have pictures. I will be glad to share them with 

you. 

Mr. JARVIS. I would like to see them. And I would instruct the 

parks to take those down. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I want to know how much we have spent on permanent signs that talk about sequestration. So I would ask that 

you respond to that. 

Mr. JARVIS. That is inappropriate. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Are you aware personally of any conversations 

that have happened within the National Park Service or DOI that 

have talked about making sequestration as painful as possible? 

56 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. We did not want to make this painful. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I know you didn’t want to. Are you aware of any 

conversations that have taken place where making cuts painful has 

been discussed? Let me tell you the reason why I ask. I have talked 

to some Park Service employees who have indicated that they were 

told that the cuts coming down would be painful, and that came 

from management. I was saying, well, I understand that they won’t 

be painful, that we are going to manage our way through this. But 

yet somehow they got the impression from people within your organization that they would be painful. So you are not aware of any 

conversations or any memos or anything discussing that? 

Mr. JARVIS. I am not. But I want to make a distinction here. 

There is a difference between intentionally making them painful or 

the fact that they will be painful. The Park Service is an operational organization. We are not a grant-making organization. We 

run parks. And so a cut of this level is painful by definition. We 

have worked to try to minimize that pain. But I will tell you that 

we have not instructed anyone to intentionally make this painful 

to the public. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I can see my time is out. I yield back and thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. [Presiding] Thank you. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for his questions. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Could my time start at five, please? 

Chairman ISSA. I thought we were going to give you as much 

time as you needed. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Oh, great. Okay. 

First of all, let me thank all three of you for managing through 

a very difficult and mindless budgeting exercise, but real, nonetheless. All three of you represent revered institutions, respected and 

very much beloved by the public. In listening to this hearing as I 

have, you would all be forgiven for feeling you find yourself in the 

midst of a Kafka-esque scenario. I myself can’t quite follow the 

logic of some of my colleagues. 

Sequester should be blamed on President Obama, it was his idea. 

Really. Because I seem to recall the President wanting a clean debt 

ceiling vote in August of 2011, and for the first time in history, he 

was denied it. And for the first time in history our credit rating 

went down. It was not the President’s idea. 

We created a Super Committee doomed to failure because half 

the members of that committee would not even entertain a discussion of revenue. You should have known about sequestration, 

should have been planning for it all along, you should have known 

we meant it. How are you supposed to know that? Like this Congress or the previous Congress have been consistent in their economic message? Really, about the fiscal cliff, about the Bush taxes, 

about sequestration, about the debt ceiling? About nothing. And oh 

by the way, had you anticipated that we were serious all along, 

what were you to do with the fact that the Majority, which says 

that it addressed sequestration not once but twice, their answer 

was to eliminate all the cuts on the defense and national security 

side and double down on the domestic discretionary side. So in 

57 

other words, the sequestration you are now wrestling with would 

have been double. 

Somehow you should have fathomed that. You should have 

divined what we actually would do and how irresponsible and reckless we would become. 

I don’t share that view. I think you are being asked to deal with 

something unprecedented and not responsible. And by the way, Mr. 

Jarvis, don’t give away those signs too fast. I think you should put 

up those signs, and I will help you put them up in every national 

park in this Country. I will even help paint them. The public 

should know what is happening. The public should not be shielded 

from the fact that there are consequences, consequences from sequestration that are real. 

And that is the other thing that is so puzzling. Last summer, 

maybe it is because it was before an election, the message from my 

friends on the other side, oh, I was with them on platforms, was 

the earth is going to open and swallow us all if sequestration is allowed to happen. Now apparently the message is, well, we ought 

to soft-pedal it, don’t be scaring people, the consequences are all 

absorbable, they are not real, they won’t have real consequences in 

real people’s lives. 

And from everything I can see and everything I hear, I think the 

three of you are attempting to manage and minimize the damage. 

Isn’t that what you are asked to do as a manager? 

Mr. Jarvis, in the national parks, we charge entrance fees and 

other fees. If because of furloughs or letting positions stay vacant, 

as you are managing to, might it require some parks, I am thinking of one in my district, the Prince William County Forest Park, 

they are looking at perhaps having to close for one day a week or 

maybe even a little bit more. But when they do, they also lose revenue, is that not correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Have you estimated the potential loss of revenue 

in the National Park Service sort of writ large? 

Mr. JARVIS. We have not estimated that, but we do anticipate 

some loss of revenue. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Because you talked about bringing in roughly $160 million a year in revenue. Some percentage of that is going 

to be lost. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And that is over and above the cuts from sequestration, is that correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Ferriero, my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, was citing you as a paragon of virtue in anticipating sequestration and how poor Mr. Jarvis should have followed your model. 

Would you agree with Mr. Jarvis that the missions of the two organizations are quite different and therefore, the challenges sequestration poses are also quite different? 

Mr. FERRIERO. I agree that they are different organizations. But 

let me put it in perspective. I came to Washington from the New 

York Public Library. I was responsible for 91 facilities reporting to 

the mayor and the city council. So I have five years of experience 

in trimming budgets and making do with few resources. 

58 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask one more question? 

Chairman ISSA. I wasn’t going to stop you. You are on a roll. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Although I am informed, and I believe it is true, 

that the revenues go to the general fund. They do not? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, thank you very much. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One final question, because it is sort of hanging out there and 

I am going to ask each of you to answer it. Did you receive any 

instructions from the Administration, OMB, the White House, to either soft-pedal the impacts of sequestration or to in fact magnify 

them for some political purpose as you were trying to wade through 

the consequences and how you would manage those consequences? 

Mr. Ferriero? 

Mr. FERRIERO. No. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You are under oath. 

Mr. FERRIERO. I am under oath. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You are under oath. 

Mr. JARVIS. No, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Dr. Clough? 

Mr. CLOUGH. No. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You are under oath. I thank you very much, 

thanks you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. Just for the record, would that be 

true of anybody from any source within government equally? 

Mr. FERRIERO. Yes, as far as I know. 

Chairman ISSA. Nobody in government, nobody in Department of 

Interior, no deputy assistant secretary of hoopla, nobody? 

Mr. FERRIERO. No, sir. 

Mr. CLOUGH. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, could I just clarify one thing? Ms. 

Norton at one point in her questioning I think suggested that the 

National Park Service was one-fourteenth of the Federal Government’s budget. I think the actual statistic is one-fourteenth of 1 

percent of the Federal Government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. So noted for the record. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

being here, and for all of your service and for what you do for our 

Country. I can tell you it wasn’t that long ago that I was walking 

through the National Archives and standing there with my daughters, who just kept repeating, over and over again, it is right there. 

It is right there. The children of today need to be able to see and 

experience what is happening at the Smithsonian, at the National 

Archives and in our national parks. It is a significant part of what 

we do as Americans as we pass our heritage on. So this is important for all of us. 

I congratulate all of you for what you are doing on a day to day 

basis, for the children and for our families. I encourage you to continue going. I am extremely aware, as everyone else is, with our 

staff and with every staff across Federal Government, that this is 

59 

difficult budget times. We get that. But I thank you for what you 

are doing for the Nation and for the future. 

Mr. Ferriero, when did you start planning for sequestration and 

start thinking about its effects and what could occur? 

Mr. FERRIERO. We actually started in September of 2011, by reducing employee recruitment, retention and relocation incentives. 

Then in November of that year, we instituted the hiring freeze. In 

February 2012, we returned under-utilized leases to GSA. In May 

of 2012, we returned under-utilized motor vehicles to GSA. 

In August of 2012 and again in March of 2013, we reduced travel 

budgets by 41 percent below fiscal year 2010 levels. In September 

2012, we focused available resources on one-time investments that 

would permanently reduce operating costs, like building energy efficiency. And in March, 2013, we reduced NARA-sponsored conferences and instituted procedures to apply increased scrutiny to 

all conferences. 

Mr. LANKFORD. That means that you walked in and you have 

been in leadership there how long? 

Mr. FERRIERO. Just over three years. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So you walked in your first year, got the lay of 

the land and could see some areas and then began to implement 

some areas to be more efficient in the process? 

Mr. FERRIERO. With the guidance of our new chief financial officer, that is right. 

Mr. LANKFORD. That is a lot of work, to take that on. To take 

on that kind of change, it is a lot of pushback that occurs from 

that. But you planned ahead and because of that, we are able to 

more efficient and continue operations on it. 

Mr. Jarvis, when did you start planning for the effects of sequestration? 

Mr. JARVIS. Officially with the memo on June 13th, 2012. 

Mr. LANKFORD. And then started implementing ideas of what to 

be able to do to actually save money starting when? 

Mr. JARVIS. We instructed in 2012, in June, in that memo that 

every park and program would implement what we call our budget 

cost projection model, in anticipation of a 5 percent reduction. And 

looking at every aspect of their operation, travel, fleet, awards, all 

of those components, and really restricting them from doing any 

type of movement between accounts, reduction in the number of 

seasonals. 

One of the things about park operations s that there is a flow 

into the fall after the end of the fiscal year. Some parks actually 

carry those seasonal operations into the fall. We asked them to significantly restrict that, so that they could have some discretionary 

funds going into fiscal year 2013. 

Mr. LANKFORD. You also mentioned before that each one of your 

parks, you gave them some sort of responsibility to start looking for 

savings, is that correct? 

Mr. JARVIS. That is right. 

Mr. LANKFORD. When did that occur? 

Mr. JARVIS. We began, as I indicated, in the June 13th, 2012, 

and then specifically in January of 2013, we asked each park to 

produce an actual plan for how they would implement the sequestration. 

60 

Mr. LANKFORD. So the parks’ first notification of this, back to the 

actual park level, wasn’t until sequestration was actually imminent, was on top of us. So some of the advance planning was in 

leadership in June and then the parks actually got it. What instructions did they get? They were told to start thinking about 

where they could pare back. Was there some guidance that was 

given to them? 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes. Again, actually in the June memo of 2012, we 

asked specifically, each park had to follow their budget cost projection models that looked at all of these reductions. We didn’t come 

down with a hard enforcement on those restrictions until January 

of 2013. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So they were given instructions, then, in June, 

to start thinking about it. There was some sort of guidance document that was sent down on that. 

Dr. Clough, what about you? When did you start preparing for 

the effects of sequestration? 

Mr. CLOUGH. We started planning for the possibility of budget 

cuts several years ago. We started the program called Smithsonian 

Redesign to become as efficient as we could with the present resources that we had. We are still implementing that. 

We used the services of McKenzie and Associates to get us started. We have now implemented that internally. We have tried to implement best practices as quickly as we can through a process that 

we have now for sharing information from our units. Anybody can 

have a best practice. We have employees who work in Panama, so 

we looked across the institution for best ideas and for best practice 

sharing. 

I mentioned the process of digitization. For us that is a big 

money saver, it is an inventory control device, in addition to creating access for people. But it is a tremendous tool for us to save 

wear and tear on collections and cut down on the number of people 

that you need to maintain your collections. So we have been working on it generally speaking. We have a menu of options that we 

already had in place before sequestration ever got on the horizon 

as to how we would accept different types of budget cuts and different options for us. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So you already had a contingency plan in place. 

Mr. CLOUGH. We had those already in place. Then when sequester became clear, then we implemented a series of those actions 

that we thought would take care of this year’s budget. We do have 

a unique two-year budget process, and it allows us to do a little 

carrying over. So we put in some restrictions back in 2012 that 

would help us in 2013, if sequester appeared. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you for that. By the way, that is also 

statement, I am a proponent of it, to your budgeting cycle for all 

the agencies, to provide more flexibility on that. That is a different 

topic for a different day. I appreciate that very much. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Chairman. 

61 

As you know, Chairman, we have some of the most beautiful national parks in my congressional district in the State of Utah, obviously. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman care to name a few of 

them? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes, as a matter of fact, Chairman, I am prepared 

to name of course the Arches and Canyon Lands, among two of the 

five that we so readily tout out west in Utah. 

Mr. Jarvis, we thank you for your service. You have been engaged in the Park Service for decades, and we do appreciate your 

service. 

I do want to ask about a couple of the expense items that you 

have to deal with. You have 84 million acres, which is an awful lot 

of land to cover. Can you talk to me a little bit about the number 

of vehicles that you have, maybe the miles that you have to travel? 

Do you have a sense of that right off the top of your head? I know 

it has been a long morning. 

Mr. JARVIS. I think that often people don’t understand about the 

National Park Service. With my colleagues here, Archives has the 

Declaration of Independence, but I have Independence Hall. The 

Smithsonian has Old Glory, but I have Fort McHenry. And the responsibilities for their maintenance and care is different. 

The National Park Service has an inventory of facilities second 

only to the Department of Defense. And most of those are historic. 

We have thousands of miles of road and thousands of facilities and 

279 million visitors a year. So the challenges that we have in terms 

of keeping those things operational are difficult. 

We are also geographically in every State in the Union, from the 

Virgin Islands to the far Pacific. The requirements, our vehicles, 

aircraft, firefighting vehicles, and I don’t know how many vehicles 

we have but I can get you those numbers. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I guess the point I am trying to 

make here is that when the price of fuel over the last four years 

has doubled, doubled, there is a dramatic impact, not only to the 

United States Postal Service, which I believe the estimate is that 

for every penny increase in the cost of fuel, it costs $9 million more. 

My guess is that there are similar types of effects and consequences, when this Nation doesn’t have an energy plan and that 

we have such rapidly rising costs of fuel. It literally has doubled. 

I am also concerned, Chairman, that last time I looked, and 

maybe for the Department of Interior, not just the Park Service, 

Chairman, that we had close to a billion dollars in backlog of ongoing maintenance and other types of programs that are out there. 

Do you have a specific number, that if you could, if you would, implement, how much is that? How many different systems are there 

in place or that you are trying to have implemented to do this 

maintenance? 

Mr. JARVIS. The maintenance backlog is $11 billion. And in order 

to maintain those facilities at a base level, I would need at least 

$700 million a year. I get about $300 million. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So my point, Chairman, is this Congress has historically allocated money for acquisition of additional lands. In fact, 

if you go back and look from the 1970s, not just within the Park 

62 

Service, but the Federal Government has acquired private property 

and made it public property greater than the size of Arizona. 

We can’t maintain what we currently have. In fact, it is not even 

close to what we are trying to maintain. I guess there are those of 

us that believe that, let’s take care of the treasures and the jewels 

that we have, rather than be on this kick to continue to add private 

property and make it public property. 

I would also believe, Chairman, that there is public property out 

there, particularly at the BLM, not so much the Park Service, but 

at the BLM, that serves no public purpose. It is not there for mineral rights. In fact, in 1997, the Clinton Administration did a 

study, and I introduced a bill that said, this 1 percent of public 

property that serves no public purpose, let’s sell it back, let’s make 

it private property. We can’t even maintain what we have now. 

The Park Service is telling us they have $11 billion that they recommend we do in maintenance to make sure that we protect these 

treasures. Next time somebody steps forward and says, you know 

what, we need to acquire more, we need to implement the Antiquities Act, we need to do another, we can’t afford to do what we 

are doing now. That is one of my concerns, that we continue to do 

this. 

Lastly, Mr. Jarvis, again, my understanding is from fiscal year 

2003 to fiscal year 2011, the Operational National Park System, 

the ONPS budget, the operation of the National Park Service budget, which is roughly, according to my notes, 86.7 percent of your account, that has increased 11.8 percent from 2003 to 2012, 7.4 percent faster than inflation. And yet, over the last four years, our 

visitors are still down from the peak that happened in 2009 of 285 

million visitors. 

So we are asking for a modest 5 percent cut and we bring that 

down, and the number of visitors is down from four years ago. I 

don’t think that is an unreasonable place to be. Do you care to comment on that, Mr. Jarvis? 

Mr. JARVIS. Visitation depends on a lot of factors, gas prices, 

price of flights to Europe, marketing, a lot of factors. Two hundred 

and seventy-nine million versus 285 million, it goes up and down. 

The visitors centers and facilities are open for the American public. 

It changes a couple of percentage points. 

We do believe, though, there is an investment we need to make 

in the national parks for the next century, for the next communities of the next crop of Americans. We think it is a good investment. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Again, thank you for your service, 

and again, Chairman, I will be one to advocate that we invest in 

the jewels that we have already set aside. Let’s take care of those, 

let’s do the maintenance on those rather than whetting our appetites to acquire more, more, more. Let’s take care of what we have 

here. 

I appreciate your time and service and thank you for participating in the hearing. I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Jarvis, the gentleman from Utah made a pretty important 

point. How much of your acquisition fund would you choose to 

63 

transfer if you had the authority to transfer it to operation? Obviously new construction and land acquisition. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, we basically have a moratorium on new construction. Our construction budget is really only going to deferred 

maintenance at this point. 

Chairman ISSA. Let me ask a question. If in constant dollars 

your operational account is greater by about 5 percent after sequestration than it was in 2008, what happened that your costs went 

up faster than inflation for operation? 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, I would disagree that our budget is up 5 percent. 

Chairman ISSA. It is up 13 percent before sequestration, in constant dollars, according to the figures which I have in front of me, 

which you have in front of you. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, according to my figures, we are down about 4 

percent since 2010. 

Chairman ISSA. You are speaking total budget and I am concentrating on operation. Because they are bifurcated in sequestration, 

let’s start with operation. Operation is where toilet paper comes out 

of. It is also where grooming the roads, the trails, it is also where 

those personnel that lead the trips and so on, all that comes out 

of it. 

That is up 13 percent in constant dollars adjusted for inflation 

from 2003 through 2008 through today. The base on that was 2003. 

You gave us the figures, we read the figures. We would like to 

know the answer of why, with more money in constant dollars for 

operation than you had on the day President George W. Bush left 

office, you cannot operate with less visitors as well as the American 

people who, for the most part are old enough to remember way 

back in 2008, what it was like to go through the parks. 

Mr. JARVIS. The increases that we have received, as I remember 

since that period, have come in specific categories, one of which is 

fire. The National Park Service, along with our fellow land management agencies, have responsibility for wildland fire. We are receiving a great deal of growth in our fire responsibilities across the 

Country. And those are not dollars that can translate into cutting 

grass or keeping the restrooms open. 

Our fixed costs have gone up. In 2009— 

Chairman ISSA. Well, let’s talk about fixed costs. 

Mr. JARVIS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Inflation indexes are designed to pick up most 

fixed costs. What are your fixed costs that went up more than my 

constituents who were watching this on C–SPAN, what is it that 

went up more than inflation for the rest of America, in your costs? 

Was it your labor rate? Did it go up faster than inflation? 

Mr. JARVIS. In some places, labor rates go up. 

Chairman ISSA. No, no, no. Mr. Jarvis, one of the things about 

this committee is we like the answers to the questions we ask. 

Overall, did your employees earn more than the rate of inflation 

such that in constant dollars they are making more today than 

they made in 2003 or 2008 or previous years? Did their real pay 

go up faster than inflation? 

Mr. JARVIS. I don’t know the answer to that question. 

64 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. I would appreciate if you would answer 

that one for the record. 

One of the challenges we have on this committee is we are well 

aware that all three of you are dealing with discretionary funds. As 

a result, you are dealing with the tip of the iceberg, not the base 

that is underwater that is going to sink the ship of state, to use 

plenty of metaphors here for a moment. One of the challenges I 

have is, I am talking to you about that which we can control, what 

sequestration affected. I am very aware that until this year, when 

the President proposed re-indexing or changing the index rate on 

Social Security, we didn’t have a partner even beginning to touch 

entitlement. We now have that. So I am limited here. 

Let me ask some questions from a standpoint of the National Archives. You take both paper and electronic data to this day from 

agencies around government, right? 

Mr. FERRIERO. That is right. 

Chairman ISSA. Isn’t it true that if those who are delivering you 

material did a better job of preparing it in the least expensive format, both to receive and archive, you would be able to have great 

cost savings and the public would have better digital searching capability? 

Mr. FERRIERO. And that is the thrust of the Government Records 

Directive, yes, that is true. 

Chairman ISSA. So touting a piece of legislation that I believe in 

that did not pass out of the Senate, which is not an uncommon 

thing for all those of us in the House to do, the Data Act, which 

could also be called the Structured Data Act, that would create 

structured data so that all reports, all data coming in from the government would ultimately be interoperable and searchable, how 

would that affect your ability to both maintain Archives and provide meaningful information, both on the Presidential Records Act 

side and obviously for all government information, including from 

those of us in Congress? 

Mr. FERRIERO. In theory, it sounds terrific. It is the details, how 

it would actually be implemented. 

Chairman ISSA. Let’s go through that for a moment. Because no 

one else is seeking time right now. The gentleman will get his time 

to talk more about those five parks in just a moment. 

If we implemented the way you would like it implemented, what 

does it do both for cost and availability to the public of the kinds 

of information they believe or that potentially, rightfully or wrongfully, they want? 

Mr. FERRIERO. I think any time in an IT environment where you 

establish standards across the government, it is much more efficient and effective. And it improves potential access at the other 

end. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Dr. Clough, in your case, except for not charging for admission 

when other museums around the Country do, except for not charging for the Washington Zoo while the San Diego Zoo has to, except 

for having a hard time asking people to give you money because 

they assume we will give you the money you need, is there anything we can do to help you? 

[Laughter.] 

65 

Mr. CLOUGH. I think the comment that was made by David applies to us as well. Collections care is a critical item for us. I can 

get donors to support new construction in many cases. I can get donors to support new and exciting initiatives. But it is much tougher 

to get the basics. And collections care is an essential one for us. 

Sort of in a similar category is maintenance. I am a civil engineer by training. You don’t want to build up a deferred maintenance backlog, if you can avoid it. And the longer it goes on the 

worse it gets. So I think those are sort of the basic things that government can help us do that we really can’t do ourselves. 

Chairman ISSA. Let me ask you a tough question. Roughly 97, 98 

percent of the things you have are not on display at any given 

time, isn’t that true? 

Mr. CLOUGH. Yes, that is correct, in the museums. Now, we do 

have a major loan program. About a million of our objects are 

shared with our affiliate museums and others around the Country 

and digitally. Now we have about a million of our objects up with 

images and about 8 million with records. So we are sharing more 

and more of them digitally. 

Chairman ISSA. I want to talk about sharing. Because as a 

former businessman, I know that when you share, you don’t bear 

the cost of transporting the item back and forth. But what do you 

see as the potential revenue of some of that 97 percent that is sitting in storage that we are paying to store being made available 

through other museums, but also the potential for it to equal or exceed its total cost of preserving? 

Mr. CLOUGH. Well, that is a little bit of a tough thing. A lot of 

our collections are scientific collections, 127 million of our 137 are 

what we would call scientific. 

Chairman ISSA. And I do not have the time to look at every insect that you have preserved, but I understand it is unmatchable 

anywhere in the world. 

Mr. CLOUGH. It is. And I haven’t counted them all myself. But 

I would say it is important to realize that the collections are used 

for research by a number of government agencies. And to the Park 

Service’s credit, we signed an agreement recently to share collections expertise and to do everything we can to prevent overlap and 

work together on that. We will do more of that in the future. 

But the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, 

actively uses our collections for entomological reasons, NIH uses 

them for spread of disease from animals and insects and so forth. 

Chairman ISSA. Do they come to you because you are free, rather 

than somebody else who might charge them big bucks, because 

they are the government? 

Mr. CLOUGH. Well, that is because they are a Federal agency and 

we collaborate with our fellow agencies. Now, anyone who wants to 

use the collection for research, if it is a legitimate reason, they 

have access to the collections. 

Chairman ISSA. Do you see the potential for some revenue from 

the treasure trove you have? Obviously the inter-government one, 

we could have a separate discussion, but non-inter-government. 

Mr. CLOUGH. I think if there is a potential, it is in the digital 

realm. We put value added against the collections as opposed to 

just making them available in sort of a generic sense. But if we 

66 

package them in certain ways, those things are marketable. And 

we are looking at those options where we could actually market 

packages that would make sense in the normal run of business to 

do that. 

Chairman ISSA. Last question. Mr. Jarvis, do you need any authority to raise more revenue that you get to keep under the 1997, 

or was it 1994, Act? The 1997 Act. 

Mr. JARVIS. Well, the fee authorization legislation is up for reauthorization in 2014. We do think that there are some appropriate 

changes to that that would give us more authority, change to some 

of the structures and let’s say liberalize how the fees could be used. 

We were not able to use the funding to cover these costs, because 

we did not have transfer authority. 

So there are some fixes. I think if the sequestration continues, 

we are going to need VSIF and VERA authority, early buyout and 

early out authorities to deal with it in the next fiscal year. 

Chairman ISSA. Great. I am going to recognize the gentleman 

from Utah. He is going to come up and sit here. Mr. Jarvis, I was 

tough on you on the way in. Clearly, the ranking member was also 

tough. Hopefully, the people at Interior recognize that you were 

just the messenger and they will deliver the documents we both 

asked for. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Utah. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. [Presiding] Thank you. 

Just in conclusion, Mr. Jarvis, I think you were going to talk 

about acquisitions and the Chairman got going in a different direction. Can we talk about acquisitions? 

Then the second part of my question is, how much money did you 

get when the stimulus, in general, what did you use it for? 

Mr. JARVIS. In the Recovery Act? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes. 

Mr. JARVIS. We received about $900 million in the Recovery Act. 

We used it specifically for our maintenance backlog projects. Everything from wastewater treatment plants, to water treatment, to 

roads, to work on historic buildings. And we can provide you a complete list. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. As a follow-up, so we can conclude this. As a follow-up, if somebody could provide me and this committee a list of 

what you did do with the stimulus money, that would be appreciated. 

In terms of acquisitions, what have you done over the last several years, where are you going? What does that look right now? 

Mr. JARVIS. Our land acquisition program, which is derived from 

the Land Water Conservation Fund, outer continental shelf oil 

leasing, has been sort of steady at about $53 million. We have a 

Federal side and a State side of the Land Water Conservation, we 

grant to all of the States to basically purchase lands for State 

parks, for urban parks, for access to rivers and recreational sites. 

The Federal side, we are restricted to buying only willing seller 

in-holdings within national parks, within the boundaries of existing 

national parks. That is what that funding goes to. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. As we conclude here, again my concern is that we 

continue to add to the amount of lands that we continue to hold 

as opposed to, and my criticism is broader than the Park Service. 

67 

I think it is much more directed at BLM and others within the Department of Interior. We seem to have this insatiable appetite to 

consume and want more instead of recognizing that private ownership in many instances is the preferable way to do it. 

We thank you all for your service, your participation here. I 

know it is not always the best day to come and have to testify before Congress. But we do appreciate it and thank you for your service. This committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

68 


Insert offset folio 18 here 80900.018
69 


Insert offset folio 19 here 80900.019
70 


Insert offset folio 20 here 80900.020
71 


Insert offset folio 21 here 80900.021
72 


Insert offset folio 22 here 80900.022
73 


Insert offset folio 23 here 80900.023
74 


Insert offset folio 24 here 80900.024
75 


Insert offset folio 25 here 80900.025
76 


Insert offset folio 26 here 80900.026
77 


Insert offset folio 27 here 80900.027
78 


Insert offset folio 28 here 80900.028
79 


Insert offset folio 29 here 80900.029
80 


Insert offset folio 30 here 80900.030
81 


Insert offset folio 31 here 80900.031
82 


Insert offset folio 32 here 80900.032
83 


Insert offset folio 33 here 80900.033
84 


Insert offset folio 34 here 80900.034
85 


Insert offset folio 35 here 80900.035
86 


Insert offset folio 36 here 80900.036
87 


Insert offset folio 37 here 80900.037
88 


Insert offset folio 38 here 80900.038
89 


Insert offset folio 39 here 80900.039
90 


Insert offset folio 40 here 80900.040
91 


Insert offset folio 41 here 80900.041
92 


Insert offset folio 42 here 80900.042
93 


Insert offset folio 43 here 80900.043
94 


Insert offset folio 44 here 80900.044
95 


Insert offset folio 45 here 80900.045
96 


Insert offset folio 46 here 80900.046
97 


Insert offset folio 47 here 80900.047
98 


Insert offset folio 48 here 80900.048
99 


Insert offset folio 49 here 80900.049
100 


Insert offset folio 50 here 80900.050
101 


Insert offset folio 51 here 80900.051
102 


Insert offset folio 52 here 80900.052
103 


Insert offset folio 53 here 80900.053
104 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 54 here 80900.054