Hearing to Examine Various National Park System Bills

The subcommittee will come into order. Today's hearing marks my twenty second as Chairman or ranking member, and as Senator King and I always say, we are co-chairs of this committee. No matter which way the gavel falls, in the US Senate, and we've seen it go both ways, Angus, uh, we are co-chairs of this committee, and I wanna thank my co-chair, Senator King, for serving alongside me for nine years. It's truly been a pleasure. I also wanna thank Senator Hirono, who served as my first ranking member and former Chairman Murkowski and Manchin and current Chairman Lee for entrusting the gavel to me. Our national parks and public lands have a special place in my own heart. If you come to my office, you'll see the Yellowstone conference room. That's not named after the Yellowstone TV show, just to be clear. It's named after Yellowstone National Park. It's been a privilege to serve in this role for so many years. On today's agenda we have twenty-five bills, many of which are bipartisan or have the support from the state delegation. I'm excited to hear more about Senate Bill thirty-five twenty-four, the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendment Act, led by Senators McCormick and Senators Kaine. The bill reauthorizes the National Battlefield Protection Program and expands the mission of the program to include the French and Indian War, and the Mexican-American War. Under current law, the battlefield program focuses on the Civil War and the Revolutionary War. Expanding the program will help preserve important historical sites and help remember those who lost their lives fighting on American soil. However, I do believe that if we're gonna expand the program to include the French and Indian War and the Mexican-American War, then we should also look at expanding its scope to include the Indian Wars. With the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of the Little Bighorn last month that occurred right there in Montana, and the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Nez Perce Wars coming up next year, now is the time to remember those important battles and preserve them for future generations. Montana is home to numerous important battlefields from the Great Sioux War and the Nez Perce War. Department of the Interior, this committee, as well as Senator McCormick to include the Indian wars in this important bill. Senator Sheehy and Representative McClintock also have their Senate Bill thirty-four fifty-six H R one eighty-three the Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act to allow free access to national park units, for our first responders. I look forward to hearing from the department on ways we can continue to support those who put their lives in danger every day. We're also gonna hear from the Park Service on a number of bills led by my colleagues, which include Senate Bill sixteen seventy-four, related to Mammoth Cave National Park. Senate Bill twenty-four ninety-eight, related to Park Service leasing. Senate Bill twenty-seven sixty-seven, the Gateway Partnership Act. Senate Bill twenty-eight eighty-seven. The Route sixty-six National Historic Trail Designation Act. Senate Bill twenty nine thirty three. Designating a playground in New River Gorge. As a grandfather of seven, that sounds pretty good to me, Angus. Senate Bill twenty nine sixty nine. Related to off-highway vehicles and MPS units. Senate Bill thirty five O one. The Calumet National Heritage Area Act. Senate Bill forty two thirty eight. The Endless Mountains National Heritage Area Act. Senate Bill forty three ninety nine, the Geese House Site Conveyance Act. Senate Bill forty seven sixty seven, to extend the African American Civil Rights Network. And finally, H R twenty three O six, to extend the Adams Memorial Commission. First, a quick housekeeping item. Without objection, today's complete agenda, as well as all written statements, and letters that have been sent to the subcommittee will be included in the official hearing record, without objection. Finally, before I turn to my co-chair, I wanna reiterate the need to get our bipartisan America the Beautiful Act to the President's desk as soon as possible. We've made great progress. We're at the five-yard line. We have a bipartisan and bicameral bill ready to go. A lot of the heavy lifting has been done. We're just working to get that final pay-for through. With only a few work weeks left as Congress, I strongly believe we need this bill on the floor as soon as possible. We have one witness today, Mister Kovaleer, the Associate Director of Visitor and Resource Protection at the National Park Service. And before hearing your testimony, I'll now turn to Co-Chair King for his opening remarks. Co-Chair King.

Senator Dain, this is a uh a tough moment because it's the end uh it is in fact our last rodeo. Uh, working with you has been a a pleasure and a joy and and one of the honors of my service in the Senate. Your commitment to the national parks is unquestionable. Uh, your role in the great in the Great American Outdoors Act and now the America the Beautiful Act is the greatest impact on our national parks since, I think it was called the Mission Act some sixty years ago. So I I just want to say what a pleasure it's been to work with you. Uh, if only you and I were in charge of everything around here, you know, who who knows what we could get uh.

Well,

Uh.

Senator McCormick can make a motion, I can say without objection, or it could be unanimous consent.

Uh.

But all right, there we go. All right.

No, we do we do have different ways of enjoying our national parks. You're a you're an outdoorsman and a hiker. I have uh visited I think seventeen or eighteen national parks by RV. That's a different way, but still uh we both have enjoyed the national parks. and understood the importance of protecting our national parks for everyone, no matter how people choose to experience them. I also want to acknowledge your lead staff member, Joshua Sizemore, who's been with you the entire time you've led this subcommittee and has made great contributions to our work. So I think that's uh that's important. Um, and turning to the hearing today and to in addition to the bills that you mentioned, uh, there are a couple of others that we're we're considering. Uh, I won't go through the whole list. I'm supportive generally of these uh bills, uh, but there are a couple that I wanted to comment on. Uh, H R two three O six is a bill to reauthorize the Adams Memorial Commission. I've been in touch with Representative Molinar in the House on this bill uh on this legislation for some time. Creates an Adams Memorial, certainly appropriate honoring both John and John Quincy Adams at the Ellipse Visitor Pavilion, currently not in operation. I support the legislation, but I've conf- concern that one provision could create an open-ended authorization, allowing the memorial to be placed anywhere on the mall if the original site doesn't work out. Congress needs to be specific with authorizations other under the commemorative works act and we invi- or we invite abuse decades from now that we do not intend today. Uh, second, uh, S two four nine eight, a bill by Senator to extend certain leases within units of the National Park Service without opening them to bidding is one I'm interested in exploring further. Thirty years ago, this committee rewrote much of the law governing national parks concessions. The goal was to ensure that visitors get the best services and taxpayers get the best deal. That system has worked, though not without some controversy. I'm open to exploring ways to build more flexibility, but I'm hesitant to hand that flexibility entirely to administrative discretion. Finally, our parks preserve more than extraordinary landscapes. They preserve our complex history and who we are as a nation. I appreciate Senator Scott's bill, S four seven six seven, to extend the African American civil rights network. These places matter because they help the story of where we are and how we became the country that we are. That story includes our greatest achievements, but it also includes painful chapters, slavery, Jim Crow. The treatment of Native Americans are much, as much a part of that history as the courage, innovation, and natural beauty our parks commemorate. The National Park Service has long trusted visitors with the truth and trusted Americans to handle the complexity of our past. It's important that we continue to do so. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, particularly our senators who are here, and discussing how we continue continue to meet our responsibility to the national park system. But I do want to conclude my opening statement again by reiterating, Mister Chairman, um, the great work that you have done, how much I appreciate it, and how much I will miss, uh, working with you, uh, in the next Congress.

Senator King, those are kind words. Thank you. The feeling's very mutual. Um, I know there's some Senators here on the committee that wanna make an opening statement. I wanna recognize Senator McCormick.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and uh ranking member uh this year we celebrate our nation's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary. What an incredible milestone. Many of the sites associated with our country's founding are entrusted to the National Park Service. These sites stand as a testament to our shared heritage as an inspiration for a brighter future ahead. These sites also preserve the national beauty and historic legacy of our country's history. My home state of Pennsylvania is home to more than twenty national park sites. And as our country continues to celebrate its two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, these sites are such an important reminder of where we as a country came from and also where we're headed. And that's why I'm so excited to speak today in support of two pieces of legislation I introduced, which will help our country continue to share its story. First, I'd like to speak in support of S three five two four, the American Battlefield Protection Program that the Chairman, Chairman Daines mentioned, Amendments Act of twenty twenty five, which I introduced with Senator Tim Kaine. The American Battlefield Protection Program is a program administered by the National Park Service to support community driven stewardship of historic battlefields and sites of armed conflict on American soil. This bipartisan legislation will re- re-author re-authorize this program through twenty thirty five. In Pennsylvania, this program has provided grants to support preservation projects, such as sites including Brandywine, Gettysburg, Fort Mifflin, Fort Necessity, and Thompson's Island. And I'd like to thank the bipartisan group of senators who have cosponsored this bill. It's got great support. I'd also like to speak in support of S four two three eight, the Endless Mountains National Heritage Area Act, which I introduced with Senator Fetterman, my Fe- fellow sediment, the senior setter senior senator, from Pennsylvania. This bill would designate Pennsylvania's endless mountains regions, which includes Bradford, Sullivan, Susquehanna, and Wyoming counties as a National Heritage Area. This region is rich in both history and natural beauty. It's believed that George Washington is responsible for referring to this region as " endless mountains". Outdoor and heritage tourism in the region already supports nearly two thousand jobs and generates more than a hundred and sixty-six million, in annual economic activity. Designation as a National Heritage Area would increase national visibility, attract more visitors, unlock additional federal resources, and could generate up to three hundred and fifty million dollars in annual economic activity. I'm grateful to Senator Fetterman for joining me in leading this bill, and to Congressman Dan Muser for introducing a companion version in the House of Representatives. So to close, thank you to our co-chairman, Senator Daines and Senator King, uh, for including these two bills in today's legislative hearing. And I look forward to working with you as you s- suggested Senator Daines to, uh, get these bills passed out of committee and to the full Senate for consideration. Thank you.

Senator McCormick, thank you. Uh, all member statements will be added to the hearing record. We're now gonna proceed to the testimony from senators not on this committee. A warm welcome to, uh, Senator Schiff. Good to have you here. You may proceed.

Thank you, Chairman Daines, uh, Ranking Member King, uh, and colleagues on the committee. Uh, thank you for scheduling the hearing and for the opportunity to speak on behalf of two of my bills. I have introduced the Frankie Evans Act S thirty-one thirty-one for the past, several Congresses, first in the House and now in the Senate. My colleague, Senator Kramer, has introduced the same legislation for even longer and is the lead cosponsor of this bill, along with Senators Schumer and Wyden. The purpose of the bill is simple. It would direct the Secretary of Defense to authorize adding the names of seventy-four sailors who died aboard the US Frankie Evans during the Vietnam War, to the Vietnam War Memorial Wall. Once authorized, the Department of Interior and the National Park Service, in conjunction with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, could add the names to the wall. In short, the sailors aboard the Frankie Evans were like thousands of others in the Vietnam War. They participated in combat, uh, operations, after which they were directed to depart Vietnam waters. and participate in a multilateral uh training exercise. During one of the evenings of that exercise, the ship was involved in a catastrophic accident with an Australian vessel. It was essentially cut in half and within a matter of minutes, seventy-four of its sailors died in the process. These sailors were called by the nation into service. They were a combination of officers and volunteers and draftees. They gave the same measure of sacrifice as every other service member listed on the Vietnam Wall. But because their sacrifice occurred in an exercise outside of a particular line drawn in the water, uh, a fact, uh, and a line drawn only after the war, they and their families have been denied the same level of recognition from our nation as everyone else, uh, on that wall. Some have rea- raised concern about the space on the wall and whether seventy-four Additional names could fit on the wall in chronological order. Uh, and while they could not be fit on the wall as a block, they can be added to blank spaces on the monument without any additional modifications, uh, a compromise completely acceptable to the Frankie Evans family members of those who died. I came to this issue because of one of those, uh, family members, Tim Wendler, who, uh, as a young child lost his father aboard the Frankie Evans. But so many other families uh are deeply devoted to this issue. They're all around the country. I also uh would like to speak briefly in support of my other bill uh before the subcommittee today, the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study Act, which I introduced with my friends, Senator Badia and Ranking Member Jared Huffman. The bill directs the National Park Service to conduct a feasibility study on designating the Bay Area Ridge Trail. as a national scenic trail, thus kick-starting a multi-year process. The Bay Area Ridge Trail gives visitors to the Bay Area and its residents the opportunity to enjoy more than five hundred miles of some of California's most incredible outdoor beauty, including parks and preserves. With over four hundred and fifteen miles already complete, the trail connects more than seventy-five parks and open spaces and provides recreational opportunities for hikers, cyclists, tourists, and more across nine Bay Area counties. The trail provides access to desert, marsh, grassland, mountain, canyon, river, and forest ecosystems. Providing federal recognition to this ridgeline trail would help preserve it for future generations. The bill does not add any new funding, and the legislation is widely supported by local communities. It is also supported by every member of the Bay Area Congressional delegation. Uh, once again, I thank you uh for your consideration of these bills, for the opportunity to speak, and Chairman, want to join uh your colleague and the ranking member and thank you for your service in the Senate. Uh we will miss you and uh it's an honor serving with you. Thank you.

Senator Schiff, thank you uh for your great remarks and uh thanks for your testimony. Uh, Mister Kuvelir, if you could please join us at the witness table. Mister Kuvelir, your full written testimony. will be made part of the official hearing record. You can always tell those from the Park Service. I mean, you're you kind of give yourselves away and that hat says it all right there. We love it. The old Smokey the Bear hat, as we say out west. Um, your written toasting will be made part of the official record, as I mentioned. And, uh, Mr. Coupolier, if you are ready, uh, you may proceed.

Good afternoon. Chairman Daines, Ranking Member King, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of Interior's views on the twenty-four bills on today's agenda. I respectfully submit our full statements for the record and will now summarize the department's views. Many of the bills under consideration today have the department's full support, and would give the us the opportunity to continue our commitment to working directly with local communities businesses and tribes, to ensure their needs are understood and addressed effectively. The Gee's House Site Conveyance Act would appropriately permit Denali Unlimited and Alaska Native Regional Corporation to assume stewardship responsibilities of culturally significant and ancestral lands within Denali National Park and Preserve. S two eight eight seven would designate the historic Route sixty-six corridor as a national historic trail and honor strongly supported by surrounding local communities. H R five two five four would authorize a philanthropic partner, the Gateway Arch Park Foundation, to work with the NPS to host private events in Gateway Arch National Park. This authority would strengthen the foundation's ability to support the park, while giving the NPS time to evaluate how exclusive after-hours use of visitor-centered functions in practice. The department supports the Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act, which would provide a free annual National Parks and Federal Recreation Lands Pass to federal, state, tribal, or local law enforcement officers and firefighters. The department shares Congress's commitment to honoring the service and sacrifice of these public safety professionals. Consistent with the community-focused approach, the department does not object to the Wintergreen Emergency Egress Act, which would authorize the NPS to grant it right away to establish an additional egress route in direct response to community needs. The department would like to work with the sponsors on several bills that we support but believe require additional refinement to ensure effective implementation and aligning with the existing authorities. The department supports expand extending the authorization of the Battlefield Acquisition Grant program from twenty twenty eight to twenty thirty-five, under the American Battlefield Protection Programs Amendments Act. However, we do not support increasing the existing federal share, cost share that is, from fifty to seventy-five percent, as the long-standing fifty-fifty match reflects an equitable equitable partnership and shared responsibility that has contributed to the program's success. The department also does not support the proposed studies in section three, due to current resource constraints. While we appreciate the National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act would provide the secretary with additional flexibility to extend certain leases, the bill as drafted could permit repeated extensions without clear limits, reducing transparency, and limiting opportunities for new businesses to compete for leases. We'd welcome the opportunity to provide recommendations to strengthen the bill's implementation framework. The department supports the intent of the Motor Vehicle Use Within System Units Act, which would apply state vehicle use laws to roads within National Park Service units, including authorizing off-road vehicles where permitted under state law. On this bill, we'd like to work with the subcommittee to ensure the bill language can be implemented as intended. The department supports the North Rim Restoration Act, which would provide needed contracting flexibility to accelerate ri- wildfire recovery on Grand Canyon's North Rim. We asked for consideration of adding additional provisions to raise small dollar amount purchase procurement thresholds, which would further streamline urgent recovery work and allow the National Park Service to move more efficiently on time-sensitive repairs. We'd like to work with the sponsor and the committee on additional amendments. The department supports extending the authority for the Adams Memorial Commission, and it agrees it's appropriate to commemorate the Adams family's enduring contributions to our nation. We concur with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission's recommendation to continue evaluating a broad range of potential sites, rather than selecting a specific location at this time. We we recommend that Congress defer action on the Upper Raritan River, Watershed, Wild, and Scenic River Study Act and the Endless Mountains National Heritage Act until the NPS completes the related studies that are underway for each of those bills. There are a few bills for which the department defers to appropriate authorities. Consistent with other renaming and commemorative bills, we defer to Congress on the Hearts of Gold Playground Reg- Reg- uh, excuse me, the Hearts of Gold Playground Redesignation Act. We also defer to Congress on whether to extend the authorization of the African American Civil Rights Network Act for an additional ten years, as proposed in the renewing the African American Civil Rights Network Act. For the USS Frankie Evans Act, we defer to the Department of War. There are several bills under consideration that the department does not support, because we are focusing our limited resources on addressing the critical needs of parks in the existing NPS portfolio. These include bills that would expand current park boundaries, create new park units, or require the NPS to conduct and complete new studies. Mister Chairman, this concludes my testimony, I'd be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the subject committee may have.

It's Couvler, thank you. Uh, my first question is regarding Senate Bill thirty-five, twenty-four, the America Battlefield Protection Program Amendment Act. The Battlefield Trust has helped preserve the most iconic battlefields in America. My question is, could you speak of the importance of the program to preserving our country's history and the need to extend the program?

Yeah. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. The American Battlefield Protection program leverages the public-private partnerships to protect important sites that we ca- that we can't protect through pub- public ownership, thereby saving taxpayers millions in acquisition and management cost. The program, working through our partners, has led to the survey of more than six hundred and fifty battlefields, associated with sixteen wars, supporting over twenty-two million dollars in preservation efforts. Since nineteen ninety-two, the program has awarded more than five hundred and thirteen battlefield preservation planning grants, including forty-three grants totaling four point three million dollars, to help port- protect more than one hundred battlefields in forty-two states and territories. Very successful.

So, if we look forward, Mr. Gouvelier, if it is signed into law, How would Senate Bill thirty-five twenty-four expand the current mission of the battlefield program?

I think that, you know, expanding really amounts to collaboration through these public-private partnerships. Um, you know, we've strengthened through shared stewardship with local communities, examples in Montana. Uh, we awarded the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument a grant to support national registered documentation, uh, associated with the Great Sioux War. And then outside of Montana, an example is in Connecticut, where the program provided tribal nations, documenting preserving the Pequot war battlefields. So I think there are opportunities that we can always expand through those kind of partnerships.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Uh, if back home in Montana, the National Park Service administers the little, the little Bighorn battlefield, uh, the Bear Paw battlefield, the Big Hole battlefield. Some of these you have to drive a little ways to find them, and they're absolutely beautiful, um, preservations. They were all very important battles in the history of Montana and the history of our country. And how could the Park Service better partner with the armed forces, with the tribes, with local communities, to tell the stories of these battles, as well as others from the Indian Wars?

Well, as I I shared before, I think there, it is all about partnerships, um, and really working with interested parties. and then developing those relationships uh related to that fifty for fifty percent share. And there are certainly opportunities when those parties come to us through the uh pro programs and processes that we have put together.

I wanna shift gears uh and talk for a moment about H R twenty-three O six, the Adams Commission. Mr. Kuviler, H R twenty-three O six extends the arm Adams Memorial Commission for an additional seven years and locates the memorial in President's Park. Despite John Adams and the entire Adams family playing a pivotal role in the founding of our country and its formative years, there's still no official memorial to him and his family in DC. Uh, Mr. Couvillier, what is the current status of the Adams Memorial Commission and what progress have they made since authorization twenty five years ago dating back to two thousand one

uh thank you sir for your question my understanding is that the adams memorial commission has been methodically setting up their kind of organizational structure and the infrastructure that's necessary for the establishment of the adams memorial the commission has set up a five O one c three developed their website secured branding and hired a consultant work stopped when the commission's authority expired the authorities extended, the commission plans to move forward with establishing the memorial.

Um, do you know what is the site identified in the bill currently used for? And does the Park Service believe there's a suitable alternative location for the memorial?

Thank you for the question, sir. The site that's been identified in the bill is in the northeast corner of the Ellipse and it's a visitor pavilion is at that location currently uh, as you know, the Ellipse is situated between the White House and Constitution Ave. And under the Commemorative Works Act defines this as kind of a great cross-axis of them all, which generally extends from the United States Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, and from the White House to the Jefferson Memorial. And, although we at the department do not have a preferred site, we would recommend that the Memorial sponsor follow the process laid out through the Commemorative Works Act and conduct a thorough site assessment. There's a number of potential ideal locations for the Adams Memorial and the Washington, D. C., Monumental Core. A site selection process would enable the Memorial sponsor to carefully consider the appropriateness of each location, including factors such as visual imp- visitor visual impacts, visitor accessibility, security, and operational needs, as well as the historical nexus with other memorials and institutions.

Mr. Kuebeler, thank you, and I want to yield to uh Co-Chair King for his questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Kuebeler, I I looked at your testimony, you you used the term uh, limited resources ten times. uh in those in that uh uh filing um and it talked about uh uh the uh the bill was opposed because of the limited resources and in fact in the concluding portion of your verbal testimony you used the the term limited resources um i understand that the problem i have is that those limited resources aren't limited by accident or act of god those resources are limited because of deliberate choices made by this administration Uh, between January of last year and now, uh, the National Park Service has lost a quarter of its permanent workforce, four thousand employees. And this has been through buyouts and the fork in the road letter and, uh, uh, uh, early retirements reorganization. Uh, and on top of that, the administration's budget request this year cuts park service construction by forty-two percent. Uh, the service is short of resources, no question. Uh, that's exactly what this administration has asked for, has created. Uh, the scarcity is not an accident. It's not a function of a tight budget. It's a predictable result of the choices this administration made about budgeting and staffing. Uh, and then, and I, by the way, these comments are not directed to you, but I understand you're a career employee and you're not responsible for these decisions. but they are directed to uh the National Park Service more generally and the Department of the Interior. But to come before this committee and say we can't do X, Y, or Z because of a lack of resources, when in fact the administration created the lack of resources is like uh somebody killing their parents and then pleading for mercy cuz they're an orphan. Uh this is a self-imposed uh uh challenge uh to the proper administration of our national parks. Uh, I do have one question, and I w- I wish you to take this for the record, and that is, what are the rea- what resources, both in terms of staffing hours or dollars, would be necessary to implement each of the twenty-five bills on the agenda today? I don't expect you to answer that now, but I would like that for the record. In other words, what - what would it ta- what would it take in terms of building back the resources in order to uh - in order to adequately implement these - these bills? It just I I'm I'm I'm at a loss to understand why this administration has sought to drastically cut funding and resources and personnel of America's best idea. It just makes no sense to me. In terms of the Adams Memorial Bill, my concern there, uh I re I totally agree with the chair that uh Adam's family should be honored and there should be a a a memorial, no question, Uh, the, my problem is I, I wanna be sure that we have an identified site and memorial uh, design. Um, we're now going through a process where uh, uh, uh, under the commemorative works at Congress, well, uh, under previous law, the Congress approved two columns at the uh, western end of the memorial bridge, and it's not now being, we're now being told that justifies the building of a monstrous arch. So, I don't wanna have a d- have this repeat itself. I think if we're gonna do the Adam's Memorial we should, but it should be done with specificity in terms of the location and the design of the memorial. Uh, and finally I agree with your testimony about Senator Tillis's bill. Uh, lease extensions may make sense, but not endless lease extensions that, uh, that will, uh, that will have the effect of limiting competition and, and in fact undermining service to uh to our uh to the to the customers and also the value to the taxpayers do you suggest parameters on this lease extension bill that might mitigate some of these problems

i'd i think we'd welcome the opportunity to uh discuss that uh as follow-up with and see if there are some parameters that would be appropriate uh i don't have any before you today specifically sir

i appreciate that well i appreciate your having your testimony and the the work that you've done on these bills Uh, but again, I wanna reiterate, uh, uh, pleading pleading poverty when it's self-induced is a is a do- doesn't, uh, doesn't work for me, for this member of the of the subcommittee. So, uh, we will look forward to considering these bills in in a mark-up session, uh, and discussing them in in full, and we are really appreciate your testimony. And again, I wanna reiterate my comments about the funding and the resources are not directed at you but they are directed at the decisions. being made at the National Park Service, which by the way, doesn't have a director, and at the Department of the Interior. I think they're inimical to the to the national interest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator King, thank you. If there's no more questions for today, members may also submit for the record follow-up written questions before six p m tomorrow. The hearing record will be open one week. I wanna thank Mister Kuvalia for his time, his testimony, and your service to our country in your capacity. This hearing is adjourned.