S.1547 to Reauthorize National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund

Morning. The committee will come to order. We're gonna conduct a brief business meeting, uh, before our hearing today, so we'll start with that. In today's business meeting, the Senate will take up S fifteen forty-seven, reauthorizing the National Parks and the Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, sponsored by Senator Daines. First, let me ask if any senator wishes to offer an amendment. Ok.

Miss, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, uh, first I want to note that reauthorizing the legacy restoration fund is a priority for me as it is for many of us uh on this committee. In California alone we have nearly a five billion dollar deferred maintenance backlog on our federally managed public lands and this reauthorization could provide nearly a billion dollars to address that over five years it's why I co-sponsored the America the Beautiful Act which I thanked Senator Daines and Senator King for all their hard work on however the substitute amendment before us today would change the bill significantly from the one I chose and agreed to co-sponsor specifically I'm concerned about the amendment's approach towards non-resident visitor fees in january the Park Service implemented a whopping one hundred dollar per person surcharge for non-resident vis visitors at eleven national parks, including Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks in California, some of the most heavily visited parks in the country. I'm concerned that this bill would codify this surcharge and apply it to all park service units that collect fees. I'm also particularly concerned about how the park service determines who is required to pay these extra fees. Our national parks are significant contributors to local economies, and should be welcoming to all who visit our country. Under the current practice, these fees have been collected on the honor system. However, if we codify this, I fear that parks could become de facto immigration checkpoints, where hardworking park service staff will be required to check passports, or birth certificates, and that's not their job. It's not something they're trained to do and that's not what i signed up for uh now as to the amendments i have a couple quick ones to my understanding the goal of the non-resident fee is to apply to foreign tourists however the definition of non-resident has been left very vague in the text before us that's why i filed a second degree amendment with senator hickenlooper that would only apply these surcharges to foreign visitors on tourist visas which i believe was the original intention The language in our amendment would bring the bill in line with the bipartisan House version led by Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman on the House side. Uh, this is uh amendment one A two. Uh, but, Mister Chairman, I understand that our staffs are having encouraging and productive uh conversations to resolve this drafting issue. So I certainly like to see these issues addressed in the bill before its final passage. Uh, but I believe since members of both sides want to address this uh or won't bring up the Padilla Hickenlooper Amendment one a two but I have another critical issue that we need to address which is how revenue from nonresident visitor surchar surcharges would be shared across the park service system colleagues currently at least eighty percent of the fee of the fee revenue collected at a park service unit stays in the unit where it was collected while twenty percent benefits other parks around the country. But, the bill before us does not keep any of the surcharge revenue in the park where the fee was collected. Instead, it would redirect all of the additional revenue into the broader legacy restoration fund. A strong belief that parks are that are heavily visited and experience additional strain on their natural resources and infrastructure should be which should be proportionally supported, based on these surcharges. So um second amendment padilla hickenlooper one a one has been filed that would require at least eighty percent of these foreign tourists' surcharges be dedicated to addressing the maintenance maintenance in the park where it was collected. Now I understand that this is the the surcharge was added as a pay-for and that we still do not have a CBO score for the bill. But in good faith, I will not bring up this second degree amendment for a vote today, knowing that we're continuing to work uh on this issue and maintaining the spirit that the parks that collect high levels of revenue receive uh uh their proportionate share of support for deferred maintenance. And lastly, Mister Chairman, uh my um amendment, my third amendment that I want to bring up, I believe it's critical that gateway communities and the public be able to have a say in these foreign tourist surcharges when the department of interior created these non-resident visitor fees in january they did not consult with the public in any way despite consultation being a legal requirement of the federal lands recreation enhancement act there was no public consultation on how expensive these fees should be there were no studies on the potential impacts on visitational levels and a analysis on the impacts to gateway communities and local businesses. Uh, I sent a letter to the Department of Interior in December with several of my colleagues on this committee requesting information on what public consultation occurred and how these fees would be implemented and we have yet to receive a response. Now, as written, the bill would strive to " maximise revenue" while " retaining non-resident visitation" when deciding the amount of the surcharge. It only seems appropriate that the gateway communities and local stakeholders should be consulted given the impacts to local economies and the bottom line for many businesses and families. Mister Chairman, I appreciate you working with my staff to include language in your substitute amendment to provide public participation opportunities uh to gateway communities and local stakeholders in accordance with existing law and given these surcharges would no doubt impact local communities I appreciate you supporting us in allowing all of our constituents to have a voice in this process and I appreciate that the uh manager's amendment includes language to address this third concern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, thank you so much, uh, Senator Padilla. Uh, look forward to continue to work with you on these on these matters. I appreciate that. Senator Hirono.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I share the concerns that Senator, uh, Padilla has expressed and the amendment bill would expand the authority of the National Park Service charge international visitors higher fees at all fee collecting parks and since january of this year eleven fee collecting parks have charged higher fees for non-residents we don't yet have data on what revenues what revenue that has generated or the impacts that those higher fees have had on visitations to gateway communities which is why as senator padilla noted it is important for our community input and consultation regarding these uh higher fees. We should have that information before we expand that uh to all fee collecting parks and codifying it into law. Another change to the underlying bill uh is that an entire provision has been included, giving the Department of the Interior the authority to license intellectual property. The amendment would give the Department of the Interior authority similar to that given to the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security, but without requiring similar governing regulations. I think that is an important uh aspect to giving this kind of authority to the Interior Department that uh the other two departments that have this kind of authority they did have to undergo rule making in in to implement that authority. So I'm a co-sponsor of the underlying bill which has brought bipartisan support, so I'm glad that we are uh moving the bill and I and I do support the basic purpose of this bill even in the amended form and the concerns that I have. Um and the underlying purpose is to extend the authority uh for the Department of the Interior to address uh deferred maintenance needs on our public lands and we know that that that's in the billions of dollars that of deferred maintenance, and it's something that I very much support. So I would again associate myself with Senator Padilla's remarks and hope that we can improve this bill before the full Senate considers it. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thanks so much, Senator Hirono. Uh, I'm gonna defer my opening statement and my remarks on the bill until, uh, after we vote and, uh, we'll allow everybody else to speak afterwards if they like, but would like to turn now, uh, to my amendment that I've offered jointly, uh, with Senator Heinrich. And I wanna thank Senator Heinrich and his team for, uh, a- and all the others who have participated in, in this, including Senator King, uh, uh, or, uh, or Uh, teams have worked, uh, very hard on this and, uh, grateful for it. Um, uh, this will be, uh, amendment one A, the Lee-Heinrich amendment, and this will be a voice vote. Uh, all those in favor of the Lee-Heinrich, uh, amendment number one A, all those in favor of that amendment say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All those opposed say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and the amendment is agreed to. We'll now go to the bill, S fifteen forty seven. Uh, as amended, um, and, uh, the question is on the bill. All those in favor of the bill, uh, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And, uh, the bill S fifteen forty-seven, as amended, will be reported favorably to the Senate. Um, I'll now recognize any speaker who wants to be heard on this legislation. Uh, I I see uh hands up from Senator Daines and Senator Murkowski on this side, Senator King and Senator Heinrich on this side.

Mr. Chairman, we just witnessed something that looked very easy, but was very hard. Um, this was a very profound moment to have a voice vote on what we just accomplished. And, uh, it's nice to have some good news in Washington, D. C., for a change of bipartisan cooperation. compromise and a great outcome. Uh, the teams were up literally until about six thirty this morning, working to get to this point, and I wanna commend them. Uh, Chairman Lee, Rank Member Heinrich, thank you, uh, for your leadership. And thanks to all the staff who were bleary-eyed and bushed this morning for working very late nate late nights and long hours to get to where we're at here today. This is a big step forward. The Great America Outdoors Act was viewed as one of the greatest conservation wins in fifty years. I think similarly now we extend the work that was done with that bill by reauthorizing this tremendous investment in in addressing the maintenance backlog, International Parks and National Forest. Uh, this amendment and the bill we're sending to the full Senate represents a bipartisan and bicameral collaborative outcome. We've been working with the administration both sides of the aisle here in the Senate, as well as keeping our House colleagues in the loop, Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman, so that we can move it not only out of the Senate, but get it through the House and to the President's desk. We've taken priorities from the House, the Senate, the administration, many members on this committee, and there were reforms made. The reforms we did make strengthened the Legacy Restoration Fund, helped us tackle that growing maintenance backlog on our parks and public lands, It's a great down payment to help fix the aging infrastructure and bolster our recreation economy. This is supported by over one hundred groups. It has sixty-four Senate bipartisan cosponsors. And I want to thank my co-chair, Senator King, his staff. As many of you know, on the National Park Subcommittee we don't have a chairman and ranking member. Uh, Senator King and I have always agreed on a handshake, we are co-chairs. No matter which way the gavel falls in majority minority position, Senator King and I are co-chairs. Been a wonderful partner on that subcommittee, and we have an outcome here today. I also wanna thank Senator Murkowski and her staff, Secretary Burgum and his staff. I can't tell you how many text messages I have on my phone right now in the last seventy-two hours, with the secretary. working together with the administration to get to this point here today, this morning. I know their teams work all night with many of the staff that are sitting behind us here on this dais today. I look forward to working with Chairman Westerman. They had a big hearing. They even had Kevin Costner in Hot Springs, Arkansas on Friday, uh, to, uh, to have a hearing about this, this bill, as well as ranking member Huffman. We want to thank them for the work already done. And now, once we have done the work here to toss it to the House and get it through there as quickly as possible. So I urge my colleagues here and my friends in the House, let's get this bill on President Trump's desk before the fourth of July. I can't think of no better president, uh, no better president for the president in the country on the America's two-fiftieth birthday than supporting our national parks and our public lands. Chairman Lee, thank you.

Thank you, Senator Daines, and I, uh, a minute ago I'd - I'd - I thanked, um, Senator Heinrich and uh Senator King and their teams and uh neglected to mention others including Senator Murkowski you Senator Daines for your great work on this um a- a- and I know you and your teams have also been working uh really hard on it and burned the midnight oil along with uh Senator Mark Lewis.

And and Chairman if I may say uh you are the Chairman you have the gavel,

Yep.

were it not for your cooperation on this bill we wouldn't be here today as well,

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for that because you hold the gavel and without your cooperation and leadership we wouldn't have this outcome. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Murkowski.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Senator Daines, I'm I'm pleased to be able to follow your comments. Um, you have been a leader in this space with the Great American Outdoors Act from the very beginning. Um, you have, uh, had a passion and a purpose, I think, towards this, and it is, it's reflected in the working relationship that you have with your Vice Chair. uh, Senator King. I too want to acknowledge the extraordinary hard work, uh, that so many people put into this. And I was somewhat amused by your statement, uh, Senator Daines, that we made this look easy this morning. Um, and it was, it was anything but, but I think that that is reflective of the hard work to get to yes, instead of people who were coming to the table, dead set to oppose it, just just to be able to oppose something. And in fairness, that's kind of the political climate that we are operating in. And so I think it says much about what we're talking about here this morning, which is our great American outdoors, something that whether you are from Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, California, Mississippi, doesn't make any difference where you are. There is a deep uh love for our national treasures. um, and for those, those areas that, um, uh, that we find very personally, uh, connected and attached to. And so when we look at the list of deferred maintenance around the country, um, for these treasured spaces and places, uh, we should all be worried about it. And so what was put in place with the Legacy Legacy Restoration Fund was significantly important. Uh, we need, we need to be aggressive in how we are handling our, our deferred maintenance. And so this reauthorization was very important. What was equally important in this, and I think the role that I and and and really my staff on the Appropriations Committee, um, uh, worked aggressively, uh, around the clock with Senator Merkley's, um, uh, team, I chair the Appropri- Interior Appropriations Subcommittee along with Senator Merkley. And so, uh, our role here is to make sure that Congress's role in in understanding how we're going to implement these priorities is maintained. And so ensuring that there was a list that is presented, um, from the president to the legislative branch, as outlined in in Goa, was important to maintain that, and how we, how we are able then to, to not only receive a list, but to be able to, um, insure that there is accountability on on both sides, that we are not um establishing a a venue for the administration, um any administration going forward to to to kind of pick and choose,

Mm-hmm.

um and inject layers of politics into what should not be political, but again really caring for our treasures. So I'm I'm very appreciative uh Mister Chairman of your leadership in this and Senator Heinrich your willingness uh, to work with all of us, not only on this committee but outside the committee as well. Um, truly very appreciative.

Thanks so much, uh, Senator Heinrich, and then we'll go to Senator King.

I wanna thank you, uh, Mister Chairman, for marking up, uh, this legislation. Uh, this is a good model for how we can get things done on this committee. Um, you know, when I go home, left, right and center, uh, people make their their family memories on our public lands. And so reinvesting in that infrastructure is incredibly important. Uh, I also wanna thank, um, Senator Dain, Senator King, all of the co-sponsors, the appropriation staff who worked all night, uh, to land this deal. And, uh, and we got it done with minutes to spare. So, um, I, I, I don't think, uh, it may look easy this morning, but this was a big lift and I wanna thank everybody who worked so hard to make it happen. Thank you.

Senator King.

Well, I wanna provide my thanks just as all of us have, uh, particularly to the staff, uh, who often don't get the recognition, who are working as, uh, Senator Heinrich said all night, literally, to to finalize this document. Um, Steve, uh, Senator Daines, great to work with you, and, uh, this is the way this place is supposed to work. uh bipartisan work together on a common cause important to the American people uh Mister Chairman I appreciate your accepting my amendment that this money will be allocated alphabetically by PARC alphabetical starting with Acadia actually I'm that's no no such thing but it's a good idea

um this is a strong objection from the guy who loves Yellowstone

uh

which I know I know Senator Barrasso would associate himself with those numbers

and

and you'll see

and and and he's got Zion.

I guess Zion is not gonna fare well in that one, eh?

We- we're gonna have the why caucus or rebel here, but go ahead, Angus. Proceed at great risk.

Uh, yeah. No, seriously. Um, and I do want to in- inject one note, uh, of - of frustration, not with this bill, but - but for the necessity of the bill. Uh, through multiple administrations I had great problems with the last administration on not providing adequate maintenance in the regular budget. uh we're doing a bill on deferred maintenance because we haven't adequately done maintenance which should have been done every year as part of the base budget of the of the interior department of the national park service so um this is a major accomplishment but i think we should also work with the current administration the next administration uh to to be sure that that uh this doesn't we don't have to do this every five years uh uh because not doing maintenance is a kind of debt. It's incurring a debt, and we're now gonna pay that debt, but going forward I I hope that uh whoever's in charge of the Department of the Interior and the uh National Park Service budget will take the maintenance responsibility as seriously as they do the other portion. So uh uh but with that note I uh this is an extraordinary achievement and it's being done on the on in exactly the right way with a lot of work uh a lot of compromises, a lot of uh Uh, uh, but as I think Senator Murkowski said, a lot of the impulse was to get to yes. And we made that happen. And we're not there yet. We've gotta work with the House. We gotta continue to refine the bill, uh, get through the, on the Senate floor, but, uh, this is an important step forward for America and for our national parks. And I wanna thank the Chairman and the and, and, uh, Ranking Member Heinrich for their leadership on this. We wouldn't be here without you. Thank you.

Thank you. Um. OK, what - what we're gonna do now, we'll - we'll go ahead and conclude the business meeting and then I'll give my opening statement for the hearing and - in which I'll also, uh, give my brief remarks on this bill, uh, put those, eh, i- into the record. Uh, our - our national parks are

Mm-hmm.

Our national parks are among the most popular features of the U. S. government. Not everything we do in this town necessarily brings about absolute popularity, but people like their national parks. The national parks are iconic. They're among the most recognizable places in America.

Yeah.

Millions of people travel from across America and from throughout the world to witness their beauty. And we, as Americans, have a responsibility to make sure that they're well-maintained and that they're, uh, gonna be there for generations to come, uh, as, as beautiful, uh, as ever. By twenty twenty, however, there were was some broad agreement that the federal government had fallen short of that responsibility. Roads, trails, uh, visitor centers, campgrounds, water systems, and other critical infrastructure at many of our national parks and on other federal lands were piling up. Uh, they were piling up these, uh, huge deferred maintenance backlog lists. faster than the agencies responsible for managing them were able to address them. The Great American Outdoors Act, uh, uh, uh, often pronounced as GOA, was Congress's answer to that challenge. But when GOA first came before Congress during the first Trump administration, I had serious concerns about how the program was structured and whether it would actually solve the problems that it was set up to solve. Specifically, the dra- the, uh, uh, the - the drafters included a permanent extension of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in Goa, which allowed the government to continue permanently growing a federal estate that it's uh proven not to be able to to manage uh uh as evidenced by its massive and growing deferred maintenance backlog uh increasing costs and restricting uh many communities, especially in the western United States where a lot of these lands are found, and ultimately adding to the deferred maintenance backlog. At the time of passage of Goa, the deferred maintenance backlog across federal land management agencies, uh, clocked in at about twenty-six billion dollars. Today, after six years and roughly ten billion taxpayer dollars, that maintenance backlog has skyrocketed up to forty-three billion dollars. Reasonable people can disagree as to why the backlog has increased instead of decreased. But whatever explanation one prefers, the fact remains that Congress should not reauthorize programs on autopilot. We ought to stop from time to time and ask whether they're achieving their intended purpose. And if the intended purpose of GOA was to reduce the backlog, and six years later the backlog is larger than when the program began, significantly larger, I would add, then what should Congress do? Well, one of the things that I appreciate about this committee is that members can disagree and then keep talking and work forward toward a stronger product and a better outcome. I'm very proud of that. And as I've mentioned earlier, uh, um, uh, together with, uh, Senator Daines, Senator King, uh, Ranking Member Heinrich, uh, Senator Murkowski, and, uh, so many others, uh, and the Trump administration, we've done just that. I'm also, uh, very grateful uh, for secretary Burgum at the Department of the Interior for his help and encouragement. Mm. And, um, I also, uh, again want to thank the staff who worked literally all night, uh, and, um, uh, uh, uh, given that we recently experienced another, uh, all night photo-rama, I, I know that that can be very taxing. And so I, I thank them and, uh, uh, all those involved. Uh, but the amendment that we adopted today, um, along with this bill, uh, uh, to, to pass it on to the Senate floor represents a real compromise. And while I've got concerns uh that language added at the behest of of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee uh could slow down the issuance of twenty twenty-seven funding to our states, and the legislation does not include needed reforms to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the improvements reflected in the legislation demonstrate what can be accomplished. when members are willing to engage in good faith negotiations and work through legitimate concerns to figure out what can pass. So I hope that we can carry the same approach into conversations that lie ahead, because there's still a lot of work to be done. We ought to continue examining how federal agencies prioritize maintenance and how and what in what order projects are selected uh uh for maintenance, whether the current policies are encouraging the federal government to acquire land faster than it can maintain the land, uh, the vast acreage that it already owns. Look forward to continuing those talks with my colleagues in the months ahead. The drafters at the original go-up made, um, uh, not a t- uh, Uh-huh. uh, there - there - there wasn't an adequately serious attempt to offset spending within the bill even though many of the ideas were proposed. Uh, the late Senator Enzi proposed a solution. Include a modest surcharge on foreign visitors to our national parks. This is done in other countries when Americans visit foreign destinations, and it makes sense to codify President Trump's executive order on the, on this point. That said, the bill before us is already partially offset. This is a positive step, but we all have a responsibility to ensure that legislation of this size is, is fully paid for, uh, before it reaches the President's desk. And I also believe that will be crucial to its passage. uh, i- um, i- in - in the House, if not also the Senate. And I hope we can continue working together to identify additional offsets, uh, as the bill moves, uh, through the Senate process and advances to and through the floor. America's national parks are a source of great national pride. It's my hope that if we can continue working together, as we have today and, uh, in the days leading up to it, we can pass them on to the next generation in a condition that will make us all proud. Anyone else wanna speak on this bill before we uh uh proceed to the separate hearing on the Great American House- Outdoors Act? I'm actually doing Yeah. Yep. Alright, the business meeting is now adjourned and uh uh we'll begin the hearing.