Business Meeting to Consider Public Lands, Parks, and Water Bills

Committee will come to order. Today we're going to consider a series of twenty bills with some accompanying amendments. I support all of the bills and encourage each of my colleagues to join me in supporting them. I'll give my opening statement and then recognize Senator Heinrich for his opening statement. Um, given the number of bills that, um, we're gonna try to get through, uh, along with some amendments, uh, the, where we'll be voting, um, to accommodate our members' competing schedules with other committees. As soon as there's a voting quorum present, I'll pause our statements and move to voting. After both the voting and the statements are concluded, I'll recognize any senator who may wish to speak on any of the legislation pending, uh, uh, uh, based on the notice of today's hearing. Um, good bills that our constituents need, uh, need to move forward and, and are being held hostage. Across the committee, we've got members who have worked together across party lines to advance legislation that has no substantive opposition. Some of these bills passed unanimously, uh, i- in the last Congress. Others have already received bipartisan approval from the committee. And yet, uh, many of these remain stalled because a few Senate Democrats are deliberately creating a backlog of non-controversial bills uh, to create a uh, contrived justification for bundling them into a massive lands package filled with unrelated priorities, including massive federal land grabs that could not independently pass on their own. I said this before and I'll say it again, uh, that's not what we're gonna do. The committee has done its work. These bills have been reported. They are ready, uh, to clear the Senate and to be sent to the House, and they should be. Time is running out in this Congress. Every week that these bills sit idle makes it less likely that they'll reach the President's desk. The best path to enactment in this chamber and at the other chamber and getting these things to the President's desk involves moving these bills through the Senate individually, or in reasonable bipartisan pairings. We don't need to hold dozens of local priorities hostage, especially when they're non-controversial, while waiting for a massive package that has never been written, introduced, debated, or voted on, and has no chance of making it across the finish line and being signed into law. Last week the committee reported another group of bills that faced no substantive opposition. I asked Ranking Member Heinrich and every member of the committee to work with me to move these bills through the Senate promptly. Um, either separately or in reasonable bipartisan pairings. I don't want members of the committee returning home to explain that legislation that their communities need failed, uh, to pass simply bec- because, uh, uh, one or more of those priorities became leverage in no- negotiations over an unrelated land package. So let's pass bills on which we agree, let's debate the bills on which we disagree, and let's get measures to the House and ultimately to the President's desk. Now, turning to the legislation before us, I'd like to highlight one bill that deserves the committee's uh uh support. The License to Drill Act reauthorizes the Bureau of Land Management's authority to collect fees for new applications for permit to drill. Bureau of Land Management uses those fees to process applications and permits. Reauthorizing this authority gives the agency the certainty and resources it needs to process permits on time without uh imposing additional costs on taxpayers. Energy producers should not have to wonder whether the permitting system will have the resources necessary to review their applications. They deserve permitting process. That's predictable and capable of doing its job. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. More importantly, I hope we continue giving bills like this one the opportunity to succeed rather than allowing them to become bargaining chips for a package that's destined to fail. America is going to need a lot more energy in the years ahead,

Mm-hmm.

and we need to build it quickly. Last year, Republicans on this committee advanced the most significant energy legislation in decades, putting our country on a path toward American energy independence. But that was only part of the job. Now we must reform our permitting system so that energy producers can get to work and build the projects that our nation needs. I'm grateful to all of my colleagues for working with me and with my team on this process and I hope we can carry the same spirit of cooperation across the finish line. The chair now recognizes ranking member Senator Martin Heiner.

Thank you, Chairman. Um, there are a number of bills on this agenda that I am pleased to see moved forward today. particularly the Geothermal Energy Advancement Act, that modernizes the way that the Bureau of Land Management processes geothermal energy permits on public land. Geothermal energy will be an increasingly important part of our energy mix in the future, and the BLM needs an efficient permitting process to get those projects built. Unfortunately, this is yet another mark-up in this committee where we are not conserving a single additional acre of public land for the American people. We could be voting on the Joshua Tree National Park Expansion Act, which would add more than eighteen thousand acres of land to Joshua Tree National Park permanently protecting that land for generations to come. Instead, we will vote to remove twenty-two thousand acres of land from Denali National Park. Sometimes national park boundaries need to change, and it is this committee's job to decide when that is appropriate and a good idea. But that work cannot be one-sided. only advancing bills that remove protections and not those that add them. For that reason, I will oppose S forty-three ninety-nine when the committee considers it today. And I hope that soon we can advance legislation from members of this committee that conserves public land so that we can have a reasonable balance with bills like S forty-three ninety-nine. I have one last comment on S twenty-seven sixty-seven, the Gateway Partnerships Act. This bill will allow the Gateway Arch Park Foundation to host private events at Gateway Arch National Park. While most national parks are frankly not appropriate venues for convention meetings and holiday parties, Gateway Arch is a unique unit of the park system, where such events are not inconsistent with the overall management of the park. Because of that unique character, I will support S twenty-seven sixty-seven today, but I want to be clear that I would not support similar proposals for other units within the National Park Service. Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Heinrich. We'll now proceed with today's business meeting. The committee will have voice votes on amendments to ten bills, followed by voice votes on the bills themselves, and then proceed with roll call votes at the request of Senator Heinrich on two bills. Afterwards, I'll recognize any member of the committee who may wish to speak. And the committee will vote on ten amendments by voice, unless any member feels compelled to speak on any of the amendments prior to voting, I ask that we proceed to a voice vote on the four amendments on block. The amendments are amendment sixteen A to agenda item sixteen, amend- amendment seventeen A to agenda item seventeen, amendment eighteen A to agenda item eighteen, amendment twenty-two A to agenda item twenty-two, amendment twenty-three A to agenda item twenty-three, Amendment twenty-six A to agenda item twenty-six, amendment twenty-seven A to agenda item twenty-seven, amendment twenty-eight A to agenda item twenty-eight, amendment twenty-nine A to um agenda item twenty-nine, and and amendment thirty-one A to agenda item thirty-one. The committee will vote by voice and block on these amendments. There are two on the list that you didn't mention. Oh.

There are sixteen A

Well, tell me what I left out.

I and sixteen A I out.

Hang on one second, thanks.

We're going.

Sixteen AI.

Oh, they are getting A's now.

Oh. Uh, we are not voting on those.

OK, we we caught

What's that?

two.

We are not. We're not voting on those. Hey.

It's one.

What are we voting on?

I believe we have to have one, so we can just pick one.

OK. Um, yep.

Oh, oh.

OK. Um, so the the the question is on those amendments that I've just identified, the committee will vote on them and block um uh by voice. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The amendments are agreed to. Um, we'll now proceed to the bills as amended. Uh, those bills are agenda items nine, sixteen to twenty, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-five to through twenty-nine. Thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-five, thirty-six, and thirty-nine. Those are, respectively, uh, S twelve fifty-seven, twenty-four, ninety-eight, twenty-seven, sixty-seven, and the house companion, HR five two five four, S twenty-eight, O one, S twenty-eight, eighty-seven, S two nine nine three, S three nine, fourteen, S thirty-three, thirteen, and its house companion, HR sixty-three, sixty-five. S thirty six thirty five and the house companion H R seven two five O. S thirty seven fifteen and the house companion H R sixty three eighty. S thirty seven twenty. S thirty seven thirty two. S thirty seven thirty eight. S forty forty one. S forty two thirty eight. S forty five thirty eight. S five O three nine and the house companion H R seven eight three one. And H R five six three one. The committee will vote on these eighteen bills, end block, by voice, as uh as amended, if amended, for these eighteen bills as a block. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All those opposed say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. These eighteen bills will be reported favorably to the Senate.

Yes.

And we've oh we've um uh got a voting quorum present, and so now we'll turn to roll call votes on two additional bills. First is agenda item thirty three, which is S four three three nine, sponsored by Sutter-Merkowski. The clerk will call the roll.

Mister Lee.

Aye.

Mister Barrasso.

Aye.

Mister Risch.

Aye.

Mister Daines.

Aye by proxy.

Mister Cotton.

Aye.

Mister McCormick.

Aye.

Mister Justice.

Aye.

Mister Cassidy.

Aye.

Miss Hyde-Smith.

Aye.

Miss Murkowski. Mister Hoven.

Aye.

Mister Heinrich.

No.

Mister Wyden.

No by proxy.

Miss Cantwell.

No.

Miss Hirono.

No.

Mister King.

No.

Miss Cortez Masso.

No by proxy.

Mister Hickenlooper.

No by proxy.

Mister Padilla. Mister Gallego.

No by proxy.

On this vote, the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.

Um, in that case, uh, the bill will be reported favorably to the Senate. The second is agenda item thirty four S four four one zero sponsored by Senator Barrasso, the clerk will call the roll.

Mister Lee.

Aye.

Mister Barrasso.

Aye.

Mister Risch.

Aye.

Mister Daines.

I've got proxy.

Mister Cotton.

Aye.

Mister McCormick.

Aye.

Mister Justice.

Aye.

Mister Cassidy.

Aye.

Miss Hyde-Smith.

Aye. Aye.

Miss Murkowski. Mister Hoven.

Aye.

Mister Heinrich.

No.

Mister Wyden.

No by proxy.

Miss Cantwell.

No.

Miss Hirono.

No.

Mister King.

No.

Miss Cortez Masto.

No by proxy.

Mister Hickenlooper.

No by proxy.

Mister Padilla.

No.

Mister Gallego.

No by proxy.

On this vote, the yeas are eleven, the nays are nine.

The ayes have it. As forty four ten will be reported favorably to the Senate. At this time I'll now recognize any senator who may wanna uh be heard on any of the legislation we voted on today if any senators wanna be heard yes Senator Murkowski.

Mister Chairman, thank you um for and the rest of the committee here for advancing my bill S forty three ninety nine. This is the Geese House Site Conveyance Act. Um I'm pleased that we've been able to move it out of committee this morning, um uh but I do find it uh somewhat disheartening to see that uh what should be a a non-controversial measure uh received a wholly partisan vote. Um, from what I hear from the the ranking member in your initial comments, uh, the concern is not so much on the substance of the matter, but that, uh, we have not paired, um, uh, taking lands out of the federal estate, uh, with other conservation matters. Um, I understand the the chairman's challenges in in trying to to try to advance uh bills through this committee uh with a little bit of parity. Um I get that um uh and yet sometimes as he has indicated there there are matters that are so very local, so very parochial um and you know maybe there's just more that accumulate on on our side than on the other side. Uh that's obviously a discussion that the the chairman and the ranking member have as you set uh agendas, but I would I would like to just share with colleagues who may feel that uh that they have concerns based on substance as opposed to the construct of the measures that we worked to advance this morning. Um, this is not something that is new. Once again, we are seeking to address um uh, failures within the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act uh that was passed back in in nineteen seventy-one to address um, uh, aspects of that settlement that have not yet, uh, been fulfilled. So we are building, this legislation is building on decades of work by Doyon to fulfill their land entitlement um the sacred the the Geis house site is a sacred site for the As- Asbaskan people who have have called this land home for for millennia. Um, after the passage of, of the Native Claims Settlement Act in seventy-one, Doyon initiated a pretty aggressive effort to to help identify the significant sites and insure conveyance uh of lands with historic and cultural impor importance. And it was through this process that the Geese House site was identified, and then Doyon formally filed its selection in nineteen seventy-eight. So we're going back a long ways, folks. But then in nineteen eighty, what happens? We have a NILCA, which is the Anash- Alaska Nat- National Interest Lands Conservation Act, that uh, that was passed by Congress. And, and in that act, it uh, it established the boundaries of the Denali National Park and Preserve. So you have Doyon that is acting to, to complete their selection of sacred and historic sites. Anilka comes in overlays on top of that. And so there has been, again, a decades-long effort by Doyon to secure the Geese house site. And then last administration, in the Biden administration, the National Park Service determined that the conveyance was going to require an act of Congress. Up to that point in time, there had been efforts to try to advance it through the administrative process. Park Service comes back and says you gotta you gotta legislate. So here we are, nearly fifty years after the site was selected, the conveyance remains unfulfilled. To the to the merits of the selection itself, this bill would facilitate the transfer, uh, in the form of a parcel. It's, uh, as as the ranking member has noted, it's it's a little shy of twenty-two thousand acres. It's twenty-one thousand seven hundred fifty acres. But it fulfills the commitments that were established under ANCSA to provide for the conveyance of culturally significant and historic lands. And it wasn't that Dwayne just kind of willy-nilly uh said we want this section. They worked with the Park Service. They got feedback from the Park Service to uh it allows for clear and manageable boundaries for the Park Service to continue the administration of the lands across the whole preserve but it also uh, establishes protection for cultural sites and ensures that Doyon can, can secure, uh, reasonable access to the site. We, we did this in consultation with the local tribes, with the communities, uh, many of which have provided resolutions in support for the conveyance. Um, and we, we have had opportunities within this committee over the years to, to talk about the significance of what it means within these these native lands to ensure that we are are protecting uh uh sacred sites and and culturally historic sites. And and we certainly saw that with the with the ranking members' um passion when it came to Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. Um there was at that time uh at with working with the last administration a a public land order withdrawing more than three hundred and thirty thousand acres surrounding Chaco Cultural Natural National Historic Park. Um, and so that was an effort where, again, I certainly respected the ranking members' um desire and and and what he sought to do with those protections for the cultural sites. Um, some have suggested that this this uh twenty-one thousand acres is too large and we need to narrow it down. Um, But again, I'm looking back to - to Chaco. That was about thirty-four thousand acres. Um, uh, excuse me, that was three hundred thirty-six thousand acres in a, uh, in an area, um, uh, that's only about thirty-four thousand. So, the concern that, uh, we are hearing is that, uh, this is too much. And again, as I related in the last uh, committee mark-up when we were moving the landless bill. Part of the challenge that we have in Alaska is that so much of our of our lands are held in the federal state roughly two hundred twenty-three million acres of federal lands and so when we need to try to make reasonable adjustments um, we've gotta come to Congress to do so. So when you when you put the the geese house conveyance into perspective, Denali National Park and Preserve spans more than six million acres. and the land that we're talking about conveying is less than one half of one percent. It's point three six percent, to be exact. We also strictly limit the conveyance by prohibiting mining. Uh, we protect the site's cultural significance, and we bar transfer of it, uh, to anyone other than the United States. So what we're trying to do here is, again, insure that the land that was faithfully stewarded by the area's native people for thousands of years can again be managed by and for them. Uh, we would maintain that this conveyance is not - is not excessive, and it's deliberately sized to avoid revealing the - the exact secret site in a public manner. Um, so I am - uh, I'm - I'm again pleased that we've been able to move it out of committee, but I would hope that given the protections that we establish in this legislation, and and the work carried out to develop the selections in coordination with the Park Service and with good support from the communities in the region that we will be able to to work together um in a reasonable manner and find full agreement to return the Geese House site to the Athbasian people before the end of this Congress. So I'm happy uh, Mr. Chairman, to work with anyone on this committee, obviously uh on both sides of the aisle to give further uh clarification, answer any questions or concerns, but I am pleased that we were able to advance it this morning.

Great, thank you. OK, we're gonna go to Senator McCormick McCormick, then Senator Heinrich, uh, then Senator Padilla, then Senator Justice.

Chairman, I also have a question.

Oh, then we'll go to Senator Horno. Thank you. Senator McCormick.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to the ranking member and the committee for including my legislation to establish the endless mountains as a national heritage area in today's mark-up. Thanks to Senator Daines and Senator King for including that in last week's National Park Subcommittee hearing. Pennsylvania's endless mountains region encompasses Bradford, Sullivan, Susquehanna, and Wyoming counties in the northeast part of our state. It's known for scenic vistas and extensive trail networks and great waterfalls and waterways. The region also includes abundant natural resources, including the Susquehanna River and extensive game lands, forests and parks. It's already designated a state heritage area, but national designation would increase national visibility, attract more visitors, and unlock federal resources and it could generate up to about three hundred and fifty million dollars in annual economic activity. So this is a big deal for Pennsylvania. I'm grateful to Senator Fetterman for joining me in he- in leading this bill, and Congressman Dan Muser for introducing a companion version in the House. I look forward to working with the committee to get this bill across the finish line here in the Senate and bestow the Endless Mountains the national recognition it deserves. I also wanna ch- uh thank uh Chairman Lee and uh Ranking Member Heinrich for including legislation introduced by my friend, Pennsylvania senior senator, which I'm proud to co-lead with him, the S four five three eight, the Washington's Trail, seventeen fifty-three National Historic Trail Feasibility Study. Uh, that would direct uh, the secretary of the interior to conduct a feasibility test to designate Washington's Trail as a national historic trail. Washington's Trail follows George Washington's path in seventeen fifty-three, quite appropriate I think in the two hundred and fiftyth birthday. It it's from Fort La Buff and what's known as Waterford PA to Erie County. In Pennsylvania the trail recognizes scenic markers and highlights major tourists and historical destination. The Fort Pitt Museum, the Old Economy Village in Ambridge, uh the um Fort La Buff Museum in Erie. And securing historic trail status for Washington's trail is more than just about preservation it's about an investment in Pennsylvania's heritage, and the journey of a young George Washington, he was actually wounded in Braddock Pennsylvania in one of his first battles. So I'm proud to join Senator Fetterman and my colleagues in the design- in this designation that will turn a critical piece of our frontier history into a lasting educational and economic asset. These two bills are great examples how Republicans and Democrats can work together to advance the interests of the states and the constituents we serve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you. Uh, Senator Heinrich.

Um, as, as I said in my opening statement, there, there are cases where transfers of land, out of a National Park System unit is the right thing to do. I do have concerns with the size. Uh, this is a six hundred acre archaeological site and a twenty-two thousand acre transfer. Um, I very much respect the, uh, the senator from Alaska and and look forward to continuing to work with you on this legislation. And, uh, given, um, the Chaco reference that you brought up, I just wanna make it clear that in the Chaco case, there was no land transfer. All of that land remained in public hands. There was a mineral withdrawal that was designed to protect thousands of individual archaeological and cultural sites. And, uh, I would also make the point that right now this administration is stripping those protections away, uh, in an effort to facilitate oil and gas drilling. And New Mexico is no, um, stranger to oil and gas drilling. We are the second largest producer of oil in the country. Uh, but this particular area is incredibly important, and those protections were necessary to to strike that balance. So, uh, I know the, uh, the Senator from Alaska knows about balance. She has passed a lot of legislation out of this committee, and I think today, unfortunately, we are not finding that balance. We are are not moving forward on legislation from many of my colleagues that would conserve uh, public lands in their States in in the way that their communities uh, would like to see. So I I look forward to working with the Senator to try and find that balance, so that we can move uh, more uh, more legislation forward in this committee. Um, to the issue of uh, Senator Brasso's legislation, I just want to make the point that that bill is a, simply a subsidy. to coal companies. When the United States sells the right to mine publicly owned coal, the company buys that right at a lease sale, uh, and agrees to pay a certain amount of money for the lease. Under current law, the company actually has five years to pay that amount, which means that if they pay at the end of five years, they're actually paying quite a bit less than they bid. Uh, this bill would give them ten years to make that payment, and as we all know, uh, with inflation where it is under the Trump administration, a dollar today is not worth a dollar next year and it is certainly not worth a dollar ten years from now. Coal companies already have five years to complete these payments. Uh, giving them more time means less money to the American people, and that is why, uh, I could not support that legislation.

Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I want to uh first, while she's still here, speak to uh Senator Murkowski's uh, Guy's House site conveyance act and echoing not just uh, ranking member Heinrich's remarks, but I think the sentiments of several of our colleagues on this side of the dais. Uh, first let me be clear, uh, sir Mikalski, I am so grateful for uh, your work and the work of your team, along with my office to advance legislation that returns land back to tribes in California. And it's in that spirit that I wanna make clear that I don't have any policy or substantive concerns uh,

Mm-hmm.

with your bill uh i believe we should be allowing tribes to play a more active role in co-managing our public lands as they have been the stewards of these lands since time immemorial however my colleagues and I have said repeatedly during numerous markups that we would like to see more conservation builds considered by the committee let the members vote how they will but have more conservation builds considered by the committee and while the geese house site conveyance act would uh convey over twenty one thousand acres of national park service land my Joshua tree national park expansion act as uh senator Heinrich has mentioned would convey a similar amount of bureau of land management land to the national park service to me it seems like that's a natural opportunity for these two bills to be paired uh on a mark up however while my Joshua tree bill was on the agenda today it was not on the shortlist uh to receive a vote And because of these reasons I share with my uh uh democratic colleagues uh I was against your bill uh for today but look forward to working with you, with the Chairman, uh with uh all of our colleagues to strike a balanced approach to conservation in this committee. And I'm glad you are still here uh to hear me uh provide these remarks for the record. Mr. Chairman, I also do want to thank you for including on today's mark of my More Water Act, and other bills to address drought across the west. The More Water Act is a companion to Senator Cortes Masto and Senator Curtis's large-scale water recycling reauthorization act, which the committee previously marked up, and Senator Gallego's Water Security and Drought Resilience Act, which the committee also marked up today. Together, these builds Renew Reclamation's programmatic authority to support a range of water recycling and other drought resilience projects which are essential for combating severely dry conditions that we're finding in the colorado river basin and elsewhere throughout the west without these bills reclamation's programmatic authority uh to support these projects would expire later this year the more water act and related legislation advance on a bipartisan basis the goal of speeding up federal assistance to our drought-stricken communities and avoiding the cost increases that inevitably result from delays in project approvals So I greatly appreciate your action on this critical topic. I also appreciate your inclusion to both my Monterey Bay National Heritage Area Study Act and Senator Schiff's Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study Act. The Monterey Bay National Heritage Area Study Act would assess the feasibility of designating certain land along California's central coast as a national heritage area. Monterey Bay, and I know many of you have visited, it's not just a beautiful area, beautiful region. but has many notable sites with unique cultural historical and ecological significance including canary row big sur highway one hearst castle and several john steinbeck literary sites a designation would allow for public-private partnerships to empower local conservation efforts provide technical assistance and spur economic activity in the region i look forward to working with uh my colleagues to pass this legislation to recognize the unique cultural historical and environmental treasures of the Monterey Bay region. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks so much, Senator Petit. And we'll go next to Senator Justice, followed by Senator Harono.

Well, the first thing I'd like to do is brag on this a little bit. To be perfectly honest, a lot of times all we do is fight with one another and continue on with the food fight. But I introduced a bill, a Senate bill, twenty nine thirty three. And we may think it's just so tiny that it really doesn't matter. But it all centered around childhood cancer. And can you just imagine, really at the end of the day, can you really just imagine? If you were a parent, many, many, many times it happens, and many, and it may very well have happened right here. But all of a sudden the diagnosis is your child has cancer. It's terrible. And it would just absolutely jerk your guts out in every single way. Well, Senator Capito and Congressman Miller and myself introduced this bill. And thank goodness we all got on board. Because all it is is the renaming, and it seems so, so tiny, the renaming of a playground, Hearts of Gold. Absolutely Even though it seemed so tiny. If you'd been me, and I did different things, you know, from license plates to meetin' with these great kids and everything, and there these kids are, right with you. Now just imagine little girls, no hair, fighting for their life, bravery like you can't bathe 'em. This means a lot. It means a lot in our state. It means a lot at the New River Gorge National Park and Preserve. And I thank you. I thank you for all of us just standing up for those kids. Because they're in the fight of their life. And they're the best of the best of the best. And it's not a little thing. It's a big thing. And so I thank you in every way. I yield, sir.

Thank you. Senator Horono.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I want to thank Senator Murkowski for her advocacy on behalf of Alaska Natives, because of, of course we in Hawaii, there are a lot of significant sites that, uh, impact Native Hawaiians, and I certainly advocate for their concerns and, and interest. So I understand, uh, your desire to get this bill passed, but I want to explain my no vote. on uh your geese house uh site conveyance it has to do with my understanding that the the explanation for the size of this conveyance has to do with the application of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and that that this kind of conveyance requires uh the size of a township but i am told that uh the the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act does not require or does not have ap- applicability to this kind of conveyance so what i'm hearing from you senator Murkowski is a willingness to work with us to support your your bill and that's certainly where I want to be. Cuz I very much understand the importance of these culturally significant sites to Alaska Native sisters there are such sites important to Native Hawaiians so my hope is that we will be able to come to some kind of an agreement as to f- first of all as to the applicability of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act uh and and the understanding that I have that that uh there is no requirement for this kind of size of of conveyance uh as uh the size of a township under that act so Senator Murkowski I very much uh am on your page in terms of what you're trying to do and I would like us to be able to come to an agreement so that we can all agree on getting this bill over the finish line. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes, Senator Murkowski.

May I just respond to Senator Horano? Um Uh, with regards to the twenty-one thousand a acres, uh, uh, I, I do believe that you are correct, it is not a requirement of ANCSA that it be, uh, uh, the size of a township. Um, the, the, the rationale for the, uh, the size, uh, was based on, again, consultation with National Park Service in terms of how they would be able to manage the surrounding uh park lands. You have to have consistency there. We understand that. Um, but also another factor was um, as as you well know, um, sacred sites are exactly that. They're sacred. These are not sites that are designed for tourists to come and and and take pictures. These are not places that we advertise with big, come here and look at a sacred site. Um, it is, it is that. spiritual, um, uh, the, where the cultural traditions, uh, lie. And so, uh, a part of, part of the, of the significance of where this sits within a larger parcel is, is to basically ensure that there is that level of, of privacy afforded to a, a histor- an historical, sacred site. But I, I would be more than happy to walk you through exactly uh how this this uh twenty-one thousand acres uh came to be, and the recommendations of of our federal agencies as well. But I look forward to that.

Thanks. Do you have anything else? OK, that uh concludes today's business uh meeting. Uh, I wanna thank my colleagues for their participation and uh the committee's adjourn.