[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OPEN TO VISITORS? ASSESSING THE FEDERAL EFFORT TO MINIMIZE THE
SEQUESTER'S IMPACT ON ACCESS TO OUR NATION'S CAPITAL AND NATIONAL
TREASURES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 16, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-900 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DOC HASTINGS, Washington TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TONY CARDENAS, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Robert Borden, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 16, 2013................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Honorable David S. Ferriero, Archivist of The United States,
National Archives and Records Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 9
The Honorable Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, U.S. National Park
Service
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Mr. G. Wayne Clough, Ph.D., Secretary, Smithsonian Institution
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
APPENDIX
Responses to follow-up Questions from Mr. Christopher P. Salotti,
Legislative Counsel, Office of Congressional and Legislative
Affairs, Department of the Interior............................ 68
Responses to Questions sent to Mr. Jarvis, Director U.S. National
Park Service................................................... 69
OPEN TO VISITORS? ASSESSING THE FEDERAL EFFORT TO MINIMIZE THE
SEQUESTER'S IMPACT ON ACCESS TO OUR NATION'S CAPITAL AND NATIONAL
TREASURES
----------
Tuesday, April 16, 2013,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Darrell Issa
[chairman of the committee], presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Jordan, Chaffetz,
Walberg, Lankford, Amash, DesJarlais, Farenthold, Hastings,
Woodall, Collins, Meadows, Bentivolio, Cummings, Maloney,
Norton, Tierney, Connolly, Speier, Davis and Horsford.
Staff Present: Molly Boyd, Majority Parliamentarian;
Lawrence J. Brady, Majority Staff Director; Daniel Bucheli,
Majority Assistant Clerk; Caitlin Carroll, Majority Deputy
Press Secretary; Steve Castor, Majority General Counsel; Drew
Colliatie, Majority Professional Staff Member; John Cuaderes,
Majority Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Majority
Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda
Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Tyler Grimm, Majority Senior
Professional Staff Member; Christopher Hixon, Majority Deputy
Chief Counsel, Oversight; Michael R. Kiko, Majority Staff
Assistant; Mitchell S. Kominsky, Majority Counsel; Mark D.
Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; Kristin L. Nelson,
Majority Counsel; James Robertson, Majority Senior Professional
Staff Member; Laura L. Rush; Majority Deputy Chief Clerk; Scott
Schmidt, Majority Deputy Director of Digital Strategy; Matthew
Tallmer, Majority Investigator; Peter Warren, Majority
Legislative Policy Director; Sang H. Yi, Majority Professional
Staff Member; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of
Administration; Krista Boyd, Minority Deputy Director of
Legislation/Counsel; Susanne Sachsman Grooms, Minority Chief
Counsel; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Press Secretary; Chris
Knauer, Minority Senior Investigator; Adam Koshkin, Minority
Research Assistant; Elisa LaNier, Minority Deputy Clerk; Brian
Quinn, Minority Counsel; Rory Sheehan, Minority New Media Press
Secretary.
Chairman Issa. Before we begin, I think it fitting that we
say a few words and express our condolences and our heartfelt
sorrow for the events in Boston yesterday. Regardless of how it
came to happen, it was a terrible tragedy, and our prayers go
out to the victims and their families, and our thanks to the
brave men and women who were first on the scene.
America watched yet again an act of terror in horror
yesterday at one of the icons of the American sports and
recreational scene. We will not soon forget it, and I want to
thank all of you for this moment of silence.
[Pause.]
Chairman Issa. The committee will come to order.
The Oversight Committee exists to fundamentally do two
things and do them well. First, because Americans have a right
to know that the money Washington takes from them is well
spent, and second, America deserves an efficient, effective
government that works for them.
The oversight side of our committee's responsibility is to
protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold
government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a
right to know what they get from their government. Our job is
to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to
deliver the fact to the American people and bring genuine
reform to the Federal bureaucracy.
With oversight comes reform, if it is done right. Today, we
are continuing our oversight of, in fact, the first real down
payment on reducing the size of government in my 12 plus years
on the Hill. Sequestration is by definition the worst possible
way to save money. Across the board cuts make no sense.
However, as we now have come to know, within sequestration,
within departments, sequestration is not across the board. You
do not buy 2.4 percent less toilet paper. You do not turn
lights on 2.4 percent less bright. The truth is that agencies
have had an obligation to make decisions. The decisions, as we
will see today and as we have seen in previous hearings, vary
widely.
Our initial discovery is that independent agencies not told
by Office of Management and Budget to ignore the impending
sequestration cuts for the most part have taken steps. Those
steps have consistently meant sequestration was less onerous
than it would otherwise be. However, within agencies that were
held to make their cuts later rather than sooner, it appears as
though there is a wide variety of decision process. It appears
to me, at least, that politics of sequestration need to be
ended and ended soon.
Americans deserve to know that we in fact can reduce the
size of government. We can make decisions that impact Americans
less or not at all. As we will hear today, some made decisions
that in fact mean a win-win, not the least of which is an
example of simply shipping answers or mailing more efficiently.
It seems like a small thing. But it is a small thing that came
from the necessity to cut a budget.
Having come from the private sector, these kinds of boom
and bust occur within the economic cycle regularly. Almost
every company has a hot season and an off season, years that
are better and years that, in fact, they need to be more
efficient, times in which market share is being gained at all
cost and times at which, within a given amount of market share,
the stockholders would like you to make a little more profit.
This does not occur ordinarily within government. Perhaps
for the first time since the end of World War II, our
government is facing a clamor from the stockholders, the
American people, to make fundamental changes in how much we
spend and to do it wisely. That is one of the reasons I think
there was such a strong reaction to the White House canceling
tours due to sequestration. There are many things that the
White House could have canceled. There are many decisions they
could have made. This one appears to be symbolic and political.
Now, the fact is, something did have to be cut. Changes had
to be made. And we will hear today, among others, from the Park
Service, who has a great deal of control over Camp David and
the White House, in addition to the monuments throughout
Washington, and of course, our beloved parks around the
Country, including my personal favorite, Yellowstone.
Director Jarvis has been very public about his perceptions
and the effects of sequestration. In public statements, he has
fed fears that trash will not be picked up, that bathrooms
won't be cleaned and that access roads to national parks won't
be plowed. However, there is an inconsistency in what Director
Jarvis has said publicly and what the Park Service has told us
when they briefed the committee just last week. We hope to
reconcile these differences, because in fact, they are
profound.
The Budget Office representative from the Park Service told
both Democratic and Republican committee staff that 99 percent
of visitors will not even notice adjustments. I would notice if
there were no toilet paper. I would notice if the road were
unplowed. This is a far departure from Director Jarvis' public
statements prior to today. I am hoping we can clear up the
ambiguity between his previous statements and the briefings we
received on a bipartisan basis from his staff.
But it goes far beyond this. The fundamental question is,
can we do better with less? In the case of the Park Service, in
constant dollars, they still have 5 percent more money today
than they had when President Obama took office. Yes, there were
plus-ups for the period of time of the stimulus. But the truth
is, when looking at their major budget, representing 80 percent
of their total expenditures, in other words, the non-capital
budget, we find that in constant dollars they have more money
today than they had in 2008. And in 2008, quite frankly, Mr.
Jarvis, the roads were plowed, the trash was taken out, and
most of the time, there was toilet paper.
Early this year, the committee sent letters to the
Department of Interior asking just the kinds of questions that
Congress needs to know, how can Congress help change the most
difficult sequester cuts facing agencies like the Park Service
instead of an across the board. To date, including today, we
have still not received an answer to that question, meaning the
Park Service has not asked us for any authority that would help
reduce sequestration. We can only presume that their position
is, we need all the money we have had, including the 5 percent
increase in our operating budget since 2008, or we will have to
make these cuts.
That does not make sense. There has to be a few percent
better way to spend money.
We will also hear today from witnesses representing the
National Archives and the Smithsonian. I understand they are
not planning to furlough employees and have been far less vocal
discussing the possibilities of public inconvenience caused by
the sequester than the Park Service. At the end of the day,
this hearing is about how we can best work together to ensure
the American people are not adversely impacted by outcomes that
can be avoided by planning, coordination and managing.
With that, I recognize the ranking member for his opening
statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Before I address the topic of today's hearing, I want to
take a moment to express our deepest sympathies to the victims
of yesterday's bombings at the Boston Marathon. As I did on the
Floor yesterday, yesterday was a holiday in Boston, Patriot's
Day. What was supposed to be a celebration turned into a
horrible tragedy for these victims and for their families. Our
thoughts and prayers are with them.
Also I want to commend our first responders. Many of them
are Federal Government employees, State employees, local
employees, emergency medical teams, health care providers and
especially the law enforcement officials at the local, State
and Federal levels who no doubt will be working on this case in
the days and weeks to come. As we all glued our eyes to the
television sets, we heard over and over again of the many
instances where so many Americans who were there were told to
stay away, but they made decisions to go and help their
neighbors.
That is what America is all about. In our toughest times,
we have a way of showing the best of ourselves.
So that leads me to today's hearing. To Mr. Ferriero, to
Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Clough, I am going to start off with the
presumption that I trust you. I trust that you are in jobs that
are very difficult, I trust that you did not come to these
positions to do harm to the public, but to help the public a
life that is well-seasoned, to have experiences that will live
with them until they die. You do not walk into these offices
that you hold trying to stop the public from having the kind of
opportunities that they deserve.
And I refuse to believe that. I just do not. All my
dealings with public employees, and I have said it on the Floor
of the House and I will say it again, most people who come to
government service, that I know of, come because they have a
commitment to lifting up the public, whether they be at NIH,
whether they be in the Park Service, whether they be on our
staffs. People on both sides sometimes are sitting up until
3:00 and 4:00 o'clock in the morning, sending emails, looking
over records. Why? Because they want to do something good for
the public.
And I believe that that is what you all are about. And I am
begging you, I would ask you, but I am begging you, to make
that clear today. I do not know, we all make mistakes. We all
have to sometimes change our plans. Sequestration I am sure has
caused a lot to happen for all your folks. But from what I can
see, you all started planning early, trying to make the right
decisions. And in many instances, you are faced with situations
where you cut, cut, cut.
But again, and I will say this over and over again, cuts
have consequences. Duh. They have consequences. I do not care
where they are. Unless you just got a pile of money that is
just floating down from the sky, there are going to be some
consequences. It is either going to hit you today or hit you
later. It is going to be seen here or it is going to be seen
there. It may not be felt right now, but it will be felt at
some point. But they do have consequences.
So there are two things. One, I trust you. I trust that you
are trying to make the right decisions. I am not starting with
the presumption that you are trying to screw the public. I am
not starting with that. Number two, I am assuming that you will
show us what you did when you first heard about sequestration,
the acts you took and tell us not just about what you are doing
right now, but what you see up the road. This is a long road.
The cuts are going to continue.
So we want, all of us want our constituents to be served
well, as I know that you do. So today the committee is holding
a second hearing on how Federal agencies are implementing
massive across the board cuts imposed by sequestration. I fully
support this hearing, because Congress needs to understand how
these indiscriminate cuts are negatively affecting our
constituents.
The committee has called three agencies to testify, the
National Park Service, Smithsonian Institution and the National
Archives and Records Administration. All three agencies have a
significant presence here in Washington. And all three are
suffering from the negative effects of sequestration.
As I understand it, the National Park Service plans to
furlough all 767 Park Police employees. It may continue its
hiring freeze, which has left about 900 positions vacant. And
it expects about three-fourths of its cuts to be taken from
facility maintenance, visitor service, park protection and
resource stewardship.
Somebody has to pay. Something has to give. It may delay
road openings, deploy fewer park patrols, obviously if you have
to furlough people, there are going to be some folks who are
not present. And close entire facilities, such as campgrounds
and visitor centers.
The Smithsonian may have to take similar measures,
including reducing guard forces at its facilities. It may
reduce or close certain exhibits, galleries or museum, and it
may postpone maintenance and defer capital projects. It also
may delay the opening of the new National Museum of African
American History and Culture by cutting funds to hire critical
staff.
The National Archives also may have to eliminate exhibits
and public programs, reduce hours for researchers and cut
contracts to preserve paper and electronic records. It also may
be forced to reduce public access to records, including records
sought by veterans and their families to verify eligibility for
Federal benefits to which they are entitled.
At our last hearing, we discussed how Speaker Boehner and
the House Republicans insisted on these massive cuts in
exchange for averting default on the national debt. They
considered this a political victory. Today, although Republican
leaders take credit for these cuts, they do not take
responsibility for their negative effects.
Some critics argue that the Federal agencies could avoid
these negative consequences simply by transferring funds from
different accounts or by selectively cutting only certain
programs. They even suggest that agencies might be making cuts
unnecessarily to inflate their negative impact for political
reasons.
As we learned in our previous hearing, however, Congress
did not give agencies wide discretion to implement
sequestration. Congress imposed these across the board cuts at
every programmatic level and Congress has passed multiple
restrictions to prevent agencies from transferring or pre-
programming funds.
Critics seem unable and unwilling to acknowledge this one
simple fact: these massive cuts do have consequences.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, serious negative and harmful
consequences for the American people, anyone who blames the
President for closures and cutbacks in Washington, D.C.,
whether at the White House or at the three agencies here today,
is either unfair or misinformed.
I would like to put up some photos, if I may. These are
pictures of office buildings right here in the Capitol.
Republican leaders drastically cut funds for the Capitol Police
this year. So office buildings throughout Congress have been
forced to shut their doors. Lines for the general public now
spiral into the street. I am sure almost every Congressional
staffer in this room has been affected by this as well.
Is this somehow the President's fault? Of course it is not.
Cuts have consequences. The sooner we recognize that, the
sooner we can begin working with Federal agencies to protect
them and the American public from these mindless, across the
board cuts.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. I would note that
that picture could have been taken five years ago. It is not
uncommon to have those kinds of lines at that point.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you just
said. The picture was taken this morning.
Chairman Issa. I have little doubt of that.
Members may have seven days to submit opening statements or
enter extraneous material into the record. We will now welcome
our guests. The Honorable David Ferriero is the Archivist of
the National Archives and Records Administration, and a
returning guest. The Honorable Jonathan Jarvis is the Director
of the Park Service, and again, returning. And Dr. Wayne Clough
is the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Thank you all
for your service.
Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses will rise
and be sworn. Please raise your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you will give
will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
Chairman Issa. Let the record indicate all witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
As is the custom here on the Hill, your entire opening
statements will be placed into the record. I would ask that you
limit your opening statement, which some of you are bound to
read, whether we ask you not to or not, or a summary thereof,
but please try to stay as close to the lights in front of you.
As now my retired predecessor used to say, it is easy to
remember, it is just like a street light. Yellow means go real
fast so yo don't end up on red.
And with that, Mr. Ferriero.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF DAVID S. FERRIERO
Mr. Ferriero. Let me begin by thanking both of your for
acknowledging yesterday's events. Having crossed that finish
line seven times myself and had friends and relatives at the
finish line, this was a very personal attack for me.
Chairman Issa. I notice you are not giving us your times,
though.
Mr. Ferriero. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member
Cummings and distinguished members of the committee. Thanks for
inviting me to testify this morning on the impact of
sequestration on the National Archives and Records
Administration. Our mission is to store, preserve and provide
public access to the permanently valuable records of the
Federal Government. We provide agencies with records management
services and temporary records storage.
In total, NARA holds 33 million cubic feet of permanent and
temporary records in more than 40 facilities across the United
States, including the presidential libraries of 13 former
presidents. NARA performs its mission through its workforce of
approximately 3,300 employees and an annual appropriated budget
of $391 million.
We serve the public by providing access to records that
help Americans of all ages to better understand their history
and their democracy, document the rights of citizens and allow
Americans to hold their government accountable. Last year
alone, NARA responded to over 1 million requests from American
veterans and their families seeking documentation of military
service, which is necessary to qualify for health benefits,
military burials and the replacement of medals.
We support government accountability by ensuring public
access to records that document and explain government
decisions. We publish the daily Federal Register, operate the
National Declassification Center, and improve the
administration of FOIA through the Office of Government
Information Services. And although we care for billions of
pages, we are perhaps best known for displaying the Declaration
of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Over
3 million people visit NARA exhibits nationwide every year.
Sequestration has reduced NARA's budget to $371 million, or
$19.7 million below the amounts provided in fiscal year 2013.
All but $1 million of this reduction must come out of NARAs
operating expense appropriations. Because sequestration
occurred with only seven months remaining in fiscal year 2013,
our sequestration amount is equivalent to a 7.7 percent
reduction in available funds for the remainder of the fiscal
year. Our primary objective for implementing sequestration cuts
are to preserve the agency mission and to minimize disruptions
in agency services to the public. We identified specific cuts
to contracts, grants and other spending consistent with these
principles.
Our plan relies in part on budgetary savings from an
agency-wide hiring freeze. NARAs workforce has shrunk by 299
employees, or 8.5 percent of the workforce, since the hiring
freeze was implemented in November of 2011. Sequestration has
required that we reduce public hours at two of our largest
facilities, the buildings in Washington, D.C. and College Park,
Maryland. Research rooms in both facilities are normally open
six days a week, from 9:00 to 5:00, with extended hours to 9:00
p.m. on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. Due to
sequestration, NARA will no longer offer extended hours, but
the research rooms will remain open from 9:00 to 5:00, Monday
through Saturday, year around.
The museum in Washington, D.C. has been impacted by
sequestration. In the past, NARA has extended public hours for
the museum until 7:00 p.m. from March 15th through Labor Day.
Due to sequestration, NARA will no longer offer these extended
hours, but the museum will remain open from 10:00 to 5:30,
seven days a week, year around.
We decided to reduce public hours after reviewing
attendance data that showed extended hours were under-utilized
by the public and that they extended beyond the visitor hours
of comparable museums and institutions. NARAs decision to
reduce public hours in two facilities is only a small part of a
much larger and detrimental impact of sequestration on NARAs
mission and operations.
Sequestration will require NARA to defer preservation
actions necessary to protect low and moderate risk records from
deterioration and will delay efforts to conserve film, audio
and other special media. We will also reduce spending on the
Electronic Records Archive and will not be able to address
concerns raised by ERA users and other Federal agencies and by
NARAs Inspector General.
We will reduce spending on maintenance of 17 buildings that
NARA owns and will defer all building repairs except where
necessary to protect the safety of building occupants, visitors
and the records we hold in trust.
NARA has prepared a responsible plan that implements fiscal
2013 sequestration cuts in a way that preserves the agency
mission and minimizes the impact on the public to the greatest
possible extent. Much as NARAs sequestration cuts have been
taken from administrative and support functions, however,
sequestration imposes significant budget reductions on NARA
that cannot be fully implemented without some noticeable impact
on service to the public.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal statement. I look
forward to continuing the discussion with you and members of
the committee.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Ferriero follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.006
Chairman Issa. Thank you, I do too.
Before we begin questions of Director Jarvis, I want to
note, this committee sent you on March 27th a request for
documents. The committee is used to receiving documents in a
timely fashion. Our request for documents from the National
Park Service on how you were managing sequestration, the date
to respond was April 10th, 2013, and no written official
response has been received.
When it became clear the Park Service was not going to meet
its deadline, committee staff posed just five simple questions
to your legislative affairs representative. We will place them
on the board. They really are pretty simple to answer. The
questions were completely ignored for two days, until an in-
person staff briefing on April 12th. At that briefing, the
congressional affairs representative attempted to provide vague
answers to the questions, and when pressed by staff, promised
email answers to these questions. Four days later, we still
have not received answers to these questions.
Director Jarvis, although I will permit you to testify,
your lack of transparency and frankly, your obstruction as to
the internal activities of the Park Service relative to
sequestration, is troubling. We put deadlines that were
reasonable and attainable, and for reasons we cannot
understand, you have deliberately thwarted our oversight.
Last Congress, getting answers from the DOI after
repeatedly requesting them was like pulling teeth. This is an
unacceptable pattern of behavior. Director Jarvis, we already
have your written statement in the record. As we on the dais
have had an opportunity to read it, instead, we ask you to
summarize your testimony and to use all or part of your five
minutes to answer these five simple questions.
When did the Department and National Park Service begin
collecting information responsive to the Chairman's letter? How
many staff does the Department of Interior or National Park
Service are involved in search for responsive materials? Who
are the individuals at the Department and/or the National Park
Service conducting the search?
What search items are being used to find responsive
materials? How many responsive documents have you identified so
far?
I don't believe these are unreasonable questions,
considering you have not been able to deliver us any responsive
documents. I ask you to at least answer the questions, and you
have staff behind you that we know know it, about why you are
here at a hearing testifying on clear inconsistencies between
your own staff's briefing and your public statements. This is
not a surprise to you.
I might note as you begin your testimony that a little over
400 parks received this one-page questionnaire. It simply asked
for simple numbers, and then a comment line. It was a pretty
good idea, a one-page question to 400 plus of your
superintendents to get a basic idea where they thought there
were savings and perhaps collate them.
I don't have any question that they are all sitting on one
desk in your offices. I also have a whistleblower who tells me
that in some of these documents they said, we have no problem,
we can do it, we will not have to be absent toilet paper. We
had a right to see these documents before you came. We had a
right to know, the American people had a right to know, that
over 400 different parks and monuments had differing problems,
differing opinions on what they could do to save money. We were
denied that, and we know they are sitting on a desk, they are
assembled and they simply were not delivered to this committee.
It is your right to collect documents and look at them. It
is not your right to provide delay. And when you look at 400
pieces of paper, the time necessary would be less for your
staff than it took you to get over here this morning.
With that, you are recognized for your opening statement.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard, please?
Chairman Issa. Of course.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Let me say that, Mr. Jarvis, I certainly agree with the
Chairman with regard to any kind of effort and failure to
provide us with the information that we request. I have said
many times that I believe that this committee should be
operated almost like a Federal court, with high standards and
fairness.
I am concerned, too, that we have not gotten this
information. I agree with the chairman that the five questions
that were just listed, you need to answer. I would also, I am
concerned that requests were made for information which, I
don't know what kind of difficulty you all ran into, but it is
my understanding from staff that your folks said that they were
gathering the information, or had gotten the information
together, but that general counsel had to go through it. I
think you need to make it clear, we have to move forward, Mr.
Jarvis.
I think it is so important that we maintain the trust that
I talked about a little bit earlier. Whenever there is a lack
of trust, relationships fail. I don't care what kind of a
relationship it is. I note from Chairman Issa's letter of March
27th, he noted these other things that he was concerned about,
he wanted a list of names and titles of individuals at NPS who
submitted, solicited, collected or evaluated proposals related
to the NPS's budget modification resulting from sequestration.
He wanted all documents that refer to or instruct the National
Park Service on the process which proposals for budget
modifications are to be handled at NPS due to sequestration. He
wanted all copies of each budget modification and how they were
solicited and evaluated, and he wanted all documents and
communications, including handwritten notes referring to it,
relating to the National Park Service plans to budget
adjustments under sequestration.
I do not think that those requests are unreasonable. I know
the chairman has said that he wants you to limit your response
to the five minutes, and Mr. Chairman, I would ask that if it
need be, given two extra minutes or three extra minutes to
address this. This is very serious, Mr. Jarvis. As I said from
the very beginning, I trust you guys. I trust that you are
doing the right thing for the public.
But you have to make sure that there is the greatest degree
of transparency. If counsel, your lawyers are going through the
papers, sometimes lawyers have to work late, they have to bend
over backwards to get it done. But we have to move forward.
So Mr. Chairman, again I would ask that if he needs a few
minutes to answer your concerns, I would appreciate it. Thank
you.
Chairman Issa. With the indulgence of the other witnesses,
and without objection, so ordered. Please continue.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN A. JARVIS
Mr. Jarvis. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to
talk about sequestration within the National Park Service.
I will summarize my opening remarks so that we can get to
the questions. The sequestration really required the Park
Service to reduce its spending by $153 million, of which $113
million was taken directly from the National Park Service
operational account. The remaining $40 million kind of came
from projects and grants.
I think the key point here is that the National Park
Service's budget is park by park, so that the 5 percent
sequestration was applied at each individual park and program.
Over the last three years, we have been on a slight
decline. So we began our planning exercise for this
sequestration actually in the middle of 2012. We instructed
every park, every program and every organization to really
develop a financial model to handle what we thought would be a
very tough coming fiscal year in 2013. We asked them to leave
vacant positions unfilled, plan for fewer seasonal hires, and
reduce short-term spending. We applied that strategy across the
entire organization, preparing for fiscal year 2013.
When it appeared that sequestration was going to occur, I
implemented a hiring freeze on all permanent positions that
resulted in 1,300 positions that remain vacant. We are holding
900 of those to remain vacant through the rest of the fiscal
year. That resulted in about $43 million in savings in 2013.
I instructed them next to eliminate spending on travel,
overtime, supplies and materials and contracts. We have had
strict travel controls in place since 2003. That resulted in an
additional savings. I can give you those numbers.
Those that were unable to meet their sequestration targets
after that were then asked to reduce the numbers of seasonals,
to extend furloughs, to subject to furloughs. And lastly, that
if they can't meet their sequestration targets by then, they
needed to look at furloughing permanent employees, all of them
for the same amount of time.
As a result of all of these I think very conservative
efforts, the only part of our organization that is going to
result in actual furloughs of permanent employees is the U.S.
Park Police, because they are predominantly a salary, non-
grant, non-construction side of our house.
These reductions definitely are having impact. Reduced
hours of operations, later and delayed road openings, fewer
programs and fewer services, every park and activity will have
some kind of impact. We think those impacts will accumulate
over time.
So actually, I think we have approached this very
conservatively. We do not want to impact the public, so our
focus has been principally on the shoulder seasons of our
national parks. Keep in mind the sequestration came mid-year
and we are going into our peak season. So what we had to do is
to reduce the hours and operations around the edges of the
prime season, so that the principal visitors would not be
impacted during our prime summer season as well.
We gave each individual park the opportunity to make
choices about how they could implement it, and then we reviewed
all of those products that you saw, Mr. Chairman, back at the
Washington level to ensure there was consistency in how it was
applied across the system and to make sure that the numbers
that they were providing actually made sense for the Service.
Let me just say one thing, in light of the very, very
tragic attack in Boston yesterday. As you well know, the
National Park Service through its Park Police and our other law
enforcement organizations participate in the Joint Terrorism
Task Force. I can assure you that these sequestration impacts
are not compromising our responsibilities for icon security
here in Washington or in our other sites around the Country,
the Statue of Liberty or the Golden Gate Bridge or other sites,
as well.
So getting to your questions. The first one, when did the
Department and the NPS begin collecting information. On April
8th, the National Park Service was forwarded your letter and we
began immediately to collect that information in response to
your request.
In terms of how many staff in the Department of Interior
and the National Park Service, we have five employees in the
Washington office that are working directly on the
responsiveness. We tasked at our regional level, we have seven
regions and there are staff at each of those seven regions
collecting specifically the information. I am aware there are
nine individuals working at the Department of the Interior in
responding to your request.
Essentially within my staff, which I can speak to
specifically, is my chief of staff, who has the responsibility
of responding to all these types of Congressional requests to
collect this information, and have it reviewed.
In terms of search terms, we draw directly from your
request. We use, I can't tell you off the top of my head what
those terms are, but specifically we want to be comprehensive.
So using just sequestration isn't really going to get it. We
really look at all of the planning and documents. That results,
frankly, in thousands of pages.
I want to be clear that the general counsel and solicitors
do not work for the National Park Service. They work for the
Department of the Interior. They require their review of these
document before they are sent. I have no control over that
whatsoever. And that is the standard that the Department of
Interior is applying, that those have to be reviewed by them
before they are submitted.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.011
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Dr. Clough?
STATEMENT OF G. WAYNE CLOUGH
Mr. Clough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee, for this
opportunity to testify. The Smithsonian appreciates the support
of the Administration, Congress and the American people.
Spring brings the cherry blossoms, tourists and school
children to our Nation's capital. I love to see the buses pull
up in front of our museums and galleries and watch all those
visitors pull out with smiles on their faces, knowing they are
going in for a great learning experience at the Smithsonian.
Our mission is to make the resources of the Smithsonian
available to all Americans and help our Country address
critical challenges through programs in education, the
humanities and sciences. With the help of our 17-member board
of regents, which includes six members of Congress, we have
embraced a culture of change, to create a more responsive and
relevant Smithsonian.
Last year, our 19 museums and galleries and the National
Zoo opened nearly 100 new exhibitions and hosted more than 30
million visitors, the highest number in the last decade and up
5 million from 2007. We are open 364 days a year and admission
is free.
We are expanding our reach through digital access. With
more than 100 million unique visitors to our websites, with
more than 2,000 online lesson plans and courses that meet State
standards, we are now delivering Smithsonian content to schools
in all 50 States. About 60 percent of our art collections are
now available online.
The foundation for all of our work is based on impeccable
research, scholarship and art, science, history, culture and
education. Every day, more than 500 Smithsonian scientists are
working on some of the most perplexing problems we face:
protecting our imperiled natural resources, keeping our ports
and waterways safe from invasive species, halting the spread of
pandemic diseases, saving endangered species, keeping
commercial and military aircraft safe from bird strikes, and
helping guide Curiosity, the Mars Rover.
We are stewards of America's collection, some of which date
back even before the founding of the Smithsonian. They include
137 million objects and treasures, from a tiny fossil, a giant
squid, the Star Spangled Banner, the desk upon which Jefferson
wrote the Declaration of Independence, Harriett Tubman's shawl,
the Wright Flyer and the Space Shuttle Discovery.
I am honored to lead a dedicated staff of 6,400 employees
plus 6,200 volunteers who are all passionate about their work.
That is why for the third year in a row, the Smithsonian was
named as one of the top four best places to work in the Federal
Government. Guided by our 2010 strategic plan, we measure
everything we do to ensure we are continuously improving. There
are great opportunities ahead, but there is no question
sequestration will have an impact on our ability to serve the
American people. We did our best to anticipate sequestration,
and so as the fiscal year began, the Smithsonian acted,
recognizing that the reduction of our Federal budget of 5
percent would amount to nearly $42 million.
Over time, we restricted staff travel, cut funds for
collections, care and research equipment, and our Latino pool
and our collections information system and facilities
maintenance were reduced investments for research, education
and outreach and imposed a hiring freeze, and did not backfill
critical curatorial and staff positions. We did this to ensure
we had funding to allow us to bridge the early impact of
sequestration.
Although holding these funds back has affected our basic
operations, it allowed us to continue to serve the American
people in the short term, keeping our museums open and
continuing to deliver all the educational materials we had
promised. However, we now see the full impact of sequestration,
and we will face hard decisions for 2014. We have little budget
flexibility remaining.
Sequestration will affect almost everything we do. We
expect to have to close some of the galleries in our museums
through the end of this fiscal year. We will reduce the ability
to offer new exhibitions and programs for next year. It
certainly will impact our research capacity. It will slow the
process of digitization, which we are very excited about for
the future of the Smithsonian. It will defer needed maintenance
and hamper educational outreach.
Previous actions that we undertook this year will become
permanent with a prolonged sequester and will translate into
permanent staff reduction. Sequestration will also affect our
budget in areas that we believe are already underfunded, such
as facilities maintenance and collections care. Sequestration
also could affect the National Museum of African American
History and Culture. Interrupting its funding for construction
could increase its cost in later phases and might delay
acquiring the right numbers of personnel to open the museum.
For 167 years, the Smithsonian has served our Nation as a
source of inspiration and discovery. Our goal is to create a
Smithsonian for the 21st century that gives all Americans a
chance to benefit from this remarkable institution. I grew up
in a rural town of 5,000 people in South Georgia, Douglas,
Georgia. I paid my way through college working as a surveyor
for the Louisville National Railroad Company. I did not
discover the Smithsonian until I was an adult.
When I came here nearly five years ago, I challenged our
people to reach out to the underserved people of America, and
we have been doing just that. The sequester is going to limit
our progress and make it more difficult to achieve that
particular goal.
Again, I thank you for your support. I will be happy to
answer any questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Clough follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.017
Chairman Issa. Thank you. I will now recognize myself for
first round.
First of all, Mr. Ferriero, Dr. Clough, I appreciate the
fact that you were able to reach sequestration and I appreciate
the detail you have given us in writing and now some orally on
the cuts.
I would like to share with you something, just so you know
that we do feel your pain on this side of the dais. In 2011,
Congress, the House specifically, cut our budgets in real
dollars, this is not Compton dollars, we cut 5 percent over the
previous year. In 2012, the Speaker reiterated and we cut 6.4
percent. This year, the budget decreased on my staff, on the
ranking member's staff, 10 percent.
We are 21.4 percent less than we were in 2010, and those
are written dollars. Obviously due to inflation, it is a
greater amount than that. And the ranking member is right: we
have had to make some decisions, and I don't make light of it.
We have also, I hope, begun the process of asking, can we be
smarter. Here in the House, for 11 years I asked, why is it we
are using a phone system that isn't voice over IP? Why do we in
fact buy countless lines that normally go down when somebody
decides to attack our phones by endlessly calling because they
don't like some piece of legislation?
And the answer was, well, we will get to it. Well, now that
they figured it could pay for itself in less than three years,
we are getting to it quicker. So necessity is the mother of
invention.
Doctor, in your case, I believe, if I understood your
statement, many of the ways that you achieved this year's
sequestration was in fact unsustainable going forward, that
without material changes in revenue, perhaps philanthropic
revenue, without potentially taking a 100 percent free museum
and charging an entrance, or without cutting services,
currently you forecast that you will have to make actual cuts
in service. Is that a summation?
Mr. Clough. Our goal, obviously, is to try to keep our
museums open. Because the American people come here, some plan
for a lifetime to make their visits here. We recognize the
importance of our services there.
We are going through a process now that will allow us to
understand and appreciate exactly how we can accommodate these
cuts in the long run.
Chairman Issa. And I would reiterate our offer, that if we
receive an adjustment request from any fund from any part of
government, I have agreed to author it and send it up for
consideration to the House immediately. That would include in
order to maintain the schedule on the African American portion,
your new portion that is under construction. You figure out how
we should reallocate funds and I personally will author it. I
am sure the ranking member will be my co-sponsor, so at least
you get immediate consideration.
Mr. Ferriero, I think yours is a great example where there
are services that are being prioritized lower. But in fact, you
began this process quite a bit earlier. Was that really what
gave you the advantage, perhaps, over the Park Service, is when
you began making, for example, hiring freezes?
Mr. Ferriero. I am sure that that put us in a good
position. It forced the agency to analyze every opening and
make a decision, is there a smarter way to do the work, is the
work a core mission. And it created a kind of urgency within
the agency around reduced funds.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Jarvis, you said earlier that you began
process of polling, figuring out where money could be saved.
But that was actually not for sequestration, that was just for
the 2013 budget. Isn't it true that it wasn't until January
25th, many, many days after sequestration was clearly a law of
the land, that you then sent out the request for information
from your 400? This is actually, again, I know it is not you,
it says the United States Department of Interior, but it does
say National Park Service underneath. And it was sent with your
signature, and that is the 25th of January, to regional
directors, associate and assistant directors of the Park
Service.
I understand that is the one that generated this one-page
request. Isn't that true? Isn't that when you polled people to
say, to 400 plus locations, how can we save money?
Mr. Jarvis. Mr. Chairman, our first memo to the field
regarding anticipation of a very, very conservative fiscal year
actually went out in June of 2012.
Chairman Issa. No, I understand. But sequestration appears
to have, and I am going to quote from your own letter, ``This
memorandum and the attached materials outline the actions you
are directed to take to develop a sequestration plan in
response to the Administration and Congress.'' Now, I don't
know any other way to say it, but you haven't given us any
evidence that you did something before that. And my time is
very limited, I don't want to run any further over. And there
will be a second round of questioning.
But my only question to you at this moment is, why is it,
when on January 25th you sent it out, in March we request these
documents specifically, that 400 or so of these documents, one
page long, shouldn't be given to us as turned in? In other
words, make a xerox copy for yourself. But since we have a
right to see it as it was turned in, what lawyer has any right
not to turn those 400 plus documents over to us? And I want
that answered, because we are used to getting what we call
rolling discovery on this committee. We get the easy stuff
first, we get the slightly harder to collate second and we get
the stuff the lawyers have to go over endlessly, usually we
call that the embarrassing stuff, last.
In this case, if these are embarrassing, they certainly are
not hard to gather, you have them all in a single stack on
somebody's desk. And they are pretty straightforward, they are
a one-pager directly from people you trust.
And in your opening statement, you said you wanted to
essentially make sure they were all the same. These documents,
from what we can tell, are the best source of finding out where
one out of 400 people had a great idea, and you should send out
to the other 399 or 400 and some, hey, what about so and so
that this park service came up with in their memo answer. We
can't know what that says until you deliver those documents.
Quite frankly, if you made a look over your shoulder to one of
your assistants, we could have it before the end of this
hearing.
With that, I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Mica. At what point in the proceedings would it be
appropriate, if I was to offer a motion to subpoena those 400
documents for the committee?
Chairman Issa. It is now being heard, but I would consider
at this hearing that that motion would probably not come to be
in order, or if so, it would be suspended until the end.
Mr. Mica. I would be prepared when it is appropriate and at
what hearing to offer that motion. I yield back
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now recognize the
ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. Not a part of my time, just a further
parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Issa. Of course.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, as you well know, we do
everything in our power to try to avoid subpoenas.
Chairman Issa. Including here.
Mr. Cummings. Yes. One of my questions was going to be, and
I heard Mr. Jarvis saying that counsel for the Interior
controls things. I am trying to figure out how we can expedite
that and get the records. I know you don't have control. And
maybe that is a discussion that would come up with regard to
the motion. But it just seems like there is something, there is
somebody we should be looking at in the counsel to get things
done. As I understand it, the records are ready to roll, right?
Chairman Issa. And I agree with the gentleman that we are
shooting the messenger some. But I recognize that within the
hierarchy of the Administration, it is not exclusively within
your jurisdiction. So I think the gentleman is right.
Mr. Hastings. Would the gentleman yield on this? Would the
gentleman yield for one moment?
Mr. Cummings. I didn't know I had time.
Chairman Issa. He has all the time in the world.
Mr. Hastings. I thought that you had recognized the ranking
member.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Hastings. I just wanted to say that I came in a little
bit late, when you were going over this data, or lack of
getting this data. I just want to say, as the chairman of the
Natural Resources Committee, this is a pattern that I see very,
very prevalent in Department of Interior, just asking for
documents. It is very frustrating to me, and for the ranking
member, how you get this is, it should be information that
should be shared with us. I have a deep sense of frustration
when I talk to my oversight people, and I see that shared with
you. Hopefully we can shake that loose here.
Mr. Cummings. It is my hope, and I said this earlier, that
we will shake that loose. I said to Mr. Jarvis that I agree
with the Chairman, there are documents that we must have. And
that they must take reasonable actions to make sure we get
those documents. Because you are usually not around to hear
this statement that I make, we have a limited amount of time
here. We have to be effective and efficient. If they are
blocking us from being effective and efficient, then we have to
do what we have to do to make sure we can be that.
Mr. Hastings. And I noted Mr. Jarvis' response, he had the
information but apparently there was somebody higher, I
understand there has to be some review, don't misunderstand.
But boy, that seems to be very prevalent with the Department of
Interior from my point of view.
I thank the gentleman for the recognition.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman is recognized for his round of
questions.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. To all of you all, I
want to thank you for your testimony. To Mr. Clough, you
provided me with a moment of, an emotional moment, actually,
because you were talking about trying to make sure, you realize
that people came to Washington and maybe they had planned the
trip for so long.
Sometimes, Mr. Clough, I sit out in front of the
Smithsonian, or in front of a park in this area, and I watch
the families. The reason why I say it is emotional for me, is
although I lived in Baltimore, the first time I went to a
Smithsonian Institution, I was 21 years old. So I know what you
are talking about when you say people plan these trips, and the
mothers and fathers are excited, they have talked about it,
they have read books about it, the kids are pumped up.
And that leads me to my question, and what I started with
earlier. I assume that you all really want the public to enjoy
those experiences. I tell people, people in my district,
although they live 40 miles away, they are in the same position
I am. Some of them are 18, 19, 20 years old, and have never
even been to D.C. Never been to the District, and they are 40
miles away. They don't even know about some of the parks and
the things you offer. They don't even know about them.
But when they come with their families and their eyes are
opened to what this Nation is all about, it gives them a vision
of what they can be. So I am assuming that you all feel the
same way I feel, that you want these families, just like you
would want for your own family, to have the maximum exposure to
whatever you are offering, Park Service, Smithsonian, that they
can have this. Is that a fair question? Is that true?
Briefly, Mr. Clough.
Mr. Clough. Absolutely. And the American people in essence
have already paid for the Smithsonian. They have paid for the
buildings in large part, and they paid for the collections. So
we are thrilled when they make that all-important visit to come
to our museums. And we want to maximize it.
One way we are trying to connect with people is digitally.
We can reach everybody digitally. And a lot of young people who
may not think initially about museums use these digital
devices. So we are developing a lot of mobile apps to get
people encouraged to think about the Smithsonian. We encourage
them to communicate with us. In the past, they couldn't do
that. But with these mobile devices, they can communicate with
us. And when they come, they can tell us whether they liked or
didn't like the visit or we need to work on it.
So we are really working hard to try to communicate and
after people leave to provide them with supplemental materials
about what they saw. And to particularly provide it to
teachers, so teachers can wrap that into the bigger experience.
But clearly, every person who visits the Smithsonian walks
way with this one thing in mind, I have seen something very
special that I may only see once in my lifetime, and that is
maybe the most important thing we have done.
Mr. Cummings. And I assume you two gentlemen feel the same
way? Is that accurate? Be brief, because I have another
question. Mr. Jarvis?
Mr. Jarvis. Certainly that is our mission, to provide these
extraordinary locations, over 400 of them, to not only the
American public, but to the entire world. That is what we do
and we do it well.
Mr. Ferriero. And we collect and protect the records of the
Country, so that the American public can hold their government
accountable for their actions. And we also believe in civic
literacy. Civics is not being taught in schools any more. We
have a huge responsibility to educate that K-12 community about
how their government works.
Mr. Cummings. To me, the question I am about to ask you is
the question of the day. So listen carefully. I believe you, I
believe that your mission is to bring light to life for the
American people. I believe that you think about it 24-7, you
are trying to figure it out. So when sequestration came about,
first of all, did you get some commands from up high saying,
close this, don't close that, don't close this? And how were
these decisions made?
This is the question. How were the decisions made in
relationship to what the appropriators told you to do under
sequestration? What limitations did you have? That is what we
need to know. Because I am sitting up here and I am thinking,
maybe we ought to be apologizing to you all. We are the ones
who are responsible for sequestration, we are, because of what
we didn't do.
So would you answer my question, one by one?
Mr. Clough. I think that particular challenge with
sequestration was, even though we had a understanding this
would happen, was the short period of time in which we have to
implement it. So there is this immediate response that we have
tried to develop that will allow us to minimize the impact on
the public. As we are moving on our next stage, we are looking
at how we deal with this in the long term and taking again the
guiding principle, let's try to protect the public's interest.
Mr. Cummings. And is that guided by our legislative, what
we have done up here in Washington, in Congress, sequestration,
that is?
Mr. Clough. Unfortunately, sequestration is an across the
board cut.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Jarvis, I only have a few minutes.
Mr. Jarvis. First of all, we received no commands from on
high about how to implement this. We did this from the bottom
up, from the park level. The decisions were made at the park
level, we did review them for consistency.
To your question about, yes, the way that the sequestration
law was written required us to take it at the park-program
level. We were not given reprogramming authority, we were not
given transfer authority. So we were not allowed to move money
around to balance this out. It was a very, very difficult law
to implement halfway through the year, as well, an across the
board, line by line budget reduction.
Mr. Ferriero. Four appropriation categories, 5 percent for
each. And OMB directives gave guidance around other things to
be looking at, like travel, conferences, and those kinds of
activities. We were very lucky, early in my administration, to
have hired a new chief financial officer. So from the very
beginning of my assuming my job, we have been giving new fiscal
attention to the National Archives budget. So I am very
thankful for this new chief financial officer's advice.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. [Presiding] Thank you, and I will recognize
myself for a round of questions.
This may not be the highlight of the hearings held on
Capitol Hill today. Nonetheless, it is very important. The
three individuals before us have some of the most important
responsibilities, I believe, in our government. You are the
stewards of our national treasures, whether it is Mr. Jarvis
with our parks and the things that he oversees that we are
stewards for of the public, the Smithsonian director, some of
our treasures, and our records and documents in the Archives.
You have several different examples of how we have had to
address responsible financial commitments. The Congress has to
deal with issues, huge issues of incredible public
indebtedness. Everyone knew some of this was coming.
You have two excellent examples as to how this was handled
fairly appropriately. I think the Archives did an excellent job
in the review of the documents, preparing the new. The
Smithsonian likewise limited the impact but planned in advance.
I am disturbed to read that the National Park Services, and
specifically the acting Parks director, gave specific
instructions and got some of the language to continue, spending
sort of unabated, not planning for the future. You are aware of
that directive, Mr. Jarvis?
Mr. Jarvis. I am not sure what you are referring to, sir.
Mr. Mica. It is an OMB directive and it was, well, also we
have in January of, January 25th of 2013, the Park Director,
that is you, said you expect it will result in a reduction to
visitors service hours, of operation shortening, of reasons and
possible closing of areas. That was your statement back then.
Then we have a directive from OMB, July 31st, 2012, and the
acting director, Jeffrey Zentz, instructed agencies to continue
normal spending and operations, since more than five months
remained for Congress to act.
So you have the Administration directing you, and again,
your lack of taking any anticipatory action and your statement
in January. You have two agencies that did act in a proper
manner and now we are faced with, and I thought I heard you
say, too, you are going to cut Park Service police. Did you
have numbers there?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir. We anticipate, since we had to absorb
the $5.1 million cut in the U.S. Park Police operating budget,
we are anticipating furloughing each of the 767 employees of
the U.S. Park Police for up to 14 days.
Mr. Mica. Given the events of the last 24 hours, do you
think you will also continue with that directive?
Mr. Jarvis. We are going to ensure that our
responsibilities, particularly for icon security, are
maintained at current levels. That will require reductions in
some our outlying responsibilities.
Mr. Mica. How many people work at the National Park Service
in Washington, D.C.? I am talking about the office,
administrative personnel.
Mr. Jarvis. I am not sure of that.
Mr. Mica. Anyone have an idea? Five hundred, a thousand?
Mr. Jarvis. Can I ask for clarification on the question?
You said how many administrative?
Mr. Mica. Again, not National Park Service officers, but
how many administrative people, how many in your headquarters?
Nobody has a clue?
Mr. Jarvis. About 900 here in Washington.
Mr. Mica. And it would appear to me, if you had the
authority, that some of these people could be moved around and
we could address some of the services that we provide to the
public including important security service. Would that be
possible if you had that authority?
Mr. Jarvis. What we would need, and we have talked about
this before, is we need transfer authority. The sequestration
law did not allow us to move expenses between accounts. And so
it came down, as we have said, line by line, existing budget.
The only way we could do that, where if you affected one
program and used it in another, was if we had transfer
authority.
Mr. Mica. The other thing too is that when you face a
situation like this, you have to put in, implementing measures.
I have visited many of the parks across the Nation. I have one
of the little passes and all of that. But I have always been
impressed with the volunteer programs and there are hundreds of
thousands of volunteers that would step up if asked. Has there
been a specific plan to implement the use of volunteers, given
the budget challenges that you face?
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely. We have an incredible group of
volunteers out there, about 180,000 volunteers.
Mr. Mica. Have you had a new plan since you have heard
about these budget cuts, and could you provide the committee
with a copy?
Mr. Jarvis. We have not implemented any new plan at the
park level. At each individual park level, they are working to
find new sources of funding. Friends groups are stepping up,
philanthropy. Even in some cases communities are providing
support and funding. In some cases States are stepping up to
provide assistance in getting roads open.
Mr. Mica. And finally, there may be some suggestions from
some of those parks in those 400 documents that you sent out.
When do you think we will be able to get those? Any idea?
Mr. Jarvis. As soon as they are reviewed at the Department.
I have no problem with sending them to you. They are perfectly
legitimate details.
Mr. Mica. I have additional questions I will submit for the
record.
I recognize Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. It would be Mr. Davis' time. If he would yield
to me?
Mr. Mica. Okay, Mr. Davis, your time?
Mr. Davis. I will yield.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate that very much. It is Emancipation
Day in the District, and they are about to embark on a parade,
the least emancipated city in the United States is about to
march in an Emancipation Day parade. Take that and see what you
can do with it.
Let me just quickly go through a few questions. Dr. Clough,
you indicate, of course, and some of the questions you've heard
from my colleagues apparently don't always digest the process
or notion that these are across the board cuts. You indicated
that there might be some slowdown in the African American
museum. I want to know, what was the President's budget for the
African American museum, how much was it cut, if it was.
Mr. Clough. There was a cut of about $5 million, the
percentage was taken, because it was an across the board cut,
directly out of the construction budget. Fortunately, the
budget was funded at $75 million this year. So we can keep the
budget going. But as we have to absorb additional cuts, that
could present a problem for us.
Ms. Norton. What about sequester? Has that affected the
African American museum?
Mr. Clough. That was the sequester cut that affected the
construction cost.
Ms. Norton. I see.
Mr. Clough. It also affects the staffing funding that we
need, because staffing has to grow now to get ready for the
opening.
Ms. Norton. I recognize that as we ask all of you
questions, I am interested in all three of your agencies.
Because this is, of course, a tourist destination. And we are
in the middle of, the season is beginning full-fledged now. I
also recognize that each of these agencies is, like most of the
Federal Government, labor-intensive.
Mr. Jarvis, I know a lot about the underfunding of the
Capitol Police and of the Park Service because you own most of
the parks in the District of Columbia and because of my work on
the mall. I was amazed to find, though, is this figure correct,
that the National Park Service budget is only one-fourteenth of
the Federal budget?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't know what percentage we are. I know it
is very small.
Ms. Norton. I wish you would confirm or not that. Because
my office says that is what it is. That will be, of course,
quite amazing, considering that it is a nationwide service.
Do the parks produce economic return? As one-fourteenth of
the budget, what kind of economic return do you produce for the
Country?
Mr. Jarvis. It is a ten to one return. For every dollar
invested in the National Park Service, there is $10 returned to
the American economy.
Ms. Norton. I understand, I am already receiving calls, for
example, because there was a story run about closing some of
the late-night hours at the mall. I said, well, what is late-
night hour, and apparently because of the beauty of the Lincoln
Memorial and the lights, we have had that memorial open with
some staff there, including restrooms, until 11:30. And then we
are told, well, it might be 10:00 o'clock. I must say, if you
are sitting where I am sitting and seeing the cuts you are
making, that might not seem so bad. Because at least it could
go until night, and people could see the Lincoln Memorial and
the mall in all of its night-time glory.
Are you considering reducing the hours of the restrooms and
of the late-night, the night-time visitation to the mall? And
is it true that this is not related to sequestration?
Mr. Jarvis. Let me assure you that the monuments and
memorials are open 24 hours a day. The question is, whether or
not they are staffed for rangers to do interpretive programs.
As with any organization, we are constantly looking for
efficiencies. At the lowest period, we realized that after
10:00 p.m. the station drops, not to zero, but it drops
significantly. And so as a part of our cost savings, we are
looking at reducing the ranger presence, not security, not
closing the facilities, but after 10:00 p.m.
Ms. Norton. How about the National Mall? This is the time
of year when we have major events on the National Mall. I know
what has just happened in Boston. Nevertheless, you must be
preparing for events like July 4th. We ourselves have National
Dance Day on the Mall. There are many activities on the Mall,
precisely because of the season.
What are you doing to, especially in light of what happened
yesterday, to enhance the security of the mall, in light of
sequestration and cuts that you say will also come to the
Capitol Police?
Mr. Jarvis. We host a number of events on this Mall.
Obviously the 4th of July, Rolling Thunder, certainly this year
we have the March on Washington And these are very, very
important events for the American public, as certainly for the
District. We intend to hold them all. Obviously our
responsibilities for the public safety and security and good
experience for everyone is at the top of our responsibilities.
That does mean, though, for instance, the 4th of July costs
the National Park Service over $1 million for that one day,
operating budget, for overtime, for security, screening, for
traffic control, all of those things. That means we still have
to absorb that cut somewhere else, and that is basically what
we are looking at in terms of reducing overall overtime for our
U.S. Park Police, looking at how we can reduce in some of the
outlying areas, so that we can cover these major events.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope some members
will join me in asking that the Congress look again, in light
of the Boston tragedy, at the cuts that are occurring to public
safety as a result of this sequestration. Because these events
must go on. And I am not convinced that, with these services
and these police agencies not able to move around money, that
we will have in place the same kind of security that we have
enjoyed in the past.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentlelady. I recognize the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel for taking our questions and responding today.
In light of what has been talked about this morning, and
some comments made, I think we need to go back in history a
little bit and remember that when the President offered the
sequester, as an alternative to dealing with the budget deficit
and debt we all should have known was there, he undoubtedly
thought that the House Majority wasn't serious about the
deficit or debt.
When he signed it, he probably thought it would never go
into effect, the thought of across the board. We cut good
programs along with unnecessary programs without any real
discretion. However, I think the three of you and others at the
front line of leading very important functions that our
citizens expect to see and that their tax dollars pay for, I
being one, Mr. Jarvis, who started out my university career
majoring in forestry and land management, love the out of
doors. My favorite place on earth is Glacier National Park. I
will be in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park here in just
a few short weeks. So I understand the taxpayer loves these
places and should be afforded their opportunity.
But you must have been worried, as you looked at it and
said, well, they can be political and they can do their
fighting in Washington, but ultimately it comes down to what we
have to do for the projects that we have the Departments, the
functions we have and the citizens we serve. Did any of you
make contact with the Administration through whatever sources
you have available to you and what chain of command you have,
did any of you make contact with the Administration to call for
caution and reality in dealing with other ways of approaching
our budget concerns and still keeping the functions in place
that you see as priority? Any of you can go first.
Mr. Ferriero. I did not.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Jarvis?
Mr. Jarvis. Our contacts were principally with the Office
of Management and Budget, as we were implementing the sequester
order or planning for it. We had been planning for this well in
advance and we were making them as aware as possible that they
were going to have direct impacts on the ground in every one of
the national parks.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Clough?
Mr. Clough. We had no direct contact other than the normal
OMB processes.
Mr. Walberg. Let me follow this up, then. Mr. Jarvis, you
indicated you made contact, and the others, through OMB to some
degree. But it doesn't sound like a great amount of intensity
was put toward this issue. Mr. Jarvis, you have referred to the
sequester cuts as sudden and significant in your full
testimony. Can you explain to me how something that has been on
the horizon since August of 2011 qualifies as sudden?
Mr. Jarvis. What I mean by sudden is that we anticipated
the sequester in January. The later in the fiscal year that we
get the sequester, the more difficult it is for an operational
agency like the National Park Service. So we, in spite of what
is being stated here, we anticipated this and planned well in
advance. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 1,300 permanent vacancies
and saved ourselves $43 million. That is actually what is
saving the public appreciation and use of the parks, is that we
are able to hire seasonals and backfill that this coming summer
for its prime operation.
So we had anticipated it. We just didn't know when it was
going to come. And coming this late in the year makes it much
more difficult to absorb in the last remaining months.
Mr. Walberg. We had an idea of when it was going to come by
the date that it was set initially for certain. And then pushed
off.
Also, the issue of significant. When the American taxpayers
had to tighten their budgets significantly over the past number
of years, including our House budgets, committee and individual
staff offices, a 5 percent cut. No matter how mindless that is,
when it is across the board, compared to 7.4 percent higher
level of funding for your department, since 2008. I say there
has to be better ways of dealing with the increased dollars,
preparing for the sequester. But also as I stated earlier, if
there was great concern about this, it boggles my mind that
there wasn't intense pressure put on the Administration to say,
you know something, Congress just might let sequestration
happen. This is the impact it will have. We can't suffer it.
The question that I would ask, and I see my time has
expired, Mr. Chairman, but I will submit it for the record, of
asking direct questions on how Congress can help each of you in
your responsibilities to achieve further efficiencies and save
more of the American taxpayers' money. Maybe in the second
round of questions I can add to that. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. They can answer. We have been giving everybody a
few minutes. If you want to quickly respond.
Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that. Let me ask the question
again. What can Congress do to help you achieve further
efficiencies and save more of the American taxpayers' money?
Mr. Jarvis. For the National Park Service, because of the
way our budget is crafted, which is park by park, we would need
what is known as transfer authority.
Mr. Walberg. I have that written down. What else?
Mr. Jarvis. One thing I want to mention is that the
National Park Service will be celebrating its 100th anniversary
in 2016. We do have a legislative package that we are
submitting through our authorizing committees that would grant
additional authorities for philanthropy, for cooperative
agreements to work with our private sector partners in a much
more entrepreneurial and innovative way to bring that side to
the operation and financial health of the organization. We
would be glad to work with you on that.
Mr. Mica. Do the other two witnesses want to quickly
respond?
Mr. Clough. I would just say that it would help us, I have
been in the non-profit sector as an executive for a long time,
president of a university. We need stability. It would be
helpful for us to have more stability and a long range view of
the budget so we can plan. It is difficult to plan now because
things are not stable.
Mr. Walberg. Well, I would suggest you talk with the Senate
about that. I agree with you, stability is important. Mr.
Ferriero?
Mr. Ferriero. This committee has done some great work in
marking up PRA, Presidential Records Act, Federal Records Act,
legislation. I would encourage pushing that forward. That would
be a great help to us.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. We will turn now to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
So just to put this in a little context, it seems to me
what we are dealing with here is a massive act of legislative
malpractice, and then an attempt to blame it on the people that
have to deal with the consequences on that. That happens when
you go around ideologically trying to convince the American
people that every dime spent of your tax money is wasted in
fraud or abuse, and then go around exclaiming that you want to
make cuts but don't have the political courage to actually
determine where the cuts are going to be.
And certainly nobody here should be under the illusion that
Congress abdicated its authority and gave the President
discretion of where to cut. Because if they had a full
appreciation of the sequestration law and its reference back to
early iterations, they would know that as you have already
discussed, every program, project and activity has to suffer
the cuts.
So this is a consequence of that malpractice that people
should have known, I suspect many of them didn't know what they
were doing in that regard. And so we all should be concerned
that that is what is going on. We should not be looking to all
of you to lay blame as to what you implemented. Your hands were
tied, just as those people that were interested in pushing on
the sequestration tied their own hands behind their back, laid
down on the rails and screamed when the train came, on that
basis.
So looking forward, I have some real concerns. If this
stays in, and it sounds like my colleagues are all excited
about having sequestration stay, in fact, its mindless
arbitrary cuts will continue on that basis, what is it going to
do for the National Parks' impact on local communities'
economic well-being? Mr. Jarvis, in my community alone, we have
a number of groups that work regularly with the Park Service.
It really enhances the economy of that district, all the way up
and down the coast, all the way from the Atlantic Ocean to the
Merrimac River. It is very important for them.
So what do you envision for the future, if these cuts stay
in effect? What is the Park Service going to have to do as it
goes forward? I suspect that you can't have the seasonal
hirings backfilling for the others as a future plan of how you
are going to react, right?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir. These cuts, if they remain, really
creates a significant problem for the National Park Service.
The impacts will accumulate, particularly to the gateway
communities. Many of our gateway communities, as you well know,
their economies are based on the tourism that comes to our
national parks. They basically succeed based on their shoulder
seasons. Many of these operations can't survive on a three-
month, they need a five-month season. As a consequence, we are
having to reduce, in those shoulder seasons.
In talking to our hospitality association, they are
concerned that people are not booking. They are already seeing
a reduction in bookings as a result of the American public
feeling that the parks are not going to be available to them or
services will be reduced.
So I think this is a significant problem over the long term
for us, if the sequester reductions do apply.
I just want to make one very strong point that the National
Park Service is, as with my colleagues here, these are
investments that need to be made that have reaped great benefit
to the American public. We draw international visitors from
around the world. We provide extraordinary experiences for the
American public. And we return ten to one to the economy.
Mr. Tierney. I couldn't agree with you more. I am as
frustrated as you and others that this mindless sort of
approach to things would be taken on that basis. Congress could
have given the President the authority to do this in a way that
was flexible, which he then could have passed on to all you
folks. But of course, they chose not to give up their authority
in that regard. But they also chose not to take their
responsibility in identifying where they thought all of this
waste, fraud and abuse was, identify it and then give you a
plan going forward.
So Mr. Clough, let me ask you, the Smithsonian, I
understand, by now plans to defer preventive maintenance,
facility inspections, technology upgrades, is that correct?
Mr. Clough. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. How long can you continue to defer those costs
under this plan without some really significant damage to what
it is you see as your mission?
Mr. Clough. It is a cumulative toll. In time, it gets worse
and worse. We normally by industry standards should get about
$100 million a year, given our facilities base. But a lot of it
is historic, and we are open every day of the year but one, so
it is heavily used. And we have to keep our energy supplies
going almost continuously, because we have collections,
valuable collections in the museum.
And we should nominally have about $100 million a year. We
have been running about $75 million, and sequester is going to
cut that down now by probably another $5 million. And that
obviously cumulativly will take its toll.
Now, what we try to do is to examine each and every case.
We have a priority list, and we try to attack that priority
list each and every year that we can when we are doing our
work.
Mr. Tierney. Now, do you term all that waste, fraud and
abuse? Is that the way you think spending that money is?
Mr. Clough. We don't obviously see that as waste, fraud and
abuse. I would say we are working hard to use technology to
increase our productivity. I talk a lot about digitization at
the Smithsonian as creating access, which it does. But it also,
as we digitize our collections, it is less wear and tear on the
collections. For example, we have lots of re-enactors who love
to come see our Civil War uniforms. If we can show them a great
digital image and they don't need to actually hold in their
hands the real thing, it cuts down on wear and tear in the
collection.
So we are trying to invest in new technologies to help us
address some of these problems.
Mr. Tierney. Hasn't the Inspector General given you some
pretty good recommendations on how to improve your maintenance
and preservation of all your collections?
Mr. Clough. Yes. We have a very good Inspector General, and
we pay very close attention to the recommendations from the
Inspector General. In some cases they recommend things that
they believe will reduce costs, but in some cases their
recommendations actually increase costs. They go to a
collection center and find that we don't have up to date
cabinets, for example, it costs us money to put those cabinets
in. So from time to time, the Inspector General's
recommendations will actually increase our costs.
But we pay very close attention to their recommendations.
Mr. Tierney. What is going to be the practical implication
to the Smithsonian if you are not able to implement their
recommendations?
Mr. Clough. Well, we hope we will continue to do our very
best to meet those recommendations. And we have a board of
regents and we discuss these issues with our board of regents
very carefully, six members of Congress are on our board. And
we take these recommendations very seriously.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman, and recognize now the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bentivolio.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, is there ever a case where a program has more
than enough funding?
[No audible response.]
Mr. Bentivolio. That is what I thought. How about, I
understand that the National Park Service, Mr. Jarvis, spent $7
million in bonuses to employees in 2011. Did the National Park
Service issue bonuses in 2012?
Mr. Jarvis. Not yet. We have reconsidered all bonuses and
have put them through a second review, looking at only those
that are required by law.
Mr. Bentivolio. Is there criteria for giving bonuses? Is
that readily available for me to review or for the committee to
look at?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. Could you provide the committee with
information on where I can find that? Thank you very much. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Mica. No further questions. Then let's see, Ms. Speier.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
representatives from Archives and National Park Service and
Smithsonian.
I am kind of perplexed by this conversation today. Because
if the American people don't want to increase their taxes, that
is their choice. And then there is a shrinking in the services
that we provide. Now, to Dr. Clough, in terms of the
Smithsonian, it is an extraordinary gift to the American
people. And in many respects, I think postponing deferred
maintenance is a problem and it should be something that you
think long and hard before you forego that.
But have we come to a point in time where offering the
Smithsonian free to everyone is something we can afford? The
Newseum charges $25 a person. Have you explored whether or not
charging $5 a person, children free, would be something that
would augment your budget significantly?
Mr. Clough. We have talked a lot about that. I think my
general philosophy, I will tell you that first, and then I want
to indicate that my board of regents are very much in support
of keeping the admission free to the Smithsonian, is that the
American people paid for the buildings, they paid for the
collections. I don't think they should have to pay a third time
to get into the museum.
If you look at the demographics of the people coming to the
Smithsonian, many of them do not have a lot of money. I walk
the mall, I stand in front of the museums, and I watch the
folks go in. Many of them don't even buy food in our museums.
They go back outside and they eat their lunches outside. And
there is a great joy in their ability to go into one museum and
then go into the next museum without having to worry about the
admissions cost.
Admissions, if you want to apply them, cost to collect.
There would be an initial big bump in cost, actually, to put in
the equipment, to put in the people, to put in the time, to put
in the accounting and the oversight all associated with
admission.
Ms. Speier. All right, if that is where you are, and I
respect that, then if the American people are saying no to more
taxes, shrink government, then we have to comply with that. You
need to decide where you are going to shrink in terms of the
Smithsonian.
Mr. Ferriero, I have had the opportunity to visit the
National Archives on a number of occasions. It is an
extraordinary experience, there is no question about it. Again,
we have to live within our means. It is something that we are
just going to have to do.
In terms of providing crucial services to our veterans,
documentation so they can get their medals replaced or apply
for disability services, whatever it may be, that is critical
as a function that I think you absolutely have to perform.
Now, have you costed out what, first of all, do you charge
for that, and if you don't charge for it, what does it cost per
request?
Mr. Ferriero. We have transactional data on what it costs
per request. I don't have that at my fingertips. Maybe someone
in back of me does, $30 per request.
Ms. Speier. And do you presently charge for that?
Mr. Ferriero. We do charge for that.
Ms. Speier. Enough to cover the cost?
Mr. Ferriero. It covers the cost, that is correct.
Ms. Speier. Okay, that is good to know.
Mr. Ferriero. And it is our number one service. The
veterans' service is the number one service that the National
Archives provides.
Ms. Speier. Mr. Jarvis, in terms of the National Park
Service, I agree that it is an extraordinary treasure that we
have. What do you charge now?
Mr. Jarvis. We charge a variety of different rates,
depending on the park size. They range from $5 to $20. We
collect about $160 million a year in fees.
Ms. Speier. Is it true that if you are a senior citizen you
can buy a pass for your lifetime for a certain amount of money?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Ms. Speier. And how much is that?
Mr. Jarvis. Ten dollars.
Ms. Speier. All right, I think we need to look at that. Ten
dollars for your lifetime, at the age of 65? A lot of people at
65 that can pay a little more than $10 for the rest of their
life. I yield back.
Mr. Mica. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for being here today. You all have important positions, and I
guess part of the reason we are here today is to understand
sequester and the effects it is having on you.
I think it is important to look and acknowledge that we as
a Country have a major debt problem and we have a major
spending problem. Can you all agree with that? If this was the
situation you were in in your own home you would probably think
you needed to make cuts somewhere, would that be correct?
Everyone agrees.
Okay. So sequester was not the perfect outcome, we all know
that. But I think everyone agrees that we have to do something
to get our debt and deficit spending under control. And because
of the failure of the Super Committee, here we are, we have
these cuts called sequester.
It is the responsible thing to do to reduce your debt and
deficit, would you all agree with that? Okay.
So Mr. Jarvis, do you think that, even though it is the
responsible thing to do, do you feel, let me just ask you
outright, do you feel that maybe you over-exaggerated the
effects or the consequences of sequester?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir.
Mr. DesJarlais. You think that everything you said was
right in line as it should have been in terms of you doing your
fair share to help get rid of some of this debt and deficit?
You feel like your actions were appropriate?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. In January a memo you wrote that the
sequester will result in reductions to visitor services, hours
of operation, shortening of park seasons and possibly closing
park areas. Yet in March, you told the Hill there will be no
park closures, that you are not closing down. So which is it?
Mr. Jarvis. Two different things. I said, and I stand by
it, that we are not closing any national park units. There are
no national parks that are closing. What we are doing is
reducing the operating hours, reducing services at some of them
and reducing the ranger-led programs as well as maintenance. So
you really have two options. You can close parks, and to take a
$113 million cut, we could close maybe 70 to 100 smaller parks,
or we could close all parks in the system for up to a month, or
you spread the impact across all units. You really have only
those options. So we chose to spread the impact across all
units, reducing services but not actually closing any
individual park.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. In your testimony today you stated
NPS excluded from furloughs positions that are required to
ensure the health and safety of visitors. Yet you also said
that due to sequestration, if there is an emergency, it might
be slower to get our folks out of there. So why are you saying
emergency response times might be slower, while you are also
saying you are not furloughing health and safety personnel?
Mr. Jarvis. We are not furloughing health and safety
employees, but we did not hire 900 permanent positions, which
includes some our law enforcement and EMS and firefighting
employees, as well as we are not hiring 1,000 seasonals. Our
seasonal operation is the lifeblood of the field rangers that
are out there responding in the summer. If I don't have as many
employees on the ground, that is going to have a direct result
in response time.
Mr. DesJarlais. So do you worry about the safety of
visitors then, because of sequestration?
Mr. Jarvis. I always worry about the safety of our
visitors.
Mr. DesJarlais. I am assuming then you have asked Congress
for the ability to reprogram search and rescue funds?
Mr. Jarvis. We have requested through OMB that we have some
reprogramming and transfer authority. But we have not received
it.
Mr. DesJarlais. I thought the question about bonuses was
very interesting as well. It is something that the private
sector doesn't fully understand, how the law requires the
Federal Government to pay more. I will be interested to see
what exactly that is.
You said in your testimony that finding long-term
efficiencies within park-based budgets is challenging and that
NPS strives to eliminate contracted services that could be
deferred within minimal short-term repercussions. But since
August 2011, when the President signed legislation that
mandated sequestration, NPS entered into 45 advertising
contract totaling more than $5 million. Are you aware that the
President signed legislation August of 2011 mandating
sequestration, correct?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes. Though the sequester wasn't implemented
until March of this year.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay, but you knew it was signed, you were
just hoping for the best, that it wouldn't happen?
Mr. Jarvis. I really don't know what you are talking about.
Mr. DesJarlais. Why did you enter into more than $5 million
in advertising contracts, including a $58,000 contract for a
solar-powered message board, knowing that this might be coming?
Mr. Jarvis. I am unaware of those contracts. I don't know
what you would be referring to in terms of advertising
contracts. We don't purchase advertising.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. You said that sequester would result
in such things like trash not getting collected, restrooms not
being cleaned, toilet paper being out, road not being plowed,
less interpreters on the ground, is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. DesJarlais. And those are things that people would
notice, wouldn't they?
Mr. Jarvis. There probably would be some notice of that,
yes.
Mr. DesJarlais. Well, you are aware that your budget staff
told committee staff that they were not sure 99 percent of
visitors would even notice the cuts?
Mr. Jarvis. I think what they are referring to is that in
the peak season, which is really the middle of the summer, that
most visitors would not notice, because that is what we have
done. It is the shoulder seasons, when the visitation is
significantly lower, that there would be notice of those
impacts.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. I just think it is important we do
something responsible as a Country, even if sequestration is
not the perfect way to do it. Using messaging to basically
scare people into thinking that doing something responsible has
to be painful is really unnecessary. I know that you don't
think you did that, but some of this evidence would point
otherwise.
I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you,
gentlemen, for coming and sharing with us this morning.
The Executive Order for implementing the sequester was
issued in late March. Federal agencies are now beginning to
implement across the board cuts required by statutory language
and determine how precisely the cuts will impact their mission
and the public. It appears to me that many agencies, including
those before us today, planned for the possibility of cuts
since last year. I would like to better understand what went
into those planning efforts and how they are assisting the
agencies to accommodate the cuts required by sequestration.
Mr. Jarvis, for example, I understand that prior to
sequestration and in anticipation of tightening budgets, the
Park Service began a process of trimming expenditures at parks
and other units last year. For example, your agency implemented
a hiring freeze on permanent positions, which left vacant a
number of staff positions going forward, allowing you to accrue
about 1,300 funded vacancies. It is my understanding that you
plan to leave about 900 of those positions unfilled, which will
save your agency about $43.5 million through the end of the
fiscal year.
Is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir, those figures are correct.
Mr. Davis. I also understand that in anticipation of forced
cuts, you also eliminated some lower priority support costs,
such as travel, overtime pay, merit awards, supplies and
contracted services, to save money. Is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Davis. Were there any other planning actions that you
implemented or plan to implement as we go through the
sequestration?
Mr. Jarvis. We are deferring anything to the next fiscal
year that we can as well. We are looking at, in terms of our
deployment of employees, to make sure that they are deployed to
the highest visitor use areas. We are building our
philanthropic side of our organization, the National Park
Foundation, the legislatively-created foundation here to raise
funds, to provide assistance. And we are looking to partner
with our other sister agencies, the other Federal and State
agencies, to ensure that facilities can be open. For instance,
at Badlands National Park we are working with the State there
to ensure that a highway road stop that also serves as a small
visitor center for the park would remain open.
So across the system, we are looking for volunteers, local
assistance, shared use agreements and all of those to ensure
that we provide quality service to the public.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Ferriero, I understand that your agency also began
planning for the possibility of cuts early last year. For
example, I understand that you imposed a hiring freeze
beginning in November of 2012, which reduced your workforce by
300 employees. How much did you save by that action?
Mr. Ferriero. That 300 employees translated into about $9
million.
Mr. Davis. I also understand that your agency cancelled
certain non-mission essential conferences, reduced travel
budgets and attempted to pre-identify approximately $20 million
in cuts to contracts, grants and other non-labor expenditures
that could be implemented if the sequestration came about. Is
that correct?
Mr. Ferriero. That is correct.
Mr. Davis. Quickly, Secretary Clough, similar to the other
two agencies, I understand that your agency also implemented a
hiring freeze and began other efforts to defer some maintenance
activities.
Mr. Clough. That is correct. I should point out that when I
came to the Smithsonian and looked at the statistics for the
last 10 years, it became obvious to me that over time the
Smithsonian lost about 600 Federal positions against the cost
of inflation. So we began thinking about how to do business
more efficiently.
In addition, because there were concerns about possible
budget cuts in the last few years, we developed a menu of
opportunities, or places, I should say, where we would adapt to
these kinds of cuts. So we have been thinking about this for a
long time. So we are implementing something that we have been
thinking about, some of these measures are temporary and we
will have to readjust our strategy as we move forward to a
permanent cut.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. We'll recognize Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Jarvis, you issued a memo on January 25th of this year,
``The lateness of the implementation will intensify the effects
of the sequester.'' I want to go back to where Dr. DesJarlais
was, what was the date again when sequester was passed into
law? August 2nd, 2011?
Mr. Jarvis. August 2nd, 2011.
Mr. Jordan. Almost 20 months ago, or actually I think
probably a full 20 months ago. Why did you have to wait until
January? Mr. Ferriero at the Archives implemented a hiring
freeze in 2011. Did you guys implement a hiring freeze in 2011?
Mr. Jarvis. We issued a memo in June of 2012.
Mr. Jordan. No, it is yes or no. Did you have a hiring
freeze in 2011?
Mr. Jarvis. We did not have a hiring freeze at the time.
Mr. Jordan. So you hired more people in 2011 after the
sequester was enacted into law?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Jordan. You did. Okay. Did you enact a hiring freeze in
2012?
Mr. Jarvis. We put a hiring control.
Mr. Jordan. What does that mean? Did you hire more? Are
there more people working now than there were before, in 2012?
Mr. Jarvis. There are less.
Mr. Jordan. No, no, in 2012. Did you have more people
working later in 2012 than you had at the start of 2012?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Jordan. So we don't know if you had a hiring freeze or
not?
Mr. Jarvis. We know we had a hiring control.
Mr. Jordan. Okay, but I didn't ask that. I asked did you
have a hiring freeze?
Mr. Jarvis. We did not put a hiring freeze until January
2013.
Mr. Jordan. So in 2011, you didn't do a hiring freeze, 2012
you didn't do a hiring freeze. The Archives decided to do one,
because they knew the law was the law in August 2nd, 2011. You
didn't do that. Did you have bonuses in 2011?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Did you have bonuses in 2012?
Mr. Jarvis. No. Not yet.
Mr. Jordan. Not yet? You mean you are going to have some
bonuses?
Mr. Jarvis. There are some required by law.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. What about did you have travel and
conferences that you attended in 2011?
Mr. Jarvis. Very few.
Mr. Jordan. But you did?
Mr. Jarvis. There were some, yes.
Mr. Jordan. Okay, what about 2012?
Mr. Jarvis. Very few.
Mr. Jordan. So you continued it in 2012?
Mr. Jarvis. Sir, the National Park Service is a large
geographic area.
[Simultaneous conversations.]
Mr. Jordan. The point is, I ask the questions and you
answer. Here is the point. The law was enacted August 2nd,
2011, 20 months ago. You issue a memo this January 2013,
saying, oh, the lateness of sequester is going to cause
terrible things to happen. And yet you gave bonuses in 2011,
potential bonuses in 2012, you hired more people in 2011, you
can't tell me if you hired more people in 2012, you took
additional, you took conferences in 2011 and travel in 2011 and
conferences and travel in 2012. And yet we have a gentleman
right beside you who implemented a hiring freeze clear back in
2011 because he can plainly understand what might happen.
All true.
Mr. Jarvis. The National Park Service is a very different
organization than Archives.
Mr. Jordan. Let me do something different here in my
remaining two minutes. The White House, I want to know if this
plan not to take action was driven by you or by the White
House. So on the White House website, February of this year, it
states relative to the national parks, ``Many of the 398
national parks across the Country would be partially or fully
closed, with shortened operating hours, closed facilities,
reduced maintenance and cuts to visitor services.''
Did the White House put that up? Did they consult with you
before they put that up? Did you give them that information?
Did you talk to someone at the White House? Tell me how that
was put on the White House website.
Mr. Jarvis. I have no idea how that got on the White House
website. We did provide information about the impacts of
sequestration through OMB.
Mr. Jordan. So did you talk to anyone specifically at the
White House about what may happen to the national parks?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. Jordan. You did not. But this sounds vaguely familiar
to your statement on January 25th, I assume maybe the same
memo, where you said, we expect the sequester ``will result in
reductions to visitor services, hours of operation and
shortening of season and possibly the closing of areas during
periods where there is insufficient staff to secure protection
of visitors, employees and resources.'' It sounds pretty
similar. But there was no coordination between you and the
White House?
Mr. Jarvis. Not between me and the White House.
Mr. Jordan. You didn't talk to anyone at the White House?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Did anyone on your staff communicate with
White House officials about details and impacts of the
potential sequester?
Mr. Jarvis. No one on my staff.
Mr. Jordan. Let me ask you this, then. Because I don't know
where the blame has to go for lack of preparing. Let's look at,
what about this memo from Acting OMB Director Jeffrey Zentz,
who said, ``Continued normal spending and operations,'' this
was July 31st of last summer, of 2012, ``Continued normal
spending and operations since more than five months remain for
Congress to act.'' Do you remember receiving that memo? Did
that have an impact your decisions not to reduce hiring, not to
reduce travel and conference attendance, and not to forego
bonuses?
Mr. Jarvis. We did reduce travel. We did reduce
conferences. And we put hiring controls on. So actually, we did
get that memo and we implemented a restriction across the board
in the National Park Service planning for this. We did not put
a hiring freeze on until January.
Mr. Jordan. But that is not, but this is communication from
the White House that says, continue normal things. Is it normal
for, so what I am trying to figure out is, when do you pay
attention to the White House, when you don't, when do you plan
ahead, when you don't. Because this memo says, keep doing the
normal things, and based on what you did in 2011, it is normal
to give bonuses, it is normal to have travel and conferences,
and it is normal not to having a hiring freeze, is that right?
And then here you have the OMB director saying, continue normal
spending and operations, since more than five months remain for
Congress to act.
So you just told me you contradicted what the OMB director
said. My first question you said no, I can't tell you whether
we have a hiring control, not a hiring freeze, so you couldn't
give me an answer. But now you are saying no, we contradicted
what the OMB director said. So I am just trying to figure out,
what did you guys do, who did you listen to, how did you make
your decisions.
Mr. Jarvis. What we decided to do is be as conservative in
our application of our budget and travel, supplies, materials,
beginning in the middle of 2012 in anticipation of the
sequestration. Our paper will prove that to you. We took a
conservative approach to this from the very beginning in spite
of what OMB said. We knew that our responsibilities, that is an
OMB memo that covers the entire government.
Mr. Jordan. Respectfully, I think the American people might
disagree. Because as I said earlier, you have another director
of an agency right beside you who decided to implement a hiring
freeze in 2011. You had the opportunity to do the same, you
chose not to. And now we have this contradiction based on what
the White House OMB director had sent to you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. I appreciate
the extra time.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
I recognize Mr. Horsford.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The benefit of being a new member is I get to actually
listen to all of my colleagues and their concerns and also the
witnesses. It has been more than 100 days now since I have been
here. I for the life of me don't understand why we keep having
these hearings that, to take my colleague's quote that he just
said, I don't know where to place the blame or where the blame
has to go.
Why do we have to be in the blame game at all? Why can't we
focus on what needs to be done to get our economy moving so
that these cuts don't happen to begin with? My constituents
sent me here, I believe the majority of the American people
want us to work together to solve problems and to avoid the
harm that the sequester has caused.
Now, I think it is critical that the public understand that
this reprogramming authority is not some kind of unrestricted
power that the agencies have to pick and choose which funding
priorities they want to make. It is a highly limited authority.
Claims that agency officials are not being straightforward with
the public about their implementation of sequestration is
simply not true. And I think that it is rhetoric and
gamesmanship and brinkmanship of turning these hearings into
something that they are not.
I would rather work with the agencies to figure out what we
need to do to benefit the public. So with the time I have
remaining, I would like to raise some concerns of constituents
from my district as they relate to the National Park Service.
A part of Lake Meade's 1.5 million acres lies in Nevada's
Fourth Congressional District, which is the fifth most visited
national park unit last year, with over 6.3 million visitors.
Mr. Jarvis, you said that there is a ten to one return on
investment based on the work of our National Park Service. It
is my understanding that the visitor center at Lake Meade
National Recreation Area will be closed two days a week now,
and that the national park unit has braced for cuts in park
security, operations, and efforts to curtail an invasive
species, the quagga mussel, which is affecting the oxygen
levels in the water, disrupting food chains and causing damage
to facilities.
Mr. Jarvis, what efforts is the National Park Service
undertaking to address issues like this that I imagine aren't
just happening at Lake Meade but potentially at other national
parks?
Mr. Jarvis. As I indicated earlier, each of the individual
National Park units had to take the 5 percent cut at the park
level. For Lake Meade National Recreation Area, that is an
$889,000 cut to their operation, halfway through the fiscal
year. And there is no way you can take that kind of cut at a
highly operational park like Lake Meade without having direct
impacts on the operations.
One of the key components here is that most of our parks
operate at about 85 to 90 percent fixed cost. That mean
permanent salaries, utilities, fleet, just basic operations.
When you take a 5 percent cut, that hits the discretionary part
of the budget, which is basically supplies, materials and
seasonal operations. So they are directly having impacts. We
tasked the park to make decisions on what they can do.
In terms of some of the key drivers in that area, such as
quagga mussels, we are looking to use the fee accounts and we
have a request in the fiscal year 2014 budget specifically to
improve overall our control on that invasive species.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you. I know my time is expiring, but I
think in part if we could get some more information of what the
additional cost could be, based on the implementation of the
sequestration. Again, this is an example of now, if we cut back
it is actually going to cost us more in the long run. That is a
fool's choice, in my opinion, and on behalf of my constituents.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we can refocus our
committee's efforts around solutions that will get our economy
moving and less on the blame game between our Federal agencies.
Thank you.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, you are
recognized.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for coming to testify today. As we look at
that, as my esteemed colleague opposite has just mentioned, it
is not about gamesmanship. One of the problems that I get
concerned about is that we have essentially made this into a
game of rhetoric, placing false blame and false consequences at
times. That is what we are trying to get to.
Mr. Ferriero, with regard to the National Archives, you and
I both know that I have been there to see your operation. I
want to compliment you on a job well done. With that, and you
didn't know that this was going on, but at that particular
time, I asked you about sequestration and the effects of it on
your agency. You gave me a non-political response, which I
appreciated. You said, we are managing through it. Obviously
any cuts are painful, but we are managing through it as a good
manager would. I want to thank you and go on record as thanking
you for that type of response. We need to see more of that in
Washington, D.C.
With that being said, I would ask that you highlight
perhaps two areas that you are most concerned about with regard
to sequestration that we should address from a Congressional
standpoint.
Mr. Ferriero. Two that I would highlight, preservation. We
are sitting on 12 billion pieces of our records in parchment
paper, and deteriorating. And audio visual materials that are
deteriorating. So our ability to keep up with ensuring that
they are going to be available for future generations is
something that worries me.
The other thing is the investment needed in the Electronic
Records Archive. We have moved from development into operations
and maintenance. We have the agencies on board in terms of
delivering their records to us electronically. But there are
some enhancements that have to be made to make it much more
functional. This is input from the agencies who are using it.
Mr. Meadows. I thank you for that. I can tell you as one, I
am more inclined, when someone manages through these
situations, to look at the requests that they make in a more
germane way. It is something that adds additional credence and
credibility in terms of responses from that.
Let me go on to Mr. Jarvis. With regard to the National
Park Service, there is a thing here in Washington, D.C. that
many times they call the Washington Monument syndrome. Are you
aware of that? I think some of the heated rhetoric that you are
hearing today is because we are concerned that some of that
Washington Monument syndrome has crept into this sequestration.
Even your staff, I believe, has told people that they are
not sure that 99 percent of the visitors will even notice that
there was a sequestration cut. Yet you have talked about trash
collection, toilet paper, things like that. Would you say that
those are things that people would notice?
Mr. Jarvis. I think they would notice. I notice it. Having
worked almost 40 years for the National Park Service, I walked
around the Tidal Basin during the middle of the Cherry Blossom
Festival, and I noticed trash cans a little over-full, and I
noticed fewer rangers than would be normal for that kind of
operation. So we don't want the public to notice it, because we
take a great deal of pride in providing these places. We don't
want to impact the public. That is why we have concentrated the
reductions on the shoulder seasons, rather than in the center
of their prime operation.
Mr. Meadows. I am glad that you said that. Because in my
district, there are signs that have gone up that say, we are
closing operations. Printed due to sequestration, on permanent
signs that have been placed in my district. Why would you say
that that would have happened if indeed we were not trying to
make a political statement?
Mr. Jarvis. I am unaware of any signs.
Mr. Meadows. I have pictures. I will be glad to share them
with you.
Mr. Jarvis. I would like to see them. And I would instruct
the parks to take those down.
Mr. Meadows. I want to know how much we have spent on
permanent signs that talk about sequestration. So I would ask
that you respond to that.
Mr. Jarvis. That is inappropriate.
Mr. Meadows. Are you aware personally of any conversations
that have happened within the National Park Service or DOI that
have talked about making sequestration as painful as possible?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir. We did not want to make this painful.
Mr. Meadows. I know you didn't want to. Are you aware of
any conversations that have taken place where making cuts
painful has been discussed? Let me tell you the reason why I
ask. I have talked to some Park Service employees who have
indicated that they were told that the cuts coming down would
be painful, and that came from management. I was saying, well,
I understand that they won't be painful, that we are going to
manage our way through this. But yet somehow they got the
impression from people within your organization that they would
be painful. So you are not aware of any conversations or any
memos or anything discussing that?
Mr. Jarvis. I am not. But I want to make a distinction
here. There is a difference between intentionally making them
painful or the fact that they will be painful. The Park Service
is an operational organization. We are not a grant-making
organization. We run parks. And so a cut of this level is
painful by definition. We have worked to try to minimize that
pain. But I will tell you that we have not instructed anyone to
intentionally make this painful to the public.
Mr. Meadows. I can see my time is out. I yield back and
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. [Presiding] Thank you.
We now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for his
questions.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could my time start at five, please?
Chairman Issa. I thought we were going to give you as much
time as you needed.
Mr. Connolly. Oh, great. Okay.
First of all, let me thank all three of you for managing
through a very difficult and mindless budgeting exercise, but
real, nonetheless. All three of you represent revered
institutions, respected and very much beloved by the public. In
listening to this hearing as I have, you would all be forgiven
for feeling you find yourself in the midst of a Kafka-esque
scenario. I myself can't quite follow the logic of some of my
colleagues.
Sequester should be blamed on President Obama, it was his
idea. Really. Because I seem to recall the President wanting a
clean debt ceiling vote in August of 2011, and for the first
time in history, he was denied it. And for the first time in
history our credit rating went down. It was not the President's
idea.
We created a Super Committee doomed to failure because half
the members of that committee would not even entertain a
discussion of revenue. You should have known about
sequestration, should have been planning for it all along, you
should have known we meant it. How are you supposed to know
that? Like this Congress or the previous Congress have been
consistent in their economic message? Really, about the fiscal
cliff, about the Bush taxes, about sequestration, about the
debt ceiling? About nothing. And oh by the way, had you
anticipated that we were serious all along, what were you to do
with the fact that the Majority, which says that it addressed
sequestration not once but twice, their answer was to eliminate
all the cuts on the defense and national security side and
double down on the domestic discretionary side. So in other
words, the sequestration you are now wrestling with would have
been double.
Somehow you should have fathomed that. You should have
divined what we actually would do and how irresponsible and
reckless we would become.
I don't share that view. I think you are being asked to
deal with something unprecedented and not responsible. And by
the way, Mr. Jarvis, don't give away those signs too fast. I
think you should put up those signs, and I will help you put
them up in every national park in this Country. I will even
help paint them. The public should know what is happening. The
public should not be shielded from the fact that there are
consequences, consequences from sequestration that are real.
And that is the other thing that is so puzzling. Last
summer, maybe it is because it was before an election, the
message from my friends on the other side, oh, I was with them
on platforms, was the earth is going to open and swallow us all
if sequestration is allowed to happen. Now apparently the
message is, well, we ought to soft-pedal it, don't be scaring
people, the consequences are all absorbable, they are not real,
they won't have real consequences in real people's lives.
And from everything I can see and everything I hear, I
think the three of you are attempting to manage and minimize
the damage. Isn't that what you are asked to do as a manager?
Mr. Jarvis, in the national parks, we charge entrance fees
and other fees. If because of furloughs or letting positions
stay vacant, as you are managing to, might it require some
parks, I am thinking of one in my district, the Prince William
County Forest Park, they are looking at perhaps having to close
for one day a week or maybe even a little bit more. But when
they do, they also lose revenue, is that not correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Have you estimated the potential loss of
revenue in the National Park Service sort of writ large?
Mr. Jarvis. We have not estimated that, but we do
anticipate some loss of revenue.
Mr. Connolly. Because you talked about bringing in roughly
$160 million a year in revenue. Some percentage of that is
going to be lost.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. And that is over and above the cuts from
sequestration, is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Ferriero, my colleague from Ohio, Mr.
Jordan, was citing you as a paragon of virtue in anticipating
sequestration and how poor Mr. Jarvis should have followed your
model. Would you agree with Mr. Jarvis that the missions of the
two organizations are quite different and therefore, the
challenges sequestration poses are also quite different?
Mr. Ferriero. I agree that they are different
organizations. But let me put it in perspective. I came to
Washington from the New York Public Library. I was responsible
for 91 facilities reporting to the mayor and the city council.
So I have five years of experience in trimming budgets and
making do with few resources.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask one more
question?
Chairman Issa. I wasn't going to stop you. You are on a
roll.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Although I am informed, and I believe it is
true, that the revenues go to the general fund. They do not?
Mr. Connolly. No.
Chairman Issa. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One final question, because it is sort of hanging out there
and I am going to ask each of you to answer it. Did you receive
any instructions from the Administration, OMB, the White House,
to either soft-pedal the impacts of sequestration or to in fact
magnify them for some political purpose as you were trying to
wade through the consequences and how you would manage those
consequences? Mr. Ferriero?
Mr. Ferriero. No.
Mr. Connolly. You are under oath.
Mr. Ferriero. I am under oath.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Jarvis?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir.
Mr. Connolly. You are under oath.
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Dr. Clough?
Mr. Clough. No.
Mr. Connolly. You are under oath. I thank you very much,
thanks you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Thank you. Just for the record, would that
be true of anybody from any source within government equally?
Mr. Ferriero. Yes, as far as I know.
Chairman Issa. Nobody in government, nobody in Department
of Interior, no deputy assistant secretary of hoopla, nobody?
Mr. Ferriero. No, sir.
Mr. Clough. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, could I just clarify one thing?
Ms. Norton at one point in her questioning I think suggested
that the National Park Service was one-fourteenth of the
Federal Government's budget. I think the actual statistic is
one-fourteenth of 1 percent of the Federal Government. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. So noted for the record.
The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
being here, and for all of your service and for what you do for
our Country. I can tell you it wasn't that long ago that I was
walking through the National Archives and standing there with
my daughters, who just kept repeating, over and over again, it
is right there. It is right there. The children of today need
to be able to see and experience what is happening at the
Smithsonian, at the National Archives and in our national
parks. It is a significant part of what we do as Americans as
we pass our heritage on. So this is important for all of us.
I congratulate all of you for what you are doing on a day
to day basis, for the children and for our families. I
encourage you to continue going. I am extremely aware, as
everyone else is, with our staff and with every staff across
Federal Government, that this is difficult budget times. We get
that. But I thank you for what you are doing for the Nation and
for the future.
Mr. Ferriero, when did you start planning for sequestration
and start thinking about its effects and what could occur?
Mr. Ferriero. We actually started in September of 2011, by
reducing employee recruitment, retention and relocation
incentives. Then in November of that year, we instituted the
hiring freeze. In February 2012, we returned under-utilized
leases to GSA. In May of 2012, we returned under-utilized motor
vehicles to GSA.
In August of 2012 and again in March of 2013, we reduced
travel budgets by 41 percent below fiscal year 2010 levels. In
September 2012, we focused available resources on one-time
investments that would permanently reduce operating costs, like
building energy efficiency. And in March, 2013, we reduced
NARA-sponsored conferences and instituted procedures to apply
increased scrutiny to all conferences.
Mr. Lankford. That means that you walked in and you have
been in leadership there how long?
Mr. Ferriero. Just over three years.
Mr. Lankford. So you walked in your first year, got the lay
of the land and could see some areas and then began to
implement some areas to be more efficient in the process?
Mr. Ferriero. With the guidance of our new chief financial
officer, that is right.
Mr. Lankford. That is a lot of work, to take that on. To
take on that kind of change, it is a lot of pushback that
occurs from that. But you planned ahead and because of that, we
are able to more efficient and continue operations on it.
Mr. Jarvis, when did you start planning for the effects of
sequestration?
Mr. Jarvis. Officially with the memo on June 13th, 2012.
Mr. Lankford. And then started implementing ideas of what
to be able to do to actually save money starting when?
Mr. Jarvis. We instructed in 2012, in June, in that memo
that every park and program would implement what we call our
budget cost projection model, in anticipation of a 5 percent
reduction. And looking at every aspect of their operation,
travel, fleet, awards, all of those components, and really
restricting them from doing any type of movement between
accounts, reduction in the number of seasonals.
One of the things about park operations s that there is a
flow into the fall after the end of the fiscal year. Some parks
actually carry those seasonal operations into the fall. We
asked them to significantly restrict that, so that they could
have some discretionary funds going into fiscal year 2013.
Mr. Lankford. You also mentioned before that each one of
your parks, you gave them some sort of responsibility to start
looking for savings, is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is right.
Mr. Lankford. When did that occur?
Mr. Jarvis. We began, as I indicated, in the June 13th,
2012, and then specifically in January of 2013, we asked each
park to produce an actual plan for how they would implement the
sequestration.
Mr. Lankford. So the parks' first notification of this,
back to the actual park level, wasn't until sequestration was
actually imminent, was on top of us. So some of the advance
planning was in leadership in June and then the parks actually
got it. What instructions did they get? They were told to start
thinking about where they could pare back. Was there some
guidance that was given to them?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes. Again, actually in the June memo of 2012,
we asked specifically, each park had to follow their budget
cost projection models that looked at all of these reductions.
We didn't come down with a hard enforcement on those
restrictions until January of 2013.
Mr. Lankford. So they were given instructions, then, in
June, to start thinking about it. There was some sort of
guidance document that was sent down on that.
Dr. Clough, what about you? When did you start preparing
for the effects of sequestration?
Mr. Clough. We started planning for the possibility of
budget cuts several years ago. We started the program called
Smithsonian Redesign to become as efficient as we could with
the present resources that we had. We are still implementing
that.
We used the services of McKenzie and Associates to get us
started. We have now implemented that internally. We have tried
to implement best practices as quickly as we can through a
process that we have now for sharing information from our
units. Anybody can have a best practice. We have employees who
work in Panama, so we looked across the institution for best
ideas and for best practice sharing.
I mentioned the process of digitization. For us that is a
big money saver, it is an inventory control device, in addition
to creating access for people. But it is a tremendous tool for
us to save wear and tear on collections and cut down on the
number of people that you need to maintain your collections. So
we have been working on it generally speaking. We have a menu
of options that we already had in place before sequestration
ever got on the horizon as to how we would accept different
types of budget cuts and different options for us.
Mr. Lankford. So you already had a contingency plan in
place.
Mr. Clough. We had those already in place. Then when
sequester became clear, then we implemented a series of those
actions that we thought would take care of this year's budget.
We do have a unique two-year budget process, and it allows us
to do a little carrying over. So we put in some restrictions
back in 2012 that would help us in 2013, if sequester appeared.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you for that. By the way, that is also
statement, I am a proponent of it, to your budgeting cycle for
all the agencies, to provide more flexibility on that. That is
a different topic for a different day. I appreciate that very
much.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Chairman.
As you know, Chairman, we have some of the most beautiful
national parks in my congressional district in the State of
Utah, obviously.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman care to name a few of
them?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, as a matter of fact, Chairman, I am
prepared to name of course the Arches and Canyon Lands, among
two of the five that we so readily tout out west in Utah.
Mr. Jarvis, we thank you for your service. You have been
engaged in the Park Service for decades, and we do appreciate
your service.
I do want to ask about a couple of the expense items that
you have to deal with. You have 84 million acres, which is an
awful lot of land to cover. Can you talk to me a little bit
about the number of vehicles that you have, maybe the miles
that you have to travel? Do you have a sense of that right off
the top of your head? I know it has been a long morning.
Mr. Jarvis. I think that often people don't understand
about the National Park Service. With my colleagues here,
Archives has the Declaration of Independence, but I have
Independence Hall. The Smithsonian has Old Glory, but I have
Fort McHenry. And the responsibilities for their maintenance
and care is different.
The National Park Service has an inventory of facilities
second only to the Department of Defense. And most of those are
historic. We have thousands of miles of road and thousands of
facilities and 279 million visitors a year. So the challenges
that we have in terms of keeping those things operational are
difficult.
We are also geographically in every State in the Union,
from the Virgin Islands to the far Pacific. The requirements,
our vehicles, aircraft, firefighting vehicles, and I don't know
how many vehicles we have but I can get you those numbers.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chairman, I guess the point I am trying
to make here is that when the price of fuel over the last four
years has doubled, doubled, there is a dramatic impact, not
only to the United States Postal Service, which I believe the
estimate is that for every penny increase in the cost of fuel,
it costs $9 million more.
My guess is that there are similar types of effects and
consequences, when this Nation doesn't have an energy plan and
that we have such rapidly rising costs of fuel. It literally
has doubled.
I am also concerned, Chairman, that last time I looked, and
maybe for the Department of Interior, not just the Park
Service, Chairman, that we had close to a billion dollars in
backlog of ongoing maintenance and other types of programs that
are out there. Do you have a specific number, that if you
could, if you would, implement, how much is that? How many
different systems are there in place or that you are trying to
have implemented to do this maintenance?
Mr. Jarvis. The maintenance backlog is $11 billion. And in
order to maintain those facilities at a base level, I would
need at least $700 million a year. I get about $300 million.
Mr. Chaffetz. So my point, Chairman, is this Congress has
historically allocated money for acquisition of additional
lands. In fact, if you go back and look from the 1970s, not
just within the Park Service, but the Federal Government has
acquired private property and made it public property greater
than the size of Arizona.
We can't maintain what we currently have. In fact, it is
not even close to what we are trying to maintain. I guess there
are those of us that believe that, let's take care of the
treasures and the jewels that we have, rather than be on this
kick to continue to add private property and make it public
property.
I would also believe, Chairman, that there is public
property out there, particularly at the BLM, not so much the
Park Service, but at the BLM, that serves no public purpose. It
is not there for mineral rights. In fact, in 1997, the Clinton
Administration did a study, and I introduced a bill that said,
this 1 percent of public property that serves no public
purpose, let's sell it back, let's make it private property. We
can't even maintain what we have now.
The Park Service is telling us they have $11 billion that
they recommend we do in maintenance to make sure that we
protect these treasures. Next time somebody steps forward and
says, you know what, we need to acquire more, we need to
implement the Antiquities Act, we need to do another, we can't
afford to do what we are doing now. That is one of my concerns,
that we continue to do this.
Lastly, Mr. Jarvis, again, my understanding is from fiscal
year 2003 to fiscal year 2011, the Operational National Park
System, the ONPS budget, the operation of the National Park
Service budget, which is roughly, according to my notes, 86.7
percent of your account, that has increased 11.8 percent from
2003 to 2012, 7.4 percent faster than inflation. And yet, over
the last four years, our visitors are still down from the peak
that happened in 2009 of 285 million visitors.
So we are asking for a modest 5 percent cut and we bring
that down, and the number of visitors is down from four years
ago. I don't think that is an unreasonable place to be. Do you
care to comment on that, Mr. Jarvis?
Mr. Jarvis. Visitation depends on a lot of factors, gas
prices, price of flights to Europe, marketing, a lot of
factors. Two hundred and seventy-nine million versus 285
million, it goes up and down. The visitors centers and
facilities are open for the American public. It changes a
couple of percentage points.
We do believe, though, there is an investment we need to
make in the national parks for the next century, for the next
communities of the next crop of Americans. We think it is a
good investment.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Again, thank you for your service,
and again, Chairman, I will be one to advocate that we invest
in the jewels that we have already set aside. Let's take care
of those, let's do the maintenance on those rather than
whetting our appetites to acquire more, more, more. Let's take
care of what we have here.
I appreciate your time and service and thank you for
participating in the hearing. I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Jarvis, the gentleman from Utah made a pretty important
point. How much of your acquisition fund would you choose to
transfer if you had the authority to transfer it to operation?
Obviously new construction and land acquisition.
Mr. Jarvis. Well, we basically have a moratorium on new
construction. Our construction budget is really only going to
deferred maintenance at this point.
Chairman Issa. Let me ask a question. If in constant
dollars your operational account is greater by about 5 percent
after sequestration than it was in 2008, what happened that
your costs went up faster than inflation for operation?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, I would disagree that our budget is up 5
percent.
Chairman Issa. It is up 13 percent before sequestration, in
constant dollars, according to the figures which I have in
front of me, which you have in front of you.
Mr. Jarvis. Well, according to my figures, we are down
about 4 percent since 2010.
Chairman Issa. You are speaking total budget and I am
concentrating on operation. Because they are bifurcated in
sequestration, let's start with operation. Operation is where
toilet paper comes out of. It is also where grooming the roads,
the trails, it is also where those personnel that lead the
trips and so on, all that comes out of it.
That is up 13 percent in constant dollars adjusted for
inflation from 2003 through 2008 through today. The base on
that was 2003. You gave us the figures, we read the figures. We
would like to know the answer of why, with more money in
constant dollars for operation than you had on the day
President George W. Bush left office, you cannot operate with
less visitors as well as the American people who, for the most
part are old enough to remember way back in 2008, what it was
like to go through the parks.
Mr. Jarvis. The increases that we have received, as I
remember since that period, have come in specific categories,
one of which is fire. The National Park Service, along with our
fellow land management agencies, have responsibility for
wildland fire. We are receiving a great deal of growth in our
fire responsibilities across the Country. And those are not
dollars that can translate into cutting grass or keeping the
restrooms open.
Our fixed costs have gone up. In 2009_
Chairman Issa. Well, let's talk about fixed costs.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Issa. Inflation indexes are designed to pick up
most fixed costs. What are your fixed costs that went up more
than my constituents who were watching this on C-SPAN, what is
it that went up more than inflation for the rest of America, in
your costs? Was it your labor rate? Did it go up faster than
inflation?
Mr. Jarvis. In some places, labor rates go up.
Chairman Issa. No, no, no. Mr. Jarvis, one of the things
about this committee is we like the answers to the questions we
ask. Overall, did your employees earn more than the rate of
inflation such that in constant dollars they are making more
today than they made in 2003 or 2008 or previous years? Did
their real pay go up faster than inflation?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't know the answer to that question.
Chairman Issa. Okay. I would appreciate if you would answer
that one for the record.
One of the challenges we have on this committee is we are
well aware that all three of you are dealing with discretionary
funds. As a result, you are dealing with the tip of the
iceberg, not the base that is underwater that is going to sink
the ship of state, to use plenty of metaphors here for a
moment. One of the challenges I have is, I am talking to you
about that which we can control, what sequestration affected. I
am very aware that until this year, when the President proposed
re-indexing or changing the index rate on Social Security, we
didn't have a partner even beginning to touch entitlement. We
now have that. So I am limited here.
Let me ask some questions from a standpoint of the National
Archives. You take both paper and electronic data to this day
from agencies around government, right?
Mr. Ferriero. That is right.
Chairman Issa. Isn't it true that if those who are
delivering you material did a better job of preparing it in the
least expensive format, both to receive and archive, you would
be able to have great cost savings and the public would have
better digital searching capability?
Mr. Ferriero. And that is the thrust of the Government
Records Directive, yes, that is true.
Chairman Issa. So touting a piece of legislation that I
believe in that did not pass out of the Senate, which is not an
uncommon thing for all those of us in the House to do, the Data
Act, which could also be called the Structured Data Act, that
would create structured data so that all reports, all data
coming in from the government would ultimately be interoperable
and searchable, how would that affect your ability to both
maintain Archives and provide meaningful information, both on
the Presidential Records Act side and obviously for all
government information, including from those of us in Congress?
Mr. Ferriero. In theory, it sounds terrific. It is the
details, how it would actually be implemented.
Chairman Issa. Let's go through that for a moment. Because
no one else is seeking time right now. The gentleman will get
his time to talk more about those five parks in just a moment.
If we implemented the way you would like it implemented,
what does it do both for cost and availability to the public of
the kinds of information they believe or that potentially,
rightfully or wrongfully, they want?
Mr. Ferriero. I think any time in an IT environment where
you establish standards across the government, it is much more
efficient and effective. And it improves potential access at
the other end.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Dr. Clough, in your case, except for not charging for
admission when other museums around the Country do, except for
not charging for the Washington Zoo while the San Diego Zoo has
to, except for having a hard time asking people to give you
money because they assume we will give you the money you need,
is there anything we can do to help you?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Clough. I think the comment that was made by David
applies to us as well. Collections care is a critical item for
us. I can get donors to support new construction in many cases.
I can get donors to support new and exciting initiatives. But
it is much tougher to get the basics. And collections care is
an essential one for us.
Sort of in a similar category is maintenance. I am a civil
engineer by training. You don't want to build up a deferred
maintenance backlog, if you can avoid it. And the longer it
goes on the worse it gets. So I think those are sort of the
basic things that government can help us do that we really
can't do ourselves.
Chairman Issa. Let me ask you a tough question. Roughly 97,
98 percent of the things you have are not on display at any
given time, isn't that true?
Mr. Clough. Yes, that is correct, in the museums. Now, we
do have a major loan program. About a million of our objects
are shared with our affiliate museums and others around the
Country and digitally. Now we have about a million of our
objects up with images and about 8 million with records. So we
are sharing more and more of them digitally.
Chairman Issa. I want to talk about sharing. Because as a
former businessman, I know that when you share, you don't bear
the cost of transporting the item back and forth. But what do
you see as the potential revenue of some of that 97 percent
that is sitting in storage that we are paying to store being
made available through other museums, but also the potential
for it to equal or exceed its total cost of preserving?
Mr. Clough. Well, that is a little bit of a tough thing. A
lot of our collections are scientific collections, 127 million
of our 137 are what we would call scientific.
Chairman Issa. And I do not have the time to look at every
insect that you have preserved, but I understand it is
unmatchable anywhere in the world.
Mr. Clough. It is. And I haven't counted them all myself.
But I would say it is important to realize that the collections
are used for research by a number of government agencies. And
to the Park Service's credit, we signed an agreement recently
to share collections expertise and to do everything we can to
prevent overlap and work together on that. We will do more of
that in the future.
But the Department of Defense, the Department of
Agriculture, actively uses our collections for entomological
reasons, NIH uses them for spread of disease from animals and
insects and so forth.
Chairman Issa. Do they come to you because you are free,
rather than somebody else who might charge them big bucks,
because they are the government?
Mr. Clough. Well, that is because they are a Federal agency
and we collaborate with our fellow agencies. Now, anyone who
wants to use the collection for research, if it is a legitimate
reason, they have access to the collections.
Chairman Issa. Do you see the potential for some revenue
from the treasure trove you have? Obviously the inter-
government one, we could have a separate discussion, but non-
inter-government.
Mr. Clough. I think if there is a potential, it is in the
digital realm. We put value added against the collections as
opposed to just making them available in sort of a generic
sense. But if we package them in certain ways, those things are
marketable. And we are looking at those options where we could
actually market packages that would make sense in the normal
run of business to do that.
Chairman Issa. Last question. Mr. Jarvis, do you need any
authority to raise more revenue that you get to keep under the
1997, or was it 1994, Act? The 1997 Act.
Mr. Jarvis. Well, the fee authorization legislation is up
for reauthorization in 2014. We do think that there are some
appropriate changes to that that would give us more authority,
change to some of the structures and let's say liberalize how
the fees could be used. We were not able to use the funding to
cover these costs, because we did not have transfer authority.
So there are some fixes. I think if the sequestration
continues, we are going to need VSIF and VERA authority, early
buyout and early out authorities to deal with it in the next
fiscal year.
Chairman Issa. Great. I am going to recognize the gentleman
from Utah. He is going to come up and sit here. Mr. Jarvis, I
was tough on you on the way in. Clearly, the ranking member was
also tough. Hopefully, the people at Interior recognize that
you were just the messenger and they will deliver the documents
we both asked for.
I now recognize the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. Chaffetz. [Presiding] Thank you.
Just in conclusion, Mr. Jarvis, I think you were going to
talk about acquisitions and the Chairman got going in a
different direction. Can we talk about acquisitions?
Then the second part of my question is, how much money did
you get when the stimulus, in general, what did you use it for?
Mr. Jarvis. In the Recovery Act?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Jarvis. We received about $900 million in the Recovery
Act. We used it specifically for our maintenance backlog
projects. Everything from wastewater treatment plants, to water
treatment, to roads, to work on historic buildings. And we can
provide you a complete list.
Mr. Chaffetz. As a follow-up, so we can conclude this. As a
follow-up, if somebody could provide me and this committee a
list of what you did do with the stimulus money, that would be
appreciated.
In terms of acquisitions, what have you done over the last
several years, where are you going? What does that look right
now?
Mr. Jarvis. Our land acquisition program, which is derived
from the Land Water Conservation Fund, outer continental shelf
oil leasing, has been sort of steady at about $53 million. We
have a Federal side and a State side of the Land Water
Conservation, we grant to all of the States to basically
purchase lands for State parks, for urban parks, for access to
rivers and recreational sites.
The Federal side, we are restricted to buying only willing
seller in-holdings within national parks, within the boundaries
of existing national parks. That is what that funding goes to.
Mr. Chaffetz. As we conclude here, again my concern is that
we continue to add to the amount of lands that we continue to
hold as opposed to, and my criticism is broader than the Park
Service. I think it is much more directed at BLM and others
within the Department of Interior. We seem to have this
insatiable appetite to consume and want more instead of
recognizing that private ownership in many instances is the
preferable way to do it.
We thank you all for your service, your participation here.
I know it is not always the best day to come and have to
testify before Congress. But we do appreciate it and thank you
for your service. This committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80900.054