[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE: THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 16, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-116
(Committee on Oversight and Government Reform)
__________
Serial No. 113-48
(Committee on Natural Resources)
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-621 WASHINGTON : 2014
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
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 TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan Vacancy
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Cardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Raul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Mark E. Amodei, NV Joe Garcia, FL
Markwayne Mullin, OK Matt Cartwright, PA
Chris Stewart, UT Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 16, 2013................................. 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Greg Bryan, Mayor, Town of Tusayan, Arizona
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Ms. Anna Eberly, Managing Director, Claude Moore Colonial Farm,
McLean, Virginia
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Mr. Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, National Park Service
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Ms. Lisa Simon, President, National Tourism Association,
Lexington, Kentucky
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Mr. Myron Ebell, Director, Center for Energy and Environment,
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 43
Written Statement............................................ 45
Mr. Denis P. Galvin, Board of Trustees, National Parks
Conservation Association
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
APPENDIX
Opening Statement of Rep. Gerald Connolly........................ 132
Additional Statement for the record by The Hon. Pedro Pierluisi.. 134
USA Article, ``GOP asks: Why Were National Parks Shut Down,
Anyway?'' submitted by Chairman Issa........................... 137
AP News Archive ``Annoyed Tourists Shut Out Of Monuments--
Again,'' submitted by Chairman Issa............................ 140
U.S. Dept. of Interior National Park System Closure Determination
and Notice, submitted by Chairman Issa......................... 142
A letter to Rep. Cummings from the Military Officers Assoc. of
America, submitted by Rep. Cummings............................ 144
Statement from the Student Veterans of America submitted by Rep.
Cummings....................................................... 146
A Statement by Blount County Mayor Ed Mitchell, submitted by Rep.
Duncan......................................................... 148
Donation Agreement Between the NPS and the State of Arizona,
submitted by Chairman Issa..................................... 150
A letter dated Mar. 27, 2013 to NPS and the April 19, 2013
response, submitted by Chairman Issa........................... 168
Statement by Alan O'Neill, submitted by Rep. Horsford............ 172
A Feb. 28, 2013 letter from 300 businesses affected by NPS cuts,
submitted by Rep. Lowenthal.................................... 175
Statement of Mary Hountalas...................................... 179
Oct 15, 2013 letter to Rep. Cummings from the Reserve Offices
Assoc.......................................................... 183
The Victoria Advocate article of Oct. 13, 2013................... 184
Questions and responses from the NPS............................. 186
AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE: THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
----------
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Joint with Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, D.C.
The committees met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
[chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform]
presiding.
Present for Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
Representatives Issa, Mica, Duncan, Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg,
Lankford, Amash, Gosar, Meehan, Gowdy, Lummis, Woodall, Massie,
Meadows, Bentivolio, DeSantis, Cummings, Maloney, Norton,
Tierney, Lynch, Connolly, Pocan, Kelly, Davis, Horsford and
Grisham.
Present for the Committee on Natural Resources:
Representatives Hastings, Young, Gohmert, Bishop, Lamborn,
Wittman, Fleming, McClintock, Thompson, Benishek, Tipton,
Labrador, Flores, Mullin, Stewart, Daines, LaMalfa, Smith,
DeFazio, Faleomavaega, Napolitano, Holt, Grijalva, Bordallo,
Costa, Tsongas, Pierluisi, Huffman, Shea-Porter, Lowenthal,
Garcia, and Cartwright.
Also present: Representative Noem.
Staff present for Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform: Ali Ahmad, Senior Communications Advisor; Molly Boyl,
Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady,
Staff Director; Caitlin Carroll, Deputy Press Secretary; Sharon
Casey, Senior Assistant Clerk; Steve Castor, General Counsel;
Drew Colliatie, Professional Staff Member; Adam P. Fromm,
Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda
Good, Chief Clerk; Tyler Grimm, Senior Professional Staff
Member; Michael R. Kiko, Legislative Assistant; Mark D. Marin,
Deputy Staff Director for Oversight; Katy Rother, Counsel;
Laura L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Peter Warren, Legislative
Policy Director; Rebecca Watkins, Communications Director; Sang
H. Yi, Professional Staff Member; Krista Boyd, Minority Deputy
Director of Legislation/Counsel; Aryele Bradford, Minority
Press Secretary; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Communications
Director; Chris Knauer, Minority Senior Investigator; Elisa
LaNier, Minority Director of Operations; Juan McCullum,
Minority Clerk; Leah Perry, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel;
Brian Quinn, Minority Counsel; Dave Rapallo, Minority Staff
Director; Daniel Roberts, Minority Staff Assistant/Legislative
Correspondent; Mark Stephenson, Minority Director of
Legislation; and Cecelia Thomas, Minority Counsel.
Chairman Issa. The committee will come to order. Today we
have a joint hearing of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform and the Committee on Natural Resources. The
committee is entitled--the hearing is entitled ``As Difficult
As Possible: The National Park Service's Implementation of the
Government Shutdown.''
With the indulgence of the chair and ranking member of the
Resources Committee, the Oversight Committee's mission
statement: We exist to secure two fundamental principles.
First, Americans have a right to know the money Washington
takes from them is well spent; and, second, Americans deserve
an efficient, effective government that works on their behalf.
Our duty on the Government Oversight and Government Reform
Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility
is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because
taxpayers have a right to know that the money government takes
from them is well spent. Our responsibility is to work
tirelessly in partnership with citizens and watchdog groups to
deliver the facts to the American people and bring a genuine
reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is our mission
statement, and during a government shutdown more than ever we
take that seriously.
The National Park Service is the steward of the most
treasured public spaces. Indeed, the Park Service is the
caretaker of our national heritage. As such it is always--it
has always been called on to act in the best interest of the
American people and to never allow itself to be subjected to
political influence or to work in any way other than on behalf
of the American people and these treasured assets. Yet it
appears today the Park Service leadership is no longer living
up to that mandate.
First allow me to say I support fully the funding of the
National Park Service for fiscal year 2013 levels and the
appropriation bill that would reopen the parks and fully fund
as was passed by--on a bipartisan basis on October 2nd.
Notwithstanding the Senate has not taken up that bill, every
Republican member of both of these committees and three
Democratic members did vote for that legislation.
I understand that this is a confrontational time. This is a
time in which issues other than the Park Service and its assets
are being argued. We're not here to argue that today. We're
here simply to discover whether or not the Park Service has met
its legal obligation on one hand under the lack of an
appropriations bill, and on the other hand has done everything
it can to mitigate damage to the American people.
During the lapse of appropriations, it is proper for
nonessential park personnel and services to be suspended;
however, it is clear that the lack of money does not mean that
one park in America is required to close.
As we speak to Director Jarvis today, I regret that he
would not come voluntarily and had to be subpoenaed and served
by the marshals. This is not the normal way that we do business
with any administration official.
Why did the Park Service barricade the Lincoln Memorial?
Why, when I asked the police standing duty there personally,
did they tell me that every policeman was on duty, they were
essential, and their job was to keep people out? I repeat, an
open-air monument was guarded by the same number of people to
prevent Americans from getting in as would allow them to safely
go in and out on a daily basis.
Why were veterans turned away from the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial? Why were Honor Flights initially told that they must
cancel their planned visits? Why were members of the Americans'
finest generation, in their eighties and nineties, turned away
and told they could not visit what would be undoubtedly, in
many cases, their last time to those monuments?
Why were private businesses and nonprofits operating near
parkland shuttered? Why, in fact, did the Park Service spend
money to stop commerce rather than spend no money and allow
commerce to go forward?
Why is the Park Service closing roads that run through
parkland, but are used for local traffic? Why, in fact, would
America ever expect that a public road necessary for ingress
and egress and safety of a city, a town, or private residence
ever be nonessential?
We will hear from the Director today whatever he wants to
say would justify stopping the public from using a public road.
I doubt that I, in fact, will agree with him, but I certainly
would like to hear his statement for why, in fact, these
punitive measures were taken at no savings to the American
people.
Why, in short, is the shutdown so different than 1995 and
1996? The lessons learned in 1995 and '96 should be the basic
starting point for can we do better at a time without fundings
and limited authority, rather than many facilities have
successfully stayed open now being closed. One anonymous Park
Service ranger told the Washington Times, ``We've been told to
make life as difficult for people as we can. It is
disgusting.'' If true--and I have no reason to doubt the
truthfulness of that quote--it is indeed disgusting and
despicable that the Park Service would do this.
But, Director Jarvis, you're not here for the first time.
During sequestration we found a pattern of if someone said they
could live with existing staff that they had already had
attrition to cover sequestration, that wasn't good enough. They
had to send an alternate report. In fact, many of your
lieutenants found that they were almost punished for thinking
in advance and preparing for the possibility of that lower
amount of the sequestration.
During the Occupy program, you became before one of our
committees and made it very clear that you were going to
reinterpret the First Amendment to include, basically, people
sleeping in the parks, defecating on the lawn, creating a
health hazard for the people of the District of Columbia, and,
in fact, would do nothing about it. You likened it to previous
events, rather than likening it to people who were simply
sleeping in the park. We disagreed with you then, and we
disagree with you now.
But I hope today we will have a healthy dialogue, and it
gives you an opportunity to tell us why you have performed, and
the Park Service under your leadership has performed, less well
on behalf of the American people during this shutdown than the
one we had more than a decade ago.
Chairman Issa. With that I recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I will
start today by asking a very obvious question: What in the
world are we doing here?
Today is the 16th day since House Speaker John Boehner shut
down the United States Government. He could end the shutdown
this morning, like right now, by simply allowing the House of
Representatives to vote on legislation to reopen the
government. This bill has already passed the Senate, and it has
more than enough votes to pass the House, but Speaker Boehner
refuses to bring it to the House floor without the support of a
majority of his own political party. In other words, if Speaker
Boehner brought this bill to the House floor today, it would
pass with about two dozen Republicans and most, if not all,
Democrats.
Since he does not have 51 percent of the Republican Party,
Speaker Boehner refuses to allow any vote on this bill. That is
why we are still in this government shutdown. That is why
people say Speaker Boehner is holding our country hostage. And
that is why the American people correctly blame House
Republicans for shutting down the government. Their approach
puts the ideology of one political party ahead of the interests
of our entire Nation. Even worse, if this issue is not resolved
in the next few hours, we will begin defaulting on our debts,
something our Nation has never done before.
As House Republicans drive our Nation towards the fiscal
cliff, credit-rating agencies are warning that the full faith
and credit of our Nation is now at risk, and investors are
dumping Treasury bills.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are truly
concerned about the shutdown, allow us to end it. Stop this
madness right now. Let us bring a clean Senate bill to the
House floor, and let us pass it. You can still vote against it,
but don't bring down our entire government just because you do
not want to allow a vote.
Rather than allowing us to take this reasonable course of
action, House Republicans today want to focus on restricted
access to the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. So let
me address this issue directly.
The World War II Memorial is a stunning and beautiful
monument, but it is made of marble and fountains. Do you know
what a more significant tribute to our veterans is? Do you know
what really honors our Nation's heroes for their service and
for their sacrifice? Providing them with the benefits they
earned after suffering injuries in combat; paying them the
pensions they need to cover their rent, their utility bills,
their food; and guaranteeing the assistance they rely on to
stay off the streets and in some cases to simply stay alive.
That is how we make good on our promises to veterans. We take
care of them like they took care of us. They gave their blood,
their sweat, and their tears; in some instances, all they had.
Yesterday a nonpartisan coalition of 33 veterans groups
held a rally at the World War II Memorial, and Garry Augustine,
the executive director of the Disabled American Veterans,
explained the importance of these benefits of veterans across
the country. This is what he said: ``For many, those payments
may be the primary and only source of income.''
Also yesterday John Soltz, an Army veteran who started
votevets.org after serving two tours in Iraq, said this: ``If
you lost both your legs in Vietnam, and you're on prosthetics,
and you're 100 percent connected disabled, you don't get a
disability check because the Republicans have hijacked the
government over Obamacare.''
I will conclude by reading from a statement issued on
October 3rd by two of the most distinguished World War II
veterans ever to serve in Congress, Republican Bob Dole,
Senator Bob Dole, and Democratic Representative John Dingell,
who were both instrumental in creating the World War II
Memorial. This is what they said: ``As two proud World War II
veterans, blessed also to serve this great Nation in Congress,
we consider it our bipartisan work together in helping to
create a National World War II Memorial to be among our
greatest accomplishments and a true honor to our brothers-in-
arms. If this Congress truly wishes to recognize the sacrifice
and bravery of our World War II veterans and all who have come
after, it will end this shutdown and reopen our government now.
The current shutdown has slowed the rate at which the
government can process veterans' disability claims. And as the
VA has stated, it is negatively impacting other services to our
Nation's veterans. Piecemeal or partial spending plans do not
adequately ensure that our veterans, and indeed all Americans,
have access to the system of self-government established to
serve and protect them.''
Mr. Chairman, we're out of time. I understand that the
Senate will make one more attempt this morning to resolve this
issue on a bipartisan basis. I just hope and I pray that
Speaker Boehner will finally put our Nation first, that he will
put this bill on the floor and allow us to vote so we can avert
default and reopen our government before it is too late.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the chairman of the full Committee on
Resources Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you and your staff for the cooperation as we put together this
joint hearing.
Now, back to the issue at hand. The issue at hand: ``As
Difficult As Possible: National Park Service's Implementation
of the Government Shutdown.'' To anyone trying to follow or
make sense of the National Park Service's policies during this
unfortunate government shutdown, I would say good luck. The
policies have been arbitrary, inconsistent and ever-changing.
Their actions appear to be motivated by two things: one, an
attempt to make the shutdowns as painful and as visible as
possible; and, two, because of one and the backlash, an attempt
to squash the ensuing bad PR. That's no way to run a government
agency and no way to treat the American people across the
country who visit, live, or work on our national parklands.
The actions of the Obama administration have sullied our
great National Park System. In their most egregious act, the
National Park Service erected barricades around open-air parks
and memorials, areas that are open 24/7, 365 days a year. This
is in direct contradiction to what happened during the last
government shutdown 17 years ago.
The Obama administration's barricading of these sites is
not something that they are required to do; it is something
that they are choosing to do. Furthermore, they appear to only
be barricading the highly visible sites; for example, the
Lincoln Memorial and the World War II Memorial are barricaded.
The people are currently free to walk around the Washington,
D.C., World War I Memorial and the Japanese-Americans Memorial,
both open sites.
Thus far we have heard excuses from the Obama
administration ranging from trash collection and maintenance to
security concerns. Yet one by one it's been confirmed that
these excuses are excuses. The Mayor of Washington, D.C.,
declared that they will collect trash in the national parks
around the city. As for security, it's been reported that there
are just as many National Park Police working along the
National Mall now as before the shutdown. So from my
perspective, there is no reason for these barricades.
To add to that, the National Park Service's selective
reversal of policies has been even more confusing. For example,
the administration realized its mistake only after public
pressure built. As a result, they agreed to allow World War II
veterans with the Honor Flight programs to visit their memorial
and exercise their First Amendment rights. Now, while this is
very good news for these veterans, it is not appropriate for
the National Park Service to be denying these same rights to
others who want to visit these open-air parks and memorials.
This administration has also forced privately operated
sites and businesses to close just because they happen to be
located on public lands. These are businesses that don't
receive a dime of taxpayer dollars to operate. But, once again,
after intense public and legal pressure, the Park Service has
suddenly allowed some of these sites to reopen, while others,
with no explanation, remain closed. I hope to hear from our
witnesses today why this was allowed to happen in the first
place and what changed to prompt the Park Service's sudden
reversal.
In addition, the Obama administration first refused to
allow States to pay to keep national parks in their respective
States open. But what is now becoming a recurring theme, the
Park Service suddenly changed their mind after more than a
week, again, of public backlash. I do want to point out that
during the last government shutdown in '95, '96, States were
allowed to pay to keep the national parks open and were later
reimbursed by the Federal Government. There is absolutely no
reason why it should be any different this time under this
administration. Erroneous claims by the Interior Department
that they can't pay and may not be able to reimburse States
simply defy history.
At today's hearing we expect to get answers, not excuses,
and to get to the bottom of when and how all these arbitrary
decisions were made and by whom.
The past 2\1/2\ weeks have also raised broader questions
about how the National Park Service is run. This shouldn't be
the only time we take a look at how the Park Service operates
and interacts with all States, counties, private businesses,
and private property owners. The Committee on Natural Resources
expects to continue its oversight of the Park Service's
actions, as we have with other Federal land-management
agencies.
And with that I'll yield back my time.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the ranking member from Oregon Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the chairman.
You know, normally I begin these hearings by thanking my
Republican colleagues for holding a hearing, inviting witnesses
to testify on important issues before the Congress. But, you
know, that's not appropriate today. The Republican majority
closed down the Federal Government in a vain attempt to repeal
or delay the Affordable Care Act; Obamacare, as they call it.
Well, we're 15 days into a Republican-initiated government
shutdown, and now the Republicans want to investigate why the
national parks are shut down.
Our Nation is already threatened with a credit downgrade,
close to the point of default, because the Republicans have
linked their shutdown now to the debt limit and could trigger
the first default in our Nation's history, and here we are
holding a hearing on why the Republican government shutdown led
to a shutdown of our national parks. Instead of trying to
prevent economic hardship, potential financial catastrophe,
we're having a hearing that is at best nonsensical.
I'm going to spend my time talking about how this Seinfeld
shutdown, or the shutdown about nothing, has kept hunters out
of refuges, crabbers out of the fishing season, loggers off our
timberlands, and citizens out of our national parks.
When you decided to shut down the government over 2 weeks
ago, did you forget the National Park System, which includes
memorials, is part of the Federal Government? No, you knew
that, but you apparently forgot the economic impact our iconic
parks have in gateway communities, and you forgot that the
American people value their public lands and the solemn tribute
of the World War II and other war memorials.
The title of this so-called hearing is laughable: ``As
Difficult As Possible: The National Park Service's
Implementation of the Government Shutdown.'' If you want to
spend your time here dissecting individual decisions about what
monuments are open, which are closed, let me save you some
time. Our National Park System is surprisingly part of our
national government, which you shut down.
And I'm going to demonstrate, if the Republican side would
look at me, I will show you who is responsible. Right here.
Here you are. This is who is responsible for shutting down the
national parks and memorials. Guess what. The Republican-caused
government shutdown is irresponsible, causing credible economic
hardships to the public servants you have put out of work. And,
yes, it is painful. It is painful for every single American.
And that's why we don't shut the government down on a year-to-
year basis.
This hearing is a sideshow, it's political theater. Are we
meeting here today to amplify the efforts of Senator Cruz,
Senator Lee and Sarah Palin last Sunday on the networks? Do we
really need to give a platform for a group of people cheering
when their leader, Larry Klayman, said: ``wage a second
American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, to
demand that this President leave town, to get up, to put the
Koran down, to get up off his knees, to figuratively come out
with his hands up while others went to the White House waving
Confederate flags''?
Maybe the majority wants to give a megaphone to groups like
the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They are here today. They
once called expanding our Federal estate ``rural cleansing.''
Really? Rural cleansing? Our parks, our monuments, that was
rural cleansing? You'd take them away, you'd give them back,
you'd sell them?
Well, you can continue to engage in your irresponsible talk
and try and make the Park Service and our Park Rangers the
target of your own ineptitude and intransigence, but we're not
going to play that game.
I would yield the balance of my time to Representative
Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
Let me just concur that we seem to be here at this hearing
functioning in an alternative universe. We have the Republican
majority and their leadership that created the shutdown. We
have the Republican majority and their leadership that can't
manage the shutdown. And we have the Republican majority and
their leadership that can't get us out of the shutdown. So what
do we do? We have a hearing. Today the majority holds this
feeble hearing to scapegoat Director Jarvis and blame him for
the fact that they can't cope with reality.
The national parks, as Mr. DeFazio said, are part of our
government. People love them people, people depend on them,
economies depend on them. But--and the--to avoid reality of the
shutdown or the responsibility for that is to neglect the job
that we have as Members of Congress, and thus far this majority
has neglected it consistently.
And with that I yield back.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman from----
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the
chairman of the National Park Subcommittee on Natural
Resources, the gentleman from Utah Mr. Bishop.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jarvis and our
witnesses. I don't know whether it was on purpose or whether it
just happens to appear that way, but it seems to be our policy
towards our public lands has been vindictive and petty and
politicized. I wonder why the cooperation of the '90s does not
exist.
But what is very clear is that there is a better way. What
we have seen are that the States are willing to step up and
help people when Washington fails; not just when Congress
fails, but when the agencies fail at the same time. I'm very
proud that when your Department ordered the national park--the
Federal lands that are administered and run by the State of
Wisconsin to close down, the Governor basically said no, that
he would run those regardless. I'm proud of the Governors in
Arizona and Utah and South Dakota and Colorado, who have
stepped up to pay to have those parks functioning.
What we have simply found is that when the States and local
governments are involved in the management of our public lands,
it is a better process. If you look in the State of Utah, the
Sand Flats, which is a wonderful recreation area, this time BLM
property, that the BLM could not manage, didn't have the
resources to manage, nor the desire. And when a near riot broke
out one time in the recreation area, they decided to work with
the county to come up with a county-managed plan, which is now
a wonderful recreation area that not only provides
opportunities for people to recreate, but is done without a
cost to the taxpayer at the same time.
The Coral Pink Sand Dunes in southern Utah is land that has
been given back to the State of Utah, even though there is some
Federal land there, and is managed--as one newspaper reported,
1 of the 10 wonders--10 unheralded parks in the Nation. It's a
great opportunity simply because local government was given the
opportunity to be involved in the management process.
In our hearings we've already shown how the forests in
Idaho and Washington on State land are far more productive,
have far less wildfires, and are much healthier than the
Federal land that is right next door. The same thing happens on
Park Service land and BLM land. And what we need to realize is
that this shutdown has illustrated there is a better way, and
that better way is the involvement of State and local
governments in the management of our public lands so that this
kind of situation does not necessarily have to happen. And what
we need is to look forward in that.
What I find is so frustrating, though, in due respect, is
that this situation in which we find ourselves is not
necessarily unique to the shutdown. This has been happening for
those of us who live in the Intermountain West for years. When
the Park Service harms outfitters and guides by insisting that
their insurance payments have to go up from a 1- to a $5
million policy, prohibiting them from doing issue; when a park
in Washington bans an annual church picnic and concert for
veterans because the noise that would be established would be
too loud for the cultural and historic aspects of the rest of
the park; when Park Service personnel says a murder victim in
Nevada cannot be found, and the family wants to hire somebody
to go in and look, and it takes them 15 months to raise the
money to pay for the special use permit, and then when they go
and they find that body within 2 hours after the Park Service
said it was impossible; or an Air Force staff sergeant who was
drowned as that same park, and the Park Service refuses to
allow a private company that is an expert in underwater
recovery to go and find the body, it takes 10 months for the
family to finally get a lawyer and go to court, and then when
it's allowed, that body is found within a matter of days; when
on a wild and scenic recreation river, the Park Service decides
to ban all sorts of paddling and oars so that the only--and
obviously electronic motors--so the only thing you can do for
recreation, I guess, is fish watching; when the Park Service
writes a statement about the Keystone pipeline being an
endanger to its parkland, and the closest land is 30 miles
away, what we have found is there is a pattern not just in this
shutdown, but a pattern that has recurred year after year and
has been exacerbated in the last few. I find that disgusting
and disheartening, to say the least.
There is a better way. The States have stood up and shown
that they can be better managers of the land. And if we really
want to have a long-range policy for public lands in the
future, we have to incorporate cooperation with States and
local government and allow them to have a greater say in the
management of our public lands. Federalism is the solution to
our problems, and it may even be the salvation of this country.
I thank the gentleman from Washington, and I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia,
an area very much affected by this shutdown, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Indeed the District of Columbia is a double-
whammy victim of this shutdown. And blaming the National Park
Service for closing the parks is like voting for capital
punishment and then blaming the hangman as executions proceed.
Locally the District cannot meet the payment coming up for its
charter schools. We cannot pay for disabled children in group
homes because our local funds are held here. This in addition
to the national parks which fund our tourist economy, that has
collapsed.
So the District of Columbia's local funds shouldn't even be
here. And certainly, certainly our local economy, dependent on
the opening of all of our monuments, should not now be
collapsed because Republicans have shut down the Federal
Government.
And I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Holt of New
Jersey.
Mr. Holt. I thank the gentlelady.
Earlier this morning I spoke with my hundred-year-old
mother, and she asked what we would be doing today in Congress.
And I said I was going to hope to find that the Republican side
found some backbone and got their act together to get the
government operating. And she said, ``It sounds like you're
going to have a long day.''
Well, over the last 2 weeks, the Republicans seemed
surprised to find out that the Federal Government actually does
things to help people, but they can't agree on what to do about
it. So today they found something they can agree on, which is
blaming someone else for what they've done.
So the Federal Government does perform very tangible
functions, and when it's disrupted in a disrupting way, an
abrupt way, you know, you find people affected in ways that
weren't predicted.
The solution is quite simple. They could bring a vote to
the House this morning, it would pass, everything would be
fixed, the barricades would be down, the hard-working members
would be back to work.
With that, I yield time to Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman.
We are in a Kafka novel. The Federal Government is shut
down. We're on the brink of the first default, the
creditworthiness, sovereign debt of the United States, and
we're going to have a hearing to pillory Director Jarvis
because he shut down national parks after the Republican
majority shut down the government. Imagine their shock that
there would be consequences that their favorite place to picnic
is closed, and that the National Park Service is, in fact,
enforcing it. And we saw that shameful moment where a member of
the Republican Caucus actually berated a National Park Service
ranger for doing her job.
This is a Kafkaesque moment, and the solution isn't to have
a hearing to pillory someone for doing his job. The solution is
to reopen this government without condition, to avoid default
without condition, and get on with the business of governance
before we destroy all confidence in this legislative body.
And with that I yield to my colleague Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
I wonder how many Republicans really thought about the far-
reaching effects of this shutdown. Nationwide the shutdown has
furloughed more than 20,000 National Park Service employees, 21
of them work for the War in the Pacific National Historic Park
on Guam, that small island in the Pacific. I wonder, how many
thought about that? So only 2 employees remain on duty there to
provide security and emergency services, and we have 600
visitors daily.
The shutdown has negatively impacted Guam's tourism economy
for something that could have been avoided entirely by passing
a clean CR. We have failed in this Congress our National Park
Service employees and our Nation. And I have made this point
repeatedly at House Armed Services and will continue to do so
until this Republican-led shutdown is completed.
And I'll end my remarks saying let's shut down the
shutdown. And I yield my time to Representative Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. I want to thank you, Director Jarvis, for
appearing before the committee today. As you know, my district
is home to two great national parks, and I know firsthand how
devastating the shutdown has been for our local economy, for
hundreds of school children who haven't had access to the
parks, and for our dedicated park employees who have been
furloughed. Overall, millions of Americans have been impacted.
Chairman Issa. The gentlelady's time has expired. Would you
please conclude?
Ms. Tsongas. Well, I think that if you really care about
opening the national parks, about putting our government
workers back to work, that we could have a vote today on a
clean CR that would fund government and avoid a default for the
first time in this country.
Chairman Issa. All Members may have 7 days in which to
submit opening statements for the record.
And as I recognize the panel, I would admonish all Members
that House rules prohibit questioning the intent or the
character of another Member of the House or the Senate. So as
we go through this hearing, you may quote from statements made,
but the intent of a Member or adverse intent is not admissible.
Additionally, I now ask unanimous consent that the USA
Today article, last night, ``GOP Asks Where the National Park
Shutdown''--or ``Why Were the National Parks Shut Down Anyway''
be entered in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
We now recognize our panel of witnesses. Mr. Greg Bryan is
Mayor of Tucson--Tusayan, not to be confused with the other
similar name in Arizona. Ms. Anna Eberly is the managing
director of Claude Moore Colonial Farm. Mr. Jonathan Jarvis is
Director of the National Park Service. Miss Lisa Simon is the
president of the National Tour Association. Mr. Myron Ebell is
director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute. And Mr. Dennis Galvin is a member of the
Board of Trustees of the National Parks Conservation
Association.
Pursuant to the rules of the Oversight Committee, I would
ask that all members rise, raise their right hands, and be
sworn.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Please be seated.
Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
We have a large panel today. And in order to--on both sides
of the dais. And in order to allow time, I would ask that your
limit your opening statements to 5 minutes. Your entire opening
record plus any other submissions you think pertinent to your
testimony will be placed in the record.
And with that, I now recognize Mayor Bryan.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF GREG BRYAN
Mr. Bryan. Thank you, Chairman Issa, Chairman Hastings,
Ranking Members Cummings and DeFazio, and Congressmen here. And
also like to recognize Congressman Gosar for his assistance in
many ways as well.
I come before you today wearing two hats. I'm both the
mayor of our small town of 558 people, 3 years old, Arizona's
newest community, and also that of a general manager of a
rather nice 250-room hotel. And our little town is located on
the southern boundary of Grand Canyon National Park. We exist
for one reason. We exist because Grand Canyon National Park
brings 4-1/2 million people a year to visit it. Without the
park being there, there's no reason for our community. We're a
tourism industry, we're dependent upon the tourism industry,
and without that park open, we basically are shut down.
We have a good relationship with our park. We appreciate
Governor--excuse me, Superintendent Uberuaga and his team that
recognize that those workers, those rangers are there because
they choose to serve and to share this beautiful wonderful
resource. And we know that this shutdown has impacted them in
many ways as well as our community. They recognize that
relationship and want to protect that relationship. At the same
time we feel like we have sincerely been--significantly been
impacted by the decisions to close down the government and our
national park.
The month of October is a very wonderful month. It's a
beautiful month to be in Grand Canyon. When we started out, it
was 90-plus percent occupancy at the end of September,
reservations on the books, ready to come. Our river outfitters
had, I believe, seven or eight trips worth $900,000 ready to go
down the Colorado River. Today I'll tell you that at least in
one hotel we're in the low 40 percent and dropping. We've lost
over $400,000 in one place alone.
The impact to our community has been in the millions of
dollars within a very short time. All this because elected
Members of Congress and the President can't come to grips with
passing and getting a budget going. In the meantime we in the
front line feel kind of like cannon fodder. We feel like we're
the ball bouncing back and forth, and we're the ones that are
paying the bill.
Suddenly our source of business, our source of income for
our little community is closed, October 1st. We immediately
began to ask questions with regard to how we can do it, how we
can get our park back open. In 1995, same thing happened, and
within a reasonably short period of time, there was an
agreement worked out between the National Park Service,
Department of Interior, and our Governor Fife Symington. That
application, that policy could have been easily put into place.
We don't understand why it wasn't. It could have been pulled
out, dusted off, changed to apply today, and then applied.
But we went in--out and asked, and we offered to put up
funds. Within a very short time, our little town of 558 people
put up $200,000 out of our coffers as a community. Within a few
more days, we had well over $200,000 committed from the
business community in our area and across the State. We were
willing to put up and fund the expenses at no cost to the
National Park Service to keep portions of the park open.
We weren't asking for a full opening; we were asking for
partial. We were asking the Highway 64, a primary conduit
through the national park, comes up from I-40, it connects you
between Albuquerque and Los Angeles, heavily traveled, tour
buses, RVs; our connection, Highway 64, runs through the town
of Tusayan, goes into the park, and turns east to connect to a
Highway 89, which then goes into many other national parks and
monuments.
The first couple of days it was left open. We thank
Superintendent Uberuaga for that. But the plan that was used
was failed--was doomed to fail from the beginning. We were
allowing people to traverse through the park, everything else
was closed, but the parking spaces alongside the road were
barricaded. It's kind of like offering a piece of candy to
somebody and saying, you can't open it. You can't open it.
They're going to find a way. Their frustration was there.
Therefore, the buses, tour buses, RVs and personal cars were
parking either on the shoulders or in the road to take a look
at this great, magnificent World Heritage site.
We understand that, and we agree with the Superintendent
when he closed it because it was unsafe. We feel that--and we
had offered--Coconino County Sheriffs Department said they
would assist, and they have concurrent jurisdiction inside the
park; offered to help patrol and keep it safe, open up the
parking spaces, allow people to at least view. We offered to
put up Porta Potties to help keep things reasonably clean. We
were told no.
We asked why we couldn't apply the thing--the agreement in
1995. It's against National Park Service or Department of
Interior or administration's policy. We never quite got it
clear. We were told that either all the parks open, or none of
the parks open. We have concerns about that. And we believe
that when a national park is closed, that the individuals in
the community, if they come forward and are offered to help and
to support, ought to be able to open that.
We really appreciate the work of Governor Jan Brewer in her
efforts to reopen the park, and we're very ecstatic last
Saturday morning, in a beautiful blue sky, to open up, with the
Superintendent's help, Grand Canyon National Park for business
again.
We look forward to having some changes after the shutdown
is done and come back to you and request some options with
regard to clarifying a policy that says we be able to and a
community that wants to stand up, take responsibility, be
accountable when the government won't and pay the bills. We
think the policy ought to be clarified to allow that to take
place.
I can tell from you being on the front lines, when you have
a family come in from South Africa, or Australia, or Brazil or
China, in many cases planning for 10 years to bring their
children and experience that, and you got to tell them at 7
o'clock at night after they've driven all that way, can't go in
national park. They can't see it. Well, why not? With tears
streaming down the children's face, we got to tell them,
because our government has shut it down.
We need to find different ways of doing this. And we would
really appreciate the time afterwards to talk about a potential
for the future of creating a clarity to the policy that would
allow a national park to be run--not run, but assisted and
expenses covered by local community. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Thank you, Mayor.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Bryan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.006
Chairman Issa. Ms. Eberly.
STATEMENT OF ANNA EBERLY
Ms. Eberly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, for your invitation. I'm really honored to be here.
I'm the managing director of the Claude Moore Colonial Farm in
McLean. I'm representing our staff, volunteers, and visitors
here.
The farm is a living history site that shows the life of a
poor family in 1771 struggling to survive while fight for
freedom is growing around them. The farm is also a privately
operated national park unit of the George Washington Memorial
Parkway.
I've been involved with the farm since 1972, first as a
volunteer, then as an employee of the Park Service, helping to
establish the farm, which opened to the public in 1973. Due to
cuts in national park funding in 1981, the farm's public
programs were going to be eliminated. And subsequently the farm
became privately operated by the nonprofit organization Friends
of the Farm. At the same time, I resigned my Park Service
position to manage the farm for the Friends and have been there
ever since.
I came here today because I thought it might not only help
the farm, but maybe even help other groups like us. Along with
many other national park partners, we've been severely affected
by the recent closing of our site as part of the continuing
government shutdown. Fortunately, we were allowed to reopen on
Wednesday of last week, but most others have not been so lucky.
We still don't know why we were closed, nor do we know why we
were allowed to open a week later. The farm has never been
included in government shutdowns as there are no Park Service
employees at the farm, nor have there been since 1981.
During the previous shutdown almost 20 years ago, it made
sense that if NPS personnel couldn't be paid to staff the
parks, the parks couldn't open. No one was happy about that,
but people understood. This time the NPS chose to close areas
to the public that don't depend on NPS personnel. Locally that
included us, a ball field at the end of our road leased to
Fairfax County and rented to children's sports groups, the
scenic overlooks on the north end of the parkway, and, of
course, the closing down of the veterans memorials on the
National Mall.
I realize that in the proverbial heat of battle, someone
could make decisions that have unintended consequences, but
wasn't anyone watching the news? Couldn't someone have come
forward and admit they have made a huge mistake? As the
managing director of the farm, I've had to deal with people
that are unhappy. Fortunately, not very often. And I have a
choice. I can be defensive, or I can immediately reach out and
say, I am so sorry that your experience at the farm wasn't
perfect. How can we make this right, and how can we make sure
we never do it again? Within a few emails or phone calls, that
person has now become a friend of ours, not an enemy, and if I
can't bring myself to do that, then I shouldn't be the director
of the farm.
I don't know who was responsible for the National Park
Service actions this time. Maybe it was the White House,
Department of the Interior; maybe the Park Service acted
entirely on their own; or maybe no one is in charge there. But
the results of the National Park Service looks foolish and
inept and not worthy of managing the immense natural and
cultural resources entrusted to them.
As a lifelong Virginian, my big park is Shenandoah, which
is a wonderful place, one of the very few unspoiled natural
areas close to lots of people. Out of the entire year, October
is the month. Everybody goes there to look at the leaves. The
people who work for the concessions in the park and the
businesses that depend on the visitors in that area are in
terrible trouble. Their season is basically over by the end of
this weekend.
Virginia acquired much of that land and then gave it to the
Federal Government to become part of the national park system.
I'm sure there are people in Richmond now, just like in the
western parks, saying, well, if you can't open it, maybe we
can.
For the farm worker on your farm, being treated with
destain and contempt by the National Park Service is nothing
new, and the details are in my written testimony. And if you're
interested, I have all the documents to back up everything I
wrote.
The volunteer staff and public who care about the farm just
want to get on with running the farm and doing the very best
job that we can. What we do is hard enough, and we're just
asking for fairness, honesty, and a partner that doesn't stab
us in the back at every opportunity.
I don't know what the future holds for the farm. As our
original 1981 NPS agreement is up for renewal in 2016, I have
been told the process now of developing a new agreement will
take at least 3 years, and agreements now only last for 5
years. That means almost as soon as we sign a new agreement, we
will have to start negotiating the next one. In addition, the
loss of the NPS maintenance contribution to the farm this year
will have to come from somewhere. And, of course, we will have
to make up the revenue that was lost because of the recent
closure of the farm. But we're hopeful that we can find a way
through these latest difficulties, and that the farm will
emerge stronger and more committed than ever.
We have only turned to our Congressman Wolf and Congressman
Moran a few times over the years to help us in working with the
national park service. The opportunity to come before so many
of you was just too good a chance to pass up, and I'm happy to
do anything I can to help fix it.
Chairman Issa. Thank you. And thank you for your service,
both public and private.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Eberly follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.015
Chairman Issa. Director Jarvis.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN B. JARVIS
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On October the 1st, the National Park Service began to
implement a shutdown of our activities due to the lapse in
appropriations. Under the closure determination notice that I
issued that day, we closed and secured all 401 national parks
across the country and furloughed more than 20,000 of our
employees, consistent with the Antideficiency Act.
Approximately 3,000 employees were excepted from this furlough
to respond to threats to the safety of human life and the
protection of property. Absent appropriations, the National
Park Service will continue to implement the approved
contingency plan that was made public on September 27.
The closure has had far-reaching impacts across the country
on families with planned visits, businesses, gateway
communities, and employees. The National Park System welcomes
more than 282 million people per year and more than 700,000
people per day in October. The parks are loved not only because
they are beautiful and historic, but because they are well
managed, protected, and interpreted, and maintained by a
professional workforce, a workforce that is now largely on
furlough.
The national parks are incredible economic drivers. Visitor
spending generates an estimated 32 million per day in
communities near national parks and contributes 76 million each
day to the national economy.
In response to the economic impacts of the closures,
Secretary Jewell announced on October 10th that Interior would
consider agreements with Governors who indicate an interest and
ability to fully fund the National Park Service personnel to
reopen national parks in their States. This is a practical and
temporary solution that will lessen the pain for some
businesses and communities. Turning away visitors is not our
culture, nor our DNA. We look forward to reopening all 401
national parks.
The closure did not apply to through roads in parks that
provided primary access between points located outside of the
parks, such as Rock Creek Parkway. It also did not affect First
Amendment activities on the National Mall and memorial parks
and at Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia due
to regulations and court cases specific to these areas. Because
these two areas are long-standing venues for hundreds of First
Amendment activities each year, we anticipated that there would
be the potential for such activities during the shutdown.
The National Park Service has maintained law enforcement
services provided by the U.S. Park Police and rangers for
emergency and disaster assistance. We also have maintained our
firefighting programs, border and coastal protection, and
surveillance activities. Projects that were funded with
nonlapsing appropriations have also continued.
There has been a lot of attention on the monuments,
memorials on the National Mall. They are among the many places
that the National Park Service cares for that honor for those
that have fought and died for our Nation. We are proud of the
special relationship we share with America's veterans, and we
know that they will be here--we will be here to protect these
memorials now and in future generations.
On a normal day there are over 300 National Mall and
Memorial Park employees on duty. The rangers provide the eyes
and ears of the U.S. Park Police. They enhance the visitor
experience by sharing the history of the war, keeping the
grounds and the restrooms clean, maintaining the landscape and
fountains, and overseeing special events. All but a dozen of
these 300 employees have been furloughed.
Even though the U.S. Park Police commissioned officers have
been excepted from the furlough, given the limited staff
resources, prudent and practical steps were taken to secure the
life and property of these national icons.
We know that the visits to our World War II veterans to the
memorials are pilgrimages, and many of them will make them only
once. Throughout the shutdown, we have worked diligently to try
to ensure that no Honor Flight group, veteran, or their family
has been turned away from visiting the veterans' memorials.
Likewise, those also engaging in First Amendment activities are
welcome to visit the war memorials.
Congress has charged the National Park Service with the
preservation and protection of the park's natural, historic,
and cultural resources for the benefit of future generations.
This requirement in law exists whether the parks are open or
shut down. With very few employees available, we are
endeavoring to fulfill our mission the best we can. We look
forward to the end of the shutdown so that we can reopen all of
our national parks for the education, inspiration, and
enjoyment of the American people.
Be glad to answer any questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.018
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Ms. Simon.
STATEMENT OF LISA SIMON
Ms. Simon. Thank you, Chairman Issa, Chairman Hastings,
Ranking Members Cummings and DeFazio, and members of the
committees.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
our members and the tourism industry. The National Tour
Association membership includes 702 operators, who package
tours to, from and within North America. They collectively move
10 million travelers annually and represent $6 billion in
annual sales; 74 percent work domestically, and 36 percent are
bringing international visitors into the United States. They
serve both groups and individuals, travelers of all ages, and
various special interest groups, and the majority of our
members are small businesses. The balance of our 3,000 members
are suppliers of travel components like hotels, attractions,
restaurants, transportation companies and destination
marketers, such as national, state and local tourism
organizations. Tour operators and their customers plan their
trips 6 to 18 months in advance, so an abrupt shutdown of 401
park units cannot come without significant disruptions and
costs.
Since October 1, tour operators and their supplier partners
have been scrambling to reroute itineraries and find
alternative destinations and activities on a daily basis. NTA
has had a longstanding relationship with the National Park
Service, and they generally recognize the planning cycle needed
in the package travel industry, yet with this shutdown, neither
NTA nor its tour operator members were advised about what park
units would be closed during the shutdown. It has been
difficult to locate information on what's closed, including
roads through and around Federal lands.
In many cases, our members and their customers discovered
closures upon arrival or had to send colleagues in advance to
find out what the situation was. Our association and members
incorrectly speculated that some of the units would remain
open, particularly those that had no limited hours, no
admission desks, no security checkpoints and, generally
speaking, no specific point of entry. As a result, our tour
operators have spent the last 2 weeks constantly dealing with a
myriad of challenges and finding alternative activities and
lodging.
We surveyed our members 1 week into the shutdown, and 82
percent across the board reported an impact. Specifically, 85
percent of the tour operators reported rerouting and changing
itineraries; 46 percent reported cancellations; and 57 percent
reported having to refund deposits and fees. Initial estimates
of the financial loss totaled $114 million just in the first
week.
Some of our members are also the suppliers and destinations
that are dependent on the national parks in their areas, and
they reported an immediate decline in business; 91 percent
reporting cancelled or postponed tours; 56 percent in the first
week were already seeing fewer visitors in their areas.
In addition to the immediate losses, the shutdown will have
lasting effects on both the domestic travel industry and
international visitation. The U.S. Travel Association estimates
that we are losing $152 million a day. And the closure of the
national parks is a big part of the reason that we see
countries like the U.K., Germany and Australia have issued
travel warnings for the United States.
Another illustration is the burgeoning China market. NTA
helps facilitate the MOU between the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the China National Tourism Administration by
certifying the U.S. tour operators who are able to handle that
business from China. The beginning of October was Golden Week,
which in China is a major vacation week. NTA tour operators
reported not only disappointed customers, but angry visitors,
who were unable to visit the national parks during their once-
in-a-lifetime visit to the United States. Many of these inbound
China operators were also not familiar with what was Federal
parks versus State parks, and thus had an even greater
challenge finding information about their planned tours.
We recognize that it is impossible to predict whether or
not there will be a government shutdown and that coordinating
immediate closures of hundreds of parks is an enormous task.
However, we recommend that there be a better plan that would
avoid this situation in the future and enable the most
significant park destinations at a minimum remain open, and
that there be a communications plan that pushes out information
to the travel trade and to the public. With today's technology
capabilities, it should provide ample opportunities to better
communicate what's happening.
Tour operators depend on advanced planning, and we're
seeing the consequences of the disruption caused by these
closures with no specific notice.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I look forward
to your questions.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Simon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.022
Chairman Issa. Mr. Ebell.
STATEMENT OF MYRON EBELL
Mr. Ebell. Chairman Issa and Chairman Hastings, thank you
for inviting me to testify here today at this important hearing
on the way the National Park Service is implementing the
Federal shutdown. My name is Myron Ebell, and I am director of
the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, a group that has been already recognized
here today.
CEI is a nonprofit and nonpartisan free market public
policy institute that specializes in regulations. A large part
of our work is devoted to environmental issues, including
management of the Federal lands by the four Federal land
agencies. Twenty years ago, I spent 4 or 5 years as the
Washington representative of the American Land Rights
Association, which was started in 1978 by Chuck Cushman as the
National Park Inholders Association, so I have some firsthand
experience of these issues. Later, I worked for a former member
of the Natural Resources Committee from Arizona, and dealt with
a wide array of Federal lands issues, including all the
national park problems in Arizona.
Now, clearly, a Federal shutdown is going to cause many
Federal facilities to have to close, including parks. Director
Jarvis explained how rational and well thought-out their
program for doing that was, but that isn't the issue. The issue
is all of these petty, malicious acts. How can you close down a
parking lot at Mt. Vernon that you lease to the Mt. Vernon
Ladies Association and have nothing to do with? You are
spending extra money to come and close it down. Does that
comply with the Anti-Deficiency Act to close down Glen Echo
Park along the Clara Barton Parkway, which is funded and
operated by Montgomery County; to close the Claude Moore
Colonial Farm, as Anna Eberly has explained; to close Langley
Sports Park in Fairfax County, which was--which is leased to
Fairfax County and operated and maintained by them; to take
cones and barricades and close off turn-offs on State highways
so people can't stop to take photos and look at Mount Rushmore?
Where does the personnel and the money for that come from?
These are questions that I think need to be answered.
Now, I think that the publicity for some of these small-
minded and almost unbelievable--unbelievably low actions by the
National Park Service are--the public is starting to notice
those, and I think they are figuring out an important point,
and this is really what I want to concentrate on: Americans
love their national parks, and the National Park Service has
spent decades hiding behind that affection that Americans
rightly have for those great natural wonders and historic
sites. The National Park Service, for anybody who has followed
its history, is a terrible steward of many of its parks, of the
environmental conditions in those parks. They are also not
visitor friendly in many cases. They are not people friendly.
They are not good neighbors, they--they mistreat their
inholders, and they act like they own everything and that
everybody else can just lump it.
So I hope that this starts a process, this public
awareness, this opening to understanding that the National Park
Service is not the same as our great national parks to
investigate the problems in the National Park Service and to
initiate much needed reforms.
I was--I was somewhat--my anger about what has been going
on was somewhat relieved by--this weekend when the veterans
went to the World War II Memorial and picked up the barricades
and put them in front of the White House. As President Obama
often says, ``We're Americans. We can do that.'' Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Ebell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.027
Chairman Issa. Mr. Galvin.
STATEMENT OF DENIS P. GALVIN
Mr. Galvin. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dennis Galvin. Today I
represent the National Parks and Conservation Association, its
800,000 members and supporters. NPCA has advocated support for
our National Park System since 1919. Perhaps more pertinent to
today's hearing is the nearly 40 years I spent with the
National Park Service, the last 16 years in Washington. Nine of
those were as deputy director. I held that post under
Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush.
I am informed that there have been 17 shutdowns since 1976,
ranging from 1 to 21 days. During my tenure, there were five,
including the long shutdown, 21 days of 1995, 1996. I have been
struck by the similarities between that 1995, 1996 event and
today's.
Let me say a little bit about preparing shutdown plans.
They are by force of circumstance hastily prepared by people
who hope that they will not have to be used. For a highly
decentralized agency like the National Park Service, which
literally stretches across the international dateline and today
comprises 401 units, it simply is not possible to cover every
eventuality. Because most closures have not been more than a
few days, their shortcomings don't surface, but as closures
lengthen, questions arise due to circumstances unforeseen or
difficult to predict.
Nevertheless, the trajectory of this closure parallels
1995, 1996 to a remarkable degree. Did we barricade monuments
and memorials then? Yes. Lincoln and Jefferson were barricaded.
It was at the holiday season, so we had the Festival of Lights
going on on the ellipse. That was closed and a chain link fence
was put around it. The much discussed World War II Memorial did
not exist then, but if it had, I think we would have barricaded
it.
Were State and local economies devastated? Yes. The
counties around Yosemite petitioned for disaster assistance.
Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore were flash points. Governor
Symington threatened to send the National Guard to Grand
Canyon. It is not true that the Grand Canyon was opened without
conflict in 1995, 1996. I negotiated many of the agreements
that we reached in 1995, 1996.
And one thing I will say about the unintended consequences
of a shutdown, there were only two lawyers to work with in
the--in the Interior building to negotiate those agreements. So
that--so that it's more than just that there aren't any park
service employees around; there aren't any support employees
around, either. And when it all concluded, it had been a very
bad idea; so bad that 17 years has elapsed before it happened
again.
It is worth asking why parks moved to the center of the
closure discussion. They are a miniscule and declining part of
the Federal budget, 1/15th of 1 percent of Federal
expenditures. In 1981, by the way, they were 1/8th of 1
percent. So we spend about--about 50 percent of what we spend
in terms of proportions on our national parks, but they are an
easily accessible symbol.
Closure may be hard to understand in less visible agencies,
but a closed campground, a child crying because she can't visit
the Statue of Liberty become convenient and graphic metaphors
of a much larger failure.
As we discuss the parks today, our other public lands are
inaccessible to varying degrees. Agencies such as the Veterans
Administration, CDC, the Public Health Service, National
Institute of Health, NASA work with skeleton staffs. They, too,
deserve attention and support. It is time to reopen the
government and get back to doing the Nation's business.
The parks have been in the spotlight during the closure,
and we hope they remain there when they reopen. The sequester
has already resulted in curtailment of services. The reductions
are the equivalent of about 7,000 seasonal employees or 1,750
permanents. This comes on top of the long-range decline in park
funding.
Some years ago, I made a presentation that traced the
national park idea back to the founding documents of this
country. In the Constitution, it is found in the Preamble, ``To
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity.''
Open the government, open the parks, let park rangers go
back to doing the work they love, and let the rest of us enjoy
again America's best idea. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Galvin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8621.030
Chairman Issa. And although it would seem irresistible to
ask Director Jarvis first, Whose land is it? Is it the
government's, or the American people's, in your mind?
I'm going to waive my going first and recognize the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, to ask the first
round of questions.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jarvis, 2 years
ago----
Chairman Issa. That is perfect. Please restart the clock.
Thank you. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Gowdy. Some may disagree with that. I want to thank the
gentleman from North Carolina for giving me his microphone.
Mr. Jarvis, in October 2011, Occupy protesters descended
upon McPherson Square, and they decided to stay. Despite the
clear language of the law, these protesters camped at McPherson
Square, with the definition of camping being sleeping or
preparing to sleep. For 100 days, they camped in violation of
the law, and you did not make a single, solitary arrest for
camping. So Congress decided to have a hearing and ask you why
you were not enforcing the law, and you told us, Mr. Jarvis,
that you had a great deal of discretion in how and when to
enforce the law. You told us that you were, after 100 days of
not enforcing the plain language of the statute, working with
protesters to: ``gain compliance,'' whatever the hell that
means, with the law and what you called: ``a measured and
reasoned approach.'' By the way, Mr. Jarvis, those were your
words, not mine.
So the law says, No camping, but the protesters camped
anyway, and you didn't do anything in terms of arrest or
citations for over 100 days.
So, Mr. Jarvis, I want you to fast forward 2 years. Parks
are closing, access to monuments is restricted, even access for
those who helped build the monument in the first place. Now,
you didn't wait 100 days to enforce the law, Mr. Jarvis, with
veterans who wanted to see their monument. You didn't work to
gain compliance. Veterans weren't greeted with a measured and
reasoned response, Mr. Jarvis. They were greeted with
barricades on the very first day.
Furthermore, they could not exercise their First Amendment
rights to walk to a monument that they helped build, but yet
some of our colleagues were allowed to exercise their First
Amendment right to protest whatever it was they were protesting
on the national mall.
So I am going to read something to you, Mr. Jarvis, and I
want you to ask me if you recognize who said this. Because of
the lapse in funding, you are having to deliver difficult news
to our visitors and partners. The functions we must perform
under a shutdown are not the reasons any of us joined the
National Park Service, but they are the duties we are required
to perform by law and regulation.
Do you know who said that, Mr. Jarvis?
Mr. Jarvis. I believe I said that.
Mr. Gowdy. You're right. You did. So can you tell me why
you would not enforce the law at McPherson Square, but yet you
greeted veterans with barricades on the very first day? What
regulation can you cite to me that required you by law to erect
barricades?
Mr. Jarvis. The contingency plan that was approved on
September 27th for the National Park System is in compliance
with the Anti-Deficiency Act. I, under criminal----
Mr. Gowdy. I'm looking for a statute, Mr. Jarvis.
Mr. Jarvis. The statute----
Mr. Gowdy. I'm looking for----
Mr. Jarvis. --is the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Mr. Gowdy. I am looking for a citation to the Code of
Federal regulation or the--or the U.S. Code for why you erected
barricades. We've established you did not enforce the law for
100 days for protesters. Agreed? You agree with me you did not
issue a single citation for camping, right?
Mr. Jarvis. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Gowdy. Either it is or it isn't. Is it? Not one single
citation for camping.
Mr. Jarvis. I do not remember exactly.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, your previous testimony was that you had
not issued a single citation for camping despite 100 days of
non-compliance.
Mr. Jarvis. That was 2 years ago.
Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well, I can cite you the regulation that
you did not follow 2 years ago. Can you cite me the regulation
that required you to erect barricades to prevent veterans from
accessing a monument that they built?
Mr. Jarvis. I can cite the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Mr. Gowdy. Can you cite a regulation that required you to
erect barricades? Mr. Jarvis, that is not a complex question.
Mr. Jarvis. The Anti-Deficiency Act requires that I reduce
all employees down to only those that are necessary for life
and property. That required the closure of all 401 national
parks.
Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Jarvis, why did you fail to enforce the
plain language of a statute for 100 days for protesters and yet
on the very first day, you denied access to a monument that
veterans helped build?
Mr. Jarvis. On the very first day of the closure, I
implemented a closure order for all 401 national parks in
compliance with the Anti-Deficiency Act and immediately,
immediately that day, also included as a part of that order
that First Amendment activities would be permitted on the
National Mall----
Mr. Gowdy. Do you consider it First Amendment activity to
walk to a monument that you helped build, or is it only just
smoking pot at McPherson Square?
Mr. Jarvis. The First Amendment activities, we are content
neutral on First Amendment in the--on the National Mall.
Mr. Gowdy. That wasn't my question. Do you consider it to
be an exercise of your First Amendment right to walk to a
monument that you helped build?
Mr. Jarvis. If an individual declares they are there for
their--to exercise their First Amendment----
Mr. Gowdy. Who are they to declare it to? The barricades?
Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gowdy. Could I ask a final question? Who were they to
declare it to? The barricades?
Mr. Jarvis. To the ranger on the site. On the National
Mall, any group under 25 does not need a permit to exercise
their First Amendment, and we set up the policy to allow our
veterans in, including all of the honor flights under First
Amendment, so they were not denied access.
Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Chairman, I want the record to reflect that
no statute or code of the Federal regulation was cited to
justify the erection----
Chairman Issa. The record will indicate that.
Director Jarvis, in--pursuant to his question, Ms. Eberly
looked like she wanted an answer to what statute provided for
her to be closed. Would you please address your answer to her?
If it's Anti-Deficiency, go ahead and say it to her.
Mr. Jarvis. It's Anti-Deficiency. We--in the case of the
Claude Moore Farm, along with many similar situations, we had
to actually investigate whether or not we were providing direct
services that would be in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Utilities, trash pick-up, any of the things that are not
related to life and property.
In the case of the Claude Moore Farm, we had been providing
funding to them in the tune of $100,000 a year every year. So
we were not going to give it in 2014, and Ms. Eberly knows
that, and that's a concern for both of us, but because of our
decline in funding. So I had to make a determination whether or
not I was going to be in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act,
which I cannot violate. It is a law passed by this body that I
cannot violate. There are criminal penalties to my agency to
violate that law. So, as we shut down, immediately we began to
work towards figuring out how to get a work-around that would
allow Claude Moore, Pisgah Inn, a whole variety of these
partnership facilities open, and we've opened over a dozen or
more already because we've determined that there is no
violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Chairman Issa. Okay. I appreciate that, and I appreciate
the fact that you discovered you were wrong on day one.
I now ask unanimous consent that the--this historic news
archive from the 1996 period be placed in the record in which
it says in realtime in 1995, December 16th, 1995, tourists were
free to wander the halls of the capital, touch the walls of the
Vietnam Memorial and climb the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to
read the Gettysburg address.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Issa. Additionally, I now ask that your document
from the United States Department of Interior, which is your
declaration, National Park Service Closure Determination and
Notice, be placed in the record, in which in line 7, it says,
the Closure Determination and Notice does not apply to private
owners of interest in real property located within the exterior
boundaries and units of the National Park Service, et cetera,
and line 8, which says, the Closure Determination and Notice
does not apply to roads that pass through units of the National
Park Systems and provide access.
Without objection, so ordered.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Cummings. Director Jarvis, let me ask you this. 20--
you--how many employees does the Park Service have?
Mr. Jarvis. About 24,000.
Mr. Cummings. And you had to furlough how many?
Mr. Jarvis. 21,328.
Mr. Cummings. And what percentage is that of the employees?
Mr. Jarvis. About----
Mr. Cummings. About 87 percent?
Mr. Jarvis. Yeah. Somewhere in that neighborhood, 87, 88,
85 percent.
Mr. Cummings. And so you--those folks, they--they were--it
was basically mandated that they couldn't come to work. Is that
right, pretty much?
Mr. Jarvis. That's correct.
Mr. Cummings. Now, what impact did that have on your
decisions and what you did with regard to this--the matter that
Mr. Gowdy was just asking you about?
Mr. Jarvis. The monuments and memorials on the National
Mall do not take care of themselves. Every day I have employees
there that clean the restrooms, clean up the messes behind the
public, pick up trash, ensure that the elevators are available
for those that need to access the chambers of the Jefferson or
the Lincoln. They--they provide the eyes and the ears for the
U.S. Park Police, who are not duty stationed to stand and watch
over monuments. They are there to respond. U.S. Park Police
responded to the incident at the Navy Yard, they responded to
incident with the Capitol Police recently. They are a response
agency. And our rangers are there to prevent vandalism and
impact to the monuments and memorials. All of those rangers
have been furloughed. So the consequences are that, as much as
there's a lot of talk about open air monuments and memorials
that are unmanned, they are not unoccupied.
My responsibility is to ensure that they are protected 24
hours a day, and not just with somebody that might come in a
late response. We have staff that are there in all of those. So
out of 300 that would normally be on the mall, I have 12.
Mr. Cummings. So--so, therefore, there are consequences, as
Mr. Connolly says, to all of this. Is that right? In other
words, when you've got to furlough people, you're going to have
some consequences.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. And so you cannot cover everything you'd like
to cover. Is that right?
Mr. Jarvis. I cannot protect these monuments and memorials
to the standard that this country expects me to do so.
Mr. Cummings. Now, I already--now, one of the things that
you said, going back to the hearing that Mr. Gowdy was talking
about, that impressed me quite a bit is you talked about how
important it is to you personally, and you said it again today,
that when people come to visit our parks, our monuments, that
you took it as a personal type of thing, that you wanted them
to be able to enjoy that, that it was very significant, that it
was just as significant to you for your--you would want the
same thing for your family that you want for them. Do you still
feel that way?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir. If I may, in 2016, the National Park
Service will be 100 years old, and I will have worked for this
agency for 40 of those years. I have been a law enforcement
ranger. I have been search and rescue, firefighter,
superintendent, regional director, and now director, under many
Presidents, many Secretaries of the Interior. What--and I think
I represent the agency of public servants that are dedicated to
providing these places to the American public.
It pains us to not be able to invite the American public
into their national parks. This is as painful for the employees
that take great pride in providing these 401 places for the
enjoyment of the American people.
Mr. Cummings. Somebody on the other side said a little bit
earlier folks had been treated badly at the parks. And I got to
say, even before I became a Congressman and the people did not
know me in these parks, I have never had a bad experience with
regard to employees.
And I want to say to the employees that are watching us
right now that we thank you for your service. We thank you for
dedicating your lives to making life better and bringing life
to light to so many people.
Now, let me ask you something else. I already talked about
some of the impacts the shutdown is having on veterans.
I ask unanimous consent to insert in the hearing record a
letter the Military Officers Association of America sent to me
yesterday. They letter states in part: ``Veterans and their
families, too, are experiencing reductions in certain services.
Even though VA healthcare continues uninterrupted under the
advanced appropriations, other services have been suspended or
severely cut back, including veteran outreach programs,
counseling for wounded warriors and student vets on campus,
among others.''
Mr. Hastings. [Presiding.] Without objection, that will be
part of the record.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to insert into the record a written
statement from the Student Veterans of America. This statement
says: ``The current government shutdown has created an
overwhelming sense of uncertainty for students, veterans. With
the Department of Veterans Affairs resources like the GI Bill,
hotline unavailable, many veterans are wondering whether or not
they'll be able to pay next month's rent or even have GI bill
benefits to remain enrolled in school.''
Mr. Hastings. That will be part of the record also, without
objection.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Cummings. Let me say this, Mr.--wait. The--in our
committee, what we had just now was a total--between Mr. Gowdy
and Mr. Issa, a total of 9 minutes. I'd like unanimous
consent----
Mr. Hastings. In my committee--in my committee, we go the
5-minute route, but I'll give the gentleman leeway.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. I don't have much more,
Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesy.
I also would like to insert in the record a letter from the
Reserve Officers Association of the United States of America.
The impact on veterans is just one example of the toll the
shutdown is taking on Americans. As a result of the shutdown,
seven Head Start programs were forced to close, leaving 7,000
preschool children locked out of the classroom and their
parents scrambling to find childcare. A private donation has
been--has helped bridge the funding gap, but Head Start
programs across the country are facing closures as the shutdown
continues. The National Transportation Safety Board has
suspended an investigation of a train derailment in Baltimore
County, Maryland, as well as a train derailment in Ellicott
City, Maryland, that resulted in the release of 20,000 gallons
of vinyl chloride.
I could go on and on with specific examples such as these,
but let's talk about the impact of the Republicans governing
tactics on the economy. The Peterson Foundation released a
report this week titled: ``The Cost of the Crisis-Driven Fiscal
Policy.'' The report finds that the arbitrary and shortsighted
approach that governing by crisis is hurting the economy. The
report concludes that these policies have: ``saddled a still
struggling economy with the fiscal drag of a contraction of
discretionary spending, created general uncertainty about
fiscal policy that though its impact on financial markets has
undermined economic growth, and finally forced the first
prolonged shutdown of the Federal Government since the first
term of the Clinton administration and failed to raise the
Federal debt ceiling in a timely manner, conjuring the specter
of a sovereign default with all its financial and economic
fallout.'' The report finds that the result is that the----
Mr. Hastings. Will the----
Mr. Cummings. --growth of gross domestic product----
Mr. Hastings. Will the gentleman wrap up.
Mr. Cummings. --is slowed by as much as--I'm wrapping up
right now, Mr. Chairman. Just taking my--my same thing that Mr.
Issa did. Product--the report finds that the result is that the
growth of the gross domestic product has slowed by as much as
one percentage point since 2010.
Director Jarvis, you are responsible for running an agency
that is charged with protecting our national parks, which
contribute to the national economy, and we thank you for your
service.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. I don't have to remind the gentleman that his
time had expired 2 and a half minutes ago, but I just--I just
want to--I'll recognize myself, and I am--I'm going to try to
adhere to the 5 minutes.
When you have government shutdowns, there's obviously going
to be some displacement, that happens, but let's understand
that these are decisions that the political class has
difficulty sometimes reconciling. Our founders devised a system
that was supposed to be hard. Government of the people is hard.
If you want efficiency, then you go to a dictatorship, but if
you want to have freedom and liberty, you have our form of
government. And so now we're caught in this--in this situation
right now, and we have to do our best to get through that.
Ms. Eberly made an observation in her--her response about,
I don't know who's responsible, but we ought to find out.
There's a--that struck me and reminded me of the saying that a
government that is big enough to give you something is big
enough to take it away.
Now, what's frightening about what we're going through
right now, we have--we have had 17 shutdowns since 1980, I
believe is what the figure is, but this is the first time, this
is the first time that access has been denied to open--open air
malls, open air monuments. Now, that, frankly, should be a
little bit frightening, it seems to me, that if a government
will go to that much effort to make it difficult for the
American people to see their national treasures, that ought to
be--that ought to be a red flag for everybody. I think--that's
what this hearing is all about.
Now, what I would like to--I'd like to ask Director
Jarvis--and thank you for being here. You and I spoke briefly
beforehand, and you said you've had better weeks. I suppose
we've all had better weeks at some time. But I want to refer
to--to the issue of the First Amendment activities, because the
First Amendment is a constitutional activity. We all know that.
In your directive, on number 9, you cancelled all previously
issued permits, with the exception of those here in our
National Mall, and you put that on the National Mall, I think
the White House and Philadelphia and so forth, but what's--what
got the--America's attention was when the World War I vets
could not access--or World War II vets could not access, you
know, their monument because of those barricades that's been
well documented. So my question, were their permits--were their
permits not acknowledged or what happened with the honor--with
the honor flights?
Mr. Jarvis. Prior to the shutdown, the honor flights were
not a permitted activity.
Mr. Hastings. Okay. So they weren't--they were not
permitted?
Mr. Jarvis. No.
Mr. Hastings. Okay. But now you are changing--you changed
course and said, okay, these honor flights can have First
Amendment rights at the World War II--World War II mall, but I
thought I heard you say in testimony that others less than a--
less than a size of 25 don't have those same rights. Did I hear
you correctly?
Mr. Jarvis. No. That--the regulations for the National
Mall, because we host about 600 First Amendment activities here
each year, if it's a group under 25, they can exercise their
First Amendment activities without a permit.
Mr. Hastings. Okay. Well, all right. So that's very--that's
the interesting part, then. You had barricades for World War II
veterans. Obviously, they were over 25, but individuals,
individuals, you know, somebody from, say, my home town came
here, they would be denied access, and yet you said they're
exempt. I see an inconsistency here and how this is applied.
Mr. Jarvis. No. If the--if your friends came and walked up
to the ranger and said, I'm exercising my First Amendment
activities, and I have a group under 25, then they would--they
could do that.
Mr. Hastings. Well, see now, I--in due respect, now I'm
going to have to pursue this. You have an agency within the
Park Service that defines what First Amendment rights are, and
people have to go up and outwardly ask to have their First
Amendment rights exercised by an okay from the Park Service? Is
that what I'm hearing?
Mr. Jarvis. There has been many, many cases of First
Amendment----
Mr. Hastings. No. I didn't ask that question.
Mr. Jarvis. It's a body of law. I'm sorry. But there is a
body of law associated with First Amendment activities on the
mall. Let me give you a for instance. The chamber of the
Lincoln Memorial is not available for First Amendment
activities, so that's in statute--or in regulation, nor is the
chamber of the Jefferson, but the plaza is. In the case of the
World War II Memorial, the entire World War II Memorial is open
to First Amendment activities. So----
Mr. Hastings. Except--except in this case when the
barricades were put up because of--of--well, I don't know.
Maybe we will really find out where that came from.
Let me--last question, and I'm--I'm over time, and I--I try
not to--to do that. I really try to adhere to that in my
committee.
I guess the obvious question is, is all of this decision
that was made regarding restricting activity, was that your
decision?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir, it was.
Mr. Hastings. Totally your decision?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hastings. Okay. Thank you.
I want to recognize now Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
regret the committee chairman from Iowa isn't here at the
moment, but this is a photograph from the 1995 shutdown, and
that is the Lincoln Memorial, and the closure begins at the
base of the steps. People were not allowed to go into the
Lincoln Memorial.
You know, I would say that we've got a lot more loose tools
running around this country doing destructive things now than
we did in 1995. We had someone attack the monument recently. So
to say, gee, we shouldn't need any staff there to protect the
memorials is absurd in this day and age, so----
I also have a letter here I'd like to enter into the record
from the National Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of
Police, and I'll quote just two things from this letter:
Without any contrary court findings or changes in the law--
despite what the gentleman on the other side said--we will
carry on with this miserable, thankless and pay-less task
denying public access to parks during the government shutdown.
You know, although our--our actions make sensational news
stories and fodder for the pundits, it is supported by
precedent, legal guidance from government lawyers under laws we
are sworn to enforce.
You know, the Park Service rangers want to be working. They
want to be regularly admitting people to memorials and parks
and then guarding those people and the memorials and the parks
against destructive activities, but because of the Republican
government shutdown, they cannot do that, plain and simple. You
can't create something and then pretend you are outraged by the
results, which is what I am hearing from the other side of the
aisle.
Director Jarvis, I do have a question. They--they seem to
love our parks today, but I haven't seen that love much
recently since the Republicans took over Congress 2010: 2010,
your total budget was $2.75 billion. In 2013, $2.4 billion,
which would be less than the 2008 spending levels. Since 2008,
have you caught up on your capital backlog?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir. Our--our maintenance backlog now
exceeds $11 billion.
Mr. DeFazio. $11 billion maintenance backlog on these
parks, which are now loved so much by the other side of the
aisle. Well, given the reduction in spending and taking you
back to 2008, have you had to cut back earlier this year before
the closures?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir. Particularly with the sequestration,
we had to cut back significantly on the program and hours. We
currently have 1,000--for this last summer, 1,000 less
seasonals, and we have 900 positions that are permanently--
that--permanent positions that are unfilled.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay, 1,000 less seasonals, 900 less
permanent, and the Republicans are saying the sequestration,
which they created, which has cut your budget back to below
2008 year levels, is politically motivated, the things you're
doing there. Is it politically motivated when you noticed those
people that, you know, they weren't going to be working this
summer?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir. There's no--no politics involved here.
This is just our responsibility to take care of the national
parks with--with what resources we have.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. You know, I'd note
further, you know, there are some other perverse impacts on our
Federal lands. Wildlife refuges are closed, and those on the
other side of the aisle, who day in day out are there to defend
the Second Amendment, aren't doing much to defend those who
want to hunt on those lands during this hunting season and the
losses that are being caused there. They aren't doing anything
by keeping the government closed to help those in rural areas
who want to work. I got timber industry folks who've been
noticed that their contracts are going to be suspended. Now,
they're going to have a right to sue the government and get
money back for suspending their contracts.
Unfortunately, we won't have those logs this winter to tie
the mills over to the spring in areas where you can't get into
the mountains in the wintertime. And yet that's because of the
government shutdown. They might say, oh, well, they should just
let them go forward. Well, they can't let them go forward,
because they have a fiduciary duty to monitor the timber sale.
There have been instances where people have cut trees they
weren't supposed to cut. They've gone beyond the boundaries of
the cut. Timber theft, it's called. Those things happen. The
government needs to have officials there to monitor this. They
can't do it under your shutdown. We're losing money. We're
losing jobs. Now you pretend you care about rural America, you
care about our parks, which you've slashed the budget for.
You know, this is absolutely the height of hypocrisy, the
fact that we're here today trying to figure out why the parks
are closed because of a government shutdown and what bizarre
things have happened----
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an inquiry
for a point of personal privilege.
Mr. Hastings. The gentlemen will make his--I think he's
probably asking for a parliamentary inquiry, so I'll recognize
him for that.
Mr. Gohmert. When the gentleman says that you pretend that
you care about the parks, are you speaking about anybody on
this dais, so that I will know whether to have the gentleman's
words taken down or not?
Mr. Hastings. Any member has the right to ask a--another
member's words to be taken down, but I think what this
discussion is here, the gentleman was addressing it in the
proper way that we address those sort of things in the third
person, and so I didn't intervene. He obviously has----
Mr. Gohmert. I heard the second person, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. He obviously has strong feelings, like
Members on both sides of the aisle have on that.
Mr. Gohmert. I heard the second person instead of third
person, which is not proper.
Mr. Hastings. I did not hear--I did not hear the second
person.
The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair recognizes
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I think it's important that we conduct this oversight
hearing in a joint fashion. I think it--of all the things
that's happened--and nobody favors a shutdown, Republicans or
Democrats. Our side believes that we're--we're on the verge of
a permanent shutdown of our government, which would be much
worse, when you spend so much money and incur so much
indebtedness that we lose our financial credibility, our
national security as a result of that. So this is a legitimate
debate. There have been more than a dozen shutdowns. There have
been--I just heard today, I never realized that under Carter,
we actually went beyond the debt limit, not that we want to
follow that model.
The problem here is that it--it appears that what took
place by the Park Service was offensive to the American people,
to the Congress and to just the concept of common sense,
Director Jarvis. That's what this is about. I mean, I think
nothing has resonated more with the public than to see an open
air monument, such as the World War II Memorial and close by,
the Martin Luther King Memorial. It just seems that common
sense did not prevail.
Did you--now, you said you take full responsibility for
that action. Is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That's correct.
Mr. Mica. And did you discuss this with the Secretary of
Interior Jewell at any time?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, I did.
Mr. Mica. And did she--did you--and you didn't discuss it
with anyone in the White House, did you?
Mr. Jarvis. In--in--several times on the phone with the
White House, I presented, with the Secretary, my decision, but
it was never the reverse. There was never any----
Mr. Mica. So you discussed with officials in the White
House your action.
Mr. Jarvis. I did.
Mr. Mica. And you also discussed it with her. Now, the
common belief among even Park Service employees, and I quote
one of them, who's--this is a press account October 3rd. It's a
cheap way to deal with the situation, an angry park service
ranger in Washington says of the harassment. We've been told to
make life as difficult as we can. It's disgusting.
This is the common belief of people who work for you, and
he believes he was told to make this as difficult and as
painful as possible. How would you respond to that?
Mr. Jarvis. I have no idea where that--that information
came from.
Mr. Mica. It's a park ranger quoted from a news----
Mr. Jarvis. That's hearsay. What I'm telling you is that--
--
Mr. Mica. It may be hearsay, sir----
Mr. Jarvis. I'm in communication with my employees, the
ones that are still on work, and they do not believe that. So
to say that this is the belief of the National Park Service
employees, that's incorrect.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, here's one. And I can tell you that I
am in contact with my constituents as an elected
representative, and nothing has appalled the American people
more that I've seen in my two decades of service than what
you've done. To close an open air monument like the World War
II or across the street, across the way, where people could
walk. Now, granted, that was not in existence in 1995, maybe
you didn't have a precedent, but it was offensive to close a
place where you could walk.
You said your job is to protect the monuments. How--how
would the monuments not be protected if people walked there?
Mr. Jarvis. They are protected--if we don't----
Mr. Mica. The monuments, now. The people are protected by
the Park Police and the District Police, and I'm told that--and
we have evidence that there were--there were almost as many to
protect the people and----
Mr. Jarvis. That is incorrect. If I may correct the record
here. The U.S. Park Police has been excepted from furlough. The
U.S. Park Police are in New York, San Francisco and Washington,
D.C. They have responsibilities for the George Washington
Memorial Parkway, for traffic, for the regular commuting in
here every day.
Mr. Mica. But I am told in the District of Columbia,
extraordinary measures were available to make certain that,
again, that--that our monuments, the streets, we have had a
horrible incident that took place.
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Mica. They were on the job protecting the people.
Mr. Jarvis. Correct.
Mr. Mica. But your job is to protect the monuments. Now,
somebody--you talked to folks in the White House. Who did you
talk to in the White House?
Mr. Jarvis. I actually do not know who was on the phone. I
do not. It was only informing----
Mr. Mica. And did they relate to you that you should
continue to inflict pain?
Mr. Jarvis. They did not.
Mr. Mica. All right. And can you provide to the committee
that information of who you spoke to and when on this matter?
Mr. Jarvis. We are retaining all of our records as
requested by the committee chairman, and once we get out of the
shutdown, we will be providing those.
Mr. Mica. Well, we will subpoena them or get them one way
or the other.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman----
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. And I
appreciate the director saying he's going to comply with our
request that we sent on October 2nd.
The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly want to welcome all witnesses and for the
testimony that they've provided before the joint hearing this
morning.
Mr. Jarvis, I want to commend you for the distinction and
the outstanding job that you have done, or is doing as the
director the National Park Service with a track record of some
40 years of service to our Nation and to the American people, I
think should be recognized.
Mr. Jarvis, you mentioned that the Park Service takes in
about 232 million visitors a day--I mean, a year, with some
700,000 people each day in the 401 national parks, and you have
to operate on a budget that is 1/15th of 1 percent of our
national budget? Is this--am I correct in putting these before
you?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Jarvis, I--it's sad that I seem to
see that you have become a political punching bag for this
hearing, and it's really unfortunate. And I think what we're
trying to do here is to give a real sense of the challenges and
the problems that you're faced with as the director.
When you were given notice that you need to shut down, you
mentioned that the shutdown occurred on the 1st of October?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And how do you go about shutting down an
agency? I believe 70,000 Federal workers work for the
Department of the Interior, and out of that, some 68,000 have
been furloughed.
Mr. Jarvis. That--somewhere in that neighborhood, yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And the Park Service is part of that.
Mr. Jarvis. That's correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And all of the responsibilities that you
bear, and I think it's been a common interest explained here
this morning, the fact that a tremendous economic disaster has
been created because of the shutdown. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Jarvis. We calculate that for every dollar invested in
the National Park System, you get $10 back to the economy.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And, Mr. Galvin, I am very interested in
your statement. You said you represent the National Parks
Conservation Association, with a membership of some 800,000 of
our fellow Americans?
Mr. Galvin. That's correct, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And what are some of the most classic
things that the association has been able to achieve and you as
a trustee of this association?
Mr. Galvin. Well, as I said in my opening statement, the
National Parks Conservation Association is uniquely focused on
supporting the national parks since 1919, and in--we do--we do
that by providing information to the public, by providing
information to our visitors, by involving ourselves in issues
at the park level, by--by----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Galvin, my time is short. Let me--let
me go on. I got one to send you. You--I'd like to quote your
statement that you made here as an observation at the hearing
this morning, and I quote, the National Park Service is not to
blame for the failure of Congress to keep our government open
and provide the resources needed to maintain our parks and keep
them completely open. Blaming National Park's employees for the
abysmal results of such a failure of national leadership is
unconscionable.
Can you share that with us more?
Mr. Galvin. Well, you know, I think this hearing is about
how the shutdown has worked out. Okay? And as I said in my
statement, doing shutdown plans isn't easy for a 401-unit
system that extends beyond the international dateline, but
there isn't any question about why there was a shutdown. There
is no appropriation. There is no continuing resolution. There
is no money to pay employees. Even the few employees that John
has at his disposal today are not being paid, so that--so we
can--we can debate about the World War II Memorial or Grand
Canyon. The fact is 401 units of the National Park Service are
mostly closed, over 380----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Galvin, I'm sorry. My time is
getting--thank you, Mr. Galvin.
Mr. Jarvis, how much--how much of an economic benefit--
well, what has it done to the economy of this country the fact
that what the national parks has done in terms of just like
Mayor Bryan, Ms. Eberly and Ms. Simon in terms of their
responsibilities, how much this--of an economic impact because
of the closure?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, at this moment, October, which is a peak
period for many of our gateway communities, the impact is
enormous. And, you know, they're not going to recover that. I
mean, even if the Federal employees are paid at the end of
this, our concessioners, our gateway communities, those hotels,
restaurants will not recover this loss. And so we have already
begun to figure out how we can get some of these back open. And
as--as the mayor of Tusayan indicated, we've reopened the Grand
Canyon, we've reopened Rocky Mountain, eight parks in Utah, all
of these, because, you know, frankly, we shut these down on
October 1, and immediately began to figure out how we can work
to get those back open without violating the Anti-Deficiency
Act. And I think the evidence shows, from Claude Moore to the
Peaks of Otter, to the Grand Canyon that I have been working
very hard with a very small staff, there are only nine of us
left in the park service in the Washington office, to get these
parks back open so that we can get the $76 million per day that
the National Park Service is contributing to the national
economy.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Jarvis, you said you had about 3,000 exempt
employees. I'm assuming those are all security personnel?
Mr. Jarvis. There are----
Mr. Bishop. The numbers----
Mr. Jarvis. I've got the numbers.
Mr. Bishop. The numbers aren't important. Are those
security personnel?
Mr. Jarvis. Not all of them.
Mr. Bishop. Most of them?
Mr. Jarvis. Most of them.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have roughly the same number of security
personnel on the mall as you had before the shutdown?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Okay. Is there a specific threat to the
property or life of anything that is taking place on the mall
that is different now than before the shutdown?
Mr. Jarvis. Our intelligence indicate that there has been
an uptick in activity and interest during the shutdown in
potential threats.
Mr. Bishop. Can you give me a specific one?
Mr. Jarvis. I cannot give you the specifics.
Mr. Bishop. Is putting barricades up a normal practice
after the interpreters and the maintenance service have left
those particular areas?
Mr. Jarvis. No.
Mr. Bishop. If there is no greater threat--if there is no
specific threat and you actually put up barricades on those
monuments, you have violated the Anti-Deficiency Act. You have
created a new obligation with no new threat. If there is not a
specific threat, you have violated the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I'd like to yield
the remainder of my time to Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
And I represent some of the Nation's greatest national
parks. I represent the Second District of Utah. We have Zion's.
We have Bryce Canyon, many others. To the American people and
particularly to some of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, I would like to make what I think is a very obvious
point. It's entirely the point of this hearing. Yeah, the
government's in a partial shutdown, and there are implications
that come from that. The question to consider is this: In the
midst of a crisis, should the Federal Government choose to make
things better or should they choose to make things worse?
Should the administration seek to alleviate some of this
inconvenience and some of this pain or should they seek to
exaggerate those? Should the Federal Government be viewed as a
friend to the people or as an enemy.
And, Mr. Jarvis, surely you must realize that because of
some of your actions, many Americans view you not as an
advocate, but as an adversary. And I think--you know, we're in
a political conflict right now, and we'll move on. We always
do. We find a way to move through this, and 6 months from now
the American people will move on with their lives. A year from
now or 5 years from now, some of this will be forgotten, but I
think that the lasting impression that most Americans will have
will be of those veterans standing at the World War II Memorial
and being denied access to that.
And so, Mr. Jarvis, let me ask you, if I could, you are not
here voluntarily. Is that right?
Mr. Jarvis. I volunteered to come after the shutdown when I
would have staff to prepare.
Mr. Stewart. Are you here because of the force of a
subpoena?
Mr. Jarvis. I am.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. That would seem to be not voluntarily,
then. If you view your actions as defensible, then why didn't
you volunteer to come and sit before this committee and answer
questions?
Mr. Jarvis. I did volunteer to come, but not on this date.
I don't have any staff to prepare. Normally I would have a
staff that would work on developing testimony----
Mr. Stewart. You said before----
Mr. Jarvis. They're all furloughed.
Mr. Stewart. You said before these are your decisions. I
wouldn't imagine you would need staff to explain to you why you
made the decisions that you claimed you have made.
Mr. Jarvis. I don't need staff to explain to me, but I do
need staff to prepare testimony, because this committee
requires testimony be submitted in advance, and those staff are
furloughed.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman suspend?
Mr. Stewart. Yes.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Chairman, a point of--not inquiry, but
parliamentary clarification.
Mr. Hastings. Parliamentary clarification, or actually it's
inquiry would be a better one, but the gentleman is recognized
for that.
Chairman Issa. When we subpoenaed the director, our staff
had already made it clear, and I believe the director is aware,
that essential personnel under the act would include such
personnel as are necessary to respond to Congress. And that was
the basis under which we subpoenaed him, because waiting till
afterwards simply meant that he was unwilling to return such
personnel as were necessary to prepare for today's hearing. And
I just wanted to make that point that--that there was a
dialogue in preparation to make the determination that he could
bring back on a daily basis such personnel as were necessary if
he wanted to be better prepared for today's hearing.
Mr. Hastings. That's my--my understanding also.
The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized for the
balance of the time.
Mr. Stewart. Well, thank you both to the chairman. And I
think it emphasizes my point that if we considered these--these
decisions and actions as being defensible, you would not be
reluctant. I would think you would be anxious to come before
the committees and to defend those--those decisions.
In the few seconds I have left, let me make this point, if
I could. My State has worked an agreement with Secretary Jewell
to reopen the national parks within Utah, and I'm wondering,
Director, do you support that decision to work in concert with
state governors and others to open these parks?
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely.
Mr. Stewart. Would you support--you know, expecting that we
may find ourselves in this situation again, maybe in a year,
maybe in 20 years, but at some point we may find ourselves in a
government shutdown again, would you support my efforts to have
agreements in place that would immediately open up these parks
with the support of the States so that we don't find ourselves
in this situation again?
Mr. Jarvis. You know, we have talked about this, in that we
really have set a new bar here by entering into these
agreements--very simple agreements, frankly--with Colorado, New
York, South Dakota, Utah. And so we have sort of started the
new point that if we go into a shutdown we now have the
template fairly easy to do this.
Now, I want to mention two things, though. We did set a
standard, and we worked it out with your Governor and the other
Governors. One is that the National Park Service would run
these parks and that the States would pay for the National Park
Service to operate them. This is the professional staff that
have been doing this, and we could open them instantly using
our employees.
So it was not--I would not support the States themselves
taking over the national parks. But entering into an agreement
like this, and then it pays for the entire park operation, not
just cherry-picking components of parks? Absolutely, I would
support putting this into policy so that we can execute on it
very quickly.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank
you.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I would just note that there probably was a template after
the 1995-1996, too, that probably should have been followed.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from the District of
Columbia, Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I could not identify more with our witnesses on the effect
of the shutdown on your local economies. And I think every red-
blooded American would similarly identify with the outrage of
the residents of your host city, the Nation's capital, who, in
addition, have seen the shutdown not only of our tourist
economy, as you have, but Congress is holding $6 billion--that
is more than four States--collect of local funds, not one penny
of it Federal funds.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Republicans and
Democrats who voted with us to free the District's local funds.
We are finally making some headway with the Senate and the
administration.
Mr. Jarvis, sitting here in the District of Columbia as a
third-generation Washingtonian, I cannot bear to hear the
employees of the Park Service maligned. Yeah, we have trouble
with our civil servants, but I want to say for the record how
unfair I think it is for the Republicans to shut down the
government and then blame the National Park Service. I thank
you for the way in which you protect our monuments and the
people who visit our monuments.
Some of us are still recalling when green paint was
splattered on the Lincoln Memorial, even though there was no
shutdown, because of the difficulty of guarding the memorials.
In 2007, I remember there was a horrific, a horrific incident,
vandalism as well, on the Vietnam Memorial.
Is it true that there are about 2,000 cases of vandalism
every day on the memorials of our country throughout the United
States?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. I also can't bear the way in which our veterans
have been made poster children by my Republican friends, making
them look as though they are victims.
My own paper, The Washington Post, carries an article this
morning about a coalition of 33 veterans organizations--the
American Legion, all of them. Of course they came to complain
about the cutoff of their own benefits. But let me read you
what they said. The executive director of the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America: ``Put the country first and
end this shutdown.'' That is veterans. That is how they talk.
Not, ``Let us out, and maybe the rest of you will get out
too.'' They go back for everybody who is victimized.
Here is another of the speakers. ``Several speakers said
they oppose measures that would restore funding to VA but not
to some other parts of the government. 'Fixing a little by
little is not going to resolve this problem for veterans.'''
And that was the director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
``In contrast to some demonstrations over the 2-week
shutdown, including a protest Sunday during which demonstrators
pulled down barriers, Tuesday's rally was peaceful and civil in
tone. No Members of Congress delivered speeches.'' Probably
because they weren't invited. ``One veteran who held a sign
blaming Tea Party activists for the shutdown was asked by
organizers to stand outside of the memorial grounds.''
That is how veterans respond when everybody is at risk.
They go back, as the Army veteran who received the Medal of
Honor yesterday from the President went back to even get his
dead comrades.
I want to ask perhaps Mr. Jarvis, perhaps the
representative from the tourism industry to explain something
that really alarmed me. Apparently, it is Mr. Simon who said
that the shutdown will have lasting effects on international
visitation. Now, of course, our international visits start
here, but then they hear about all those wonderful sites,
especially in the far West, and they don't want to go home
without seeing them.
Now, my Republican friends say, ``Oh, you know, this will
blow over, just like a default will blow over.'' Could you tell
me what you mean by lasting effects----
Mr. Hastings. Will the gentlelady ask the question, so we
can get a response very, very quickly? The time has expired.
Ms. Norton. So will you tell me about lasting effects and
perhaps what we might do to keep these effects from becoming
more lasting? Ms. Simon?
Mr. Hastings. Ms. Simon, very quickly.
Ms. Simon. Yes.
We anticipate the--well, let me start by saying the
national parks is a huge part of what is promoted to
international visitations through Brand USA, which is our
Federal marketing arm for tourism. And so we know that the
international visitors are coming here to see the parks. They
come into the gateways; they also see the parks generally on
their first visit.
So we anticipate there will be lasting effects in terms of
international visitation, particularly in the fall as they look
toward next year's trips coming in October and November.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Duncan.
Mr. Duncan of Tennessee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
A big part of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is in
my district. And, without objection, I would like to place a
statement by Blount County Mayor Ed Mitchell in the record.
Mayor Mitchell has been a great leader in trying to find
ways to open the park back up. And he has asked the Park
Service to let the county operate the park and has said that
they could do so just as capably if allowed to do so. Of
course, they weren't allowed to do so, but now fortunately our
State has come up with really more money than is necessary to
open the park back up until Sunday.
There is a private community in the Smokies called Top of
the World. Two dozen school children are picked up each day to
go to school on the school bus. They were picked up the morning
the government shut down, and then the Park Service closed the
roads so that the school children could not get back home on
their school bus after school, which I thought was a very sad
and needless thing to have done.
I have said many times that you can never satisfy
government's appetite for money or land; they always want more.
Along with more money, they always want more staff. And one
thing this government slowdown has shown is that the Park
Service is greatly overstaffed across this Nation.
Many thousands have visited the World War II Memorial and
other monuments in spite of the barricades. Hundreds of
thousands could safely and comfortably visit the Smokies and
other national parks if the roads were not closed. These
barricades and closures were obviously done to try to make the
shutdown as unpopular as possible, as inconvenient as possible,
and not because it was actually necessary. This is using the
Park Service for political purposes. This has all shown, as I
have said, that the Park Service is greatly overstaffed.
Mr. Ebell has in his statement a quote from a former
Secretary of the Interior who said, ``The National Park Service
has a long history of dramatizing budget issues by
inconveniencing the public. They often choose the most dramatic
type of action in order to get their message across.'' It is
unfortunate that the Park Service has allowed itself or
cooperates--to cooperate in political purposes such as this.
And there has been some mention here earlier by several
Members that the Republicans shut down the government. The
Republicans in the House voted four different times to keep the
entire government open before anything was shut down, but
Senator Reid would not allow that to be taken up in the Senate.
At this time, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr.
Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. I thank my friend very much.
Let me mention, Director, because you called somebody
earlier on hearsay, I am going to give you something that is
not hearsay.
I was out there at the World War II Memorial on Tuesday
morning because Representative Steve Palazzo of Mississippi
emailed that he had a bunch of World War II veterans that were
coming by bus and there were barricades that had been put up. I
get out there. Sure enough, there are barricades on the north
entrance, the south entrance. And the entrance facing the road
had barricades across, and it had yellow tape woven in and out.
They did not intend for anyone to cross that line, First
Amendment or not.
So whoever was supposed to get the message out about First
Amendment protests did not. We went up and down the barricades.
We talked to the Park Police. And, by the way, on Wednesday,
when I was out there, I asked a park ranger, how many people
normally are out here when we are not in shutdown? She said
four. Now, you could object to hearsay, except it is not
hearsay. It is not for the evidence of the statement of the
facts asserted in the statement, but simply that the statement
was made. So you could say maybe it wasn't four, but whoever
that park ranger that said they were out there every day seemed
to think it was four.
And on Thursday and Friday--I can't remember if it was
Thursday or Friday--I counted nine Park Service people out
there to protect the World War II Memorial from our World War
II veterans. And I can tell you, if Steve Palazzo and I had not
picked up the barricades, separated them, after establishing
with the Park Service who we were, those barricades were not
going to be opened and those World War II veterans were not
being allowed in, First Amendment or otherwise.
And that is not hearsay. I was there, and I watched with my
own eyes, I heard with my own ears.
I yield back.
Mr. Hastings.Time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is recognized.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings.Turn your microphone----
Mr. Davis. I thought I did.
House Republicans have forced the government shutdown on
the American people. And the testimony provided by some of the
witnesses today highlights the local economic impact that this
shutdown has on small towns and businesses that serve employees
and visitors of our national parks.
The National Park Service has estimated that the government
shutdown will result in total economic losses of $76 million
per day to local communities surrounding national parks.
Director Jarvis, is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Mayor Bryan, in your testimony, you stated that your town
and the small businesses there estimate a loss of more than $1
million in revenue just during the first 7 days of the
shutdown. Is that correct?
Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Davis. In fact, one estimate found that Arizona will
have the third-largest economic impact of national park
closures, amounting to almost $5 million a day.
Marie Lopez Rogers, the current president of the National
League of Cities, penned an op-ed titled: ``Federal Shutdown
Has Dire Impact on Local Governments,'' which describes some of
the practical impacts of the shutdown on residents and
communities around the country.
Ms. Lopez Rogers wrote: ``The antics in Washington are
threatening to unravel the progress our cities have made over
the last few months and cause harm to the entire Nation. It is
a reckless approach to governing.'' She went on to say, again,
that: ``every day the government is shut down is another day of
economic uncertainty. We need to focus on what matters to our
communities, our neighborhoods, and our residents.''
Director Jarvis, I have heard people indicate that somehow
or another you did not provide the sensitivity that was
necessary as you made some decisions. Do you contend and are
you concerned about the impact of shutdown on businesses and
communities surrounding national parks?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir, I am very concerned about that.
Immediately upon the closure, we opened lines of
communication with our concessioners in particular. These are
the private-sector businesses that operate food, beverage, and
lodging within the parks--the National Hospitality Association.
I even conducted a conference call with the CEOs and leaders of
those organizations that first week to really begin to convey
our concerns and talk about what we can do for them after the
shutdown is over and what we can do in between.
And as a result of those conversations, we really began
to--I mean, on Wednesday of the first week, I contacted the
people that were involved in 1995 in the agreement with the
Grand Canyon to understand how that was negotiated. We even
tracked down the former attorneys that negotiated that, as
well, so that we would have the information to build a--you
know, 20 years later, new rules and regulations and all of
that, the very small staff--how we could get these things back
open so that we could reduce the impact to the tourism
industry, which we rely upon.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. I commend you for your 40
years of service to the Park Service.
And I have no further questions, and I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. The gentleman yields back his time.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Jarvis, I am just curious, the philosophy that you
have as Director of the Park Service. Do you believe our rights
come from our creator or from our government and Constitution?
Mr. Jarvis. I believe they come from all of the above.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, check your Constitution. It is a
Constitution that prohibits activities by the government, not
gives them--give them rights. The Declaration of Independence
established what our Founders believed where our rights came
from.
But, Ms. Eberly, what has happened to you is pretty
outrageous. You have heard all of the insults thrown out today
about the shutdown. And I am curious, were you notified before
October 1st, that Tuesday, that you might be closed, even
though you had been operating totally independent and you had
saved the farm because of your efforts in your 32 years as
director? When were you notified you were being shut down?
Ms. Eberly. I had a phone call on my cell phone from the
superintendant Monday late morning, and I returned it early
afternoon. I was out of town.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. And what were told in that conversation?
Ms. Eberly. We were told, or I was told that the farm was
going to be part of the shutdown. And I said, but we have never
been part of other shutdowns. And he said, well, it will be
illegal for you to open the farm, and if you do, then you risk
arrest. And only one employee, only one private employee, will
be allowed in to feed the animals.
Mr. Gohmert. How many National Park Service employees are
at your farm each day?
Ms. Eberly. None. Not since 1981 when we were----
Mr. Gohmert. No, now, wait a minute. We have heard about
the law being that, in a shutdown, you have to revert to
minimum manpower unless there is a specific threat. Are you
aware of any threats that were emanating from the Claude Moore
Farm on September 30th or October 1st?
Ms. Eberly. No. We are pretty low-key. Not only that, but
our next-door neighbor is the CIA, so they pretty much take
care of any threats that might come along.
Mr. Gohmert. So you are not worried the CIA is a threat to
the Claude Moore Farm, apparently.
Ms. Eberly. Nope. They are our best friends.
Mr. Gohmert. How about--I read that the McLean Chamber of
Commerce had paid a bunch of money to use the farm on October
1st in the evening for a gathering. Were there any indications
that the McLean Chamber of Commerce was a threat to your farm?
Ms. Eberly. No.
Mr. Gohmert. Have they ever been a threat to your farm? I
mean, chambers can be pretty rowdy.
Ms. Eberly. Yeah, they can.
Mr. Gohmert. But----
Ms. Eberly. This one is pretty okay. And we belong, so.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. So what happened on Tuesday?
Ms. Eberly. Tuesday, the employees came in as normal
because we decided we weren't going to leave the farm
unprotected. And I had asked for this decision in writing,
because we had received nothing in writing, and so the
superintendant emailed me a statement about 3:30 on Monday. And
we appealed that, thinking that we could get it changed,
thinking that this was just sort of a booboo.
And then about 2 o'clock on Tuesday we got a phone call
saying, no, absolutely no. And then Park Police showed up and
made the Chamber members and all the people setting up for the
event leave.
Mr. Gohmert. On Monday, when you returned the call of the
superintendant from the Park Service, did they say your park
might be closed, to be on alert, or what did they say?
Ms. Eberly. They said, if the government shuts down, then
we would be a part of the shutdown, and that they had been--
they had had this plan in place since Thursday. But that was
the first notice we had received.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. And so, did you happen to notice
how many Park Service Police came out to run off the McLean
Chamber of Commerce and put up barricades?
Ms. Eberly. You know, I wasn't there.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. Do you know where the barricades came
from?
Ms. Eberly. They brought them. Not the Park Police. The
park maintenance crews brought them.
Mr. Gohmert. The park maintenance crew brought them. Have
you ever had park maintenance crews out there since you became
an independent-operated park or farm?
Ms. Eberly. Oh, yeah. I mean, early on, the parkway
maintenance crews were very helpful to me----
Mr. Gohmert. ``Early on'' being when?
Ms. Eberly. In 1981.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay, but in the last 13 years, have there
ever been any park maintenance service people come out to your
farm?
Ms. Eberly. To perform maintenance?
Mr. Gohmert. To do anything.
Ms. Eberly. I think a broken waterline, but that was
probably about 9 years ago, maybe.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Mr.--thank you. My time has
expired, but----
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Gohmert. --I would note for the chairman that the law
was violated by the Park Service in sending police and
maintenance personnel out to the park.
Mr. Hastings. To the extent this is being recorded, that is
part of the record.
The gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo, is recognized.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I, too, would like to commend Mr. Jarvis for his long
many, many years of service to the National Park Service, and
also to all of the witnesses here.
Mr. Jarvis, the shutdown was the final hit to the national
parks after years of cuts in your budget--and I think you
mentioned this earlier in your testimony--and to your
operations and construction accounts. Can you speak about how
the cuts in funding over the last several years have impacted
your organization?
Mr. Jarvis. In a number of ways they have impacted us.
In terms of our facilities, we are in steady decline. Most
of the facilities in many of our classic national parks were
built 50, 75 years ago--water systems, wastewater systems,
roads, and the like. So we now have an $11 billion maintenance
backlog that is declining. We receive less than half of what we
would need in order to just maintain that.
On the other side is our ranger staff, those that provide
interpretation, visitor protection; has also been in decline.
And so we are not capable of providing the level of visitor
service that really the public expects and deserves.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
As the National Park Service gears up for its 100 years in
2016, what do the continued cuts mean to the future of the
National Park Service? What are you--I am sure it must be very
impactful.
Mr. Jarvis. Well, a couple things that we are working on.
One is to develop as many partnerships with States, with
nonprofit organizations, with the tourism associations, to
assist us in providing these places. We cannot do it alone.
Increasing our volunteer workforce, increasing philanthropy,
leveraging what dollars that we have, both appropriated and
non-appropriated, such as our fee dollars, all of those--we are
looking at as many opportunities as possible. There has been a
hearing in the Senate on a variety of ways we can find
additional funding for the National Park Service leading up to
the centennial.
We are also working with the National Tour Association, the
Hospitality Association, and Brand USA on a major marketing
campaign for 2016. We feel that the national parks are an
integral part of this American economy as well as standing for
really the best of this country. And we believe the centennial
is a huge opportunity to remind all Americans of their national
parks as well as draw tourism from around the world.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Director Jarvis. It is commendable
that you are thinking ahead and you are looking into all these
possibilities to continue on.
Now, what is the impact with your employees, I mean, the
overall morale and so forth of those still on duty and those
that you had to furlough?
Mr. Jarvis. This is extremely----
Ms. Bordallo. I know a couple of my colleagues----
Mr. Jarvis. This is extremely--and thank you for this
question, because it is extremely painful to the employees that
are on furlough. They want to work. They want to be bark in the
parks. They want to be greeting the American public. And--along
with the rest of the Federal Government.
For the employees that are on duty, this is extremely
difficult. You know, our rangers, our U.S. Park Police are
accustomed to welcoming the public. We are, I think, the only
Federal agency that has enjoyment in its mandate. It is a part
of our mission to provide these places so that the public can
enjoy them unimpaired for future generations. And right now we
are having to turn people away because of the shutdown and the
lapse of appropriations, and that is very, very difficult.
Now, I have instructed, in spite of what you are hearing
here today, I have instructed my law enforcement folks to take
a very low-key approach to enforcement at the park level, to
not confront, to stand back and just inform the American public
that these places are closed.
Ms. Bordallo. Uh-huh.
Mr. Jarvis. And, as a consequence, there have been very,
very few citations across the country. It has mostly been a
respectful reminder to the American public when they come,
obviously with their disappointment. It is, again,
extraordinarily difficult and painful for us to have to deliver
of message. And we hope that this will end very soon and we can
open all----
Ms. Bordallo. And with the few seconds I have left, Mr.
Jarvis, I do suppose the ones that are not furloughed feel sort
of guilty with other colleagues that had to be furloughed that
they are still on and the others have been, you know,
furloughed. So I can imagine it must be a morale problem, as
well, in the agency.
And I thank you very much again for your service.
And I yield back my time.
Chairman Issa. [presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
We now go the gentleman from Colorado. But prior to that, I
am going to ask unanimous consent so that it be in the record
for later discussion--and we will have a copy of it given to
the Director. This is the donation agreement for the National
Park Service from the State of Oregon--I am sorry, from the
State of Arizona back in the 1990s. And it details what the
chairman said was a template.
I might note that, instead of $96,000 a day, it was $17,000
a day. So after you get a copy of it, I hope you can explain
the inflation rate over this period of time.
The gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jarvis, this is painful for me because I do love and
support and appreciate the national park system. And to see
what you have done really pains me, and to have to have this
conversation. I have been to over 200 units of the National
Park Service--like I said, I love the parks--many of those
visits with my wife and children.
And yet, when I was at the World War II Memorial the second
day of the slowdown and I helped moved the barricades because
those World War II veterans should not have been denied their
access, it was so reprehensible.
I talked to one gentleman there who was in a wheelchair. I
asked him how old he was; he was 97 years old. And he had
fought in the Pacific theater in World War II in Guadalcanal,
among other places. And yet he wasn't being allowed, had those
barricades stood, he wasn't being allowed to touch or see the
plaques where the fallen are memorialized, his buddies. My own
father couldn't ever make it out there. He turned 93 years old
before he died, but he was never in good enough health to go
out there.
And so it was wrong, what you did. This decision of yours
was not good. It was not good for the American people, and it
is not good for the park system either. Like I say, I
appreciate the park system, and yet I think you have besmirched
its reputation and you have soured its relationship with
Congress. And, in my opinion, sir, you have failed and you are
a liability to the National Park Service.
I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask you
about.
Whose decision was it to try to shut down Mount Vernon?
Mount Vernon is privately owned and operated. I know there is
some parking off to the side that you have responsibility for.
Was that your decision also, to try to shut down Mount Vernon?
Mr. Jarvis. I think you are incorrect in that regard. We
did not try to shut down Mount Vernon. We barricaded one
parking lot that belongs to the National Park Service. And that
was done in execution of the closure order for all 401 national
parks. That parking lot is part of the George Washington
Memorial Parkway. It did not block the use of Mount Vernon.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, if people can't park there, I don't know
how they can access----
Mr. Jarvis. There are many parking lots at Mount Vernon.
This is just one.
Mr. Lamborn. Was that your decision, though?
Mr. Jarvis. I was not involved in that decision directly,
no, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. I would like to ask about reimbursement to the
States. My own State of Colorado is one of the four or so
States that have talked with the National Park Service about
paying for continuing the Park Service until this government
slowdown is over.
Will States like Colorado be fully reimbursed for their
expenses that they are incurring right now?
Mr. Jarvis. Not unless Congress authorizes it.
Mr. Lamborn. The document that Chairman Issa just had
introduced into the record shows--this is from 1995-1996--that
the pattern was, in the past, that States would be reimbursed.
If they are paying for things like salaries of park
rangers, maintenance, law enforcement, and so on, then those
people don't have to be reimbursed later by you because that
would be--I am assuming they wouldn't get twice their salary. I
assume they only get paid once. So when you get reimbursed,
that is a windfall to you if you don't reimburse the States.
Mr. Jarvis. Well, here is the way it actually works. So the
States are depositing a set amount that we negotiate with the
Governors into the Treasury, and as soon as we open the parks,
we are charging against that account. So that account is drawn
down.
Now, if the shutdown ends before we expend all of that
money, then whatever is remaining absolutely will be
immediately returned to the States. But for the money that is
charged against, I have no authority than to take Federal
dollars that, once reimbursed when the shutdown ends, and give
that to the States unless directly authorized by Congress.
Which I would support, by the way, but I don't have that
authority just outright.
Mr. Lamborn. So, at this point in time, you are not
pledging to reimburse the States.
Mr. Jarvis. No. We made it very clear in each of these
agreements and very clear in the agreement that was negotiated
that there is no guarantee that they are going to get this
money back. It would only be if Congress were to authorize it.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, I think you should have to be
responsible for that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
I might note for the record that in every case of shutdowns
all Federal employees have been paid and these types of debts
have been paid. So there is a high expectation, even without a
contract.
We now to the gentleman from Virginia for his round of
questions. Mr. Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome to the panel.
Ms. Eberly, I have been to the Claude Moore Farm many
times, and thank you for running such a beautiful spot in our
community.
By the way, the land on which the Claude Moore Colonial
Farm is located, is that federally owned or is that privately
owned?
Ms. Eberly. Federally owned.
Mr. Connolly. Federally owned.
Ms. Eberly. Uh-huh. It is a former landfill.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. So could it be that Director Jarvis,
looking at the Antideficiency Act and trying to figure out what
is covered and what isn't, looks at a place like Claude Moore,
federally-owned land--you manage it, but it is federally
owned--and it gets a subsidy of $100,000 a year, apparently
down to $92,000 this year because of sequestration and down to
zero next year because of budget cuts, that he might have just
included that in, sort of, the larger penumbra of the
Antideficiency Act and things he might have to decide? Could
that be an explanation?
Ms. Eberly. I was told by the superintendant that it was
entirely his decision, that he had----
Mr. Connolly. Which superintendant?
Ms. Eberly. The parkway superintendant.
Mr. Connolly. The parkway superintendant.
Ms. Eberly. Uh-huh. And he had decided to leave open the
Memorial Bridge and the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
Mr. Connolly. And from your point of view--well, you
obviously didn't like the decision; none of us did. But it was
also a matter of communication. Explaining the rationale was
not very consistent, from your point of view.
Ms. Eberly. We have never gotten an explanation.
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
Director Jarvis----
Ms. Eberly. Because now we are open.
Mr. Connolly. Director Jarvis, I would like you to address
that in a second. But you have, you said, 401 national parks;
is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Would Claude Moore and, say, the Mount Vernon
parking lot be included in that number? Or are they, because
they are sort of hybrids, are they over and above the 401?
Mr. Jarvis. No, they are components of those 401. There are
literally hundreds and hundreds of similar situations as to the
Claude Moore Farm within those 401.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. And you were advised presumably by your
ethics office or by your attorneys when you go about to
organize for the shutdown in anticipation of the shutdown that
you are going to have to make thousands of discrete decisions
in a very collapsed timeframe. And you are concerned about
complying both with the law, that is to say the shutdown, and
with the Antideficiency Act. Is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Would you remind us what the Antideficiency
Act is and does?
Mr. Jarvis. Essentially, it is a statute that prohibits
doing work for which there is no Federal appropriation, except
for the limitations on protection of life and property.
And so, in the case of Claude Moore, if I may, the Claude
Moore Farm has since 2001 received $1.3 million of Federal
appropriations from the National Park Service. We recently
spent several hundred thousand dollars repairing their sewer
system. We do ongoing food and safety inspections, trash
removal, and road maintenance.
So we had to evaluate, in the case of Claude Moore, in the
case of dozens of these, of whether or not we would be in
violation of the Antideficiency Act by allowing these to
continue to operate. And so, if you may, let me just say, we
took the closure date on October 1, and then we began to
evaluate each of these operations individually to ensure that
we were not violating. And those that we felt we could honestly
and clearly and legally reopen, we have done that.
Mr. Connolly. By the way, I have a limited amount of time
left, but I want to say, at least speaking for this Member, I
just heard my colleague from Colorado make some rather strong
statements about you and your service. I completely disavow
those comments. I think you have been an exemplary public
servant. I think you have done the best you could under very
trying circumstances.
I think you have put up with some criticism because some--
no one here, of course--want to deflect public attention from
their own actions, namely, the consequences of a shutdown. But
to trash somebody's good reputation, who has served his country
well as a labor of love as well as your professional commitment
to the national parks and making them the best they can be, I
just want you to know there are many of us here and many
throughout the country who very much value your service and
deeply regret any suggestions that somehow you are responsible
for the shutdown and the consequences.
Mr. Hastings. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. I have 7 seconds, Mr. Chairman, but I would
be glad to yield.
Mr. Hastings. Well, I just want to point out--and I thank
the gentleman for yielding. Real quickly, I just understand
that the Antideficiency Act goes back to the 1860s, and yet it
was not employed in 1995 for whatever reason. And I just
thought for the record that ought to be----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, could I at least ask----
Chairman Issa. You can have your 6 seconds.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Galvin, is that true or not?
Mr. Galvin. It is not true. The Antideficiency Act ruled
the shutdown in 1995-1996, the same way it does now.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
I will now recognize myself.
Director Jarvis, do you remember April of this year coming
before one of these committees, the Oversight Committee?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Chairman Issa. And between April 16th and October 1st, you
were not shut down, you had the ability to operate fully; is
that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Chairman Issa. So for those many months after you promised
to deliver us the discovery, including 400 pages previously
identified before that hearing, and didn't do so, you did so
out of contempt for your promise to this committee?
Mr. Jarvis. I----
Chairman Issa. Or was it just an oversight? Do you just not
know that you promised to deliver documents related to
discovery and you don't do it?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir. Those decisions are made by the
Department of the Interior. I----
Chairman Issa. Well, I am going to take that decision away
from you. I will be issuing a subpoena to you before the close
of this hearing, and I will expect, as soon as the government
reopens, for you to comply with it.
Additionally, I am going to ask our clerks to go through
the record and find each and every document and request made
during this hearing and again issue a subpoena. Since it is
very clear that the promises you make have no value because
someone in the Department of Interior simply doesn't bother to
deliver documents already known. And those documents are
related to our accusation of prior abuse under sequestration.
So Mr. Connolly may want to say you are exemplary. I find
it questionable.
Let me ask you a very simple question I started this
hearing with: Whose land is it? Is it your land? Is it the
government land? Or do you oversee the people's land? And,
please, think before you answer.
Mr. Jarvis. It is the people's land.
Chairman Issa. If it is the people's land, then don't you
have an obligation to absolutely, positively mitigate to the
greatest extent possible the adverse effects on people?
Mr. Jarvis. I operate under the----
Chairman Issa. No, no.
Mr. Jarvis. --law passed----
Chairman Issa. I know. Don't tell me about the law. Do you
have an obligation--you are restrained by laws, but do you have
an obligation to deliver to the best of your ability with the
limited funds you may or may not have?
Mr. Jarvis. I absolutely do.
Chairman Issa. Then, in the case of Ms. Eberly, isn't it
true that, in fact, every day her organization saves the
American people money they would otherwise spend to operate
that park or the park would be gone? Isn't that true?
You kept talking about the million dollars you delivered.
She delivered twice, three times, four times that in value,
through volunteers, through fundraising. Isn't that true?
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely. We love our partners.
Chairman Issa. Okay. So here is your public-private
partner, and you shut her down and cost her far more than any
potential savings. You spent money to barricade so that she, in
fact, couldn't operate, and you did so without prior notice.
And let me ask you an important question. What was the
first day in your job--you talked about 2016 and what you are
anticipating and who you are working with. What was the first
day you began asking the question over the last year--we will
just use 2013--what do I do in the case of a shutdown related
to a lack of appropriations? What was the first day?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, we were facing a potential shutdown in
2011 when the----
Chairman Issa. Okay. So, since 2011, your testimony is
that, in fact, you have known there was a potential for a
shutdown.
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Chairman Issa. You were with the Park Service and you were
aware of the agreement made with Arizona in 1996. You were
aware, could have been aware, of course, Ms. Eberly was not
shut down back then.
You were aware that, contrary to what was shown in an
earlier picture, that, in fact, the Lincoln Memorial was not
closed, as that picture falsely shows, at some earlier
barricade. This is a repair period of time. It may, in fact, be
an actual picture. But the pictures we have seen show that
people walked up. This barricade was not, in fact, keeping
people from going. People went all the way up.
You will notice the--Mr. DeFazio, you will notice the
construction.
This picture is also from that period and shows people
actually being seen, with the sign up there, going there.
The fact is you had a history and a tradition. Why did you
not make the effort and the contacts to find out how to
mitigate? Why did you not talk to the mayor's people or
representatives? Why was there not an attempt to see what they
could do to mitigate it? Why were those contracts not dusted
off in preparation? Why didn't you do anything to mitigate this
whenever possible?
And why did you cause Ms. Eberly to sit there and lose
money and perhaps her organization go into an inability to
maintain it when, in fact, you know and I know that that road
maintenance is being deferred whether she is open or closed?
Isn't that true?
Mr. Jarvis. I immediately upon the closure began to look at
the documents from the Grand Canyon----
Chairman Issa. Okay, yes, that is a great answer. And my
time is expiring.
You waited till after October 1st and then began--after you
asserted pain on people through a lack of planning, you began
planning, so that a week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks after you had made
your point, you had made your point that you could punish the
American people by shutting down and taking away assets they
cared about, then you began, because of public opinion, opening
back up.
For the record, isn't it true that everything you have done
to reopen could have been anticipated and done in advance? In
other words, if you can reopen her parking lot, then, in fact,
you had the authority never to close it. Isn't that true?
Mr. Jarvis. We did not have----
Chairman Issa. The 1860s law didn't change----
Mr. Jarvis. In all due respect----
Chairman Issa. --so isn't it true----
Mr. Jarvis. In all due respect, the National Park Service
is a very big, complex organization. I did not know about
Claude Moore any more than the dozens of others out there. I
rely on my field representatives, my superintendents to tell
me.
And so what we had to do is we shut it down in compliance
with the lapse of appropriation and then immediately began
assessing which ones we could reopen. And we did that with that
Claude Moore. I have over a dozen here more that we have
reopened, as well as----
Chairman Issa. Yeah, the Grand Canyon is, you know, kind of
hard, it gets overlooked, you didn't see it, you know. And we
all know that terrorists are going to go in and blow up the
Grand Canyon, too. So, you know, the fact that you overlooked
the Grand Canyon is not credible.
We go to the gentlelady from Massachusetts now for her
questions, Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Jarvis, for being here.
You know, as I said in my early comments, I do have two
national parks. They really do commemorate--one commemorates
the American Revolution; the other commemorates the Industrial
Revolution. The communities that host these national parks take
such pride in all the great work you do and the tremendous
leadership you have brought, the high standards you create. And
we as an American people, I think, are proud of those standards
and hate to see anything happen that undermines them, as the
sequester is certainly doing and as shutting down the
government is doing.
But I want to address first the whole issue of our
veterans' access to the World War II Memorial. My father was a
survivor of Pearl Harbor. He went on to serve across the South
Pacific. He is no longer living, but I can't imagine that he
would not be so dismayed by the circus that has been created
around the access issue to the memorial.
And I happened to be in the airport when an Honor Flight
group was coming from Arkansas. It was a very celebratory
moment. These were older, older men who were so proud of their
service to this country, and it was a touching thing to be near
them.
I just want to reference that Politico today reports that,
despite my Republican colleague attempts to turn the World War
II Memorial into the government shutdown's poster child:
``Veterans streaming into Washington to see the monument don't
really face any obstacles in their visits. And many complain
that they are being used for political gain.''
Jim McLaughlin, a lead organizer for the Honor Flight
Network told Politico: ``We have had no problems at all.'' He
said the Park Service has been: ``very cooperative and very
polite,'' in allowing veterans groups to visit under the
auspices that they are conducting: ``First Amendment
activities.''
Director Jarvis, veterans have been able to visit the World
War II Memorial, haven't they?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, ma'am, they have.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
I would also like to go back to the issue--and I thank you,
Ms. Simon, for your testimony. Are we really surprised that the
government shutdown would have an impact on our gateway
communities, on our tourism industry? Isn't it just something
one could have foreseen?
Ms. Simon. I don't think the fact that there was an impact
was a surprise. No, I think everyone anticipated it. It was
really not knowing what to expect come the first day of the
shutdown.
Ms. Tsongas. And that is why it is such a dismaying
activity, given that it could have been avoided. A bill could
have been brought to the floor that would have Democratic
support, the Senate bill that was passed by the Senate on a
bipartisan basis, brought to the floor of the House of
Representatives, supported by Democrats, supported by
Republicans, and it would have avoided this altogether.
The national parks are where a lot of the discussion has
gone because they are very visible to the American people, and
it is happening at a moment in time when visitation has
historically been very high. But I don't think we can overlook
all the other people and all the other institutions that have
been so impacted.
Last week, I had a heart-wrenching conversation with a
nurse at a military installation in my district who is
furloughed because of the Republican shutdown. As a Federal
contract employee, she is terrified that she won't be able to
recover her lost pay, putting her family at financial risk.
``We are the ones suffering,'' she told me. ``We are
hardworking Americans working paycheck to paycheck. Something
like this can destroy us.''
We have to remember the servicemembers who have returned
from combat duty who may lose their college tuition assistance
that they have been promised. Clinical trials for cancer
patients have been delayed, and veterans are being told that
they will have to wait even longer to have their benefit claims
reviewed.
And, yes, it is so unfortunate that our national parks,
some of our Nation's most treasured sites, are closed to the
public. But that is what happens when the Federal Government
shuts down. We need to end this and end it today.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Issa. The gentlelady yields back.
We now go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to the panel for being here.
I certainly agree with one of my colleagues who mentioned
earlier, on the other side of the aisle, that we live in a
parallel universe--a parallel universe of fact and of fiction.
Five years of government by crisis has been taking place,
beginning with the first 2 years of this administration when
the Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate, and the
House. A budget wasn't passed either of those 2 years.
Continuing resolutions. Continuing resolutions certainly work
toward crisis, don't they?
And now we have come to a big crisis where the Democrats'
shutdown of this government has taken place. Now, they would
call it something else, and they have been effective with the
use of pawns in the media and pawns, sadly, in the bureaucracy,
Mr. Jarvis, of making pain on the American public.
But I am concerned more about the pain that has been put on
the private-sector economy--Mayor Bryan, Ms. Eberly, tourist
associations. This was knowingly done. I am concerned about the
pain that will be coming even worse for Mayor Bryan and Ms.
Eberly and other private concessioners when Obamacare has its
full results and we have a part-time economy, not a full-time
economy.
Because then it won't be a shutdown that stops people from
visiting these wonderful sites that, Director Jarvis, I visited
when I was just a kid that led me in 1969 to go to Western
Illinois University and major in forestry and land management.
Over 40 years ago, my intentions were to be in the service that
you are in. And since that time, I have visited parks all over
this country in 50 States, and I still do with my grandkids.
But in the future, they won't have that opportunity because
of a economy that has gone to a part-time economy. And our
people, maybe not foreigners, which we hope continue to come,
but our people won't be able to afford to go to see that
magnificent Grand Canyon that I saw as a boy and as a teenager
and as a college student and as a father.
I am sick of hearing of this shutdown called anything other
than a Democrat shutdown. We have offered four bills to fund
the entire government, rejected by the Senate-controlled
Senate. We have offered now 15 bills to open up necessary
components of government--oh, and by the way, one of those was
the Park Service and the monuments, one of those was the
Veterans Administration, WIC, and I could go on down the line--
rejected in the Senate, supported in a bipartisan fashion in
the House. Where is the problem?
Let me ask a question. Ms. Eberly, I heard you interviewed
on TV, I think, after the first week. I appreciated your spunk.
What has this cost you, or cost the Claude--the Colonial Farm?
Ms. Eberly. So far, probably about $30,000, I guess. That
probably doesn't seem like very much money down here, but to us
it is.
Mr. Walberg. To you it does. Twenty thousand when I first
heard you, so it has gone up $10,000 more.
My brother, without me, took a motorcycle trip along the
Blue Ridge Parkway just a few weeks--well, the week before the
shutdown, had dinner at the Pisgah Inn. I have been there
myself. Beautiful part of the world. A week later, it shut
down, a private concessionary making money for the U.S. Park
Service.
Let me ask a question, Director Jarvis. What does the Park
Service think will happen if they don't close private
businesses?
Mr. Jarvis. Private businesses that are both within and
outside the national parks are essential to public service. I
mean, that is--so we have Pisgah Inn, Peaks of Otter, Northwest
Trading Post, Folk Art Center, and the Mabry Mill are all open
as a result of the policy change I made to get them open along
the Blue Ridge----
Mr. Walberg. How many others are closed still?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't really know. But I have opened over a
dozen--Cliff House, the Avon Pier at Cape Hatteras, a number of
these--that really do not require our support and do not
violate the Antideficiency Act.
Mr. Walberg. And hundreds are still closed.
Mr. Jarvis. I have opened the window for anybody to
request, and we are evaluating each one of those requests.
Mr. Walberg. Well, let me just--because my time is 9
seconds here. And I would refer to you as well as Mr. Galvin.
1995, we had a shutdown. 1995 to the present, Mr. Galvin,
we had the opportunity to put in place for--that large
government entity called the Park Service to put in plans so
this type of thing wouldn't happen. You say it is large and it
takes a lot of effort. Well, it sure does. But why wasn't it
taken care of between 1995 and now? I contend it was because we
wanted to inflict pain upon the taxpayer, the citizen, to make
them go along with policies that will ultimately make it more
problem for Mayor Bryan, Ms. Eberly, and others.
And I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
I now ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter
dated March 27th, 2013, to Mr. Jarvis concerning the oversight
discovery responsibilities and request, and then the response
dated April 19th, 2013, from your bosses at the United States
Department of the Interior in which they promised that they
were diligently working on the discovery that we have never
received.
We now go to the gentleman from Nevada for 5 minutes.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
Our national parks belong to the American people and they
should be open, along with every other essential part of the
government. I have twice met with Honor Flights this month that
brought our veterans to see the World War II Memorial. For
some, this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and it was an
honor to shake the hands of these service members. Their
service should not be politicized, and they should not be used
as pawns.
Our Nevada veterans were not stopped by barricades. In
fact, they were warmly greeted and welcomed by park rangers,
allowing access to the memorial for First Amendment activities.
And I'd like to thank the Park Service rangers for their
courtesies.
You know, half the truth is often a whole lie, and I'm
sorry that the Representative from Texas is not here, because
one of the days that I was there, he was there, and for him to
say that those veterans were turned away or that the park
rangers treated them with disrespect is not the case.
Now, I represent Nevada's Fourth Congressional District,
and we are home to several national parks, including the
national--the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, which is the
fourth most visited unit in the National Park System of over
400. National parks are a vital part of our tourism industry
and our economic base.
In between votes on last Saturday and Monday, I was able to
go back home to my district to meet with my constituents, and
during one of our town halls, the former Superintendent of the
Lake Mead National Recreation Area came, and this is what he
told me. First, the blame should not be placed on the National
Park Service or the individual park, but clearly on the
shoulders of Congress that caused the shutdown in the first
place. The last thing the National Park Service wants to see is
our precious parks closed to the American public.
He went on to share that since the closure, the park has
already had to cancel 7 events, with an expected participation
of 1,925 participants, and there are several additional events
in the next 2 weeks with over 10,000 expected participants,
having an effect on our local economy, on jobs and on tourism.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent at this time
to enter Mr. O'Neill's entire statement into the record.
Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
Director Jarvis, thank you for your service. Do you agree
with Mr. O'Neill's statement that the Park Service
professionals would like to do their job and open the parks to
the public?
Mr. Jarvis. There's nothing on this planet that we would
prefer to do than to get back to work and reopen all 401
national parks.
Mr. Horsford. Ms. Simon, I talked about some of the impacts
to local communities surrounding national parks like Lake Mead.
Can you share other impacts that you've experienced and how
it's affecting the private sector?
Ms. Simon. Yes. Just in the first week, we surveyed all of
our members, and our tour operators reported collective losses
estimated at $114 million just in that first week. So, you
know, projecting that out in terms of what they have
experienced so far as well as what they're continuing to
experience, because they're having to reroute tours without an
end date in sight, they're having to reroute tours on into the
future and will be experiencing, you know, financial
implications to having to find alternatives to those tours.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, let me just close by saying one of my
colleagues on the other side said something about Director
Jarvis' failure to do his job. Well, if Director Jarvis or any
of the other public service professionals have failed for
having to carry out the shutdown, then what does that say about
the Republican Members who caused the shutdown in the first
place?
Mr. Hastings. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back his
time.
The gentleman from Virginia Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have the honor to represent America's First District in
Virginia, which includes Jamestown, Yorktown, Williamsburg, and
also the historic battlefields there in Fredericksburg,
Virginia.
Director Jarvis, I want to ask you, if you go back
historically and look at the shutdown in '95-'96, and you look
at how the Park Service handled specifically Jamestown
Settlement, which, as you know, is run by Preservation
Virginia, it's a private entity, they've been running that--
that area since 1835, it's a nonprofit organization, the access
is through the Colonial Parkway. In '95, operations there at
Jamestown Settlement continued without interruption.
This time around, unfortunately, Historic Jamestowne, that
Jamestown Settlement, was told to close by the Park Service.
There is actually a Park Service employee there at the gate
turning people away. They came from all over the country. You
know, Preservation Virginia relies on the revenue generated
there at Jamestown Settlement for their operations. That costs
them about $6- or $7,000 a day. It took 10 days to work out an
agreement so that access to that facility, owned and operated
by Preservation Virginia, could reopen.
Can you give me some indication about why this time around
things were different than they were back in '95, and why we
couldn't have used the mechanism in '95 to assure that--that
Jamestown Settlement could stay open through--through this--
this shutdown?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, I will defer to Mr. Galvin to talk
specifically about what occurred in '95, because I wasn't here
then. But I would say that we didn't anticipate this closure to
last as long as it has, and what has happened as a result of
its extension is that we've had to--to figure out whether or
not in each individual case, whether or not we would be
violating the Antideficiency Act because of the revenue, the
amount of money, the facilities, whatever partnership aspect
that we have with places like Historic Jamestowne. And we had
to take that to our attorneys and say, this is what we're
investing, and then we had to say, can somebody else cover
that, and then reach an agreement. And I--I was not involved
directly in the one at Colonial and Jamestown, but I think we
did work it out.
I apologize that it took so long. That's certainly not our
intent to drag these things out, but the 1995 agreement was not
ready to be just--change the date and the names on the bottom.
All different attorneys, all different people in play now. And
we've got the template now, so we're moving through these
rather quickly, including the State of Virginia. The
Commonwealth has requested an interest, and we're quite willing
to work with them.
Mr. Wittman. It just seems like to me with that framework,
that even though the names and the times were different, it
seems like to me that the framework is in place to quickly get
that done. And in anticipation, it seems like to me, of
potentially where things were going, there should have been
some effort to say, well, wait a minute. While we had staff in
place, while we had the opportunity to do this, why wouldn't
you look at those agreements to say if this does come, we have
a contingency plan that we will be ready for this if it does
happen; and if it doesn't happen, then it's not time that's
wasted or resources that are wasted. So it seems like, to me,
that, you know, anybody looking at this said maybe--maybe we
ought to have a contingency plan.
Was there any contingency thought given to these agreements
to say, listen, if this does happen, we're going to be ready to
go, there will not be a cessation of operations in places like
Historic Jamestowne?
Mr. Jarvis. We did set policy initially that is consistent
with '95 that, you know, through roads, you know, obviously the
George Washington Memorial Parkway in Rock Creek and the
Natchez Straights Parkway in the Blue Ridge Park would remain
open, and we--we set that standard, and that was obviously
similar to 1995.
But I think you make a good point. We haven't done this in
20 years. Shutting down is hard and complicated. And I think
there are some lessons learned here. We now have a very good
template agreement to work with States. We now better
understand the Federal investment in each of these facilities.
We don't have, like, a standing database on every one of our
partnerships in Washington; we had to receive that information
coming in from the individual parks in order to assess it and
to assure that we were not violating any--any current statute.
I think--
Mr. Wittman. And----
Mr. Jarvis. I think we have learned. And probably if--
hopefully there's not another one of these, but if there is, I
think we will be better prepared.
Mr. Wittman. And I want to point out, too, we have some
other concessionaires like in the town of Yorktown right next
to where my office is, a great restaurant, the Carrot Tree
Restaurant, that said, listen, we--we just want to continue to
operate. The problem is that under their rent agreement, they
have to continue to pay rent while you have told them to shut
down. You know, the--the economics of that just doesn't work
out. I'm paying rent, yet I cannot have customers come to the
restaurant.
It's an open thoroughfare. There's no requirement for any
expenditure of park resources during any period of time, yet
they were told to shut down. And you can imagine how frustrated
they are, how frustrated the community is with that, because
logically it makes no sense. Separate from the political
aspects of the shutdown, people look at that and go, what in
the world is going on?
So I would urge that when these instances, if they do occur
in the future, that these instances be planned for, and that
businesses, by no fault of their own that are being asked to--
to shut down, that we give consideration for them.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. Time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California Mr.
Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, I--I've almost run out of adjectives to describe
this unfortunate hearing that we're having today. The one that
I'm left with is ``sad.'' I'm a freshman Member of Congress.
I'm very proud to represent my district, to serve in this
institution, but I am embarrassed by the committee process in
this hearing, this sham of a hearing that we're having today.
I came to Congress to solve problems. I came to Congress to
try to work across the aisle and raise the political discourse
in this country and try to--to set a better tone, and instead I
am taking part in a hearing that makes the McCarthy era look
like the Enlightenment. The fact that it's taking place during
a government shutdown manufactured for political purposes by my
Republican colleagues just makes it even worse. This is worse
than fiddling while Rome burns. This is fanning the flames
while Rome burns. This is looting and dancing while Rome burns.
We have heard all manner of over-the-top accusations from
members of this committee, and we've heard made-for-right-wing-
media sound bites, charges of malice, of deliberate infliction
of pain, of a secret plan to maximize public inconvenience and
impact. We've heard unnamed, anonymous witnesses from a media
report talk about these nefarious intentions, and then we've
heard a member of this committee extrapolate from that and say
it was the common belief among National Park Service employees.
All of this, of course, is going to be played on YouTube
tonight, it'll be played on Fox News, all of these made-for-
right-wing-media accusations and claims, but there is zero
evidence to support any of it. We've heard from folks who
actually are on the ground, who know, who can give us the
facts, and there is zero evidence.
If this was a court, you know what would happen? The judge
would bring the prosecutor or the plaintiff's attorney up to
the sidebar and say, you know, I'm not only dismissing your
case; if you ever bring a case like this and make over-the-top
accusations like that that you can't support with evidence, I'm
going to sanction you, and I might even report you to the bar
for ethical violations. But there are consequences. There's
accountability in an actual court, and this is a kangaroo
court. And so we will continue bouncing further into the rabbit
hole, I am sure.
Director Jarvis, I can only imagine how difficult it is for
you, as somebody who has dedicated your life and your career to
the mission and the work of our National Park Service, to be
going through the shutdown of those very parks that you've
dedicated your life to operating and serving. You're in the
business of opening parks and--and managing them and running
them. This is such a wonderful success story for our country,
the National Park Service. To be asked to shut them down,
especially under these circumstances, just must be awful.
And I remember--I just served 6 years in the California
State Legislature. I chaired the parks committee. We went
through our own parks crisis, and it was your agency that was
helping us save parks from closure. In fact, you saved three
parks in my district because you stepped up, you believe in our
public lands and our parks and people and communities they
serve, and I want to thank you for your service.
I can only imagine the indignity of having to sit there and
listen to all of these baseless accusations; to have to listen
to a witness who fronts for the oil and gas and coal industries
and sues environmental agencies to try to prevent them from
implementing environmental laws tell you that you are a
terrible environmental steward, accuse you of hiding behind the
veneer of the popularity of our parks to actually do harm to
our parks and our environment. It is a disgrace that you have
had to listen to this indignity, that you've had to sit there.
We've had to listen to people romanticize about 1995 as if
this were some shining model of how you can close down the
National Park System and not have anyone feel the pain. But
we've also, fortunately, had a witness who actually presided
over that disgraceful chapter and could tell us that, yes, the
Antideficiency Act actually applied in that case, too; who can
tell us that, no, it wasn't some shining model of success.
Monuments were closed, people were impacted, communities were
impacted, pain was felt, some of it very high-profile pain.
So, again, I am struck by the fact that despite the over-
the-top, made-for-media accusations and sound bites in this
kangaroo court, we have no facts at all to suggest you've done
anything wrong.
Closing all of these parks, shutting down a huge Federal
agency is a hard thing to do. There's no easy way to do it.
There's no perfect way to do it. My only hope is that you are
able to hang in there while we work through the terrible
politics that have brought us to this government shutdown, and
that we can get back to the business of running our Park
Service and serving the people and the communities that depend
on it as soon as possible.
Thank you for your service.
Mr. Hastings. Time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thanks, Chairman Hastings.
First I'd like to thank Mayor Bryan for showing up and
having breakfast with me in the Governor's office as well. I
mean, maybe we ought to make politicians have breakfast every
morning, because that's, I think, a good start to the day.
But thank you, Mayor Bryan, for your leadership in regards
to Tusayan. Tusayan is--is so interwoven with the park system,
particularly with the Grand Canyon. But the situation we're
examining today is simply unacceptable. Without a doubt, the
Obama administration has tried to make the government shutdown
as painful as possible for communities like Tusayan to achieve
political gain. In a district like mine, dominated by the
presence of Federal resources, two large military facilities,
and over 70 percent of federally administered land, the fact
has been painfully evident. And, of course, it is Arizona, and
we know the relationship between this administration and
Arizona.
As soon as the National Park Service announced it would
shut down facilities like the Grand Canyon, I worked with our
Governor Jan Brewer and local leaders like Mayor Bryan to
ensure it was reopened. While I am pleased that all parties
were able to come to an agreement late last week, we have to
make sure some of this type of nonsense never happens again,
and to make sure that there is a seamless transaction.
While I would like to avoid future shutdowns, the reality
is that they will inevitably happen. This certainly isn't the
first and, unfortunately, probably not the last. And if we need
any excuse, $17 trillion and growing of debt is going to the
acknowledgement that we will bounce around this--the idea for
some time.
But our national parks are the people's parks, and they
should not be manipulated by political purposes. For 10 days
the Park Service refused, refused to work with our local
governments and businesses to keep these important economic
drivers operating. Our State wildlife agency and State parks
agency offered to shoulder the burden of management, and our
local governments offered to chip in their scant dollars, but
instead of working with us, the administration actually
committed resources to further inconvenience our constituents
rather than alleviate some of the burdens.
What changed in those 10 days? Nothing. The political
pressure from Congress and the local communities simply forced
the agency to come to the table, like they have in previous
shutdowns, and come to a solution. And I am committed to
introducing legislation or doing anything else I can within my
capacity as a Member of Congress to ensure that there is a
clear legal path, a seamless pathway towards keeping our parks
open regardless of what happens in Washington, D.C.
Director Jarvis, can you identify one of the seven wonders
of the world located in Arizona?
Mr. Jarvis. Are you speaking of the Grand Canyon?
Mr. Gosar. Oh, absolutely. So it's one of the seven
locations in the world.
Mayor Bryan, I--I watched your eyes, you know, in regards
to Mr. Jarvis talking about immediately reaching out to
communities. Was that the truth?
Mr. Bryan. Well, Congressman, I know that Congresswoman
Kirkpatrick, our Senators Flake and McCain, as well as myself
tried to contact and get information as to why we couldn't
apply the 1995 to what we needed to do now, and from their
office, nothing other than the local superintendent saying no.
Mr. Gosar. Absolutely no. I mean, I--I was involved also in
those mitigations with the Governor and that.
Mr. Jarvis, would you be prepared to turn over all
documentation in regards to the attempts trying to reach your
offices in regards to opening the Grand Canyon?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gosar. That would be emails and phone logs.
So you didn't reach out to the Grand Canyon, the folks in
the Grand Canyon, and the Governor of Arizona when you were
looking at the shutdown?
Mr. Jarvis. Me personally? No, because I can't talk to
every Governor and every community, but our local
superintendent--I guarantee you that Dave Uberuaga, the
Superintendent of the Grand Canyon, was talking to the
community.
The reopening of the Grand Canyon, along with the reopening
of all the national parks, was front and center in our
discussions in Washington. I--just as a little bit of history,
and this would be in my records, is that immediately upon the
shutdown, I called the former Superintendent of the Grand
Canyon in 1995, Rob Arnberger, and I asked him specifically
what happened on that day with respect to the closure so I
could understand that.
Mr. Gosar. That's all in the record, you know.
Mr. Jarvis. Okay.
Mr. Gosar. Let me ask you your connotation of what we did
in 2011. You knew there was contentions, right, in government
about debt? So there's contingency plans. I was a dentist, and
so every patient that walks in my office, I have to be prepared
for an emergency, so I go through it and I rehearse it day in,
day out, day in, day out. And I find it fraudulent that we
weren't prepared to have a seamless transaction with our State,
particularly one of the greatest marvels of the world, a
natural resource, one of the marvels of the world, one of the
seven natural wonders of the world, that you were unprepared
for that dictation. That's part of leadership, and I find it
offensive that there was 10 days of absolutely no, no, no and
no, when we had a State and local municipalities trying to work
on behalf of keeping these open. So I'll be looking forward to
those answers.
Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire Ms.
Shea-Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
I sit on the Natural Resources Committee, and I hope and I
wish that the concern for the national parks and the people
continues after this. We actually had a hearing. The
Republicans invited a witness whose suggestion was to basically
allow all the national parks to charge market value, and if
they charge market value, that would leave out the very people
that we're talking about: average Americans who want access to
their parks.
So we shouldn't be sitting here acting shocked that closing
the parks was part of closing the government; of course it was.
But what I am shocked about is the tone in this place, and I'm
embarrassed to be sitting here, and I would like to apologize.
We can all have differences of opinion, and we clearly do, and
I hope the differences of opinion will be solved today. I urge
my colleagues across the aisle to accept that vote tonight, if
we have it, that the Senate--the bipartisan Senate agreement
will be coming to us. So we do have disagreements, but we
shouldn't be talking like this.
And the attack on you, Director, I--I apologize. It's as
ugly as I have seen, and I have seen some pretty ugly things
here. This is my--my fifth year here. So I am very, very upset
about this. I thought about walking out, and I thought, no, I
need to tell all of you that we recognize how difficult this
is. You didn't shut down the government. You didn't. They did,
and they need to acknowledge that.
I can't imagine that there's anybody who works in a
national park or dedicates his or her life to serving the
public, that anyone would say, oh, let's close it during their
busiest season. Let's keep Americans out of the parks. These
parks belong to Americans, and our American workers have
protected the parks and loved the parks and served the American
people every single day until they shut the government down.
Now, the reason the government was shut down was not
because they had a problem with the parks. It wasn't anything
else that they were worried about. Their problem was that the
Affordable Care Act was still there, and so they shut the
government down in their pursuit to try to either alter or end
the Affordable Care Act, which happens to be law, also was
upheld by the Supreme Court. And so their last stand here is to
insult the people, insult the Federal workers, insult all
those, and also to try to deny culpability for the impact, the
economic impact, that this has had on our Nation.
In my great State of New Hampshire, we have people who
travel from all over the world to see the leaves. It's an
annual event, and it's a pretty special show that God has
provided for all of us. And yet we've been seriously impacted.
Small businesses in New Hampshire and our New Hampshire economy
was impacted not because of the Federal workers, but because of
the Congress.
And so to turn around and try to shift the blame and the
responsibility is stunning. And that alone would be awful, but
to hear the tone, and the meanness, and the accusations and the
insults, my stomach has been twisting the whole time.
I had a note that I had written. I was hoping to--to hand
it off to the chairman, but he left. I said, please, can you
and everyone else leave out these personal attacks and nasty
tones? Americans expect us to ask tough questions, make tough
statements, but be civil.
Civility. We can disagree. We do disagree. But, again, I
apologize for the tone here, I apologize for the insults. I
thank you, Director Jarvis, for the work that you have done for
this country. And they have a right and an obligation to ask
questions, but we don't have a right to bring in Federal
employees and treat them as if we're just batting them around
like a cat with a mouse, and for that I apologize.
And I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. The gentlelady yields back her time.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. I thank the gentleman. And I would remind
my friend from New Hampshire that three times the House voted
to fund the government. Three times the Democratic Senate
rejected those measures and refused to resolve our differences
through the negotiation----
Ms. Shea-Porter. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McClintock. No, I will not--that served our country for
225 years. I would also remind her that on October the 2nd, the
Republican House voted to reopen the parks. We were joined by
23 House Democrats, who courageously defied their party
leaders. The Democratic Senate killed that bill, once again
refusing to resolve our differences. I would remind my
colleagues that incessantly repeating a falsehood does not make
it a truth.
Mayor Bryan, why is Grand Canyon National Park open and yet
Yosemite National Park is closed?
Mr. Bryan. I can't speak to Yosemite, Congressman, but
Grand Canyon National Park is open because after 10 days we
were able to, through the Governor's office, negotiate a deal
to reopen it at $93,000 a day, 426,500----
Mr. McClintock. If--if the Governor of California had taken
the same action, would Yosemite be open today?
Mr. Bryan. I would assume so.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Jarvis, do I understand you correctly that you ordered
the barricading----
Ms. Shea-Porter. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I seek to be
recognized.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman, I----
Mr. Hastings. The gentleman----
Ms. Shea-Porter. A point--a point of order.
Mr. Hastings. The gentleman from California has the time.
If you ask the gentleman to yield and he yields----
Ms. Shea-Porter. A point of order.
Mr. Hastings. The gentlelady will state a point of order.
Ms. Shea-Porter. The suggestion that I was repeating a
falsehood, I would like to know, was that suggesting that I was
lying, and if so, I would like to--to have you deal with that.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hastings. The chair is going to rule that the
timeliness of that has to be immediately, and the timeliness of
your remark was not--was not timely in this case, and so the
chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Ms. Shea-Porter. But I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that
after the dialogue that we had earlier, I thought--I thought
the chairman would address that if that happened. I remember an
earlier conversation here, and I thought that what I heard you
say at that time suggested that you would indeed step in if
there were any--any----
Mr. Hastings. Well, what's the--if the chair is asking--if
the gentlelady is asking the chairman whether there is
consistency with a--with a conversation with another Member on
this side of the aisle earlier, I think I am absolutely
consistent on that, because the gentleman from California was
talking in the third term.
Mr. McClintock. And Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Hastings. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. McClintock. And if I may clarify, I was merely saying
that the statement that this shutdown is the fault of
Republicans, when Republicans have repeatedly voted to keep the
government open, is simply false. And that is a fact.
Mr. Jarvis, did I understand you correctly that you ordered
the barricading of public property to which the public would
normally have unrestricted access?
Mr. Jarvis. I ordered the closure of all 401 national
parks.
Mr. McClintock. Did anybody instruct you to barricade
these--these public venues?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir.
Mr. McClintock. So that came from you?
Mr. Jarvis. That's correct.
Mr. McClintock. Let me read you an email that's typical of
what--complaints flooding into my office. This one involves
Kings Canyon National Park. The gentleman writes, to get to my
place of residence and work, I have to travel through the Big
Stump entrance station on Highway 180. Currently the entire
roadway is barricaded, and it appears as though the Park
Service is attempting to prevent anyone from traveling to or
through the national park.
My concern is twofold. First, I personally live here on
private property, and there's the appearance that the
government is trying to prevent us from accessing our private
lands.
Second, I was in the area 17 years ago as a young adult
during the last government shutdown, and this type of thing
didn't happen. Sure, the facilities at the visitor centers were
closed, but the land was still accessible.
I fear that our Federal Government is overstepping in this
area, and I don't know where to turn in order to get this
corrected.
Mr. Jarvis, by what authority did your agency barricade
public highways and impede the public from accessing their own
private homes and businesses?
Mr. Jarvis. My closure order that I issued on October 1 did
allow for people to access their private property, and even if
it was on a closed road, but only for the purposes of accessing
their private property, not for recreating in the park.
All through roads through the National Park System have
been remained open, such as the Tioga Pass in Yosemite and the
through road through the Great Smokies, but the spur roads or
roads that only lead directly into the park and not through to
access the other side are all closed as a part of the lapse in
appropriations.
Mr. McClintock. And yet this gentleman says 17 years ago
they were open, and that your action has impeded him from
reaching his private property.
Mr. Jarvis. I would defer to Mr. Galvin, but I would say in
1995, Kings Canyon was closed.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Jarvis, at Yosemite, the Park Service
have posted guards at pull-outs and parking lots where none are
normally posted. You've said that this is in response to the
Antideficiency Act that only allows acts to protect life and
property. I would wonder if you could explain, how is life and
property threatened by parking in an open parking lot and
simply taking pictures of Bridal Falls?
Mr. Jarvis. If you're taking a picture of Bridal Falls,
you're not on a through road.
Mr. McClintock. No. You're on a turnout or a public parking
area.
Mr. Jarvis. On a through----
Mr. McClintock. How is parking in a public parking area a
threat to life and property?
Mr. Jarvis. These pull-outs are maintained by Federal
appropriations. We pick up the trash. We protect the resources
from fire, from damage and vandalism. And I----
Mr. McClintock. Do you think taking a picture is vandalism?
Mr. Jarvis. No. Taking a picture is not vandalism, but use
of these facilities that are closed because we do not have an
appropriation----
Mr. Jarvis. Mr. Ebell, my time's very limited. I'm working
on legislation that would forbid barricading or restricting
public access to any open-air public space to which the public
normally has unrestricted access, or to interfere with normally
permitted public recreation on public land. Would that
alleviate a lot of the problems that are being reported to us?
Mr. Ebell. Yes, indeed it would alleviate some of them.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Ebell. But I think, as you see, the Antideficiency--the
Director of the Park Service hides behind the Antideficiency
Act when it's useful, and he ignores it when it's not. And this
is, I think, going to continue as long as these kinds of people
are allowed to run the National Park Service and the Department
of the Interior.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona Mr.
Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I--I have been trying to get something out of this
meeting, and thus far it's been very difficult. But a couple of
questions, and--and it was not dual, parallel universes with
alternative universe. An alternative means that you're not
dealing with reality quite well. I just want to make the
distinctions of what I said.
Mr. Jarvis, thank you for being here. I know that--that--I
wish this was an honest effort to discuss your--why you were
forced to respond to congressional efforts to shut down our
government, why the sequestration continues to mount increased
burdens on--on the agency, but this is a media event and has to
be treated like such. There's not a--there's not a look for
solutions.
What I did find interesting, though, Mr. Jarvis, is one of
the things that I learned is that there--the idea that we have
to have a shutdown preparedness program within every agency;
that because what has been admittedly by--admitted by my
colleagues, this phenomena will continue, and there will be
other shutdowns. So there's a--there's a preparedness plan that
you must now put together, so you minimize that publicity for
Members, so that special parks in their areas are left open, so
there's not any public criticism, so that the most visible,
like the Grand Canyon, are left open so that we minimize that
public opinion and public response to the fact that one of
their treasures and all of their public lands are being closed
as a consequence of a shutdown.
It's an interesting preparedness issue. I don't know how
you will do it, but that--that will require you to be able to
still furlough 20,000 people, keep the parks open, all access
open, do it with 4- or 500 people, and, in that preparedness
plan, make sure that the public lands are left alone, yet do
not have the money to operate.
It's an interesting request. I don't know if it's a
foregone conclusion that you can come up with a plan. I would
suggest that it's probably an effort that it doesn't require
any time. It just requires that--that all the parks be left
open, that there be no oversight, that there be no security,
that there be no maintenance, and they're just open. It--it is
a silly request and a silly idea to deal with the adverse
publicity that's been generated by the closure of our
government, and in particular in this area, the government--the
public lands.
The other thing I learned is that we should start, as part
of preparedness, have preexisting templates with each State so
they can assume the payment of--of keeping the parks in their
States open, like the Grand Canyon in Arizona being one of
many.
I would also hope that we extend that same idea to HUD,
Department of Education, Health and Human Services, all the
other agencies that are being affected by the shutdown, so that
we have with the State of Arizona a preexisting memorandum of
understanding that they will take over and fund Head Start;
that they will take over and fund LIHEAP; that they will take
over and fund education; that they will take over and fund
veterans--veterans services, Native American services, and
programs in the State of Arizona. I think that--that would be a
gesture that would be felt across the State of Arizona. And I
would certainly urge our Governor Ms. Brewer that just as she
worked on the Grand Canyon opening, that those are legitimate
concerns that the people of Arizona are facing as well.
And I would suggest, Mr. Mayor, that you would join with me
in making sure that uranium mining is kept away from the Grand
Canyon, because that is a--that is a threat, an imminent
threat, and the shutdown doesn't mitigate that at all. That's
still--that's there for 20 years, and I'm very appreciative of
the Secretary's moratorium, but that is an imminent threat to
the Grand Canyon as well.
Let me ask you, Mr. Mayor, do you agree that the entire
shutdown was not needed, should never have happened, or do you
support the government shutdown efforts? You do support some
government shutdown efforts as long as the parks in your region
remain open?
Mr. Bryan. Is the Congressman asking if I support a
shutdown of the United States Government?
Mr. Grijalva. Yeah.
Mr. Bryan. No, I do not.
Mr. Grijalva. And I ask you that because--and I'm glad that
you worked with Governor Brewer, because her October 1st media
release right after this whole shutdown thing started, she said
she would not--she said--saying the Grand Canyon opening is not
a top concern. She said on Monday she won't be trying to use
State resources to keep the Grand Canyon open during a Federal
Government shutdown. I don't know if the Grand Canyon's a
priority for the State of Arizona, the Governor said, following
a closed-door meeting with her cabinet. We have a lot of other
priorities out there, like our national guardsmen, children and
people that will be hurting desperately with this shutdown.
I--I established that in the record, and I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired, and he
can't yield back time you've used over, so----
Mr. Grijalva. You're not on the 8-minute rule?
Mr. Hastings. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania Mr. Meehan.
Mr. Meehan. Director Jarvis, thank you for being here
today, albeit under duress, but I'm appreciative and
appreciative of your service for--for numbers of years on
behalf of the national parks.
But I have a--look, apart from all this other stuff, I have
a commonsense thing I need to resolve with you. I've got 5
minutes, and I want to walk through something if we can.
You know, you've--you've identified a couple of different
times the Antideficiency Act, and that has motivated some of
your actions. Now, you're aware in the 120 years of the
Antideficiency Act, there has never been an indictment or a
conviction under that act? You're aware of that?
Mr. Jarvis. I was not aware of that.
Mr. Meehan. Well, there hasn't been. Okay. So I guess what
that suggests is there's moments in which even despite we use
discretion--I know you've identified yourself as having worked
as a park enforcement officer at a previous time. Have you been
to Valley Forge Park at any point in time during your service?
Mr. Jarvis. I've never worked there, but I've been there.
Mr. Meehan. You've been there. It's a marvelous place. I'm
privileged to be able to represent that area. But my problem is
I have 20 people who are my constituents that happen to be
joggers, and I'm holding in my hand United States District
Violation 3928431 from John Bell. He gave me permission to
raise this issue with you. He was fined $100 for jogging in the
park.
Now, I'm asking you--you have identified yourself as having
significant prosecutorial discretion, and I'm asking you right
now--this has nothing to do--these are the people being called
in. Mr. Bell and others are going to have to take time off of
work, they're going to have to hire attorneys, they're going to
have to--you are going to have your people go to court and
spend hours sitting in the Federal district court in
Philadelphia miles away simply to enforce a $100 citation.
You have discretion. I'm asking whether you will remove
these citations, the $100 fines, from the 20 joggers who used
Valley Forge Park.
Mr. Jarvis. I'm not in the position or have the authority
to change a ticket that has been issued. That is up to the
court system.
Now, what I will say----
Mr. Meehan. Well, let's go through the record, then. Okay?
Now, because I want to establish on the record that you have
allowed this enforcement to take place. So it's your position
that they are obligated to pay this fine?
Mr. Jarvis. If they were issued a citation for violating
whatever they----
Mr. Meehan. What violation is it that they did by jogging
in the park?
Mr. Jarvis. It would be on the citation. I don't know.
Mr. Meehan. It says--it says, park closed. That's what it
says.
Mr. Jarvis. Then they're violating a closure.
Mr. Meehan. By being in the park?
Mr. Jarvis. I believe that was a parking ticket, actually.
Mr. Meehan. No, no, it's not a parking ticket. Look at--the
parking ticket goes to the vehicle. This was--they parked in
that lot. You have an obligation--in order to identify the
areas where the enclosures are, you had barricades, not much
signage. Again, under the law--this is the public notice
requirements that you have under the law. The barricades were
placed in a place where it was entirely foreseeable on a Sunday
morning when this jog took place that they were still there
from Saturday night. The signage was no bigger than this, and,
in fact, he went to a parking lot in which there was no
signage. And you have an obligation under the law to make sure
that it's all along the boundary of the affected park locale.
So as a matter of law, I question whether or not you gave
appropriate notice.
Did you in addition publish in the newspaper that the parks
were closed?
Mr. Jarvis. We published on our Internet Web site.
Mr. Meehan. And the local newspaper. As it says, along--you
have obligations to publish in newspapers of general
circulation in the affected area. So did you do that?
Mr. Jarvis. I do not know.
Mr. Meehan. So you didn't fulfill any of the requirements.
Now, here's the third, and I want to ask you again. You
said that people were entitled to sit in the parks here,
Occupy, because they were protesting, and any group of less
than 20 is entitled to be in the park in protest. How do you
know by jogging in the park they weren't protesting either for
or against the healthcare law by exercising their right to be
out in the open and showing what good, healthful lifestyles can
do?
Mr. Jarvis. In the closure order that I issued on October
1st, we did----
Mr. Meehan. Is that or not--is that--could that possibly be
an expression of their First Amendment rights?
Mr. Jarvis. I would say that would be a very difficult
case----
Mr. Meehan. You said it was content neutral. May not
exercising in a space be concerned to be an exercise of their
constitutional rights, their First Amendment constitutional
rights?
Mr. Jarvis. Sir, if you'd let me finish my--my sentence,
the--all of the national parks across the system, except for
the National Mall and Independence, are closed to First
Amendment activities. That's in my closure order. So----
Mr. Meehan. Why--why are they closed? What's the selective
enforcement? Why can't somebody in Valley Forge Park have the
same ability to use their First Amendment rights as somebody at
Independence Hall 20 miles away?
Mr. Jarvis. Because Independence and the National Mall are
treated nationally as sites for First Amendment. The parks are
closed because we don't have an appropriation. In the case of
Acadia----
Mr. Meehan. What's the appropriation needed? Are you aware
that this--that the jogging paths are entirely contiguous to
the public throughway that goes through, and the alternative is
for those joggers not to jog on the paved path next to the open
highway, which you have already identified the throughway; that
they run in the street where they have the opportunity to be
hit by cars?
Chairman Issa. Real quickly, a response.
Mr. Jarvis. I'm not aware of that detail.
Mr. Meehan. So the last thing, you're going to make these
people go to court over $100; is that accurate?
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Meehan. May he answer the question? Is it your position
that this was not a First Amendment right, and that they must
go to court to protect their First----
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired. And
what we--what you can do, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania
knows, there is always an opportunity for follow-up questions,
and I suspect that one needs to be answered in some way, and
the gentleman can follow up with that.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr.
Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. And I'd like to thank Chairman Hastings,
Ranking Member DeFazio, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings
for bringing us together, and also to the witnesses for showing
up today and giving us your input and your and your testimony.
This hearing looks at a very narrow impact of the shutdown,
but one that has directly impacted my district. I represent the
17th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, which has two
shuttered national parks right now, the Steamtown National
Historic Site and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
Area. During the month of October, these two parks combined to
attract an average of nearly 14,000 people a day, adding over
$400,000 to the local economy every single day.
These parks are also important sites to visit for my
constituents. Just the other day a young girl from my district
wrote me a letter begging me to open these parks to avoid
ruining her birthday celebration.
Everybody in this room knows that there is a simple
solution to the problem here. The solution doesn't lie with the
Park Service, which is following the law and doing its best
with a terrible situation Congress has created. The solution
has been and still is simply to pass the continuing resolution
crafted in the Senate, refund the government with no strings
attached, continue to work out our policy differences while we
have an open and functioning Federal Government.
I can honestly reply to this young girl who wrote to me
that I and my party are doing everything in our power to reopen
the national parks and our entire national government. I have
voted 16 times to bring up the Senate clean continuing
resolution opening the government with no strings attached.
I've gone on the floor and I've asked unanimous consent to
bring up this clean CR, we call it. I've cosigned letters and
discharge petitions to that effect.
All of this has fallen on deaf ears, with the majority
refusing even to allow a vote on a clean CR opening our
government with no strings attached.
As of tomorrow the government shutdown will be the second
longest in our Nation's history. And the impact of the shutdown
goes well beyond the topic of today's hearing. Soon Federal
funding for the WIC assistance program may not be sufficient to
cover all benefits. Thousands of poor children are going to
lose access to preschool programs. Low-wage Federal employees,
many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, continue to suffer
without salaries, and some 71,000 Federal employees in
Pennsylvania alone have either been furloughed or have suffered
a pay cut.
The lapse in Federal funding may also halt employment and
training programs for people who rely on SNAP benefits to eat.
The Housing Choice voucher program is running out of funds,
meaning thousands of my constituents are facing possible
eviction. Last year SBA approved over 1,000 loan applications
for small businesses in Pennsylvania every day. Now these loans
have completely stopped. For companies in my district, like
Trivec Contracting Company, which connects disabled veteran-
owned businesses, the shutdown has disallowed the purchase of
SBA bonds, making it difficult to hire new employees, and
jeopardizes the businesses' contracts themselves.
Now, of course, we've all heard about the threats to Social
Security, veterans benefits, Head Start, military pay, and a
myriad of other Federal programs that people rely on.
We have to reverse our course. We have to pass a clean CR,
reopen the government with no strings attached. We have to
reach a broader deal to undo the sequester and restore funding
to many programs, including the Park Service. These goals are
not out of reach. I urge the majority to act by passing a clean
CR and a clean debt ceiling bill.
The outrage displayed by the majority at this hearing is
unreasonable, given that they caused this mess. I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to act together for the
good of the country.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan Mr.
Benishek.
Mr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mayor Bryan, when we--earlier we heard Director Jarvis talk
about the through roads in the parks. I noticed you were, like,
shaking your head there as if the through roads were open. He
said that the through roads were going to be open. What was
your--what was your thoughts as that testimony was taking
place?
Mr. Bryan. Congressman, to the best of my knowledge that
during the closure, Highway 64, which is a through road from I-
40 through Tusayan, through the national park and to Cameron,
Highway 89, was closed all except for the first 2 days. And it
was reopened last Saturday when the park was--was fully
reopened, but during the rest of the time, it was closed.
Mr. Benishek. So what--do you know why that was done?
Apparently his--his letter is dated October 1st directing that
closure. The parks allow--directed that through roads remain
open.
Mr. Bryan. Congressman, my understanding was that the first
2 days, Superintendent Uberuaga did keep it open, but closed
all the parking spaces. So people parked in the roadways and
created, I agree, a safety hazard, because those parking areas
were closed. And then after looking at that, they did close the
road in its entirety.
We had offered Coconino County assistance. We offered to
assist in any way we can, and also identified that Highway 64
was crucial, was crucial to keep open to the--to the tourism
industry.
Mr. Benishek. Director Jarvis, do you have any response to
Mr. Bryan's comment there?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, we looked at every--the through road
policy that I issued as a part of the closure order was
specifically to routes that are specifically designed to go
through the park from, like, one town to the next. And the road
that the mayor is mentioning here is really a park road. It
travels along literally the rim of the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Benishek. But it's a through road. It's a through road,
though, along the----
Mr. Jarvis. Well, you come out on the other end, yes.
There--you absolutely can come out on the other end, but it is
not designed as a--what we consider a through road, which is
through----
Mr. Benishek. So it is a through road, but it's not a
through road in the sense that your--your statement to not
close through roads doesn't apply to it?
Mr. Jarvis. That's correct.
Mr. Benishek. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Let me just go on another little direction here. You know,
my district is in Michigan. We've got several national parks
and national park units that have been impacted by the
shutdown, and although they haven't--they're not as high
profile as the World War II Memorial or--or, frankly, the Grand
Canyon, you know, it's important to the people in our district,
you know, to keep those parks open. There's--there's businesses
that rely on those parks.
And I want to submit some photos for the record, Mr.
Chairman, that show that the park is actually accessible
through county roads that remain open. Although there's--you
know, there's--there's signs at the main entrance of the park
that says closed, that, you know, our county roads remain open,
and you can still access the beach and many of the recreation
areas of the park, because we have a system in the Sleeping
Bear Dunes Park that county roads shall remain open.
And this is something that Mr. Bishop brought up earlier,
and that is, whenever we cede authority to the Federal
Government of our lands without having local input or local
people being involved, we risk these arbitrary rules coming
forward that affect the people locally. So I know in the
Natural Resources Committee, we're working hard to try to be
sure that rules are developed with local input and--and State
and local government intervention. And unfortunately, I think
Ms. Eberly is gone here, apparently----
Voice. Ms. Eberly had to step out. She'll be right back.
Mr. Benishek. I just wanted to--so let me ask you, Mr.
Bryan, do you have a relationship with the park Superintendent
that is different than it is with the national park--you know,
the higher-level authorities? Do you have a good working
relationship with your--your guys there at the park?
Mr. Bryan. Congressman, I thoroughly enjoy our relationship
with the Park Superintendent, Dave Uberuaga. We firmly believe
that he was acting in a difficult situation and responding to
the directions that came from--from the administration, whether
it be Director Jarvis or Secretary Jewell or the President, but
we believe he was trying to do the best he could and had no
choice.
Mr. Benishek. It's my contention that that's the case in
many a situation. There was a local park superintendent, you
know, who was willing to work with the local governments to
make things work, but sometimes the guys in Washington, you
know, they have these directives that go down to make these
arbitrary, difficult rules. And I think that it's very, very
important that we consider national park rules that have local
input and not allow folks in Washington to determine how we use
our land in the States. And I think I'm out of time.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from South
Dakota Ms. Noem--Ms. Noem be allowed to participate in today's
hearing. And without objection, so ordered.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico Ms.
Lujan Grisham.
Mrs. Noem. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
appreciate the opportunity. I have some specific questions for
Director Jarvis in relation to our----
Mr. Hastings. Oh, yeah. We're going back and forth. The
gentlelady from New Mexico is recognized. I just--my unanimous
consent----
Mrs. Noem. I see.
Mr. Hastings. --was simply to allow you to sit. And since
you're not a member of either committee, unfortunately, you are
the last one, but that is--that's how that works.
The gentlelady from New Mexico is recognized.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thanks to the ranking members for--for putting this committee
hearing together. And, again, I share with my colleagues in
thanking the panelists. Difficult issues, very difficult
situation that we find ourselves in.
Mr. Jarvis, has the National Park Service received any
funding since September 30th?
Mr. Jarvis. No, they have not.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. So I'm going to see if I understand this
now. You manage over 400 national parks, 84 million acres of
land, and you currently have no money, resources to spend on
your responsibilities to preserve and maintain our national
treasures, responsibilities that Congress gave you through law.
How do you not have any money? Did you lose it or mismanage it?
Mr. Jarvis. There was a lapse in appropriations. The
employees that are currently working are working without pay.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. So you're here before the committee
today because Congress allowed there to be a government
shutdown, which causes you and your employees to be furloughed
and not be in a position to manage 84 million acres of land and
400 national parks; is that accurate?
Mr. Jarvis. We have no appropriations, that is correct, to
pay or operate the parks.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. So, Mr. Jarvis, these are mostly
rhetorical questions. I thank you for trying to make the best
out of a very bad situation that Congress has created. The
Federal Government employees responsible for closing our
national parks and shutting down the government are sitting
here behind the dais today. And I want to point out to you
that, in fact, there have been administrative penalties against
Federal employees who have not followed the letter of the law
of the Antideficiency Act, and I assure you that if you had
tried to do that and used discretion--and we understand these
are difficult issues. And I'm in my district suffering from the
same issue. New Mexico's known for tourism and visiting
national parks and State parks, and it's a--it's a disaster for
all of us and all of the businesses that we rely on to help
build our economy. It's a partnership. But I would tell you
before you would be before at least the Government Oversight
Committee if you decided to implement and have discretion that
you're not entitled to do under the law.
I think we should change the hearing title to ``I Know It's
Not Your Fault, But I'm Still Going to Blame You,'' should be
the title of the hearing today, and I--I think it's really--I
think it's shameful.
And New Mexico's got a 27 percent reliance on Federal
funds. Our private-sector partnerships are critical. We had a
very fragile economy. For a long period of time in my district,
we were the only district in the country with a negative job
growth. So just as we were seeing those incremental changes--
and, Mr. Mayor, your testimony was very compelling about it's
fragile, and to allow it to get to this point so that I'm not
in a position to both support my town and to run my business,
and neither is anybody else, because it's a partnership,
there's symbionic relationships that make a difference to
everyone, I think it's shameful that we are asking you to
explain your decisions when we have the power to stop all of
this nonsense, and we should do it immediately.
I want folks to know that we're about to furlough 9,000
employees in my district at Sandia National Labs; that I had a
meeting with Federal employees who are living paycheck to
paycheck. These couples are hired by the Federal Government.
They're not going to make their mortgages, they can't afford
their child care, they can't pay their credit card bills or
their car loans. I heard from a civilian air traffic controller
at Kirtland Air Force Base who's worried about the safety of
the airmen because he's not allowed to work. So the very men
and women who protect our country don't get the same
protections that I get as a private citizen by flying
commercially.
The faster Congress realizes that we are hurting millions
of people across the country, that every single day, by failing
to accomplish one of our fundamental responsibilities, the
faster this senseless shutdown ends, and we stop having
hearings about what discretionary decisions you can or cannot
make, but what kind of partnerships we have and what our
priorities are for the resources in this country.
And with that, Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Issa. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Lujan Grisham. I will.
Chairman Issa. I guess the question--and perhaps you
weren't here earlier. The questions that we had, the reason for
the title, and I take responsibility for the name of the title,
were people like Ms. Eberly, who, in fact, was--cost the--cost
the Park Service nothing, and ultimately Director Jarvis has
already said under testimony that he began after they closed
everything on October 1st--he began going through and
discovering organizations like hers that he could reopen.
So I hope the gentlelady appreciates that, yes, we are
looking at the part of failure, not the part of success, and
we're not looking at the shutdown, because this is--neither of
these committees are appropriation committees, we can't affect
it per se, but we are looking at whether or not there was a
plan to keep as much open as possible, or there was a failure
to plan, which I think is what, if you stayed for the whole
hearing, you will see a pattern of.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. May I respond, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hastings. Very briefly.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you so much.
I appreciate that, and recognize that we have an
obligation, particularly in a government oversight hearing, to
get at best practices. But to get at best practices in a crisis
management, in a situation that we created as voting Members of
this body, I disagree that this is the most useful time here
and believe that we could do a much better job by supporting
them to enhance these partnerships by having the resources to
do so. So with all due respect, I disagree.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to respond.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
First of all, I would preface the remarks here. I
appreciate my colleague from New Hampshire a little while ago
talking about the tone of what goes on around here. I am one of
the newer ones here in the Congress. And so her remorse at that
is something, I guess, that we should all share.
Because it seems every speech or nearly every speech on the
floor or in committee from the other side of the aisle is
talking about the Republican this or Republican that and the
Republican shutdown when at least an equal amount of the blame
could lie with the director of the Senate, the pro tem of the
Senate on the other side, or with the White House that has been
unwilling to talk to us until very recently.
So we are all duly elected. We have a majority in this
House, as sent here by our districts, to work through things
that we might disagree on. And so the partisan rhetoric just
doesn't help a whole lot with that. Indeed, we have issues of
budget deficits, we have huge national debt issues. And, yes,
there is disagreement on the Affordable Care Act, as it is
called, and its implementation as we see failing Web sites,
higher prices, people complaining all over the country, and
then being subject to fines if they choose not to sign up.
So, yes, we are going to have some differences of opinion
on some very giant issues, and we should be allowed to express
those differences and hash them out here in a process we have
in this Republic. Instead, it seems the other side wants to go
to a one-party system of input by shutting us out when things
get out of this House, like the measures we have sent in recent
weeks to fund the government in many different aspects, many of
those with approximately 30 Democrats supporting. Because they
have looked at the politics and they don't want to be against
opening the parks, so they have supported our measures. They
don't want to be against our veterans, they have supported our
measures.
And here, all the time, it is always the Republican
shutdown. There is plenty of blame to go around on this, but
there are certainly some big issues that we stand for that have
to be stood up for.
So going into what we are really here for today, Mr.
Jarvis, you know, we talk about, yes, the Park Service is a
very big and complex organization, like a lot of what our
government is and what some of us believe needs to be tamed.
I have in my district in northern California, near the
Whiskeytown Reservoir, which is a Federal project, along
Highway 299, there is a lake with a two-lane road. Now, you
were talking about a low-key approach during this slowdown. The
highway has numerous turnouts and lookout vistas to park for
both safety and scenery. During the shutdown, my office has
received numerous reports of Federal officers preventing people
from stopping at these turnouts, again, along a two-lane
highway. A truck with flashing lights would pull up behind them
and threaten them with a ticket if they do not keep moving.
So how can you justify people from stopping at a rest stop
or a turnout on a State highway? These things are there as much
for the safety or a place just to pull over as it is for the
scenery. How was hurting driver safety in the Federal interest,
and how is it a critical function, especially if you are trying
to assert a low-key approach? To me, a truck pulling somebody
over with flashing lights isn't very low-key; it can be quite
startling.
Mr. Jarvis. I have instructed our law enforcement rangers
throughout the system to take a low-key approach to this. And I
know in a number of cases they actually have, due to safety,
removed any barriers or cones from these pull-outs and parking
lots, but for safety purposes.
They are closed because the National Park Service has a
lapse in appropriations, and we can't do any maintenance, we
can't pick up trash, we can't protect the resources. So----
Mr. LaMalfa. You are not protecting anybody when you have a
pull-out area that would actually be a safety factor for
somebody maybe having a little car problem, maybe they just
want to pull over and use their phone or do something. Because,
you know, if you have been down 299, there are long stretches
where you can't pull over on a narrow, two-lane highway going
from the valley to the coast.
And so, yeah, if they happen to take a picture of
something, yet they run into cones and you got people pulling
up behind them with trucks threatening them, that really seems
to be over the top. I would think there should be maybe just a
little bit of embarrassment after a point with some of the
heavy-handed measures that have been coming out of this
department.
Anything?
Mr. Jarvis. Again, I tell you that I have told my officers
to take a low-key, soft approach to enforcement, recognizing
that the American public are--this is a painful impact----
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay.
Mr. Jarvis. --on them----
Mr. LaMalfa. All right.
Mr. Jarvis. --as well as it is to us.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Now, just the other day----
Mr. Jarvis. But I cannot direct----
Mr. LaMalfa. --there was a demonstration held by our
veterans out at the memorials here in town. And so, the day
after, immediately after, bright and early, the Monday morning,
which was a national holiday, there was staff out there re-
erecting those barriers, with wire, with tape, the whole works.
Were these furloughed folks? Were they getting overtime
since it was a national holiday?
Mr. Jarvis. Everybody that is working at this time is not
being paid. So there is no overtime----
Mr. LaMalfa. Were they being paid overtime because it was a
national holiday?
Mr. Jarvis. They are not getting paid overtime. They are
not getting paid at all.
Mr. LaMalfa. Will they be accruing overtime when this is
all settled?
Mr. Jarvis. They will not be accruing overtime.
Mr. LaMalfa. Pardon?
Mr. Jarvis. They will not be accruing overtime.
Mr. LaMalfa. On a national holiday.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be
allowed to make a procedural matter.
Mr. Hastings. The gentleman is recognized.
Chairman Issa. Director Jarvis, before you you have a
subpoena related to your noncompliance with the earlier
promise, in which you blamed the Department of Interior for
your noncompliance with what you said you would do and they
said they would do in a letter.
I would ask that you look at the board, recognize that that
is the ranking member's statement, refresh your memory, and
then please acknowledge receipt of the subpoena.
Mr. Jarvis. I acknowledge the receipt.
Chairman Issa. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hastings. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, all of us are here today because we truly care
about our national parks and our public lands. And I hope that
all of us here really are here also because we want to ensure
that these treasures are fully supported and receive the
budgets and the attention that they deserve.
You know, national parks have provided the country with an
abundance of benefits, from spiritual retreat to becoming vital
economic engines of rural America. For example, I am going to
give two small quotes that exemplifies this. One that says
that, ``Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play
in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body
and soul alike.'' That was John Muir in 1912. And then more
recently from the Governor of Utah, Governor Gary Herbert:
``Utah's national parks are a backbone of many rural economies,
and hardworking Utahans are paying a heavy price for this
shutdown.''
In order to put these numbers--or, to put numbers on these
sustainable economic benefits, let's talk about one park that
is in my district--not in any district, in my State, and that
is in Yosemite.
In 2011, there were over 3 million, actually almost 4
million recreational visits to Yosemite. And those visitors
spent a cumulative $379 million--money that was injected into
the local economy and supported local jobs. We know that
overall in 2011 over $30 billion was economic activity.
And so I am really glad to hear that national parks are
being recognized and applauded by many Members of Congress for
the truly renewable and sustainable benefits that they provide
Americans.
So when I saw the heading today about, ``As Difficult As
Possible,'' I imagined we would be talking about how do we look
to better support the national parks by stopping their budget
slide and working on essential maintenance backlogs. For me and
many of my constituents, ``As Difficult As Possible'' really
describes Congress' treatment of national parks and public
lands over the past 3 years.
Since the 112th Congress, National Park Service has been--
their budget has been cut by 13 percent. At the same time, the
NPS has not been able to handle almost $11.5 billion in park
maintenance backlog. And because of decreasing budgets, they
have been forced to cut seasonal employees, we have heard about
furloughing today, educational programs have been canceled,
they have limited environmental monitoring.
You know, I am just going to read, and then ask a question,
from a letter from over 300 businesses affected by these
irresponsible cuts over the last few years to the National Park
Service.
``Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress, we own,
operate, and support the restaurants, shops, equipment rentals,
motels, gas stations, and other small businesses that provide
services to national parks visitors. Our business and
livelihood and that of our employer and their families depends
on them keeping on the national parks open and in good
condition. Watching the political jockeying in Washington from
afar, frankly, we are worried about the impact to our business.
Simply put, even more cuts to national park budgets would be
pennywise and pound-foolish. Our families and our communities
and our national economy will suffer without much real fiscal
benefit to the Federal budget.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to place this
letter into the record.
Mr. Hastings. Without objection, it will be part of the
record.
Mr. Lowenthal. Okay.
So if we want to find out how we can productively spend our
time in investigating, the question that I have to you, first,
to Director Jarvis: Do you think I am right, Director Jarvis,
that in order to ensure public safety at our national parks and
manage the sites during the shutdown of the Federal Government,
that you have had to close sites--I think you have already
touched on this--you have had to close sites due to limited
staff? Is it not true that these closures are not site-specific
or aimed at any individual group?
Mr. Jarvis. They were not aimed at any individual or group.
They are not political. They are a part of our responsibility
to protect these places for future generations. They are a
consequence of the lapse of appropriations.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
And the next question is, we know the park services opposes
the piecemeal approach to opening national parks. Do you think
this piecemeal approach is appropriate for any other of our
agencies? Should the Department of Defense only open Army bases
but not Navy bases, for instance? Should FDA only inspect dairy
products but not meat products?
Mr. Jarvis. I believe that the entire Federal Government
should be funded. I believe that this piecemeal approach that
we have taken within the National Park System to open the parks
where the States have been able to enter into agreements leaves
a lot of parks closed.
Mr. Lowenthal. And, finally, have the cuts made under
sequestration limited budget flexibility within the Park
Service?
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely. They were across the board and at
every budgetary item, so they impacted every park in the
system.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
DeSantis.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Jarvis, Abraham Lincoln's home in Springfield,
that is under your jurisdiction, National Park Service?
That is a ``yes''? Verbalize.
Mr. Jarvis. I believe so, yes.
Mr. DeSantis. And do you know, is it just the home or--my
understanding is that the area around it would also be under
the jurisdiction. Do you know if that is the case?
Mr. Jarvis. I honestly do not know specifically in that
regard.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Because I saw some news reports where
there was a political congressional candidate that was holding
a news conference basically right in front of the home. And if,
in fact, that was an area that was under your jurisdiction that
was closed, would that have been an appropriate thing to have
done, to kind of stage a media event there for partisan,
political purposes?
Mr. Jarvis. I don't know anything about that incident or
case, and I would really--I would have to look into it.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, just as a general matter, if a park was
closed, would it be--and so an American citizen may not get in,
would there be some type of an exception where a political
candidate would be able to stage a media event if it was closed
to rest of the public?
Mr. Jarvis. The park is closed for all events.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay.
You had mentioned earlier, and I have been running around,
so I don't know if you elaborated, but the Antideficiency Act.
Can you just articulate for me why you think that act forced
you to erect the barricades at the World War II Memorial?
Mr. Jarvis. The Antideficiency Act, as applied to the
National Park Service, required us to reduce expenditures--of
course, we don't have any funding--limited only to life and
property, life and property.
Mr. DeSantis. For people who can do essentially voluntary
service. In other words, they are showing up to serve; they are
not getting paid right now because there is no appropriation.
So those are the only people you can put to work, who have that
nexus, correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is right. And so we literally went through
employee by employee and determined whether or not they were
excepted from the furlough. Anybody that was excepted had to
meet this standard of life and property. And so that is about
3,000 out of the entire 24,000.
Mr. DeSantis. And so that certainly is one part of the
Antideficiency Act. It is also the case that you are not able
to obligate the government for expenses that have not been
appropriated. Is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mr. DeSantis. So my question is, you know, I saw the photos
of people operating this big crane to bring all these
barricades out to the World War II Memorial. And a lot of my
constituents were like, well, that is going to cost more time
and effort to do that than if they had just left it as an open-
air memorial.
So how were you able to obligate the Park Service to incur
the expense of having a crane and having other people out there
erecting it if, in fact, you were operating according to the
Antideficiency Act?
Mr. Jarvis. The memorials are property. Now, they stand for
big ideas, but they are physical properties that I have the
responsibility to maintain and protect. We get hundreds of
thousands of visitors on the National Mall every day, every
week, and they have an impact.
There is this overlying assumption that I continually hear
in this committee that these places take care of themselves. As
a 40-year veteran of the National Park Service, these places
require maintenance and operation----
Mr. DeSantis. But the question is, where did you get the
authority--you are saying it prohibits you from doing things.
But it seemed to me that you had to dedicate more resources by
getting--so, for example, when you had the forklift bringing
out, did you have to rent that? Or how were you able to obtain
that?
Mr. DeSantis. We have equipment. I have no idea whether
that forklift was rented or one of our own. But in order to
execute the closure, we had to do work.
Mr. DeSantis. But wouldn't that matter, though? In other
words, you are saying that the Antideficiency Act means you
can't spend money that hasn't been obligated. So if you had to
go out and rent equipment, would that be consistent with that
or not? I am just trying to figure out how you are interpreting
this.
Mr. Jarvis. At a generic level, if I needed a piece of
equipment in order to ensure something is protected, a piece of
property or life, I would have the authority to do that.
Mr. DeSantis. So you are saying it gives you flexibility to
be able to----
Mr. Jarvis. For life and property.
Mr. DeSantis. --do essential functions. Okay. Very good.
Well, thank you for that.
I have no more questions. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Hastings. Would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. DeSantis. I will.
Mr. Hastings. I just want to make an observation, having
listened to the give-and-take, frankly, on both sides of the
aisle. But I particularly want to bring up something that Mr.
Wittman had an exchange with you, Director Jarvis. And his line
of questioning was along the line, were you planning, and why
was this different, something to that effect. And your
observation was--and I wrote it down right after you said
that--is you didn't think the shutdown would last this long.
Now, it just struck me. If that was your response, then
does not logic would suggest that if you are going to err, you
are not going to err on the most extreme position? Because the
most extreme position was to shut things down. If you didn't
think it was going to last this long, it would seem to me,
okay, let's phase in to the point where you have to follow the
law.
But it seemed to me--and this is certainly from my
perspective--it seems to me that you were--you, your actions,
were causing the most pain. If, in fact, you didn't think it
was going to last that long, it would just seem to me that it
should have gone the other way.
So I just wanted to make that point in connection with what
you and Mr. Wittman had in that exchange.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, first of all, I want to thank all the witnesses for
being here this morning and staying as long as you have and
being so patient.
And, Director Jarvis, I think your patience probably takes
the prize here today on that. I thank you for your service, and
Mr. Galvin before you. The agency has always done wonderful
things with the Park Service up in my area of Massachusetts on
that.
It must be fairly obvious now, I would think, to most
people watching that this hearing is a distraction. And,
unfortunately, Director Jarvis, you are the target of it, to
distract from the fact that there are people here that have
responsibility. They might like to share it and say that all of
Congress as a monolithic and everybody is to blame. But there
aren't two wrongs and there aren't two rights; there is one
wrong and one right here. And I think they are hoping that
people haven't taken their Civics 101 class, that they are not
going to be able to make that distinction.
Earlier, you were questioned, Director Jarvis, pretty
predominantly by somebody who said it is the people's land--
tell me whether you think it is the people's land or your land,
and you obviously rightly said it was the people's land and you
are entrusted with its care.
Well, this is the people's government, and the United
States Congress is entrusted with having it operate for the
benefit of the people. And with our system in the House of
Representatives, when there is a majority, the majority is
entrusted with making governance work and with making sure that
it goes forward. And that has been dramatically not the case
here.
But there has been plenty of drama--drama down at the
barricades to distract from the fact that the majority hasn't
let this government work, the barricades, claiming that World
War II veterans couldn't get in to see the memorials, when
that, in fact, is not the case and they are going in and seeing
it.
The real challenge here for the majority is to make this
system work. And they can do something of significance right
now if they want to. If they want to open up the government,
not just the Park Service but all of the services that
government provides, they can just have a simple vote to have a
continuing resolution to allow spending at the low level the
majority wanted for a period of time until all the budget
issues between the House and the Senate are resolved. That will
bring this matter to a close.
In fact, there is a procedural aspect to it. There is what
we call a discharge petition on the floor right now that all
the Democrats have signed, so we only need, what, 17 to 24
Republicans to go down and sign it. That would be a significant
act they could take, instead of going down and having all the
drama down at one of the sites or having this hearing on that
basis.
If they did that, then certainly veterans that are
homeless, veterans that are students, veterans that are seeking
jobs, veterans that have disability claims, all of them would
get the services that they need and be assured that that was
going to happen. But we don't see we see that. We see a lot of
hyperventilation about whether or not the park services were
handled in a shutdown exactly the way that others might have
wanted to be done.
I don't know, Director Jarvis, maybe, you know, you took
some actions that were correct, some not. But I don't question
your motives or the fact you tried to do the right thing by the
law. And in hindsight maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't do
something differently on that.
But the history lesson here is to tell people that there is
a right or wrong. This is a situation where Congress needs a
blueprint of how it is going to spend its money; they need a
budget. The Senate passed a budget, the House passed a budget,
there were differences. People that took Civics 101 know that
generally there is a conference committee that irons out those
differences before the next spending year begins. Despite
repeated requests for the majority in the House to go to those
conferences and work out matters, they wouldn't do it. So when
the fiscal year ended before we started the next one, they
didn't have a budget.
Now, the normal course of business is for people to take
and agree to some amount of money or some level of spending for
a period of time until the Senate and the House can work out
those differences. That is the dispute here, what level of
money will be spent over what period of time while those
differences are worked out.
All of the Democrats said they would take the low number
that the majority in the House, the Republicans, put forward.
The Senate said it would take that number. And the answer they
got back was, no, they wouldn't let it happen now unless
certain laws that they didn't like were nullified, laws that
have been passed, laws which elections had been run where it
was the focus of it, laws that the constitutionality have been
found by the Supreme Court.
And that is the failure here, the failure of the majority
to govern, to keep this government open and to make sure it
works for the people.
And it is not Congress. There are a lot of people here in
Congress working real hard who understand that we have some
differences on what the costs are and how much to spend, but
they understand the importance of the functions that government
provides. So hopefully we are going to get back to that.
Hopefully today there will be a vote and we will reopen it,
we will get back to negotiations, and we can talk about whether
or not Salem Visitor Center will be open, where there are
250,000 people coming this month alone to visit it and $25
million in revenues. And the mayor there, Mayor Bryan, would
have me make sure that I said that is important.
Or whether a young woman from my district whose daughter
had a brain cancer situation where it was 4 hours once a week--
once a month, rather, she has treatments on that, whether or
not there will be money in the budget to make sure those
treatments continue.
Whether or not the universities and industries will have
the financing they need to conduct the cutting-edge research to
make sure that we have the energy technologies, the advanced
manufacturing, the biotechnology, all of those things that are
needed to keep us on the edge as world leaders and create jobs.
Whether or not the trillions of dollars' worth of
transportation infrastructure, bridges and roads, that need to
be addressed will be done.
You know, all of these things are what we ought to be
doing. That is what leadership is. That is what being in the
majority means. And from 2007 to 2010, when there was a
Democratic majority, it was the most productive Congress since
1964. Being in the majority matters. We ought to see some----
Chairman Issa. Yeah, that is where you ran the table on the
one-sided basis and passed Obamacare.
Mr. Hastings. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is for the director. I come from southeast
Missouri. We have the Ozark National Scenic Riverways--very
important, in the heart of my district, very important to
myself. Unfortunately, on October 1st the rivers were closed,
and people were able to float as long as they never touched the
gravel bars. It was illegal to touch the gravel bars because
that was Federal land, and that was, I guess, the decision that
you made.
I am glad that the administration has decided to open up
some of the national parks by local State governments funding
it. Unfortunately, they are funding it. But where I have a
problem with is, how did you pick and choose which ones were
acceptable?
I have a letter right here from the Missouri Department of
Conservation where we asked 9 days ago to allow them to open
the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, the Current, the Jacks
Fork River. Yet we have not received a response from your
department, and I want to know why we have not received a
response.
Mr. Jarvis. Well, there are a couple reasons.
One is, when I normally have a large staff, there are nine
employees in my office. And there is a stack of unresponded
correspondence.
Now, we are working with the Governor of Missouri. And I
understand there is interest in using one of our agreements to
open Ozark as well as the Arch, and we are wide open to doing
that.
What that letter, if I remember--which I believe I have
seen, but I am not positive, but I think I have seen--did not
suggest paying the National Park Service to open the Ozark.
What it suggested is that the Department would open it for us.
And the standard we have set throughout the National Park
System is that these are national assets to be managed by the
National Park Service. And so we have rejected offers from a
variety of institutions and organizations to open portions of
parks with their own people. And we do not feel that is
appropriate. These are--Congress has charged the National Park
Service with managing these assets, these places. And we
believe that we have set up an agreement that can work with the
State of Missouri.
Mr. Smith. You know, Director, that concerns me, those
statements, because in 1964 these were State parks, and it
became the first Ozark National Scenic Riverway, the first
national scenic riverway. The reason why it was sold in 1964 to
make this a national park is so that this land would be
protected and preserved and open to the public.
And that is exactly the opposite of what you all have done
in the last 16 days. You have basically barricaded the parks.
You have barricaded the businesses, the concessionaires that
rely on canoeing and floating along that river. Because of your
actions, they have closed down.
And, you know, speaking of something else, back in August
we had an issue on this same river where the National Park
Service had a regulation, a proposal that came out of there,
that there had to be a special-use permit for our local
churches to be baptized in the Current and Jacks Fork River.
They did not have to have special-use permits to get drunk on
the river or do any other activity, but to get baptized they
had to have a special-use permit.
I mean, those kind of regulations that you all are forcing
on the people in my district are unacceptable. We do not
appreciate it. And I am glad that the local park superintendant
did rescind that rule, but the fact that rule was ever in place
is unacceptable.
And I urge every one of my colleagues to monitor and watch
these crazy regulations that come from every department,
whether it is the National Park Service or whether it is the
IRS. They are all unacceptable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Could I--would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Smith. I do.
Chairman Issa. [Presiding.] I just want to understand
something, Director. In preparation for this shutdown, you had
a full staff; is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Chairman Issa. And in preparation for this shutdown, you
could have, in fact, worked with all of these stakeholders,
including sent them the guidelines so that, if the gentleman
from Missouri is correct and you are correct, they would have
known what the rules are.
If you didn't do that beforehand, have you done it since
the shutdown? Have you told various States what they would have
to do in order to pass your-self determined litmus test?
Because there is no statute that says we have to rehire your
people. There is simply a decision you have made.
Have you communicated that to all the States so that they
would know when they ask, as Mr. Smith did?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes. We have not called every Governor, but we
have sent out a press release to allow the public to know and
the Governors to know. I know the Secretary----
Chairman Issa. Okay. So you have communicated with the
States in which this--sovereign States in which the national
parks have located through a press release after the fact. I am
deeply disappointed.
The gentlelady from New York is recognized.
Mrs. Maloney. I would venture to say that our parks
departments should be open, serving the public, not preparing
memos about a shutdown. A shutdown is a self-imposed injury, a
self-manufactured crisis that we should not have to suffer
through. We should put a clean budget on the floor and open up
the government instead of hearing, as we have all day, stories
about the suffering of individuals and communities and
businesses during the 16-day shutdown of the Federal
Government.
Again, this is a self-imposed injury. We can correct it
immediately by going down to the floor in 10 minutes, putting a
clean CR on the floor, and voting for it.
Yet I am really shocked to hear so many of my colleagues
testify today how disturbed and shocked they are at the
consequences of a government shutdown, of the problems that
closing our national parks are causing across this country.
They need only to look at the 1995 closing of the government to
see the reports on what happened. And, again, that was a
Republican-led closing of the government.
Back then, the Interior Department estimated that for each
day that our parks were closed, localities lost roughly $14
million in tourism business. I know from my own district in New
York City that the closing of one of our most important
monuments, the symbol of democracy and freedom, Liberty Park,
the Statue of Liberty, not only is a huge blow to our economy
of the city but to the morale of our city, so much of a blow
that our Governor, Governor Cuomo, has taken the unprecedented
step of using State dollars to open up our national monument so
that business can continue as usual.
Now, the economic numbers coming from the National Park
Service for 2011 shows that this is a very wise decision,
because roughly 4 million people a year visit Liberty Park and
our Statue of Liberty, generating well over $170 million in
economic activity. So not only is it disruptive to our veterans
and to our citizens, it is clear that our parks are an
important economic resource for local communities. And we are
now still in a very fragile economy.
So I would venture to say that the direction of this
conversation today should have been on getting a clean vote on
a clean budget so that we can open up our parks, open up our
agencies, and so that businesses and individuals will not
continue to suffer.
Now, I am really concerned, Mr. Chairman, if this Congress
does not act later today to raise the debt ceiling, the
consequences and long-term damage to the economy and prestige
of our country would be dire. Recently, the Joint Economic
Committee released a report entitled ``Economic Cost of Debt
Ceiling Brinkmanship.'' And in it they compared what happened
in 2011, the consequences of this brinkmanship. The stock
market fell, all the markets fell, consumer confidence dropped,
the United States credit rating was downgraded.
And we know from press reports today that Fitch is
considering downgrading our credit rating today on the basis
that we cannot govern, that we cannot even open up our
government.
And at our hearings in this Joint Economic Committee,
Chairman Bernanke and other economists testified that the
failure to raise the debt limit would have very serious
consequences for the financial markets and for the overall
economy for a long time to come. Moody's testified that for
every 3 weeks, the gross domestic product of our economy, our
overall economy, would be reduced by 1.4 percentage points.
And we are--pick up the papers, and major allies of ours
are calling that the dollar shall no longer be used as reserve
currency. That would be a major blow to the strength and
economic prosperity of our country.
So the government shutdown and the threat to the U.S.
economy has happened because some have decided that that is
what they want to do, and they are holding the entire economy
and the entire government hostage.
So, back to the topic----
Chairman Issa. The gentlelady's time has expired. I am
always willing to give you a pending question, but there wasn't
a pending question.
We now go to the gentlelady----
Mrs. Maloney. I have one.
Chairman Issa. --from California, Ms. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Director Jarvis, please, to yourself, thank you for
the work you do on behalf of the American citizens. And I do
associate myself with the remarks of Members of Congress on
this side of the aisle, Mr. Huffman and especially Mr.
Cartwright.
The National Park Service is responsible for the protection
of water supply. That is one of my areas because I am on for 15
years the Subcommittee on Water and Power of Natural Resources.
And that is really critical, key for me, the feeding of the
Federal dams on the Colorado River and other areas, other
aspects of it, especially Glen Canyon and Hoover. And you have
previously found and have been addressing the expansion of
invasive species that directly impact the hydropower resource
and the water diversions.
With the shutdown, we are losing the ability to monitor and
protect our Federal energy and water resources, which is, of
course, costing us nationwide millions of dollars to clean up
the intake valves and some of the pumping areas. Is this
covered under the property emergency response area?
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you for bringing this up.
One of our concerns and reasons that we gated and closed
Glen Canyon and Lake Mead National Recreation Areas is because
we have an obligation for boat inspections, recreational boats
that, particularly in Lake Mead, can be contaminated with
quagga mussel. And we have wash stations and inspection
stations both for the private boater as well as the
concessioner. All of those employees are furloughed, and all of
that is shut down.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, would you also include that several
other water entities have been found to be infected by the
quagga mussel?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, ma'am. There are concerns about the quagga
spreading to other water bodies throughout the West.
Mrs. Napolitano. And they are very hard to control?
Mr. Jarvis. Once they get in, it is almost impossible to
get them out.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. But that does in any way or
form--can it be treated as property that has to be protected?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, the way we are treating it under the
closure act is to prevent boats from leaving or entering Lake
Mead or Glen Canyon during the shutdown.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
One of the other areas that hasn't been covered, as far as
I can tell, since I have been in the hearing today is, you
already have an $11 billion backlog in maintenance and repair.
What will be the cost of trying to catch up, based on the
sequester?
Mr. Jarvis. We need about $750 million a year in our
maintenance and operation budget in order to even break even,
to maintain what we have. We would need more than that in order
to catch up.
Mrs. Napolitano. Does that include vandalism or normal
cleanup or both?
Mr. Jarvis. It is all of the above. It is impact from just
deterioration of old facilities and roads as well as some
vandalism.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
And I heard you mention, or some of the testimony, that you
are not able to receive private funding to be able to keep--you
have to have special MOAs, right?
Mr. Jarvis. We can receive private funding, but through
agreements.
Mrs. Napolitano. But they have to be pre-established?
Mr. Jarvis. No. There is private funding flowing through
some of the States to the National Park Service to reopen some
of the----
Mrs. Napolitano. But not all of them are party to this, are
they?
Mr. Jarvis. All of?
Mrs. Napolitano. The States.
Mr. Jarvis. So far, we have only got about six States that
have signed agreements.
Mrs. Napolitano. Correct. So that means, are you preparing,
then, to be able to bring the other States on line should
something--and, as you have heard, there may be other
sequesters in the future--to be able to be prepared to protect
those lands?
Mr. Jarvis. We have now a template that works quite
efficiently. And we are in negotiations with--we signed
Tennessee today. We have Missouri, Virginia, Maryland. A number
of the other States that are all in discussions with us about
entering into these agreements.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield to Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Just on a point that was made earlier about the Governor of
California hasn't chosen to use scant State funds to reopen
Yosemite made by some California Members. Remember, there is no
guarantee that any of this money will be paid back. None. Zero.
In fact, I would say, under the Republican rules, paying
back an individual State would constitute an earmark, which
means that you would have to waive the rules of the House to do
it. Or you would try and pass a bill to extract it out of the
Park Service budget, which is already inadequate, as we have
heard earlier.
So, you know, I can understand why Governors are being
cautious.
I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
I might note that tradition would say that you are wrong.
They will, in fact, all be repaid.
With that, we go to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DeFazio. Could the--just for--would you yield for a
second?
Chairman Issa. Of course.
Mr. DeFazio. But that was before you adopted this
extraordinary earmark rule, which is very, very problematic.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jarvis, thank you for your service. And I know how hard
it is.
I want to bring up a very specific point that I know your
folks are working on in particular. I want to commend Dan
Kimball, who is the director of Everglades National Park. He
has been working with our local folks to try to reopen the
park. We have about 250 guides. They require very little from
the park itself. They pay a license every year to work out in
the park. And it not only has an impact on them and their
families but has an impact on the hotels and the restaurants in
the area.
And so I would ask, with your very limited staff--and I
know that this is not your fault, but the inability of the
other side to provide any real leadership here. But what I--I
commend you for your leadership, and I commend Dan Kimball and
his service. But I would ask you, as you look at opening up,
this is one of those areas where I think it will not cost you
as much as opening it up and getting it done. These folks
require very little of you. And they do a great service to
Monroe County and the Florida Keys.
I want to ask you, Mr. Jarvis, what do you think the cost
has been thus far to the Park Service? And I know you have
answered this question in a few different ways, but if you will
indulge me and just tell us what you think the cost has been
thus far.
Mr. Jarvis. I really don't have a figure. You mean cost in
terms of how much we theoretically have expended during the
closure period?
Mr. Garcia. How much you have expended, how much you failed
to collect.
Mr. Jarvis. Oh, okay. Yeah, we--in terms of failure to
collect, we are losing about $450,000 per day of income. That
would be nonappropriated dollars--fees from camping, from
entrance fees, and the like, franchise fees, all of that. So we
are losing about $450,000 per day.
Mr. Garcia. Very good.
Ms. Simon, I sort of--I know you have given some estimates
here. I would love to hear you sort of recap it for me. As a
freshman, it takes a long time for the gavel to get to me. So I
would like to ask you what this has cost our country and, in
particular, your industry.
Ms. Simon. Certainly. Thank you for the question.
In the first week of the shutdown, our tour operators
reported $114 million in losses just for the first week. We
know that, obviously, in the last 16 days, that has drastically
increased, and we project long-term impacts based on future
business that has already canceled or postponed. We know that
that does not include the estimated financial losses from the
cities and destinations and suppliers that belong to our
association, as well.
And then we also believe that the long-term impact will
have an effect on international visitation to the United
States. The national parks are a huge draw for international
markets, and we believe that it is going to be difficult for
international visitors to kind of regain the confidence of
coming back to the United States. They don't understand it.
That is what we are hearing from our tour operators, is they
are having to try to explain to their international visitors
why the parks are closed and why they can't see----
Mr. Garcia. Ms. Simon, if I could just--if you could
indulge me, could you tell me what exactly you tell your
international visitors or what you would counsel your
association members to tell those international visitors that
don't understand?
Ms. Simon. That is a very good question. We have not been
in a position of counseling them to tell them anything. But
what they have done is to try to find alternative activities,
which includes some of the very nice State parks that we have
throughout the country as well.
Mr. Garcia. Very good.
Again, thank you all for being here. And to a limited
degree, some of you have been sort of blamed somehow in your
vast government conspiracy to shut down parks. I want thank you
for your service, your service to our country, your service in
trying to preserve America's great treasures. And, of course,
with a little bit of luck, by this afternoon we will have
figured our way through this. But thank you very much.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman yields back.
And I thank the gentlelady from South Dakota for her
patience and yield 5 minutes.
Mrs. Noem. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here and my colleagues' allowing me to ask a
few questions here today.
Director Jarvis, I wanted to ask a clarification on an
answer you gave to a previous question. When they were
discussing the monuments on the mall, you talked about
barricading them off because of protection of property, that
that was the purpose for barricading them. Is that correct?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Mrs. Noem. I had assumed it was for protection of
individuals that may go onto that property or for liability
reasons. But your number-one objective was really to protect
the property that was there.
Mr. Jarvis. It is my responsibility to protect the
monuments and memorials.
Mrs. Noem. Okay. Well, thank you for that.
As you know, I am from South Dakota. We have Mount Rushmore
in our State. Obviously, it is a mountain that has been carved.
It is viewable by a State highway that goes up the mountain and
around the mountain. You can also go into the national park and
view it from there, up close and personal, and enjoy that
opportunity to do so, which millions of people do.
Mr. Jarvis, have you visited Mount Rushmore before?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, I have.
Mrs. Noem. It is beautiful, isn't it?
Mr. Jarvis. It is.
Mrs. Noem. It is.
Mr. Jarvis. Extraordinary.
Mrs. Noem. We had one family that drove all the way to
South Dakota, drove a thousand miles, got to South Dakota, and
found that they could not access Mount Rushmore or even drive
on the State highway and view it because it had been blocked
off by park officials. Were you aware of that?
Mr. Jarvis. I was aware the park was closed. I was unaware
of the specifics at the local site.
Mrs. Noem. Do you know who made the decision to block that
State highway and access to areas where they could view the
monument, not even necessarily get into the viewing area, the
actual park, but didn't even allow them to get to a part of the
mountain where they could view it from afar? Do you know who
made that decision?
Mr. Jarvis. Those kind of decisions were made at the local
level about where to close, which roads to close.
Mrs. Noem. That family that drove that far found themselves
not being able to view Mount Rushmore, and then we got hit with
a blizzard, a blizzard that hit South Dakota. Four to 5 feet of
snow landed in the Black Hills. They spent the next 3 days in a
ditch somewhere in their camper, which was a very unfortunate
trip, not the way that we like to have people visit South
Dakota. It was a tragic situation that happened.
And not only that, those cones that were along the road, I
am not necessarily sure what happened to them during that
blizzard situation, but the day after, when everybody was
digging out--we had many, many buildings that had caved in.
Tens of thousands of livestock had been killed by this. It is
the worst disaster we have seen in western South Dakota in
anybody's lifetime. The economic impact from that is going to
be huge. Trees were down, streams were plugged, towns were
flooding. And the very next day, the park officials were out
there putting those cones back along that highway in 4 to 5
feet of snow.
And I would like to know if you really think that should
have been their priority that morning.
Mr. Jarvis. I was not involved at the local level. I could
not and I don't set local priorities like that.
Mrs. Noem. Well, it got the people around that area pretty
steamed up. Because they were extremely upset that here they
had lost their businesses, they had lost their livestock, they
couldn't access their homes, they were trying to dig out and
protect people, and that the Park Service was mainly concerned
with going out and placing cones that didn't allow them to even
view what they see as partly their monument, as well, from
afar. It was very disturbing to them.
From that point, do you believe it was appropriate to take
that type of action at that point in time?
Mr. Jarvis. I can't comment on local issues like that. I
have no knowledge of which pull-outs, which roads, or any of
that. I just don't have that kind of local information.
Mrs. Noem. I know that very soon after October 1st the
State made the request to the Park Service to run the monument
themselves and to incur that cost themselves, and they were
told that that was not going to be allowed at that point in
time. Since then, the State of South Dakota has again
requested, and that agreement has been made. So it is open and
operating today.
What is interesting is the way that South Dakota approached
it, is that our Governor called up businesses and asked them if
they would sponsor a day at Mount Rushmore. It made me so
proud. Businesses lined up to fund Mount Rushmore for a day
because they recognized it was such a treasure and so special
to our State that they would do that.
So it is not taking taxpayer dollars, it is separate
organizations that are funding it for the day, which was a
wonderful way to get through this type of a situation that has
been so hard for many.
I wish we could have done it from the very beginning,
because many families were turned away at the gate. When they
pulled over to take pictures, or tried to, it created more of a
liability issue because they were parked in the middle of the
highway because they couldn't get in the pull-offs.
Now, I understand that the pull-offs are gravel, dirt,
stones. I don't know what property we are trying to protect by
putting cones blocking people from pulling over. Do you know
what kind of property we are trying to protect?
Mr. Jarvis. Again I can't speak to local pull-off
information. I am sorry. I just don't have that sort of
knowledge.
Mrs. Noem. Well, they have since been removed because
someone decided that it was going to be very important that
someone not get killed on that mountain and be able to pull
their vehicle over if they were going to and get off onto those
pull-offs. So those cones are gone now because of the safety of
the individuals that are there.
But I will tell you, I don't believe that people's safety
has been a priority in this situation. I don't believe it was
really property that was trying to be protected, because,
frankly, there was no property that was going to be damaged by
those pull-offs. I believe it was punitive. I am upset about
it. I am thankful for the way that South Dakotans approach
things. They do it the right way.
And this whole situation has shown me that our park
officials need to be very, very clear on what their role is and
what their priorities are. And that should be making sure that
Americans get the opportunity to view their treasures that are
in their national parks, not punish individuals because of
situations that are beyond their control.
I thank you for your time.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady.
Director Jarvis, you answered that you didn't know, but you
did negotiate the Utah deal, didn't you? And doesn't it have
similar provisions for roads and off-ramps, areas similar to
what the gentlelady is describing?
Mr. Jarvis. We did negotiate a South Dakota one, as well,
and so Mount Rushmore is back open. All pull-outs, all roads,
everything is completely open.
The original letter that we got from the Governor only
wanted to open the entrance road and the parking area, not the
entire park. And so we did--then the very, very tragic
snowstorm. And then we entered into the agreement with South
Dakota, and so Mount Rushmore is open, fully operational.
Chairman Issa. Okay.
Does the gentlelady from New Mexico have any further--I
know. Do you have any--we have finished the first round. You
are done?
Does the gentleman have any further questions, the
gentleman from Washington?
Mr. Hastings. I just wanted to say that I am very glad we
had this hearing. It was probably predictable that both sides
would say what they said. I mean, after all, we are in a
government shutdown, and that is the price of self-government.
Sometimes you have to make difficult decisions.
But what we were trying to ascertain here--and, obviously,
there is going to be some follow-up--is why it appears, why did
it appear that the actions were punitive. Now, that is the
optics, whether we like it or not, how--any way you can avoid
it, that is the optics. And so that has to be avoided.
Now, I recognize, Director Jarvis, that you don't have a
say in every one of the 401 national parks. I recognize that.
And I recognize that the decisions that were made, like the
exchange that--I forget--you had with one of the Members here
on our side regarding Mount Vernon, that you weren't involved
in that decision. I appreciate that.
But, nevertheless, there is a train and a thread that needs
to be looked at. Harry Truman probably said it best: ``The buck
stops here.'' Well, policies come from the top.
And, again, going back to the exchange that you and Mr.
Wittman had, if you didn't think this was going to be a long
shutdown, why were such extreme measures taken the first day?
If you thought it was going to be a longer shutdown, then the
deficiency act all the things that you cited would take place
later on, not from the first day.
And that is where the optics comes in. That is where the
optics comes in. And that is why, from me, because I have been
very public on this, that I have said it seems to me that there
is a conscious effort, whether it came from you--you said you
make the decisions. That is fine. If it was higher up and
implications from higher up, nevertheless the optics are that
this government now is exercising something it hasn't done
before to make a political point. I think that is dangerous in
the long run with our country. I really do.
And so, with that, I appreciate working with the gentleman
from California, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, and I
will yield back to him.
Chairman Issa. I thank my friend, member of my committee,
and fellow chairman. So it is the best of all combinations here
today.
I am going to be as brief as I can, Director Jarvis. You
know, the mayor, Ms. Eberly, and a host of other people who
operate concessions, small towns, and so on, have asked
specific questions that you haven't answered, and they weren't
answered here today. So I hope that you will address as quickly
as possible their answers and their concerns. But let me go
through a couple of quick questions I need to get for the
record.
First of all, to the best of your knowledge, when did you
begin the process of procuring the barricades that were used on
day one? More than a day? Of course. More than a week? Of
course. Was it more than a month?
Mr. Jarvis. The National Capital Region National Mall
Memorials retains an inventory of what we call ``bike rack.''
We use them all the time----
Chairman Issa. Okay, so it is your testimony that there
were no rentals or purchases of cones, barricades, or other
items in preparation for the closing of the facility.
Mr. Jarvis. Not to my knowledge.
Chairman Issa. Okay.
Mr. Jarvis. But I will check on that and get back to you.
Chairman Issa. I appreciate that.
The second one is probably most pertinent to my particular
committee. Mayor Gray and the District of Columbia have been
seriously impacted by the closing without any public
statements. Your signs never said, ``This is closed except for
First Amendment.'' Your police never said, ``This is closed
except for First Amendment.''
As a matter of fact, from a public safety standpoint, even
the Vietnam Memorial got opened on one side, either by
individuals or your employees, and the other side was never
opened, so people had to walk around it on the grass and so on.
Your police drove on sidewalks with pedestrians walking on them
because you barricaded the roads. Your mounted police horses do
what horses do, and you are not cleaning it up. So you are
creating, your employees, by choosing to have horses on the
mall, are, in fact, creating a sanitation issue. Your park was
very aware that garbage cans were continuing to fill because
people were there, and they did not empty them. The mayor asked
and has been trying to get specific authority to empty those on
behalf.
Why is it that you never considered--and, please, please
don't tell me you are not familiar with the malls and the
monuments here in Washington--why is it you never considered a
deal with the District of Columbia similar to the ones you are
now doing with the States? Why is it the District of Columbia
was never given a direct opportunity before or during this
shutdown to do something similar to Mount Rushmore and the
other areas?
Mr. Jarvis. Actually, the District of Columbia has. I spent
over an hour on the phone with Vincent Gray, the mayor of the
District----
Chairman Issa. When?
Mr. Jarvis. --offering him the opportunity----
Chairman Issa. When?
Mr. Jarvis. Yesterday.
Chairman Issa. Oh, yesterday. Okay. I just want to make
sure that we are talking 2 weeks into the shutdown.
Okay. Please.
Mr. Jarvis. Mayor Gray--the way we have stood this up is
Governors are contacting us. Just like if Mayor Gray had wanted
to do this, we would have entered into an agreement with him,
as well. We just did it for Ford's Theatre yesterday.
Chairman Issa. Okay. So let me make sure I get your
testimony straight here. Your obligation, according to what you
told Congresswoman Noem, your obligation was to protect
property, correct?
Mr. Jarvis. And life.
Chairman Issa. And life. So cars driving on sidewalks with
pedestrians, well, we will leave that one aside.
You are supposed to maintain property. You are allowed to
maintain as many individual employees as are necessary to
accomplish that. That is the definition of essential personnel,
isn't it?
Mr. Jarvis. That is correct.
Chairman Issa. So you could have maintained 3, 5, 10, 20
people for the purpose of, if you will, offloading
responsibility and better maintaining the safety and security
of these monuments and parks around the country at expense
other than the Federal Government. In other words, you could
have had 10 people there who were, in fact, lowering your cost
and increasing the maintenance and protection in addition to,
by the way, the commerce that these individuals are interested
in, you could have done that. And it was your decision to
essentially furlough people and then say, ``I can't
negotiate,'' furlough people who didn't negotiate in advance,
furlough people who didn't plan, and then talk to the mayor and
tell him about an opportunity 14 days into the shutdown.
That is a long question. But aren't those discretions that
you made?
Mr. Jarvis. The decisions I made in terms of the closure
are guided by our attorneys. Our attorneys interpret the law.
And----
Chairman Issa. Good. And then I hereby ask that you deliver
to us the legal opinions you had prior to October 1st as to
each and every one of the decisions made before, and then I
would like the legal opinions that allowed you to make the
changes between October 1st and, obviously, the end of the
shutdown.
Do I need a subpoena, or will you be able to turn those
over in a timely fashion?
Mr. Jarvis. I will have to talk to the attorneys on that.
Mr. Jarvis. I will have to talk to the attorneys on that.
They have--they have control over what is released. I think as
you, as committee chairman, can request it, and I will take it
to the attorneys, but I tell you that I sought their advice in
each of these cases.
Chairman Issa. Did you get it in writing?
Mr. Jarvis. In some cases, yes; some cases, no.
Chairman Issa. Okay, then what did you receive orally?
Because the writing we will get in discovery. What were the
oral opinions, for example, affecting Ms. Eberly's
organization? Did you receive an oral opinion relating to her
before, during, or after October 1st.
Mr. Jarvis. We discussed the Claude Moore Farm in detail
with our attorneys. The facts are that we do spend money there,
and we have spent money there, $1.3 million since 2001 of
Federal appropriated dollars. We provide trash, and sewer, and
road maintenance, so our attorneys looked at this information,
and determined that within the window of what we expected the
shutdown to be, there would be no violation of the Anti-
Deficiency Act. Therefore, we could allow it to open. That's
the way we have been----
Chairman Issa. Okay, so you got an opinion after you shut
her down without an opinion?
Mr. Jarvis. All due respect, sir,----
Chairman Issa. I'm just trying to paraphrase what you told
me.
Mr. Jarvis. I want to respond to something. You keep saying
that it is my responsibility to have planned in extraordinary
detail for a closure. What I do when we are not closed is I
open parks and operate parks. That's what my staff is doing;
not planning for a closure.
Chairman Issa. I appreciate that, Director, but you know,
you and I lived through sequestration, and I watched and found
evidence of a punitive direction toward a small shutdown and
finding ways to make it hurt the public.
Ms. Eberly, you had a pressing answer to my question.
Ms. Eberly. Thank you.
Mr. Jarvis mentioned several things that the Park Service
does for us, which are actually incorrect. We don't have a
sewer line, so you can't possibly maintain it. We have one
Porta Potty for 40 years for children who visit the farm and
touch the animals, and then have no place to wash their hands
before they eat lunch. We volunteered some time ago to take
over the trash collection at the farm because the Park Service
doesn't recycle. And what was the other thing you did for us?
Chairman Issa. They gave you over $1 million in a decade or
two prior.
Ms. Eberly. Yes, and we appreciated every penny of it.
Absolutely. But that actually came because of Congressman
Moran, not at the real initiative of the National Park Service.
Oh, and for the last 3 years, we have been plowing the snow off
the road that we use, and the CIA, and the Federal Highway
Department because the Park Service doesn't usually get to us
until about 5 days later. So, but we appreciate everything you
do.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Director Jarvis, I know that you can't look at 400 plus
major facilities and minor facilities yourself, so in order to
make the record complete both for my fellow chairmen, we are
going to give you a list of items that we are going to want to
go through in discovery, and documentation, and after the
reopening, you need not do this during the remaining hours, I
hope, and only hours. We are going to want to go through this
process. But I will, for one, as I turn this over to Mr. Mica,
I, for one, believe you did have a responsibility just as you
did in sequestration, and in April of this year, when we found
you woefully poor in the planning, in your procedures and your
papers, it should have been a wake-up call that, yes, you
should have a plan to mitigate at any time any loss, period.
And to maximize, if you will, the leveraging of your public
partners in every way possible. And I would hope that if you
see what you call diminishing funds, that you would look and
say, how can I, in fact, use Ms. Simon to better market
products? How can I find more Ms. Eberlys to take over
properties that in fact don't pencil out, and people like the
mayor who have a vested interest in helping you.
I have one very short last question. You said on the record
that there was an uptick in threats to the mall. Where did you
receive that uptick intelligence from?
Mr. Jarvis. Through our law enforcement.
Chairman Issa. Through your own in-house law enforcement?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, we work collaboratively in this district
with all of the law enforcement forces.
Chairman Issa. But where did you receive it? You made a
statement that you received an uptick from an intelligence
standpoint as to threats to the mall. I need to know what
agencies were included in that, to the best of your knowledge.
You know you received it, so you know who briefed you.
Mr. Jarvis. I was briefed by the Department of the
Interior, our own law enforcement services.
Chairman Issa. Okay. Do you know what level of
classification, if any, there was? Was it--was it in your
office?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Chairman Issa. So it was an unclassified briefing?
Mr. Jarvis. That's correct.
Chairman Issa. In that case, we will be sending a request
specifically to have the same unclassified briefing made
available to both of our committees.
With that, I recognize Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Just real quickly. You certainly have seen a wide
diversity of opinion here today, but I think the whole
committee and all of the Members of Congress are united in one
thing, that we believe you had some discretion and we believe
that you can take down the barriers at the World War II, Martin
Luther King, and other open-area monuments. Are you prepared to
do that?
Mr. Jarvis. No, sir, I'm not. I'm prepared to respect their
First Amendment rights to access all of these memorials.
Mr. Mica. But are you taking them down in that regard, or
are you just----
Mr. Jarvis. The memorial, the current barricades are
standing not blocking access that are still up.
Mr. Mica. And you are not prepared to go back. See, I think
that's wrong. I think you had the discretion not to put those
up. You had the discretion to protect the monument, and that
can be done through law enforcement working with the District,
and others, or in any jurisdiction.
I don't know what it takes. It may take a law. We are going
to be back in this situation probably in 2 or 3 months again. I
don't like that, but that's the way this democratic republic
works that we have to debate these things. You do and you
clearly have stated that you have the discretion to take those
barriers down, and I'm asking you, Mr. Jarvis, to take those
barriers down. Veterans have hauled them away. Members of
Congress have pushed them aside, and citizens have come and
hauled them away and will continue to do that. So would you
reconsider and today take those barriers down?
Mr. Jarvis. We still feel that----
Mr. Mica. You won't do it?
Mr. Jarvis. --with a lack of appropriations, the barriers
are appropriate.
Mr. Mica. Well, I don't know who your bosses are. If they
aren't at this dais and have not expressed themselves, it's
unanimous in a bipartisan manner--do I have to send you a
letter with instructions from 100 Members of Congress, 200
Members of Congress, 300 Members of Congress to do that, would
you do it?
Mr. Jarvis. I will do it when you pass an appropriations
bill.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Hastings. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
I want to thank on behalf of both committees all six of you
for being here and testifying, and Mayor Bryan, especially for
you coming all the way from Arizona. And you have shown
remarkably good patience for the 5 hours that you have been
here. I don't think I have to go any farther with that. But I
do appreciate, and as many times happens when committees have
meetings, there may be follow-up questions, or answers
sometimes spark other questions, but this was designed, this
committee meeting was designed to, I guess, find out why the
optics of this close down was such as it is. I think that in
itself, is very, very serious. So if there's no further
business to come before both committees, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the committees were adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAIABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]