[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




    EXAMINING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GREAT AMERICAN OUTDOORS ACT
                     AND THE GROWING NATIONAL PARK
                 SERVICE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               before the

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        Tuesday, April 18, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-16

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources




                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
      
                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

51-886 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023













                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO		      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA		      Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Tom McClintock, CA		          CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ			      Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA		      Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	      Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA		      Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL		      Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR	      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID		      Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN		      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT		      Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI			      Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL			      Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT		      Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO		      Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR			      Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA			      Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU			      Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX		      Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
                                     
                                     
                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                 ------                                


                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                     JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Pete Stauber, MN                         CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU                       Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio


                                 ------                                








                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, April 18, 2023..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     1

    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Sams, Hon. Charles F. ``Chuck'', Director, National Park 
      Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC...     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Questions submitted for the record.......................     8
                                     


 
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GREAT AMERICAN 
OUTDOORS ACT AND THE GROWING NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE 
                                BACKLOG

                              ----------                              


                        Tuesday, April 18, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Tiffany, Fulcher, Stauber, Curtis, Westerman; 
Neguse, Porter, Kamlager-Dove, Leger Fernandez, and Peltola.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
examining the implementation of the Great American Outdoors Act 
and the growing National Park Service deferred maintenance 
backlog.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. Tiffany. Since the creation of the National Park 
Service over a century ago, our national parks have been called 
many things: the crown jewels of America; our nation at its 
best; and America's best idea. Today, we meet because America's 
best idea is facing its worst problem: an unprecedented $22.3 
billion backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs.
    This problem has affected virtually every park unit in 
every state across the nation. In my district, the Apostle 
Islands National Lakeshore currently has $66 million in 
deferred maintenance, which accounts for over 80 percent of the 
state of Wisconsin's total backlog.
    Last year, our national parks attracted over 312 million 
visitors. While those visitors took in the sweeping vistas of 
Yosemite or the awe-inspiring majesty of the Grand Canyon, they 
also likely experienced closed trailheads and campgrounds, 
dilapidated visitor centers, and rundown bathroom facilities.
    This deferred maintenance doesn't just affect visitor 
experiences. They can also lead to serious public safety 
issues. That is why, in 2020, President Trump signed into law 
the Great American Outdoors Act, also known as GAOA, to provide 
a once-in-a-generation investment into our national parks and 
public lands to address deferred maintenance. At the time, the 
National Park Service boasted a backlog of $12.7 billion.
    Today, despite billions of dollars of taxpayer resources 
being spent, that backlog has grown by nearly $10 billion. 
Instead of seeing leaking roofs patched and renovated 
restrooms, this Committee and the American public have been 
left with questions about how this money is being spent and 
where it is going. Some of the answers we have found have 
troubled us, including dubious multi-million-dollar investments 
in urban liberal cities.
    While some larger projects at major national parks are 
important to address, smaller parks have struggled to compete 
for funding. And while many states have received at least some 
sort of funding, the process for selecting projects has left 
several states without significant investments, and confused 
about why their projects aren't being selected for funding.
    Despite knowing about this $10 billion backlog increase and 
repeated requests to conduct additional oversight, 
Congressional Democrats refused to hold a hearing on the 
implementation of the GAOA last Congress. That is going to 
change with our Majority. We are going to hold the Biden 
administration accountable for every dollar of precious 
taxpayer money that is being spent.
    I have the utmost faith that every single Member seated 
around this dais today wants nothing more than for the Park 
Service to rise to the challenge and finally tackle its long-
standing deferred maintenance needs. The National Park Service 
cannot do this alone, and it can no longer address these 
challenges behind closed doors. We will be shining a light on 
this program to bring much-needed transparency and reverse the 
troubling trend line of deferred maintenance at our national 
parks.
    While there have been a few examples of success with GAOA, 
let me be clear. The exponentially increasing backlog at our 
National Park Service is unacceptable. With only 2 years of 
GAOA funding remaining, it is imperative that National Park 
Service commit to greater transparency and start showing actual 
progress in reducing the backlog and stewarding the taxpayer 
resources.

    I want to thank the Director of the National Park Service, 
Chuck Sams, for being here today.

    We look forward to hearing your testimony on this important 
topic, and working with you and your department this Congress 
to improve the management of our National Park System.

    With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Neguse for 
his opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 
                     THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this 
opportunity to examine the ongoing implementation of the Great 
American Outdoors Act and the actions being taken to address 
deferred maintenance in our cherished national parks.
    Speaking of national parks, I also want to thank the 
National Park Service Director Sams for taking the time to 
testify today. He has been doing an outstanding job, in my 
view, of managing the many assets under NPS's jurisdiction--
staffing and visitation pressures, and I certainly look forward 
to hearing his perspective on the agency's most pressing 
management concerns.
    During my first term in Congress, this was the 116th 
Congress, we enacted the Great American Outdoors Act, which is 
a historic investment in the future of our parks, both by 
permanently funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund and by 
establishing a Legacy Restoration Fund to address high-priority 
deferred maintenance projects across our parks and public 
lands.
    Now, I will say I thought that was an incredibly important 
bill for this Congress to pass, and for President Trump to sign 
into law. I regretted that the vast majority of my colleagues 
on this Committee voted against it. But, nonetheless, I am 
grateful we got it done. And I am grateful that we have the 
opportunity now to be able to visit with the witnesses today 
about the implementation of the bill. In my view, this was an 
example of a way in which Congress could come together in a 
bipartisan manner to prioritize conservation and maintenance 
efforts, because that is what our constituents sent us here to 
achieve, and that is why I ultimately voted for the measure.
    The benefits of this bipartisan achievement are touching 
parks all over the country, including in my district, where I 
know a critical project is planned to greatly enhance visitor 
experiences at Rocky Mountain National Park, which is in my 
district in Colorado. That is exactly why we need to continue 
investing in the future of national parks.
    The Great American Outdoors Act was a downpayment, not a 
silver bullet or a magic wand meant to make deferred 
maintenance completely disappear. The National Park Service 
manages a significant amount of physical infrastructure, with 
over 75,000 assets including 25,000 buildings, 5,500 miles of 
paved roads and bridges, and 17,000 miles of trails. Just to 
put that in perspective, the National Park Service is second 
only to the Department of Defense in terms of Federal agency 
management of physical assets. And DOD has a deferred 
maintenance backlog of approximately $137 billion.
    There will always be some level of deferred maintenance at 
our national parks, which range from minor projects like light 
bulbs that need to be replaced, or leaky toilets, to major 
infrastructure projects, of course, like replacing wastewater 
treatment facilities, repaving major roads, or retrofitting 
bridges. It is why this bill is so important, but also why we 
also need to ensure that we are funding the National Park 
Service's operations and construction line item accounts to 
appropriations that support cyclical maintenance and other 
critical functions.
    In 2022, National Parks had an economic impact of $42.5 
billion, and supported 322,600 local jobs across the country. I 
was encouraged to see President Biden's Fiscal Year 2024 budget 
proposal included an overall increase of approximately $289 
million for NPS, with strategic increases for repair, 
rehabilitation, and cyclical maintenance. I would certainly 
urge my colleagues to support the President's proposal in that 
regard.
    And I must say I have read reports that have been very 
concerning with respect to at least some of the ideas proposed 
by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle who are 
considering deep cuts to the National Park Service's base 
budget. That would be deeply problematic, particularly if one 
believes that we ought to be addressing some of these 
maintenance needs that I know the Chair and I both care deeply 
about.
    So, there are legitimate oversight concerns and questions 
about the implementation process. I would like to get, 
certainly, a better understanding of the backlog recalculation 
and the perception that it is growing despite recent 
investments. And I appreciate the National Park Service being 
transparent and, again, look forward to being able to get some 
more clarity today during the course of the hearing.
    Director Sams, thank you for your leadership. I certainly 
look forward to your testimony.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member. We will now 
move on to witness testimony.
    Let me remind the witness that under Committee Rules, he 
must limit his oral statement to 5 minutes, but his entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on 
the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I 
will ask you to please complete your statement. I would now 
like to introduce Mr. Chuck Sams, who is the Director of the 
National Park Service.
    Director Sams, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and 
welcome.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES F. ``CHUCK'' SAMS, DIRECTOR, 
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Sams. Good morning, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member 
Neguse and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's views 
on the implementation of the Great American Outdoors Act and 
deferred maintenance within the National Park System.
    I would like to submit our full statement for the record 
and summarize the Department's views.
    The Great American Outdoors Act was a historically 
legislative achievement. It authorized full, permanent funding 
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and established the 
National Parks and Public Lands Legacy Restoration Fund, 
providing up to $1.9 billion annually from Fiscal Year 2021 to 
Fiscal Year 2025 to address the deferred maintenance of 
America's national treasures.
    The National Park Service is using this opportunity to 
accomplish much-needed asset maintenance, repairs, and 
replacement. Improved facilities will be more resilient, 
operate more efficiently, and better serve visitors.
    At the end of the last fiscal year, the National Park 
Service had an estimated $22.3 billion of deferred maintenance 
and repair needs. We maintain a complex portfolio of more than 
75,000 assets, including historic structures, roads, bridges, 
trails, campgrounds, and utility systems. Our assets are often 
unique, frequently in remote locations, or require highly-
skilled craftsmen with detailed knowledge of historical 
construction techniques to maintain and restore.
    Addressing deferred maintenance and repairs is critical to 
the continued preservation, accessibility, and enjoyment of 
national parks. The criteria we use when selecting Legacy 
Restoration Funds, or LRF, projects include addressing a 
significant amount of deferred maintenance, maximizing return 
on investment, and safeguarding those we serve: our workforce, 
volunteers, visitors, and partners. Projects that meet the 
criteria must ensure funds will support conservation and 
recreational opportunities for years to come.
    To date, the National Park Service prioritized 130 projects 
to address critical deferred maintenance and improve 
infrastructure across the National Park System. The average 
project size is $31.8 million, and it is estimated that the 
deferred maintenance addressed by these projects will be $3.8 
billion. LRF funding for the projects will improve the 
conditions of assets in 176 park units located in 48 states, 
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands.
    The creation of the LRF enabled the National Park Service 
to launch the Maintenance Action Team program to address 
projects at smaller and medium-sized parks. MATs are a mobile 
unit of trade specialists skilled in historic preservation 
work. They perform essential repair projects on structures 
across the country, including forts, buildings, masonry walls, 
and fencing. The MAT program will also proactively engage 
Public Land Corps, Youth Conservation Corps, veterans groups, 
and under-represented communities.
    In addition to formulating and executing LRF projects, we 
have also continued efforts to report the condition of assets 
more consistently and accurately. We are implementing a multi-
year effort to improve the systems used to manage our assets, 
including the methodology used to assess conditions and 
calculate deferred maintenance and repair. This approach 
provides a more comprehensive, consistent, and timely 
understanding of facility conditions and needs of the NPS 
portfolio.
    The investments provided by the LRF have made an enormous 
economic impact. In total, National Park Service expenditures 
for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2024 are estimated to support 
48,000 job years, $3.32 billion in labor income, $10.3 billion 
in economic output, and contribute $4.7 billion to the GDP.
    Enactment of GAOA marked a new era for America's outdoors, 
with unprecedented funding and improved recreation 
opportunities. We look forward to working together to ensure 
our country's national parks remain safe, enjoyable, and 
accessible to everyone.
    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today. I would be very happy 
to answer any questions you have or other members of the 
Subcommittee may have.
    Joining me at the table today is Mr. Brian Bloodsworth, 
Director of the Department's GAOA Program Management Office. 
Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sams follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Charles F. Sams II, Director, National Park 
                Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department 
of the Interior's (Department) views on implementation of the Great 
American Outdoors Act Legacy Restoration Fund and deferred maintenance 
within the National Park System.
    The historic enactment of the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) 
combined a financial commitment to conservation and recreation for 
future generations with a significant investment in the facilities 
needed to carry out the Department's important mission, including the 
care and maintenance of America's national treasures. The GAOA combined 
two major conservation initiatives into one legislative package: the 
guarantee of permanent full funding for the existing Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and the establishment of a National Parks and Public 
Land Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF). This investment provides an 
unprecedented opportunity to address the Department's deferred 
maintenance and repair backlog and restore deteriorating assets.
    For FY 2021 through FY 2025, Congress authorized up to $1.9 billion 
annually to be deposited in the LRF for projects that reduce deferred 
maintenance across several land management agencies. The annual deposit 
is equal to 50 percent of energy development revenues from oil, gas, 
coal, alternative, or renewable energy on Federal land and water 
credited, covered, or deposited as miscellaneous receipts under Federal 
law in the preceding fiscal year. Of the annual funding, 70 percent is 
allocated to the National Park Service (NPS), 5 percent is allocated to 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5 percent is allocated to the 
Bureau of Land Management, 5 percent is allocated to the Bureau of 
Indian Education, and the remaining 15 percent is allocated to the U.S. 
Forest Service.
    With these resources, the NPS is using this opportunity to 
accomplish much-needed asset maintenance, repairs, and replacement. 
Improved facilities will be more resilient, operate more efficiently, 
and better serve visitors.
    At the end of FY 2022, an estimated $22.3 billion of deferred 
maintenance and repair needs existed on roads, buildings, utility 
systems, and other structures and facilities across the National Park 
System. DM&R is defined as the cost of maintenance and repairs that 
were not performed when they should have been or were scheduled to be 
and which are put off or delayed for a future period. Addressing 
deferred maintenance and repairs (DM&R) is critical to the continued 
preservation, accessibility, and enjoyment of national parks. The NPS 
maintains a complex portfolio of more than 75,000 assets, including 
historic structures, roads, bridges, trails, campgrounds, and utility 
systems. Many of these assets require highly skilled, technical 
craftsmen with specific, detailed knowledge of historical construction 
techniques to maintain and restore complex period structures.
    The criteria the NPS uses when selecting LRF projects, which it 
implemented in FY 2021, are similar to the criteria used by other 
bureaus in the Department and include addressing a significant amount 
of deferred maintenance, maximizing return on investment, and 
safeguarding those we serve--our workforce, volunteers, visitors, and 
partners. Projects that meet the criteria must ensure funds are used to 
rehabilitate assets to support conservation and recreational 
opportunities for years to come.
    The project selection process is built from the ground up, as parks 
identify condition deficiencies in their assets and develop projects to 
address those deficiencies. Projects are then evaluated and approved by 
the respective regional directors and reviewed by the NPS Bureau 
Investment Review Board, a committee of senior managers from the 
National Leadership Council, which provides a servicewide policy 
perspective for and oversight of NPS major infrastructure investments. 
One of the Review Board's key considerations is how these assets, once 
improved by LRF funding, will be maintained in the future. From the 
Review Board, a list of candidate projects is provided to agency and 
Departmental leadership for final selection and then included in the 
President's budget request for Congressional review and concurrence.

    To date, the NPS has prioritized 130 projects to address critical 
deferred maintenance and improve transportation, administrative, and 
recreation infrastructure across the National Park System. The average 
project size is $31.8 million, and it is estimated that the deferred 
maintenance addressed by these projects will be $3.8 billion. LRF 
funding for these projects will improve the condition of roads, 
buildings, utility systems, and other assets in 176 park units located 
in 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, and will address critical life, health, and safety 
issues, as well as related code compliance and accessibility 
deficiencies. Funding will also be used to remove dilapidated and 
unneeded structures that detract from the visitor experience and 
attract vandalism. Examples of projects underway include:

        At Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky, $6.5 million was 
        awarded to rehabilitate approximately one mile of cave trail 
        inside Mammoth Cave. The project will harden the existing cave 
        trail, replace narrow stairways, and install new benches to 
        improve both the visitor experience and emergency personnel 
        access.

        At Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio, $12.6 million was 
        awarded to assure continued access to recreational experiences 
        in the park. The project will stabilize the riverbank at sites 
        along the Cuyahoga River where erosion threatens the Ohio & 
        Erie Canal Towpath Trail and the tracks for the Cuyahoga Valley 
        Scenic Railroad.

        At Acadia National Park in Maine, a $33 million contract was 
        awarded for demolition of outdated structures and construction 
        of new maintenance and wastewater treatment facilities at park 
        headquarters. This project will support park and partnership 
        staff with enhanced facilities to better serve visitors and 
        protect park resources.

        At Yosemite National Park in California, $31.6 million was 
        awarded to rehabilitate and correct safety issues at the 
        historic Ahwahnee Hotel. Work includes seismic upgrades and 
        other safety improvements, renovation of the kitchen, and 
        replacement of critical systems.

        At Minute Man National Historical Park in Massachusetts, $27.4 
        million was awarded to preserve and repair witness structures, 
        landscapes, and trails. The Battle Road Trail and Groton Road 
        provide the primary recreational and interpretive 
        infrastructure for park visitors.

    The creation of the LRF enabled the NPS to launch the Maintenance 
Action Team (MAT) Program in FY 2021 to address projects at small and 
medium-sized parks. A mobile unit composed of trade specialists skilled 
in historic restoration and preservation work, MATs perform smaller, 
but critical, maintenance repair projects on historic structures across 
the NPS, including forts, buildings, masonry walls and fencing. In 
addition to completing essential work, the MAT program will proactively 
engage public land corps, youth conservation corps, veterans' groups, 
and under-represented communities. With LRF funding for the MATs, 
including for projects proposed in the FY 2024 Budget, NPS will 
dedicate $59.1 million to address over 200 deferred maintenance 
activities in 96 park units.
    An example of a recent MAT project that impacted a smaller NPS unit 
is the completion of deferred maintenance work at the Harry S Truman 
National Historic Site in Missouri at the Truman Farm Home. Harry 
Truman lived and worked on the family farm from 1906 to 1917. LRF 
funding provided for preserving the character of the Farm Home by 
repairing and replacing porch decking, exterior siding and trim, porch 
wainscoting and by replacing damaged porch screens.
    While the LRF is the newest and largest source of deferred 
maintenance funding, the NPS balances its priorities across multiple 
discretionary, mandatory, and supplemental appropriations to ensure 
funding is distributed to meet the most critical needs across parks as 
conditions and funds availability changes. For example, prioritizing 
large-scale deferred maintenance projects for LRF funding created space 
in the NPS's discretionary Line Item Construction plan to accelerate 
work on other projects such as improvements to the visitor center and 
headquarters of the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park in 
Georgia.
    In addition to the work described above to formulate and execute 
the LRF program of projects, we have also continued efforts to report 
the condition of assets more consistently and accurately, to ensure 
that progress, supported by LRF and other resources, is appropriately 
documented. The NPS is implementing a multi-year effort to 
comprehensively review and reform the systems and processes used to 
manage its assets, including the methodology used to assess facility 
condition and calculate DM&R.
    This improved assessment process aligns with contemporary industry 
standards, and the cost elements included in the figure are more 
consistent with other government DM&R calculations. This approach 
provides a more comprehensive, consistent, and timely understanding of 
facility conditions and estimate of maintenance, recapitalization, and 
repair needs for the NPS portfolio.
    In response to recommendations from the Department's Office of 
Inspector General (OIG), the Department compiled its work into a 
Strategic Plan documenting the overarching strategy for maximizing the 
impact of funding. The Strategic Plan, which is available on the 
Department's GAOA webpage, describes the Department's strategic goals, 
objectives, performance measures, risk management strategy, and 
organizational roles and responsibilities specific to the Department's 
implementation of the GAOA LRF program.
    From the start, the NPS and the Department have worked to develop, 
implement, and refine strategic planning and best management practices 
for the LRF and for deferred maintenance. Efforts include, but are not 
limited to: publishing LRF project plans, data, and other supporting 
information on public-facing websites as well as hosting public and 
industry meetings; hosting bipartisan briefings regarding the GAOA LRF 
program for Congressional staff; implementing improved processes to 
collect and record deferred maintenance and repair needs; and 
standardizing definitions across bureaus.
    The investments provided by GAOA LRF have made an enormous economic 
impact. In total, FY 2021-FY 2024, NPS LRF expenditures are estimated 
to support a total of 48,870 job-years, $3.32 billion in labor income, 
$10.3 billion in economic output, and contribute $4.7 billion to the US 
GDP.
    Enactment of the GAOA marked a new era for America's outdoors with 
unprecedented funding, improved recreation opportunities, and broader 
engagement. We look forward to working together to ensure our country's 
national parks and public lands remain safe, enjoyable, and accessible 
to everyone.
    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer any 
questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Charles F. Sams 
 III, Director, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Sams did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. Director Sams testified several times throughout the 
hearing that it was ``Congressional intent'' for $200 million provided 
in the Inflation Reduction Act to be transferred to the Presidio Trust, 
despite the fact that Congress did not explicitly direct funding to the 
Presidio in the language of the IRA and the Director testified that he 
did not have conversations with the Member representing this park about 
transferring funds to that district.

    1a) Please explain how the administration came to the understanding 
that it was ``Congressional intent'' for $200 million provided by the 
IRA to be transferred to the Presidio.

    1b) What date was this funding transferred to the Presidio?

    1c) Is it common for NPS and the Department of the Interior to base 
Congressional intent on draft pieces of legislation rather than the 
final version of the bill that is passed?

    1d) Did the National Park Service apply the same standards and 
methodology for selecting priority deferred maintenance projects with 
the $200 million provided in the IRA that was used for the Presidio as 
the agency does with projects that receive funding under the Great 
American Outdoors Act? Please explain any discrepancies in the process 
for determining how these funds were allocated.

    Question 2. According to the FY 2024 budget documents, deferred 
maintenance and repairs are calculated using three components: (1) 
Parametric condition assessments (PCA) for industry standard assets; 
(2) Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) assessments for paved-roads, 
parking, bridge and tunnel assets; and (3) work orders for concessions-
occupied assets and non-industry standard assets.

    2a) Can you please explain each of these three components in 
greater detail, including how they differ from the previous methodology 
NPS utilized?

    2b) NASA published an 80-page report in the early 2000s explaining 
their process for parametric condition assessments, has NPS produced 
any similar comprehensive report? If not, does NPS have a similar 
report in the works that will be published soon?

    Question 3. According to the NPS' budget justification documents, 
NPS was previously using a methodology to calculate deferred 
maintenance and repairs that did not align with industry standards or 
even other bureaus within the Department. Can you please explain why 
NPS calculated its deferred maintenance this way for so long, including 
when it was justifying spending under the Great American Outdoors Act 
to Congress?

    Question 4. What is the percentage decrease in total budget 
authority for the NPS between FY 2023 enacted and the FY 2024 request 
according to DOI's own budget documents?

    Question 5. What is the percentage decrease in total budget 
authority for the NPS between FY 2022 actual and the FY 2024 request 
according to DOI's own budget documents?

    Question 6. Is the administration proposing an increase or a 
decrease to FY 2024 Line Item Construction Projects compared to FY 2022 
actual funding?

    Question 7. Director Sams' written testimony states: ``The NPS is 
implementing a multi-year effort to comprehensively review and reform 
the systems and processes used to manage its assets, including the 
methodology used to assess facility condition and calculate DM&R.''

    7a) Has NPS fully implemented its new methodology for tracking 
deferred maintenance or should Congress expect further revisions to 
deferred maintenance statistics?

    7b) If NPS is still implementing a review of its deferred 
maintenance systems and processes, when will this review be complete?

    7c) If NPS is still updating its methodology, is NPS expecting that 
the backlog will once again increase as a result of updating its 
processes for calculating deferred maintenance?

    Question 8. What are NPS' projections for what the total deferred 
maintenance backlog will be at the end of FY 2023? Is the agency 
projecting it will increase or decrease from the current $22.3 billion?

    Question 9. As Director Sams' testimony notes, funding for the 
programs authorized by the Great American Outdoors Act--including LWCF 
and the Legacy Restoration Fund--all come from energy revenues, 
primarily oil and gas revenues. What would happen to the long-term 
solvency of these conservation programs if we stopped producing oil and 
gas domestically?

    Question 10. Some states and parks have been extremely frustrated 
in the lack of funding they've received under the LRF. What is NPS 
doing at a national level to provide support to superintendents in 
parks who have not received a significant investment in funding under 
the Great American Outdoors Act?

    Question 11. There have been concerns for years that the NPS' 
method of accounting for deferred maintenance incentivizes parks to 
inflate their backlogs to receive more funding. How is the NPS' new 
methodology addressing this issue to ensure backlogs aren't 
artificially inflated by local park units?

    Question 12. Despite the success of Maintenance Action Teams in 
addressing deferred maintenance at smaller parks, the administration is 
only proposing a $5 million increase for this program in FY 2024. Why 
isn't the National Park Service investing more money in Maintenance 
Action Teams to ensure that deferred maintenance isn't building up at 
smaller park units?

    Question 13. In NPS' FY 2024 budget documents the agency attributes 
the $10 billion increase in the deferred maintenance backlog in large 
part due to methodology changes that went into effect in FY 2022. 
However, the largest increase in the backlog happened the year prior, 
in FY 2021. Between FY 2021 and FY 2022, the years in which the 
methodology supposedly switched over, the backlog only increased by 
$500 million. Can NPS please explain this discrepancy?

    Question 14. When GAOA passed in 2020, NPS' maintenance backlog was 
roughly $12.7 billion. GAOA funding is set to expire in September 2025. 
By that time, NPS will have received over $6.5 billion toward reducing 
its deferred maintenance backlog. At this point, is NPS projecting that 
the backlog will be higher or lower once GAOA expires compared to where 
it was when GAOA first passed in 2020 (i.e. higher or lower than $12.7 
billion)?

    Question 15. What is the average length of time it takes to 
complete a NEPA analysis for a deferred maintenance project?

    Question 16. What is the average cost for complying with NEPA for a 
deferred maintenance project?

    Question 17. What effect is inflation having on completing deferred 
maintenance projects on budget and on time?

    Question 18. What effect are supply chain issues having on 
completing deferred maintenance projects on budget and on time?

    Question 19. To what extent do wildfires contribute to deferred 
maintenance issues at NPS?

    Question 20. To what extent does NPS consider potential additions 
to the deferred maintenance backlog when conducting special resource 
studies?

    Question 21. What is NPS doing to reduce the backlog of special 
resource studies?

    Question 22. Last year, the Bureau of Land Management permanently 
damaged dinosaur tracks at Utah's Mill Canyon Dinosaur Tracksite during 
the replacement of a boardwalk. Internal documents uncovered during a 
FOIA request and published by E&E News showed that agency officials 
tried to cover up the fact that this was done using GAOA funding, 
stating: ``Will you please encourage the District and Moab office to 
refrain from talking about the funding source if at all possible. So 
far this has not been publicized as a GAOA disaster, and we would 
prefer to keep it that way.''

    22a) To the agency's knowledge, has GAOA funding used in any NPS 
project resulted in any resource damage and destruction, similar to the 
BLM's incident in Utah?

    22b) In light of E&E News' investigation into this coverup, did the 
NPS implement any new protocols to ensure that if GAOA money did fund a 
project that resulted in resource damage or destruction, that this 
would not be concealed from the public?

    Question 23. The Committee has heard concerns that there appears to 
be a discrepancy between the prioritization of investments under the 
LRF. How is it that some projects appear to be fast-tracked for action 
and results while others are seeing no progress despite being in a 
planning process for many years? With only 2 years of funds remaining 
under the GAOA, how is NPS preparing to address these deferred 
maintenance needs for these kinds of projects?

    Question 24. There is a recognized housing shortage associated with 
the National Park System.

    24a) What is the NPS doing to address backlogged building and 
housing infrastructure repairs?

    24b) With housing for NPS gateway communities remaining a pinch 
point for both NPS and tourism operators in meeting their full 
capacity, does the NPS have any plans to address housing shortages?

    Question 25. The Committee has heard concerns from several local 
communities about delays in deferred maintenance at various NPS sites. 
Can you please provide an update on the following projects:

    25a) Elevator repairs at Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota.

    25b) Visitor center repairs at Theodore Roosevelt National Park in 
North Dakota.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. The Great American Outdoors Act permanently authorized 
annual mandatory funding of $900 for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, which included a requirement to prioritize federal land 
acquisition. What is the benefit of federal land acquisition?

    Question 2. How does land acquisition create management 
efficiencies and reduce ongoing operating costs?

    Question 3. The Great American Outdoor Act also established the 
National Parks and Public Land Restoration Fund to address priority 
deferred maintenance at the National Park Service and other federal 
land management agencies. Does federal land acquisition contribute to 
deferred maintenance at the National Park Service?

    Question 4. At the hearing, it was suggested that the National Park 
Service's FY24 budget proposal cuts the agency's budget by 
approximately 20 percent compared to FY2023 levels? Is that an accurate 
depiction of the administration's budget proposal?

    Question 5. House Republicans are considering funding levels that 
could decrease the National Park Service budget by approximately 22 
percent. How would across the board cuts of that level impact the 
operation of national parks?

    Question 6. Would decreasing the Operation of the National Park 
Service and Construction accounts to FY2022 levels impact efforts to 
address deferred maintenance?

          Questions Submitted by Representative Kamlager-Dove

    Question 1. Director Sams, I know that national parks need our help 
and are struggling with funding challenges, which is why I signed on to 
support their operational funding in this year's appropriations bill 
(dear colleague attached). It seems they have multiple overlapping 
budget challenges, from insufficient staffing to funding challenges 
associated with climate change and a huge backlog of deferred 
maintenance projects. It appears that the repairs backlog in California 
is nearly $4 billion, a staggering amount. Can you please speak to how 
understaffing at parks, climate change and other challenges can 
exacerbate the maintenance challenges you're facing and why the Great 
American Outdoors Act is an important lifeline?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Director Sams. The Chair will now 
recognize Members for 5 minutes for questions. First, I am 
going to turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Neguse.
    You have 5 minutes for questions.

    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Sams, thanks again for taking the time to be here 
today. As clearly evidenced by the focus of today's hearing, 
there are some long-overdue projects that your agency is 
advancing to support basic park needs and enhance visitor 
experience across the National Park System. Many of these 
needs, as you referenced, were not always met with other 
funding sources, which is why the Great American Outdoors Act 
was such a huge achievement.
    Like many of my colleagues on this Subcommittee, outdoor 
recreation and access to the outdoors is incredibly important 
to my district, and I was particularly pleased, as you might 
imagine, to see a Legacy Restoration Fund project planned in my 
district at Rocky Mountain National Park to update utility 
infrastructure at the Moraine Park Campground and headquarters.
    This popular area has not been upgraded since when it was 
first built in the 1960s. Pipes often break during freezes, 
campsites flood during rain events, and there isn't electrical 
service available at any of the campsites. Infrastructure used 
by tens of thousands of visitors has become considerably 
degraded and in need of maintenance. But because of the 
investments made possible by the Great American Outdoors Act, 
this project is going to rehabilitate the water system and 
electric utilities, which will considerably improve the visitor 
experience and reduce the need for constant costly repairs.
    So, just a note of gratitude to say thank you to the Park 
Service for identifying, certainly, that project as one that 
will be implemented moving forward.
    Director, I guess I wonder if you might be able to opine a 
bit on your sense of what the consequences would be were the 
National Park Service's budget to be cut substantially, as I 
think some--not all, but some--of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have proposed, at least broadly speaking.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Mr. Neguse. If we were to roll back 
the funding of our general operations, it would deeply affect 
how we are implementing GAOA and our LRF funding significantly.
    I am extremely appreciative of the Great American Outdoors 
Act, of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Inflation 
Reduction Act, and there has been a very clear need for us to 
ramp up our abilities to implement this planning and execution 
of deferred maintenance and to get more boots on the ground.
    We have seen a nearly 20 percent increase of our visitors 
within the national parks across the United States, and yet we 
have seen nearly a 19 percent decrease in our staffing since 
2011. These investments that Congress has made has 
significantly helped us put those boots on the ground, and we 
are beginning to see the effects of those. If there were deep 
cuts as proposed, we would see some of that being rolled back, 
we would see projects slow down, and we would not be able to 
make near the investments that we are expected to make.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Director Sams. And I think that 
context is incredibly important as we debate the nuances of the 
Fiscal Year 2024 budget here in the coming months.
    I know I have limited time, and there are innumerable 
projects that are happening across the country. I do just want 
to take a moment to note, and I suspect you would agree with me 
on this Director, that these projects span the mosaic of our 
country. They are in rural America--parts of my district, for 
example, like Rocky Mountain National Park, as I mentioned; 
suburban America; urban America. There are projects in a wide 
variety of states, middle America, coast to coast. It is not 
concentrated in any particular jurisdiction. Is that a fair 
articulation?
    Mr. Sams. Absolutely. When I look from Alaska to Hawaii, 
from Acadia to Zion, we are excited about the transformative 
projects happening all across the country.
    The Great Basin National Park in Nevada received a $4.5 
million project that will replace deteriorated water systems, 
the park's only source of potable water, which provides water 
to help fight fires in the park.
    At Yellowstone Park in Wyoming, a $118 million project will 
replace the structurally deficient Yellowstone River bridge 
in----
    Mr. Neguse. Where is Yellowstone?
    Mr. Sams. Say again, sir?
    Mr. Neguse. Where is Yellowstone?
    Mr. Sams. Yellowstone in Wyoming.
    Mr. Neguse. Yes, I know where it is, but I want to make 
sure, for the benefit of my colleagues, that it is in Wyoming. 
It is not in Chicago, it is not in LA, it is not in New York. 
It is in Wyoming, which, of course, I know well, given that it 
is my neighboring state to the north; my district is adjacent 
to it.
    But I ask you that question, it is a rhetorical question 
because, again, I think oversight is important, and this 
process certainly matters, but it is also helpful to keep 
context. These projects are having an incredible, tangible 
impact in rural America, in parks across the country, and I am 
very grateful for that, and I certainly appreciate your 
leadership in that regard, Director Sams.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ranking Member. Next, I would turn 
to the Full Committee Chairman, Mr. Westerman.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you 
to the witnesses for being here today.
    When I played sports, if somebody messed up, the whole team 
would have to run extra sprints, and the coach would often say, 
``You are spoiling it for everybody.''
    A few years ago, we passed the Great American Outdoors Act, 
and it was with great bipartisan support, and we had lofty 
ideas of how this would be transformational across the country.
    And Director Sams, I know that you are in a situation where 
you just kind of have to probably do what you are told on a lot 
of things. But last year, the National Park Service provided 
$102.2 million for the San Francisco National Maritime 
Historical Park. This was the second most expensive project 
funded. Can you tell me which Congressional district this 
project is located in?
    Mr. Sams. It is in Congresswoman, former Speaker, Nancy 
Pelosi's district.
    Mr. Westerman. Right, California 11 represented by Speaker 
Pelosi.
    The National Park Service also gave $63.5 million to the 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the fourth most expensive 
project funded last year. Do you know which Congressional 
district that project is in?
    Mr. Sams. I cannot recall off the top of my head.
    Mr. Westerman. That is Speaker Pelosi's, former Speaker 
Pelosi's district, as well.
    The National Park Service received $200 million in the 
Inflation Reduction Act last year for deferred maintenance at 
the National Park Service. Can you tell us how that money was 
used?
    Mr. Sams. That money went to the Presidio Trust, and they 
are using it on their deferred maintenance because they are not 
eligible for GAOA funding.
    Mr. Westerman. Where is the Presidio Trust located?
    Mr. Sams. It is within the boundaries of the national area 
that we----
    Mr. Westerman. In whose Congressional district?
    Mr. Sams. That is also in former Speaker Pelosi's district.
    Mr. Westerman. In total, the National Park Service spent 
more than $365 million last year on deferred maintenance in 
Nancy Pelosi's district, which is almost a quarter, 24 percent 
of the total funding your agency received last year to address 
deferred maintenance nationwide. Do you know how many states 
have deferred maintenance backlogs that could have been fully 
addressed using this funding?
    Mr. Sams. Not off the top of my head, no.
    Mr. Westerman. It is 37, including my home state of 
Arkansas.
    This $200 million earmark orchestrated by Nancy Pelosi 
represents a 3,113 percent increase in the amount of Federal 
funding received by the Presidio last year.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Westerman. As you can see by the charts behind me, I am 
not exactly sure where the deferred maintenance even is in the 
Presidio.
    Director Sams, yes or no, when you transferred this money 
to the Presidio, did you put any restrictions in place 
stipulating that taxpayer funding could not be used to improve 
the Presidio golf courses or luxury hotels?
    Mr. Sams. Not that I am aware of, sir.
    Mr. Westerman. This $200 million earmark from the IRA for 
the Presidio was originally announced on February 1, 2023, in a 
press release put out by Nancy Pelosi's office. The Presidio 
Trust official government website then posted the exact same 
release with a link to Nancy Pelosi's website, which is still 
up today. This release included a quote from Jean Fraser, the 
CEO of the Presidio Trust, who you transferred this money to 
from the IRA.
    Ms. Fraser is quoted as saying, ``This funding will be used 
to lay the foundation for the Presidio to be a zero-climate-
impact park.''
    Director Sams, is creating a zero-climate-impact park a 
recognized category of deferred maintenance used by the 
National Park Service?
    Mr. Sams. It is not with the GAOA money that we use.
    Mr. Westerman. Would you repeat that?
    Mr. Sams. It is not with the GAOA money that we use.
    Mr. Westerman. Can you explain that a little bit?
    Mr. Sams. The Great American Outdoors funding that we 
implement, that is not one of the priority areas that we are 
using that for.
    Mr. Westerman. OK, but the $200 million for deferred 
maintenance----
    Mr. Sams. The IRA funds----
    Mr. Westerman. That was an earmark--yes. Is that a----
    Mr. Sams. My understanding is the Presidio has $400 million 
in deferred maintenance. When I toured it last year, a number 
of that has to do with the electrical, water, and sewer 
throughout the system that had been left behind when it had 
been a military base.
    Mr. Westerman. And when the Presidio was set up, was there 
supposed to be government funding to go to it?
    Mr. Sams. I do not know the details of the Presidio----
    Mr. Westerman. There wasn't supposed to be taxpayer 
dollars.
    Can you think of any other example of deferred maintenance 
funding being announced by a Congressional office instead of 
the National Park Service?
    Mr. Sams. No, sir.
    Mr. Westerman. Can you think of any other instance in which 
the National Park Service has posted a press release containing 
partisan attacks originally released by a Congressional office 
on its own website?
    Mr. Sams. No, sir.
    Mr. Westerman. Did the National Park Service apply the same 
standards and methodology for selecting priority deferred 
maintenance projects with the $200 million provided in the IRA 
that was used for the Presidio, as you do with projects that 
receive funding under the Great American Outdoors Act?
    Mr. Sams. No, sir. The funding that came through IRA for 
the $200 million, we understand, was Congressional intent for 
us to send that to the Presidio Trust, since they were not 
eligible for GAOA funding.
    Mr. Westerman. So, $200 million here and then another $165 
million, and before you know it, almost a quarter of the 
country's expenses for deferred maintenance ended up in one 
Congressional district. I think that is unacceptable, and it 
goes against the intent of the Great American Outdoors Act, and 
it is why we should not have earmarks like that. And we fought 
those earmarks in this Committee, but they were put in anyway.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I am out of time.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields back. Director Sams, I 
want to follow up on Chairman Westerman's line of questioning.
    Oh, I am sorry. I apologize, Representative Peltola. I got 
ahead of myself. I recognize you for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany.
    Good morning, Director Sams. I am wondering about the 
funding that is intended to go to Alaska for a project in 
Gustavus. And I just want to preface my statements by saying 
that I am very thankful for this Act having been passed 2 years 
ago. In Alaska--the folks that are traveling to Alaska--we have 
at least a million people a year who come to Alaska and to 
visit our national parks. Those million people spend more than 
$600 million. So, they are a really important part of our 
economy.
    And, specifically, I want to ask you about a project in 
Gustavus and Glacier Bay. They have a housing facility that is 
supposed to lodge 60 people, and there are 32 rooms. I believe 
that that housing unit was condemned, and it does not meet 
health fire safety standards, and it should have been 
demolished in 2005. But luckily, because of this legislation, 
we do have a plan for new housing. And I just wondered if you 
could let me know--and I don't expect you to know every single 
major maintenance project on the list, but I wondered if you 
might have a list and share a timeline for when Glacier Bay 
might be expecting to have that construction built.
    Mr. Sams. I understand that it will eliminate $4.7 million 
in deferred maintenance and that, yes, we have plans to 
demolish and replace the three apartment buildings that are 
currently used for the concessionaire housing, and it will be 
demolished and replaced with a non-historic, multi-use 
concession building situated in the Glacier Bay Lodge Historic 
District.
    As far as the timeline, I don't have a timeline in front of 
me, but I do know that it is on our priority projects.
    Mrs. Peltola. OK, thank you.
    I will yield my time back, Chairman Tiffany.
    Oh, excuse me. If I have any time left, I would like to 
yield it to Representative Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from 
Alaska. I just want to follow up.
    I have great respect for my colleague, and my friend, and 
the Chairman of our Full Committee. But again, context matters. 
And as we go through the full list of projects that will be 
funded by virtue of the Great American Outdoors Act, we know 
that there are a variety of projects in every single Member who 
is sitting here at this dais, in our respective states, in our 
districts.
    And we could go through this exercise with Director Sams 
and ask him--Hot Springs National Park, is that one of the 
projects that the NPS intends to take up under the GAOA?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Neguse. And where is Hot Springs National Park?
    Mr. Sams. In the great state of Arkansas.
    Mr. Neguse. And who represents Hot Springs National Park?
    Mr. Sams. Mr. Westerman.
    Mr. Neguse. Mr. Westerman. So, the Chairman of our Full 
Committee will ultimately benefit from a project upwards of $17 
million.
    New River Gorge National Park, where is that park, Mr. 
Sams?
    Mr. Sams. In West Virginia, sir.
    Mr. Neguse. West Virginia, thank you.
    Mammoth Cave National Park. Do you know where that is, 
Director Sams?
    Mr. Sams. Kentucky, sir.
    Mr. Neguse. Kentucky. Yes, sir.
    Organ Pipe Cactus National Park. Do you know where that is, 
sir?
    Mr. Sams. New Mexico?
    Mr. Neguse. Arizona.
    Mr. Sams. Arizona, sorry.
    Mr. Neguse. Arizona. I knew I would quiz you on one of 
these that you might not be able to get.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Neguse. It is all right. You are doing great.
    Cuyahoga--I am pronouncing this wrong--Cuyahoga Valley 
National Park.
    Mr. Sams. The great state of Ohio.
    Mr. Neguse. Ohio. And Natchez Trace Parkway?
    Mr. Sams. Mississippi.
    Mr. Neguse. Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee.
    My point, Mr. Director, again, accountability is important. 
I recognize there is a role for us in terms of engaging in 
oversight. And to the extent that the Chairman has raised some 
questions that the NPS should answer, I certainly take no issue 
on that front. But let us not confuse the public by creating 
this perception that these projects are only in a particular--
--
    Mr. Westerman. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Neguse. I will in a moment, Mr. Chairman--in a 
particular district or another, when across the country, from 
Arkansas, to Mississippi, to Arizona, and everywhere in 
between, there are projects that ultimately will be funded by 
the GAOA.
    I am happy to, of course, yield to the Chairman.
    Mr. Westerman. I thank the----
    Mr. Neguse. Oh, I am sorry.
    Mr. Tiffany. It is Representative Peltola's time.
    Mr. Neguse. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you yield to the Chairman?
    Mrs. Peltola. Yes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you. So, I would just like you to, 
with a straight face, can you say it is OK that a quarter 
percent of the National Park Service's deferred maintenance 
went to one Congressional district?
    Mr. Neguse. If I may go through Mary, and then come back to 
me----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Neguse. And I think she says yes.
    What I would say, Mr. Chairman, is I will take a look at 
the statistics that you have provided today. That is certainly 
the first that I have heard of that summation.
    What I take issue with is the characterization that these 
projects are only being funded in one Congressional district. 
That is why I am going through that.
    Mr. Westerman. Well, the numbers don't lie, that 24 
percent--not quite 25--but of deferred maintenance from the 
National Park Service went to Speaker Pelosi, former Speaker 
Pelosi's district.
    Mr. Neguse. I see I am out of time.
    Mr. Westerman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Does the gentlelady yield back from getting in 
between this discussion?
    [Laughter.]
    Mrs. Peltola. Yes, please remove me.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
    Director Sams, I would like to follow up on Chairman 
Westerman's line of questioning. The press release on the 
Presidio Trust website announcing the $200 million IRA payout 
clearly states multiple times that Nancy Pelosi secured this 
earmark for the Presidio, despite the fact that the language in 
the IRA does not explicitly state that this funding should be 
used for Presidio. In fact, it only says that funding shall be 
used for deferred maintenance within the National Park Service. 
This is different from language the House Natural Resources 
Committee marked up last Congress, which not so coincidentally 
earmarked the exact same amount of funding explicitly for the 
Presidio Trust.
    Did you or anybody in the Administration have conversations 
with former Speaker Pelosi's office about modifying the 
language in the Democrats' final reconciliation bill to 
disguise from the American public the fact that $200 million 
for deferred maintenance would actually be used for the 
Presidio?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have not had any 
discussions with former Speaker Pelosi's staff, and I can't 
speak for anybody else.
    Mr. Tiffany. You said earlier in your testimony, you said 
it was Congressional intent.
    Mr. Sams. That is my understanding as it came down to me, 
that it was Congressional intent.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, how did you know that, if you didn't have 
any conversations or communication with Speaker Pelosi's 
office?
    Mr. Sams. Because the direction came through the 
Department.
    Mr. Tiffany. Came from the Department of the Interior?
    Mr. Sams. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Who in Interior?
    Mr. Sams. The Assistant Secretary.
    Mr. Tiffany. The Assistant Secretary directed you to send 
that $200 million to the Presidio?
    Mr. Sams. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. Director Sams, the elephant in the 
room is that after spending $4 billion over the past 3 years to 
reduce the deferred maintenance backlog, it has somehow 
increased by almost $10 billion. How does the National Park 
Service explain this increase?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This increase is based 
on how we finally were able to use better methodology in 
assessing the maintenance needs at some of our parks, and being 
able to use that.
    The process of changing our methodology has been in 
development for years, prior to the passage of the Great 
American Outdoors Act. The new process is both simpler and more 
comprehensive, and gives us a much better picture of the 
conditions and the assets in our portfolio.
    We are finally using an industry standard that does give us 
the more full picture. And because of that, when we look at 
it--for years, many of our national parks and our 
superintendents have been placing Band-Aids on a number of 
these infrastructure and deferred maintenance. When GAOA came 
out, it actually provided us to do surgery. And, of course, as 
you know, surgery is very expensive.
    So, when we started looking at really what we had had in 
those assets since the last major investments in the national 
parks, which were in 1966 at the end of Mission 66, we 
recognized that, yes, we have a much larger portfolio. And 
because we were able to better look at and calculate it, that 
number did grow.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are we turning these into Taj Mahals? Is that 
what you are saying?
    Mr. Sams. Absolutely not, sir. Most of these are to make 
sure they are up to not only code, but that they are resilient, 
so that they can last another two or three generations. And, 
therefore, we also have to build out a better post-maintenance 
plan to upkeep these facilities.
    Mr. Tiffany. The agency attributes the $10 billion increase 
in the backlog in large part to methodology changes in Fiscal 
Year 2022. Is that correct?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Tiffany. However, you can see in the chart the largest 
increase in the backlog happened the year prior, in Fiscal Year 
2021.
    Between Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022, the years in which the 
methodology supposedly switched over, the backlog only 
increased $500 million. Can you explain that discrepancy?
    Mr. Sams. I am going to ask for a little help from Brian.
    Mr. Bloodsworth. Mr. Chairman, the increase that you are 
referring to----
    Mr. Tiffany. If you don't mind, Director Sams, I am going 
to take this offline because I only have a limited amount of 
time to question. But we are going to get this information 
shortly.
    When GAOA passed in 2020, the National Park Service 
maintenance backlog was roughly $12.7 billion. Funding is set 
to expire September 2025. By that time, NPS will have received 
$6.5 billion to reduce this maintenance backlog.
    At this point, is NPS projecting that the backlog will be 
higher or lower, once GAOA expires compared to when it passed?
    Mr. Sams. We anticipate that it will be lower. As we are 
starting to see the fruition of the projects that came out and 
were funded in Fiscal Year 2021, we expect that these 
investments will start to show lowered deferred maintenance 
over time, and we will have to continue to figure out how to 
build out and ensure that we are getting back to that backlog 
once GAOA is closed out.
    Mr. Tiffany. Lower than $12.7 billion?
    Mr. Sams. I would have to go back and do some calculations 
and get that number back to you.
    Mr. Tiffany. I am going to ask one other quick question 
here.
    To what extent are NEPA reviews a challenge when completing 
these deferred maintenance projects?
    Mr. Sams. I wouldn't say they are a major challenge. NEPA 
is an important part of our planning process. The bigger 
expenses, of course, are in the actual engineering costs that 
we have to do in order to make sure these projects are sound.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. In closing, I would just say I hope 
that your agency is not becoming the Nancy Pelosi Service, 
rather than the National Park Service.
    With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regardless of where the 
Presidio is located, I will point out that it is a treasured 
site in California. All Californians from around the state and, 
indeed, the millions of visitors who come to the Presidio from 
across the country and across the world should have that 
national park to enjoy. So, I think it is to the benefit of all 
Americans that we invest in all of our national parks.
    I recently had the chance to visit three of our most remote 
national parks, and want them to have all of the resources--in 
New Mexico and in Texas--and I want them to have all the 
appropriate resources, as well.
    The Great American Outdoors Act was both a necessary 
investment and an incredible bipartisan achievement. You might 
not know that it was an incredible bipartisan achievement from 
some of the questioning today, but it was. And it passed the 
House with nearly three-fourths support, and was signed by 
President Trump, to his great credit. So, yes, Washington 
actually did something big 3 years ago, based on a simple and 
popular principle, which is that everyone should have the joy 
of visiting our national parks.
    Today, what I want to do is explore exactly how the law's 
vision of accessibility looks, and see how committed we truly 
are to it. As you know, Mr. Sams, the Great American Outdoors 
Act includes language that requires the Legacy Restoration Fund 
projects to improve access to national parks for visitors with 
disabilities. How has the National Park Service been 
prioritizing this requirement?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congresswoman. As I said earlier, many 
of our projects and our parks came out of Mission 66, the parks 
that came between 1956 and 1966--of course, way before the ADA 
was passed.
    National Parks is committed to ensuring people with 
disabilities have equal opportunity to benefit from NPS 
facilities, programs, service, and activities. The LRF projects 
incorporate measures to improve the accessibility of assets and 
accommodation to visitors and employees with disabilities. 
Improving accessibility is a factor of the project selection 
criteria we use.
    Ms. Porter. Can you give an example, if you can, of any 
exemplary projects that may hit home, any projects that were 
selected in particular to improve accessibility?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, Congresswoman. Sarasota National Historic 
Park project to rehabilitate the battlefield interpretive 
experience improves physical accessibility of wayside areas and 
amenities, and adds new field exhibits that incorporate 
universal design.
    Crater Lake National Park, in my own home state, a project 
to rehabilitate a section of the East Rim Drive, will ensure 
parking areas along the drive have accessibility-compliant 
surfaces, markings, and overlooks.
    And Yosemite National Park campground projects improve 
accessibility of campsite surfaces, amenities, and the historic 
bathrooms to make sure there are accommodations.
    Ms. Porter. I really appreciate that. And one of the 
things--when I was Subcommittee Chair of Oversight and 
Investigations last Congress, we had a hearing on disability 
access in the national parks. And one of the things that came 
across is that many of our veterans are people with 
disabilities and enjoy our Federal lands, whether it is for 
recreation or for other purposes. So, I have seen these 
disability projects myself, firsthand. For example, the 
boardwalk at White Sands National Park, which makes it possible 
for people with mobility issues to go and visit that.
    And one of the things that came across in that hearing is 
that accessibility design doesn't take away from the experience 
of visitors without disabilities, but in fact good quality 
disability design improves the experience for everybody. So, 
you think about kids who might be in a stroller are the same 
people who are able to enjoy a boardwalk that might be designed 
for people with physical disabilities.
    What else does the National Park Service need from Congress 
to make all national parks accessible to every visitor?
    Mr. Sams. We appreciate your continued engagement with us 
on the issue, and keeping this conversation going is very 
helpful, and I look forward to sitting down with many of you to 
talk about how we can even be better at this.
    Ms. Porter. Yes, and what I have heard is that there is 
about $900 million a year that you are still short in the Great 
American Outdoors Act. And the bill, as it is written, only 
addresses about half of the backlog. So, what that means is 
that we still have more projects to do, which means we still 
have more opportunity to work on inclusivity and accessibility 
during that.
    We can't pass the Great American Outdoors Act to be popular 
with our constituents one year and then turn around later and 
cut that very funding that will allow us to achieve its 
bipartisan goals. So, today I ask my colleagues, do you truly 
want to achieve the vision of the Great American Outdoors Act, 
or will you vote to fund or to cut the National Park Service, 
based on whatever is politically popular at the time?
    We will find out when we take our votes to fund the 
Department of the Interior. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields back. Next, I would like 
to recognize Mr. Fulcher from Idaho.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sams, thank you for being here today and for your 
testimony. I want to just talk a little bit further about the 
acquisition of new land when the Park Service does that, and 
just how that contributes to your existing backlog maintenance. 
When there is new land acquired, what happens to your backlog 
for maintenance, Mr. Sams?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. It really depends on the 
type of land we bought, and what is on or not on the land. So, 
it may have----
    Mr. Fulcher. Would it be safe to say that, generally 
speaking, if you get more land, you have more maintenance?
    Mr. Sams. Say again, I am sorry.
    Mr. Fulcher. Would it be fair to say that, if you get more 
land to manage, that there is typically more maintenance?
    Mr. Sams. There are additional maintenance costs, yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. One of the things that concerns me as well as 
some others, I think, on the dais today is the ability of the 
National Park Service to manage new land, given the backlog 
that we already have. And there is just a concern about that.
    And that brings up what has already been touched on, the 
$38.6 billion in deferred maintenance that has been roughly 
doubled in the last 3 years. What is the current plan to reduce 
the backlog maintenance that you have, Director Sams?
    Mr. Sams. Between the GAOA money, coupled with additional 
funding we have been able to use in line item budgets, we have 
been able to really tackle this in a different way.
    This additional funding that has come in through this 
bipartisan act really is helping us tackle this and be able to 
make further investments with funds that we were so limited on 
before.
    Mr. Fulcher. Director Sams, the backlog numbers have almost 
doubled in 3 to 3\1/2\ years.
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir. They doubled because we are doing a 
much better assessment. We weren't really doing a standard, 
what I would say, a standardized industry assessment prior to 
this. And because of that, our systems allow us to do a better 
calculation of what the real costs are.
    Mr. Fulcher. Director Sams, have you ever thought about 
opportunities to partner with local governments, with states, 
with tribes in ways to work on this backlog maintenance issue? 
Has that discussion ever come up? And is that something that 
you think about on a routine basis?
    Mr. Sams. We do. I actually want to praise our 
associations, whether that is at Yosemite or Yellowstone. Many 
of our associations help raise funds, and have done so for 20, 
30-plus years.
    The National Park Foundation has also helped us with some 
of this deferred maintenance prior to the Great American 
Outdoors Act, and they continue to make those investments.
    So, we have been able to use those local monies from our 
associations, from counties and states to help even further 
what the Great American Outdoors Act has done.
    Mr. Fulcher. There is a proposal--my understanding is that 
the President put forth in his budget for $104.3 million for 
the National Park Service to acquire new lands.
    Coming from a state where nearly two-thirds of the land 
mass is Federal or under Federal control, and a state that, on 
average, over the last 8, 10 years will see 500 million acres 
burn to wildfire because of, largely, mismanagement, unkept 
fuel load, that is a real red flag for me, and that is a real 
concern.
    And Director, I would just encourage you to prioritize the 
management and the stewardship of that land. And I want to 
encourage you to utilize and to allow partnerships locally, for 
those of us who actually live on it or live right next to it, 
who want to see it taken care of as well, and that is our 
tribes, our local counties, the local governments, and the 
states.
    If we don't do that, and look no further than the state of 
Idaho to see the evidence, if we don't do that, it goes up in 
smoke. And that takes out the wildlife, that kicks tons and 
tons of carbon into the atmosphere. And we are all better off 
if we can figure out how to work together, local, Federal. And 
I encourage you to do that.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Next, I would like to 
recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Curtis.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Director Sams. I spent the last several days in 
Acadia National Park. My compliments to your team there. I met 
one particular young lady who was as bright, and intelligent, 
and helpful as anybody I have ever met, and just a really good 
experience there.
    You may know that Utah is home to a number of national 
parks. We like to call it the Mighty Five. Many of us regret 
that they have become so popular. We have probably over-
advertised them, and now see tremendous use of these national 
parks.
    I think, in truth, if I could redo this life, I would be a 
park ranger. I love to spend time in the national parks. Having 
been a former mayor, I realize firsthand how they impact the 
quality of life. I think we way under-emphasize the impact on 
morale, on people, on positive life, nature because of our 
experiences in the national parks. And I would be one of your 
biggest fans and be cheering for your success.
    Let me turn to the discussion that we have had a little bit 
about how these funds are used. When I was mayor, we looked at 
deferred maintenance from the perspective of this is 
maintenance that, because it was deferred, it will cost us more 
later on than if we did it right now. And that makes a great 
case for funding. A parking lot is a really good example. If we 
don't repair a parking lot, those cracks get bigger, the 
potholes get bigger, and it actually costs taxpayers more than 
if we just repaired it right now.
    Can you tell me, from your perspective, is there an intent 
within priorities to use this money for projects that truly, by 
deferring, cost the taxpayer more, or how are they prioritized?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely. We are 
looking at that, and we have to make the best business case 
possible before we will accept a project for funding. That 
business case has to talk about what is the resiliency of the 
project that we are putting in.
    So, whether that is putting in a bridge, a road, a new 
building, or repairing a building in such a way, or replacing a 
building, we have to ensure the resiliency will be there for 
the next 20, 30, 40, 50-plus years, and that it should reduce 
the overall deferred maintenance if we do the right, 
appropriate upkeep over that----
    Mr. Curtis. Thus saving the taxpayer more money than if we 
hadn't done the project.
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Curtis. Congressman Neguse mentioned that this was a 
downpayment, and you have heard how this can quickly become 
political today. To the extent that we want more money--and I 
do--to go to this, I think it is imperative that your agency is 
able to make this a non-political issue, and assure people that 
it really is, in the long term, saving taxpayers money by 
spending this money.
    I also have the pleasure of being part of the Grand Canyon 
National Recreation Area. It is one of my family's favorite 
places to recreate. As you probably know, it is suffering 
because of the extreme drought. We have a little bit of a break 
from that this year. We will see how that does. But overall, it 
is really stressing the infrastructure there.
    And I don't expect you to be familiar with every single 
project, but I would like to point out the North Wash at 
Cataract Canyon. It is a boat take-out place that has been 
used. The lower water and the deteriorating condition has 
caused a serious problem for people who use that, and I would 
love to have that on your list to look into and see if we are 
doing everything that we can there, as well as the Hite Marina 
suffered because of that, and I would love to see a boat take-
out spot is there, as well.
    And if you could--I can see your help is taking notes here. 
If you could take a look at those personally, and let me know 
if they are on a priority list, that would be helpful.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. I will definitely take a 
look at those. I am appreciative that the Biden-Harris 
Administration is taking an all-of-government approach on the 
drought issue on the Colorado River, and we are looking at 
recreation, particularly because of its effects on the local 
communities, and also just on the economic impacts we have. So, 
we will--
    Mr. Curtis. Yes. I think it is fair to say it impacts local 
guides, it impacts individuals with recreation, it impacts the 
local tribes. It is a serious impact, economically, throughout 
the whole region.
    Do you care to estimate how much the lake will go up this 
year?
    Mr. Sams. I do not know. But I am very hopeful that it will 
go up this year.
    Mr. Curtis. We are all watching carefully. We have been 
blessed with one good winter. We need a lot more. But thank you 
for your attention to that specific area.
    A shout-out to Patricia Trap, who manages the region there 
with Arches National Parks, and Canyonlands, and others. Once 
again, just all of my experiences with your people on the 
ground have been positive. You have great people. And I think 
that is one of the great badges that you wear in your 
organization is the people on the ground.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Next, I would like to 
recognize Ms. Kamlager-Dove from California for 5 minutes of 
questioning.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for 
having this hearing.
    I am still sort of trying to take in all of the information 
that I was able to read in the binder. And while it would be 
helpful if both could respond, I am just curious about what you 
think the takeaways should be from this hearing as it relates 
to what the focus should be moving forward. And I would like to 
start with Director Sams.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    First and foremost, that we are trying to be and we will be 
as transparent as possible. I appreciate the Committee's 
oversight on this. As people well know, when we are doing our 
projects we talk to our community partners, we talk with our 
county, and with the state governments. We are trying to make 
sure that this is as transparent as possible. You can follow 
the process online. We have put all of our projects out there. 
Our projects, as we have laid them out, come before Congress 
for approval each fiscal year. And the oversight is extremely 
important. It is important to me.
    Last year, I visited 60 parks, 26 states to look at where 
our deferred maintenance was. I have seen more septic systems 
than I have ever thought I would see in my life. That being 
said, though, those are important because when those don't 
work, our visitors could suffer from both health concerns and 
other issues. And we want to ensure that we have clean water 
when people come into the parks.
    So, I appreciate the work that this Committee does, and 
Congress as a whole, to ensure that we are spending these 
dollars the way we say we are going to spend these dollars.
    Mr. Bloodsworth. Thank you for the opportunity to respond 
to the question. Excellent question.
    We have taken the Great American Outdoors Act Legacy 
Restoration Fund money that has been entrusted to us, thank you 
to the Congress for enacting this bipartisan piece of 
legislation, it has been tremendously impactful, and we have 
been taking it extremely seriously, in terms of how we look at 
the intent of Congress when this Act was passed, which was to 
reduce deferred maintenance.
    And yes, while the backlog has increased, that is not 
necessarily because the projects are not achieving their intent 
and their purpose. The projects that we are picking are large 
in nature. They are multi-million-dollar, with an average 
project size of roughly $15 million over the course of the 4 
project years that have been funded or proposed thus far. And 
these projects will not be completed for multiple years.
    We address and eliminate deferred maintenance when projects 
are at completion. So, as these projects begin to be completed, 
you will start to see that deferred maintenance start to come 
off the books. We are very much looking forward to that. We 
have metrics that we are tracking very much surrounding that.
    We are also taking seriously the considerations around 
geographic equity, about how do we make sure that proportioned 
amounts of investment align with where the backlog resides in 
the United States. The backlog is not distributed evenly across 
the landscape.
    For example, the questioning around the state of California 
earlier. California represents roughly 14.5 percent of the 
nation's backlog. And to date for the projects funded in 2021 
through 2023, California has received roughly 8.5 percent of 
the GAOA investment dollars thus far. Some of the statistics 
cited earlier are incorrect, and I just wanted to make sure 
that that was clear on record.
    We very much appreciate the opportunity to address the 
backlog. We have lots of hardworking men and women at the 
Department of the Interior across all four bureaus receiving 
funding that are hard at work addressing this. We are always 
looking to get better with our data, with our numbers. That is 
why the backlog numbers jumped between 2020 and 2021, was the 
Park Service was not including planning, design, and 
construction management costs that were similar to the other 
three bureaus at Interior. So, to make sure that we were all 
accounting for and looking at an apples-to-apples comparison, 
we felt that was important to factor in, to look at the full 
cost of delivering a project.
    That 35 percent markup is what led to the backlog increase, 
the primary result of that. We are now at that level of equity 
in comparison, and we very much appreciate the opportunity to 
continue this dialogue. There is lots more work to be done, and 
we look forward to talking to Congress about how we can achieve 
that.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that, and I would yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. Next, I would like to 
recognize the Representative from Minnesota, Representative 
Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Sams, thank you for joining us here today.
    In my district, we have Voyageurs National Park and the 
Grand Portage National Monument. Voyageurs is unique. It is 
comprised of huge, interconnected waterways with unparalleled 
summer and winter activities. It is known as a world-class 
fishing destination, where you can get to your spot by boat or 
snowmobile. It also has a strong houseboat presence and 
supports many small business cooperators.
    But because Voyageurs has a unique relationship with the 
water, we have unique needs. The funding needs aren't great. 
According to your agency, Voyageurs requires about $40 million 
in deferred maintenance. We have lake walls that need repair, 
docks and marinas that need updating, and more.
    When I voted for the Great American Outdoors Act in 2020, I 
was voting for Voyageurs to receive deferred maintenance 
funding. I could picture families putting boats in with clean, 
safe docks before catching some walleyes, or snowmobilers using 
well-groomed trails.
    Mr. Sams, can you tell me how much Legacy Restoration 
Funding Voyageurs has received over the life of the program 
that is up for reauthorization in just a couple of short years?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. Voyageurs is unique, and 
I look forward to getting up there, hopefully, this year. In 
talking with the staff, and having staff who I have sent out 
there, they have told me about its uniqueness and its multi-
use.
    But I am going to have to ask Brian--never mind, it is 
right here. Voyageurs National Park replaced power distribution 
line connecting Kettle Falls Hotel was $13.8 million, proposed.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. The $14 million was proposed for the 
Kettle River Falls Hotel power line.
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Stauber. But to be correct here, no money has been 
allocated from your Department for Voyageurs.
    And I want to ask you this. How much has the George 
Washington Parkway been allocated for DC commuters?
    Mr. Sams. Approximately $123 million.
    Mr. Stauber. My account is it is $208 million. To me, that 
is unacceptable. For under one-fifth of the money that you 
chose to spend on a DC-area road, you could have fixed all of 
our needs at Voyageurs National Park.
    The Great American Outdoors Act was intended to rejuvenate 
our parks, the crown jewels of our public lands. And NPS, under 
your leadership, chose to use it on pet projects on the coasts. 
I intend to work with my colleagues on this Subcommittee on 
reauthorization of the Legacy Restoration Fund. It clearly 
needs a closer look.
    In closing, I just want to remark that I am troubled by the 
proposed changes to the use plan for Voyageurs National Park. 
Constituents that have long been able to use motorized portages 
are concerned that after this plan update, they will lose 
access. My staff and I intend to watch this plan play out 
carefully, and you will hear from me if it is not done right to 
the constituents' needs and desires.
    I will tell you that, for me, for Voyageurs to take a back 
seat--I mean, zero funding--is just out of line. Minnesota 
matters. That national park, Voyageurs National Park, matters 
to northern Minnesota, matters to all of Minnesotans. And it 
received zero funding. I am here to advocate for that park.
    And I am very happy to hear you talk about you want to get 
up to Voyageurs. I would ask that when you coordinate that 
trip, please get a hold of our office. I would love to join you 
up there, and visit the park, and look at some of the needs.
    And I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Next, I recognize the 
Representative from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez. You have 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, thank you so much, Chairman 
Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, and thank you both, Director 
Sams and Director Bloodsworth, for being here.
    I am very excited about the Great American Outdoors Act, 
because it is indeed a great America that we are investing in, 
that which belongs to all Americans, which are our public 
lands, right? And our beautiful parks.
    In New Mexico, as you know, our delegation was a big 
supporter of the Great American Outdoors Act because we knew it 
was going to help us conserve and restore the many public lands 
and sites in New Mexico. The Legacy Restoration Fund is going 
to help our parks and features just become more resilient and 
more enjoyable.
    I love reading about what are the ingredients of happiness. 
And a key ingredient is being outdoors, is being with nature. 
And we know that too many of our children, our schoolchildren, 
don't get to enjoy that. So, part of what this fund is doing is 
making it possible for us to get everybody outside enjoying 
what is theirs.
    The Legacy Restoration Fund is important to New Mexico 
because it is helping repair the Wild Rivers Backcountry Byway, 
which is important for the Rio Grande del Norte National 
Monument in Taos County. I have spent many, many a moment 
finding my happiness up in Taos County.
    It is also at Bandelier, which represents both a connection 
between what was there and came before and our ability to now 
sit and wonder about it. Whether you are looking at the 
beavers--we have beavers moving in there, which is important 
for wildlife--or climbing those stairs into the ancient kivas. 
That is the kind of work that we are seeing in New Mexico, 
which is key.
    The fact that there is so much deferred maintenance, and 
that it is taking us so long to get to all of the beautiful 
places we identify in our states like we just heard on the dais 
up here, is because we haven't been paying attention to it, 
right? Too many of our facilities are falling apart.
    Director Sams, could you describe to us the steps that the 
Park Service is taking to partner with local communities and 
businesses on this great American opportunity funding?
    Because I think that is the other piece of it, that this is 
an economic opportunity for those local communities that we 
have heard on both sides of the aisle talk about when we want 
our places restored.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate that.
    We just most recently held our leadership council meeting 
in Albuquerque, and I was visiting with the Albuquerque parks 
director and the number of projects we have already done with 
the city of Albuquerque and throughout the state.
    First and foremost, all our major projects involve 
stakeholder engagement, including the local communities, as 
part of the public review process and through NEPA. Our 
superintendents and staff in the field are actively engaged 
with their local gateway communities, listen to community 
concerns, and communicate about project impacts. Parks and 
superintendents maintain active and robust consultation with 
tribes who have an affiliation with the respective park units, 
and many of our projects are contracted with local small 
businesses.
    And it is extremely important--and I impress upon that with 
my superintendents--that we have to get outside the park and go 
visit our gateway communities, and go beyond that, and visit 
our tribal partners, and go beyond that to visit the 
surrounding community that we also need their support from, and 
where we have a symbiotic relationship.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And I think that that really is 
the key, is the park isn't sitting outside of the community. 
The park is part of the greater community.
    I am glad you mentioned tribes. Could you talk a little bit 
more about the co-stewardship of Federal lands with tribes that 
you are pursuing? What is your vision on that?
    Mr. Sams. My vision overall is ensuring that where tribes 
have been here for thousands of years, they have an opportunity 
to use Indigenous knowledge to help us in how we maintain.
    As we heard earlier, there has been a lot of mismanagement 
around forest lands throughout the West. We have all seen, from 
New Mexico to my own home state of Oregon, Washington, and 
Idaho, the massive fires that we have had to deal with. For 
thousands of years, tribes have used prescribed burn to ensure 
that we wouldn't have these mass conflagrations. And we are 
finally being able to bring that knowledge with tribes around 
co-stewardship and co-managing these spaces in Federal, state, 
and tribal lands so that we can deal with such elements as 
this, including invasive species.
    Every LRF project is an opportunity to strengthen our 
relationship with our tribes, not just through required 
consultation, but through continued conversations on how we 
care for these special places that we all love so much. 
Depending on the specific project, co-stewardship could come in 
the form of incorporation of tribal, traditional, ecological 
knowledge, collaborating with tribes in how to tell Indigenous 
stories when updating our exhibits, tribal involvement through 
cooperative agreements or self-governance contracts that relate 
to the projects being completed also.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much. And I think 
the issue of how do you tell the stories of these places coming 
from those who emerged and for whom it is still a living place 
is important. So, thank you for that work.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields back. Now, we are going 
to do a second round of questioning if anyone wants to do that 
on the panel, and I will start out. I just want to do some 
follow-ups here, Director Sams.
    There has been discussion about a proposal to freeze Park 
Service funding at Fiscal Year 2022 levels. Secretary Haaland 
recently sent a letter--I have it here in my hand--discussing 
the effects of a 22 percent reduction to Fiscal Year 2023 
levels. She talked about reduced hours at Yosemite, closed 
visitor centers, or various things like that that were in this 
letter. Are you familiar with it?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir, I am.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. So, your own Park Service budget proposes 
a 20 percent cut compared to Fiscal Year 2023. How do you 
reconcile the fact that Secretary Haaland said a 22 percent cut 
in National Park Service would be catastrophic, while your own 
executive budget recommends a 20 percent cut, and says it would 
provide essential investments?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Chairman. I would have to go back and 
do a better analysis of that, and I would be happy to report 
back to you in written form of my analysis.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. The Park Service's own budget proposes a 
nearly 20 percent decrease. So, while we have this letter from 
Secretary Haaland decrying what may be these draconian cuts 
that she says are due to Congressional Republicans and their 
actions, it turns out that the Administration is proposing a 20 
percent cut by going back to Fiscal Year 2023 levels. We heard 
earlier that we cannot have these draconian cuts. I believe the 
Ranking Member commented about that. What is the difference 
between a 22 percent cut and a 20 percent cut, as provided in 
the executive agency's budget?
    Mr. Sams. Again, Mr. Chairman, I will do a deep dive on 
this, and I will get it back in writing and explain it.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. If you would do that, I would really 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Sams. Absolutely, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. I want to go back to the Presidio. The 
Presidio Trust has sought $200 million to redevelop 22 historic 
Spanish colonial barracks at the 30-acre Fort Scott site and 
turn it into a place for change. According to the Trust's CEO, 
Jean Fraser, the Trust envisioned renovating these buildings so 
that people who are working in the environmental or social 
justice areas would have a place to do great work in this 
magnificent setting.
    Is taxpayer money from the Inflation Reduction Act that you 
transferred to Presidio now being used to create this 
environmental and social justice area?
    Mr. Sams. Mr. Chairman, I don't know the specifics, but I 
can go look into that, though.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, if you would get us an answer in regards 
to that.
    Do you think environmental and social justice improvements 
should be categorized as deferred maintenance?
    Mr. Sams. It would depend on if they were already prior 
there, and were making adjustments for that. Again, I would 
have to go back and do a deeper dive on this.
    Mr. Tiffany. Well, I suspect the American people don't 
think that fixing up the nation's parks, which is what was 
supposed to be the intent of this, right?
    Mr. Sams. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. It is supposed to deal with deferred 
maintenance, the backlog that is going on. Creating 
environmental and social justice areas, I don't think, are what 
the American people envisioned for this.
    And knowing San Francisco the way it is, what used to be 
one of the most beautiful cities in the United States of 
America, that people on the right and left are saying has went 
into an abyss. Is the Presidio going to become a homeless 
shelter? I think that is what many American people would be 
concerned about.
    The Presidio's enabling statute directed the Presidio Trust 
to operate without taxpayer funding by 2012. If the Trust 
failed to achieve this self-sufficiency and continued to rely 
on taxpayer funding, the Trust Act stated that all property 
under the administrative jurisdiction of the Trust be disposed 
of, and any real property so transferred shall be deleted from 
the boundary of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
    Is receiving $200 million in taxpayer funding from the IRA 
considered self-sufficient?
    Mr. Sams. Again, I would have to go back and take a deeper 
look into those issues and get back to you, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. I mean, you can be straightforward here. Is 
that being self-sufficient, when the taxpayers are having to 
put up $200 million?
    Mr. Sams. Again, I don't know all the specifics of the 
Presidio Trust, but I will definitely look into it, and I will 
get back to you with an answer.
    Mr. Tiffany. Since they are clearly in violation of the 
Presidio Trust Act, would you support either rescinding this 
$200 million in taxpayer funding or deleting the Presidio Park 
from the boundaries of the Golden Gate NRA?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. Again, 
I would have to look more deeply into that and get back to you.
    Mr. Tiffany. Could you get us an answer if this is in 
violation of the Presidio Trust Act?
    Mr. Sams. Again, I don't know all the particulars for the 
Presidio Trust Act, but I will look into it and get back to 
you.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would like to know specifically if this is 
in violation of the Presidio Trust Act.
    And this is really not difficult to deal with. All the 
Presidio Trust has to do is go to the billionaires that are out 
there in Silicon Valley, go to Mrs. Jobs, go to Mr. Zuckerberg, 
go to Sergey Brin and the Google crowd who have these billions 
of dollars. Just go ask them for the money--this is pocket 
change for them--rather than asking the American people to do 
this.
    I see no one else that is here to ask any questions. So, 
Director Sams, I want to say thank you for your testimony, and 
I want to thank the Members for their questions.
    I really look forward to your answers coming back. And we 
may have some follow-ups to those answers. I think they are 
very important for the American people, especially as we leave 
here and we go out and have hearings of the Federal Land 
Subcommittee around the United States. We are going to want the 
American people to know what is happening here.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for our witness today, and we will ask that he 
respond to those in writing, if you would, Director.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, 
April 21, 2023. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business--we are pretty alone here, 
aren't we?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. Without objection, the Subcommittee stands 
adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                              [all]