>> in 2016, three years from now, the national park service is going to celebrate its centennial anniversary. while the creation of our national park system is one of our country's greatest successes, the park service aces significant funding challenges in taking care of the more than 400 national parks, monuments, and other sites that congress and the president has entrusted to its protection. now deferred maintenance backlog that is estimated at $11 billion, and it is perhaps higher. the backlog grows each year. meanwhile, the park service, like every other part of the government, faces significant limitations on the funding that congress appropriated for the

care of our national parks. it is unlikely that the appropriation levels are going to increase anytime soon. certainly not increased to the amount necessary that would fully address the deferred maintenance backlog. given these challenges, senator murkowski and i wanted to schedule this hearing so that the committee can explore and consider new ideas to help fund the park service for the next century. anreally would not be appropriate parks hearing if you did not refer at least once to wallace stegner's famous quote that national parks are the best idea that we have ever had. they certainly continue to be a very popular idea. despite the budgetary challenges, senators of both political parties continue to push for new or expanded national parks in their home states. already in this congress, seven bills calling for studies of new

national parks have been referred to this committee. another seven bills would establish new national parks, and six bills would expand the size of existing park areas. these bills are evidence of the extraordinary popularity of national parks with the american people and the desire to protect new areas and tell new stories that are not adequately represented in the national parks system. i support many of those efforts expandingof the bills existing national parks area is legislation i proposed to expand the oregon caves national monument. i understand the desire and need that americans are expressing to specialthese very places. at the same time, my view is that congress has to come up with fresh, creative ideas to makethe park service concrete, tangible headway with its maintenance backlog to ensure the long-term viability

of our parks system. today, i'm going to want to and ideaith witnesses of raising fees for non-us otherns, like many countries do. for example, this could apply to backcountry camping permits that are very popular. the argument on behalf of looking at an idea like this is that those are individuals that use our parks system, they do not pay taxes to support the parks, and there is a very high- volume and increasing volume of foreign visitors. we, senator murkowski and i, are interested in having dr. coburn here today, because he has been persistent in advocating for the need to address this deferred maintenance backlog for quite some time. as dr. coburn does on so many issues, he makes it clear that

that thet just pretend problems do not exist. you've got to step up. you've got to look, as i indicated, at real and creative approaches that can build bipartisan support to address these concerns. he is raising legitimate questions about how the parks service is going to be able to properly care for our national parks and how it will ever be able to address this immense funding backlog. senator murkowski and i thought it was appropriate that he leadoff the hearing this morning so we can get his perspective and consider the real issues that he has raised. we thank him. we will hear from him in a few minutes. the last point i wanted to make is that as the parks service centennial gets closer, we are going to examine all of the creative ideas that have been proposed thus far.

certainly there ought to be opportunities with national park partners, such as park philanthropic and friends group, and i would ask colleagues on both sides of the aisle who parks be open to considering some new approaches. our committee recently included $50 million in dedicated funding in the helium bill to pay for the federal share of a challenge cost share agreement for deferred maintenance projects. in effect, through that legislation, senator murkowski and i said, there is a chance to meet one of the country's economic needs, and in the years ahead with a specific timetable, that the government out of the helium business. we were able to do that in a bar partisan way. -- in a bipartisan way. we will -- we will pay special attention to funding ideas presented by the bipartisan policy center.

we will ask some details about that. parks service is primarily reliant on federal appropriations to fund deferred maintenance projects. the agency is able to use revenue elected from park entrance and visitor user fees to fund repairs, maintenance, and other projects that directly improve the enjoyment of our visitors. however, the authority to collect and spend revenues expires in december 2014. if that law is not renewed, the parks service would lose almost $180 million annually. i think it is critical that the legislation be passed in this congress that the parks service and other land management agencies do not lose that particularly important revenue source. we are also looking forward to the views of national parks service director john jarvis. he has been talking with us about a number of different approaches. let me now recognize senator murkowski on this matter, and -- thank hergain

again for all the bipartisan she has been willing to take on. it was one of the reasons we were able to get 14 bills cleared in the senate, more than anybody anticipated at this early date. it would not have happened without senator murkowski. i think her for her bipartisan approach. >> as you know, we have an opportunity to move as many as 14 of these bills. i look forward to moving this process forward. thank you for this very important hearing. for those of us in alaska, our parks are pretty special. not that they are not special in other parts of the country. i think ours are just bigger. they take up more space. they are a constant reminder of the national treasures that we have. you, dr. coburn, for your interest in this issue. your interest in ensuring that we are on a path for the greater

sustainability when it comes to the operation and maintenance of our national parks and parks system. i do believe we are taking an important step today with this hearing, and starting this discussion about how we are going to pay down the national parks services maintenance backlog, which the parks service estimates that approximately $13 billion. i would like to be clear. i do not think this is an issue that should be solved through additional federal funding. we know around here we are serious fiscal situations. we've got to be looking at new and alternative ways to find funding for the parks system and also to reassess, reevaluate our current funding priorities. one of those areas that i think we need to look at is what is happening within the land and water conversation -- conservation fund. very significant increases we see there, and coming from a state where we have close to 70%

of our lands that are held by the federal government, i always approach requests to purchase additional federal land with some skepticism. particularly during tough economic times. i cannot imagine why purchasing more is such a priority. it strikes me as almost counterintuitive that we would be adding more land to the maintenance list when the government already is dealing with such obstacles when it comes to the maintenance of the existing parklands. i do think this is an area where we would have potential for agreement that we could update the statute, making it more relevant to our current reality, from a public lands policy and budgetary standpoint. i would like to work with you, mr. chairman, dr. coburn, director jarvis, on reforming lwcf so that this can be a tool that agencies can use for deferred maintenance before we i additional -- we buy

additional lands. are, atiate that there times, sometimes sensitive acquisitions that need to be time sensitive acquisitions that need to be made. i think there is room for compromise. i look forward to a discussion on that topic this morning. the next area i would like to bring up is the potential for increased funding and involvement from outside groups and the friends groups. one of the major complaints that i hear from friends groups are these bureaucratic obstacles that many of these groups face when they are trying to donate to the national parks of us for projects. -- parks service for projects. we need to streamline the process, encourage folks to contribute both the resources and dollars. just yesterday, we got a press release from the parks service out in saint elias.

advertisement, a public advertisement, for a cleanup event on august 3 out in the chittenden area. it is an invitation to folks in the area to come and help clean up. it is going to consist of burning scrap wood, recycling trash that has accumulated, bring your sunglasses, your raincoats, you're one of bottles -- water bottles. lunch will be provided. great. i think it is fabulous. it gives people real ownership in their part. huge for us.is these are exactly the types of volunteer efforts that the parks service should be using and expanding upon, not only to save money, but again to bring locals into their parks for a very positive experience. i also hear from private ceos who want to donate funds, but they feel that their donations are not adequately recognized. i would hope that director jarvis can talk about how we can

work together to improve the donation and recognition procedures. an id outlet to put forward is for donor recognition throughout the national park system. we should have tasteful recognition of private donors who are willing to pay for specific maintenance backlog projects, perhaps the naming of a room at a visitor center, a naming of the bench. i think we can bring their dollars into the parks system, we need to to make it easy and worthwhile. we just passed through the house that woulda measure allow for recognition for donors for the vietnam veterans memorial. i think there are some ideas out there that we can look to create another thing i would like to raise before returned to dr. coburn is looking at the current recreational fee structure. some national parks charge entrance fees. others do not. i think we need to look at this fee plan and ensure that there is some equity across the national park service.

i think it is unfair that my constituents in alaska have to pay to visit some of their parks , but other folks around the country do not bear that same burden. or the parks that do not charge an entrance fee, maybe we should look at the idea of charging for parking within those parks. i am told that if the national parks service started charging for parking on the national mall -- one example -- they could raise an additional $2 million per year. i do not know that i want to pay more for parking in washington, d.c., it is an idea. you could put the money back into maintenance. mr. chairman, i am pleased that we are at this point. i really do hope this is the beginning of a constructive dialogue that allows us to address in a meaningful way the maintenance backlogs of our wonderful national parks. >> thank you senator murkowski. as usual, you offer up some ideas that certainly ought to be explored. we will do that together. i also want to note before we go

to dr. coburn that we have three colleagues who have long, long histories of being advocates for the parks. chairman udall, who chairs our a nextittee, has brought ordinary amount of passion and expertise. extraordinary amount of passion and expertise. senator portman, both in terms of his private sector involvement and service in the senate, has a long record of supporting the parks. i think it would be fair to say that senator alexander is mr. park. he has consistently advocated for sensible park protection in our country, and so i'm very grateful to colleagues for coming. i know senator udall has to leave fairly early. after dr. coburn has given his testimony, i will make sure that all colleagues who are under the gun will ask questions before i do. dr. coburn, i think it is pretty clear that your message is getting through.

that people understand that this is a very serious challenge. you cannot pretend to be in denial and say does not exist. we thank you. nobody has done more to make the point here about how important this challenge is. >> thank you. i appreciate being invited. in the next month, we will release the 2013 parks report where we studied many of our parks, the problems they have, the financing, where the money goes, and following it all the way down. listing in their some recommendations of things we hope the committee will consider . i appreciate the opportunity to come before you. i was born in wyoming. i love yellowstone. i love rocky mountain national park. i love the grand tetons. i spend a lot of my time in that part of the country when i am not here. i am a critic of what we are doing because i love our parks. my oldest for grandkids just

spent time at the grand canyon and yellowstone. enjoying and taking in those magnificent parks. has ational parks service little bit less than a $3 billion budget. 401 park units, covering 84 million acres of land. with that budget, they also are responsible for 27,000 historic structures, 2461 national historic landmarks, 500 82 natural landmarks, 49 natural heritage areas, and 84 million acres of land. the budget for the parks themselves is only $1.36 billion. the remaining annual funds of their budget goes towards a multitude of activities,

including affiliated areas, grant programs, research centers, administrative expenses, and additional land acquisitions. congress and multiple administrations have recognized the deferred maintenance problem for years grant president bush gave a speech in 2001 and said under his of ministration, we will correct that. year could thee deferred maintenance went down one year. it has continued to climb ever since. point -- ie the think most commonsense americans would make the point -- before we add additional parks, we ought to take care of the parks we have. we ought to prioritize what our roles are. we all know. we have alaska is a wonderful colorado, -- jewel. colorado, the smokey mountains, we ought to take care of them. the political process to add a k is driven one by

recognition, too, by commerce, because there is always the hope that commerce will follow a park , but i think mature thinking would have us really look at the priorities of what we have today and in and keep what we have today. before we make commitments to lessen what we have today. in 1997, the national parks service report based on identified maintenance, rehabilitation, developmental needs does not have and never has had enough funds and staff to care for all the resources in its custody. yet we keep adding things for them to do. intervening to the fundamental problem are unrealistic expectations reflected in and furthered by park planning documents and overwhelming deferred maintenance workloads and a lack of multidisciplinary

focus to set and achieve realistic goals and cooperative efforts, recognizing the value of the aspects of separate parks. added 267, we have park units. the -- enable 2013, the president administration said -- because of the existing assets, the backlog of the service continues to rapidly expand beyond the capabilities of the service. within the same month of reconfirming that the parks service does not have the resources to take care of what it has, they added three new parks and 13,000 acres through the antiquities act. not through us, but through the antiquities act. we are going to make this graph much worse based on what has been done in the last year.

the line item construction budget for the national park service was $77 million. that is the lowest level since 1988. 25 years. , the construction budget was at the lowest level in 25 years. deferred maintenance is five times more costly than routine preventative maintenance. we know that. the park service can give us that. we know that is true. yet when we do not have the resources to actually research resurface a road, we have to rebuild the base, and the cost is astronomical. all of these things are multipliers that are actually hurting this number, actually making it grow higher as we pass on cheaper maintenance that actually would preserve and then have to go to full replacement. most parks had

deferred maintenance of $2.6 billion. 20% of the deferred maintenance backlog is in our top 10 most visited parks. in 2012, 59 national parks representing the crown jewels posted 65 million visitors, and those jewels have $5 billion of that maintenance. can give you some significant examples of deferred maintenance. you will probably hear that from the director. i will give you one example. at independence national historic park in philadelphia, over the last five years, 15 tort claims filed with claims up to $2 million a year paid out. what i would tell you is had we spent one fourth of that each year on maintenance, none of

that would have happened. it is not just the deferred maintenance. we are spending money in other areas on lawsuits because of deferred maintenance. appreciate what senator murkowski said. lwcf fund ought to be reallocated. it is going to continue to grow as oil and gas offshore continues to grow. those funds are going to continue to increase. i know we are in competition with other desires for land acquisition, but it seems to me that if we were to take 75% of that fund by changing the requirements of that fund and put it into park maintenance over the next 10 years to get us caught up, that in fact we can meet the obligations that are expected by the american people without doing anything else and actually get caught back up to a

place where we are protecting these national treasures that we have. make isr point i would that over the last decade, congress has appropriated over half billion dollars to acquire even more land, while over the our lands the cost of has doubled. that is maintaining the national parks services situation. why don't i stop there? i will answer any question that you have. one final point -- of the top 25 most visited national parks in 2011, only eight have been approved since 1970. in comparison, of the 25 least visited national parks, 20 have been established since 1970. not only the fact that we are establishing new parks when we do not have the money to do so, but the priority of what we are establishing in terms of

exposure to the american public and visitation is very low. what we are doing is sacrificing our desire for new parks by putting at risk the crown jewels of our national parks system. i will stop in to any questions that you have. >> dr. coburn, thank you. do any colleagues have either questions or want to be recognized at this time for a statement on this issue? >> mr. chairman, i do not need to go ahead of anybody, but if it is appropriate -- i do not want to question another senator, but i wouldn't mind having a colloquy with him about what he said. i would be glad to go after senator udall or you or lisa or anybody else. >> everybody is being so collegial. senator udall? >> i agree with senator alexander. i'm not interested in questioning another senator. i think senator coburn's research is worth considering. i do find it interesting that we

have not fully funded lwcf at the $900 million level for many years. it has been funded based on what appropriators have wanted to do. open to taking a creative look at all of this. areparks that you mention america's best idea. i would like to get this in the record and some -- in some greater depth, but there have been some cases where they have had a dual or threefold purpose. the great sandy's national park in colorado, which i think you may have visited, maybe you and i can join forces and spent time on the ground, since i know you love colorado and spend some time there -- the creation of the national park, it was a national monument, but we expanded into a national park, helped the ranching economy because their water supplies were threatened. it is an example of how lwcf was

creatively focused on protecting a way of life and also these marvelous natural landscapes. basis, i stillse think lwcf has a very important role when it comes to land acquisition. one other comment, a lot of the maintenance needs our buildings, roads, bridges, water systems, and the purchase of additional sometimes they are holdings to make a national park complete -- it is relatively inexpensive and makes the management job of people like erector jarvis easier. -- director jarvis easier. i may have a disagreement on l wcf. >> but you would not deny the fact that if we do not stop -- start catching up, this is going to go into an elliptical curve in terms of the cost? i would make the point that we had a recent purchase at the digg -- at the grand tetons national park, and the planned

purchase plus the purchase that was made, although it may be totally proper, the amount of money paid for that small expansion cut the backlog at grantee time in half. -- at grand teton in half. if you have not bought the additional land, if you could use that money for maintenance, it is not a given, you would have cut it in half. under good land intentions to expand the park because something is available at a certain time, it is a trade-off against the protection and maintenance and upkeep of that part. i think it has to be balanced. i would just make the point expand government ownership of private lands and we expand park lands, at the same time we are not being good stewards of what we already have. the american people ought to be questioning what we are doing and how we are doing it.

we all know it is about priorities. what i would tell you, it ought to be a priority to find the maintenance of our parks. fund the maintenance of our parks. every year we do not do it, it markedly increases the cost of trying to catch up. $370 million a year. >> no question. senator coburn, it is frustrating to think about the $900 million allocation of lwcf monies, but i think lester, we appropriated something on the order of $200 million. we have left $700 million in limbo or put those dollars in the hands of appropriators to direct to other needs. there may be a sweet spot that we all ought to continue discussing. >> that fund should grow based on our energy production. inwe had a hearing recently the committee. there were dueling numbers to an

extent. andwhere between $6 billion $8 billion for your generated by offshore oil fees. i think that was the number we heard. it would be triggered to deploy these monies to the purposes that previous congresses that they should be deployed to. very good. senator murkowski and senator alexander. >> senator coburn, thank you for your comments. i for one will look forward to the report that you and your staff have prepared, and appreciate the level of detail that you have given this issue. in your report and analysis, do fees as at the issue of they are applied across the park system? i mentioned in my comments that there is a seeming inequity, that in certain areas you have these in certain areas you do not. all, andok at that at where do you come down? >> we have great we also talked

about in the commission, for less than a quarter, you can add about $70 million a year to the maintenance budget. that is $.25 a visitor. there are all sorts of ways for us to do it. it ought to be consistent. servicethe park struggles with two things could how do you satisfy the local community in terms of this, and how do you extract enough resources to help maintain? there are all sorts of things we can do to bring that up. we are going to have recommendations in this report on how you increase the revenues coming to the park. that will be part of what we are doing. tohink the other thing is is try to match expenses within the park service to the revenues, rather than, we have a lot of parks that cost a hundred dollars per visitor -- $100 --

we ought to be saying, should we be putting resources there or resources where we have the highest level of visitors and the highest usage? >> i appreciate that. i will look forward to the recommendations that you put forward. i do think that your proposal, we need to look to lwcf, and how we might be able to carve out some of these collars that are directed to this for our parks and maintenance backlog. if we are smart, it is not a permanent carve out. once we can get on top of your curve, then we should have some flexibility. to move that elsewhere. thanks for your leadership on this. >> ok, senator alexander. >> thanks mr. chairman. senator coburn, thanks for coming. i would like to make a comment and get your reaction to it. then if you think there is any

sense in it, i would like to work with you and turn it into some specific proposal that we might try to get done. thetor udall talked about land water conservation fund. i was cochairman of the commission with his father in 1985-1986 under presidents reagan. it recommended. in of the land water conservation fund, which is $900 million. that is for land acquisitions. not for maintenance. the ideas for federal and state land acquisitions. but as senator udall said, but only once has it been fully funded. the idea was that the money from -- if yourilling impinge on the environment little bit, you take some of that and improve the environment over here, it is a nice balance. except it has never happened.

with senatorrough domenici's rick leadership -- senator domenici's leadership on new drilling in the gulf coast, and won eight of the cent goes to the land water conservation fund. it is not much money. we have a lot of support for full funding of the land water conservation fund at $900 million. it has never happened. senator burr has a bill that would make it mandatory funding. we do have this prospect of drilling for oil and gas offshore, and there are some opportunities there. let me localize this problem little bit and put it in perspective. half of said that about this $11 billion is roads. >> yes. >> in tennessee, here is what we do with roads. we pay for them as we go. in other words, in the 1980s, we

had three big road programs. we are going to raise the gas tax. we will charge the people who use the roads to build the roads, and every single republican in the legislature voted for that because it was a conservative pay-as-you-go policy. we have zero road debt. that we900 million collect and gas taxes. it is one of the lower gas taxes. zero of it goes for interest on the debt. if you go to new jersey, for example, they spend $900 million on principle and interest. we spend it on roads. we have the best roads in the country. i think it is ridiculous for us to have -- to be borrowing money at the federal government level that is so heavily indebted to build roads and national parks. we should not be doing that. we should have user fees of some kind to build the roads, it seems to me. if you want to get at the maintenance, if the maintenance

of$11 billion and $5 billion it is roads, why don't we start by figuring out how to develop a way to take care of the roads? maybe the states through their user fees ought to take a share of that. carolinians do more than anybody else. or maybe we take a combination of what the two of you have said , and neighbors -- and maybe what senator murkowski said, and in exchange for fully funding the land water conservation fund for 10 years, we do that with a mandatory funding that is derived from oil and gas revenues, which is sort of a user fee, since a lot of that goes to transportation, and for at least 10 years, we use that to take care of the roads of the national parks. backlogcks off half the , and it leaves $5 billion to go.

while conservationists might be shocked at the thought, because that money is supposed to go to , senator new lands coburn has made the point we should not be doing that when we cannot take care of the ones we've got. you could add to that, we haven't been funding the land water conservation fund anyway. time,were to say for some we take some of this new money and use it for roads, that helps the parks and gets at your point. it gets us into a habit in this country of fully funding the land water conservation fund, which we can do, maybe more with a straight face about when we do a better job of taking care of what we've got. i would be interested in your reaction. do you think it is realistic to come up with a proposal that fully fund the land water conservation fund, and for some time, uses some of it for roads, at least get part of that taken care of, and using new revenues to do it that are derived somewhere or other from user fees or energy exploration rather than borrowing money by

the federal government? committee hasour jurisdiction on the best way to approach that come about i was a couple of things. number one, the federal government owns 640 million acres of land right now. billion over the next 10 years of land acquisition, what is that going to be? fw --at point does the lc do we buy all the land that is out there available? what happens to land that is taken by the federal government in terms of loss on the tax rolls? there is an economic benefit but also a loss. one of the things we ought to look at is, how do we endow our parks? i can imagine that the grand teton's national park with the people that live out there and visit that, if you set up a plan created its future and

a recognition of those that were involved in endow in it, -- endowing it, you could create an endowment in the rocking national mesh -- the rocky mountain national park, the grand teton's, you would create an endowment that could never touch the principal, but would be totally dedicated to the maintenance and preservation of those parks. this would not even be a question anymore. where it would be a question is parks were people really do not want to go. they do not really match the ristineof christine -- p nature. that has been part of our problem. iat is one of the reasons have been aggressive in trying not to add parks until we take care of it. can tell you a lot of places in oklahoma that we would love to have a park, but it does not,.

-- not come up. tryll work with anybody to to fix this backlog, but i want to fix it permanently. to try to endow. i want us to create the place where we can have people come in and invest in our parks and get some small recognition for it, and create an endowment so over the next 20 years, this is not a problem. i think there are a lot of americans who would like to do that. to participate in the preservation of what are some of our greatest assets in this country. i think there are all sorts of ways to get there. i think you ought to use a large portion of appropriated dollars from this land and water conservation fund to help on the backlog, rather than buy more land right now. >> mr. chairman, if i could make if there were money in the land water conservation fund, i think i would agree with you.

the rocky mountains national park has two or three times as many visitors every year as any other western park, nearly 10 million visitors a year, and in 2005, 110 million of 180 million of the backlog and smokey mountains was roads. one way to tackle this is to get roads out of the picture. let's pay for roads with user fees. then let's focus on the rest of it with appropriated dollars. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. udall. >> i think senator alexander with his comments print i want to thank senator coburn again for his interest and passion on this question. , and senator out alexander was there at the beginning, you were here at the beginning of the lwcf idea. urban forests, stateside and we, federal funding,

have to take all that into account. i think senator alexander is onto an approach that may have utility in it. the hallmark of this committee would be if we could move something forward to get at what we are discussing today. >> senator portman was next. senator udall's partner. >> thank you. i will not hesitate to ask my colleague questions. he answers them so well. first of all, i think this was a great discussion. asking the chairman for tom to join us and the great input from two members who have a lot of experience in the ranking member who has a lot of experience. this is kind of exciting. there is an opportunity for us to do the right thing by our parks. with udall is the chair the subcommittee, having not just but flex ability into how at -- how you look at this differently, and i'm the ranking member now -- we probably cannot

not focus as much as we should on this issue, it is the parks are a treasure. everybody loves them. we have to be sure that we deal with this backlog. briefly on a national commission on the centennial. i got off of it when i got into the race for the senate. i was sometimes the skunk at the picnic. my focus was on this notion of stewardship. stakely think we make a in focusing too much on acquisitions. we need to have some flex ability on this because udall made a good point, and we talked about the in holdings where you cannot make apart more efficient -- cuyahoga national park. it is not only a big part in ohio. roads were fine there last weekend. [laughter]

we did not run into any potholes. we need a few potholes fixed at cuyahoga. is one use of the land water conservation fund, but i do think this idea of using it for backlog is really interesting. there is some precedent that are queued all talked about. about. mark udall talked this historic preservation fund is for maintenance. not for acquisition, but for actually maintenance of historic sites. these are not federal historic sites. we will hear more about that later from national park as itvation association, puts together this report for us. my question to you is about the flick's ability on the land and water conservation fund --

flexibility on the land and water conservation fund, and also, how do get the private sector more involved? but i was at omb, we ought -- we offered a balanced budget for five years. but we increased funding for the parks. there is a little bit of a flat line when the congress responded to that. it was not a reduction, but at least we flattened it out for a while. congress did not take up the initiative did the initiative was threefold. the most important one was the challenge and the match. we went to the private sector and said, when to put some money in every year, $100 million into the parks, and we will get congress to match up with $100 million? dollar for dollar. that never happened. the chairman was talking about what was done in connection with the healing legislation and the in thation challenge legislation. as you indicated earlier with ,egard to the grand tetons

and there are groups that do a great job, and they provide somewhat of an endowment, but it should be more connected to what are the recognized needs of the park on the deferred maintenance , which he said is five times more costly than preventative maintenance. what do you think about that? does the federal government have a role to play in providing an incentive for the private sector to step up, and maybe with some naming rights done in a tasteful way, as senator murkowski has talked about, but to tap into this love of the parks, his interest, and friendly the economic benefits? >> i think it has a role. what you need is a champion. we had a champion for parks. patty. what you need is a champion that will go out and say, look at where we are. most americans know that we are in the grips of some pretty tough financial prospects going forward in terms of our debt and long-term obligations. think you can do the

challenge, but you need a --mpion to go out and say, to call on those with wealth in this country and say, come help us and all the parks. -- endow the parks. if we get a head of the, which we never do, but if you think about an endowment, it is doubly -- income coming off the endowment that you can apply today, but it also means you not borrowing money against the future. you are saving because you're performing proper maintenance, one, and number two, you are not paying an interest cost. it is just smart. if we can develop a champion of retired congressman, senators, vice presidents, go around the country and rally for the parks to endow the parks so that we can put in motion a preservation for what is really a tremendous asset for our country, but i

think the conflict is everybody even when it doesn't make any economic sense, but the whole argument is about economic benefit. at a time when we cannot take care of the very critical resources that we have today. like i told senator alexander, i will help do whatever i can, i want us to get caught up and do it in a way -- it will save us a ton of money if we do it in a timely fashion, rather than a deferred fashion. >> thank you, senator portman. i think we've had something like 10% of the senate here now to get into this issue could i want to see what other colleagues would like to make comments on. on this side, are there other colleagues that would like to comment or ask questions of dr. coburn? senator mentioned? -- manchin? >> i applaud senator coburn's efforts on this good he is absolutely correct -- efforts on this.

he is absolutely correct. i do not have national parks in my state. west virginians use national parks all over this country. they are so appreciative to have that opportunity. we are all in. we will do whatever we have to do. someone needs to go out and beat the drum on this. iserred maintenance relevant. when i was governor, every time it was time to build something, everybody wants a new heart in their district -- a new park in their district. i had the college system. everybody wanted a new building. building, iked new wanted to see what the deferred maintenance was. if we continue down this road and cannot take care, you cannot ask taxpayers or any of these benefactors when we are not good stewards. what deferrede on

maintenance is -- you might have gone over that already -- we know about how much our deferred maintenance is on our national parks pretty do we have an idea -- parks. do we have an idea? >> $12 billion. that is our backlog. a compounding is and growing problem. every year you do not do preventative maintenance, you get behind the curve. ready soon, you are replacing the road rather than resurfacing it. soon, you are replacing the road rather than resurfacing it. it is going to accelerate. especially what we have done to the park service this year. half of what they need. they are running $377 million in deficits every year on maintenance. every year, they get further and further behind. the degree of maintenance to catch back up, the cost becomes more complex, because you are not doing preventative

maintenance. you are doing structural maintenance. at the grand canyon, we are dipping water out of a river sometimes when the water is not there to run the toilets. park.and canyon national are we proud of that? i am committed -- in a state that does not have a lot of structure in our state, we still benefit all as americans. i think we have to look at it as a whole, not just as what is good for my state, or do i get a park, and i will vote for this if i get something. as a something that has to be done. i appreciate and applaud you. thank you senator. your problem-solving approach will be very useful as we try to take this on. senator barrasso is next. >> i want to thank senator coburn for his leadership and i agree completely with the land and water conservation fund could and should be used for maintenance backlog.

tetonhave a grand national park foundation founded in 1997. was a partnership. it worked -- it was a partnership. it worked to create the visitor center. you said aboutat the land and water conservation fund. thank you. whony other colleagues would like to make comments or ask questions with respect to dr. coburn? senator heinrich, senator baldwin? ok. dr. coburn, i think you have seen the really extraordinary interest among senators on both sides read david brooks is sitting behind me. he is something of a guru on this whole issue of advocating for the parks. i asked him, when was the last discussion in the senate about these kinds of issues, looking

at these kinds of questions on how we deal with the very real problem of the backlog, and mr. brooks, who is a repository of knowledge about parks, basically said he cannot even remember when there was a discussion. it is pretty obvious now that we have this debate underway. i want to tell you two things with respect to substance. first, you and i have talked about this question of trying to make sure that you get the money where the need is. particularly, being more creative. i want to let you know i will work with you on that issue i touched on earlier, because the fee revenue expires in december 2014. we've got to do it. that would be one place to really look very concretely at one of the ideas that you had in their crib -- in there. there may be more creative ways to do it. issue, youowment

basically had me at hello. , unconvinced,a where there will not be one champion in the united states. there will be a lot of champions could we will pursue that vigorously. -- champions. we will pursue that vigorously. thank you. i think you have seen the interest from senators. >> director jarvis, as you come up, i would like to express my thanks to you for the fact that you worked so closely with the committee. we could not possibly have seizure legislation seashoree committee -- legislation out of the committee without your help. i want the public to know that i am particularly interested in

some of the efforts that you all have made to really look at technology to resolve some of these conflicts that have gone on and on. as we all know, there have been questions with respect to the turtles and how you could ensure protection for them and also be welcoming to visitors. you all worked very closely with the private sector, with companies in the private sector, to look at approaches where, in effect, you could put tags on these nests, so that through sensors you know when the turtles would hatch. you would be in a position to resolve the conflict that had gone on and on. you could add an additional measure of protection for the turtles while still doing more to welcome visitors to this wonderful treasure that the north carolina senator felt strongly about. those fresh approaches are what

we need. let's see if we can come put some on this funding issue. we will put your remarks into the record in their entirety. why don't you go ahead and make your comments? i know you will get questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think all of the senators that are here today. i come up here a lot. i have to say, that i really appreciate this discussion. it is critical to the future of the national park service. has charged the national park service with protecting america's special places in perpetuity. that is a fundamental responsibility of congress to provide an annual appropriation commensurate with the responsibilities that it has given us great we have embraced -- given us. we have embraced opportunities to supplement that through interest fees, concession fees, and new models of public-private land management. however, annual appropriations remain the primary means of addressing our deferred maintenance backlog. 2012, end of fiscal year

the national park service faced an $11.5 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. in order to merely holds the backlog at a steady level of 11.5 billion dollars, we would need to spend nearly $700 million per year on deferred maintenance. had 440l year 2012, we $4 million available for that -- 440 $4hich falls million available for that purpose, which falls short. every part must make the vehicle decisions about which this lease to repair and which ones to defer. managing this with large -- without resources means we have to concentrate our efforts. we systematically track asset conditions and maintenance activities, which gives us the ability to identify the most serious deficiencies. the total need to address the high priority, nonroad facilities is 4.2 billion

dollars. for roads, it is $3.3 billion. we prioritized repairs that are most critical to protecting resources, ensure the health and safety of our visitors, and provide rewarding experiences. we require that each project past a financial sustainability test, proving that the park will be able to keep the asset an unacceptable condition for the lifespan of the replacement component. conditioncceptable for the lifespan of the replacement component. the $750t example is million the national park service received from the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. with those funds, we executed 800 projects at 260 park units, the majority of which addressed deferred maintenance. we are absolutely open to ideas that supply additional funding, and we appreciate the work of the bipartisan policy center and other groups. some of these ideas raised by

the groups have been around for .ome time, and has been pursued we are currently reassessing concession fees, promoting the use of leasing authority, engaging our volunteers, and investing in energy saving, cost-cutting technologies. the bipartisan policy center white paper includes two proposals that identify new revenue sources and have no net increase to the federal budget. one is to increase the revenue. for example, competitive pricing of our annual passes the state annual passes, or using peak pricing now that models for our seasonal ballparks -- seasonal parks. our experience with the $25 million centennial challenge fund in fiscal year 2008 which was talked about makes us confident that our donors will respond to a federal matching funds. already partners are stepping up to help us prepare for our second century. last november, in partnership with the national parkland it

and, he kicked off the first phase of a centennial campaign that will culminate in a strategy for introducing a national park service to the next generation. the repairs to the washington monument provide a visible reminder of the effectiveness of public-private partnerships. we received seven point $5 million in appropriate fund for the earthquake repairs with the million inng -- $7.5 appropriated funding for the earthquake repairs. a number of the proposals from the white paper we are already asked --grid we are pursuing could we are exploring them. in addition, we are supporting legislation to create a ceremonial coin. the white paper also identifies some proposals that face significant challenges. one proposal is to increase the federal gas tax by one penny and use revenues.

a $5.7ds represent billion backlog. another proposal is to establish an endowment. to manageproposals park concessionaires, similar to the model used by the defense department. i would like to mention sequestration on the budgetary cuts and the national park service and the national bureaus. sequestration was designed to be flexibility and discriminate. it is defering important work. to conclude, the national park service will continue to pursue knew and creative ways to address its funding needs. i want to thank our man