[Senate Report 113-295]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 635
113th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 113-295
======================================================================
PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND GUARANTEE ACT
_______
December 10, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Ms. Landrieu, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1750]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1750) to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into
agreements with States and political subdivisions of States
providing for the continued operation, in whole or in part, of
public land, units of the National Park System, units of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, and units of the National
Forest System in the State during any period in which the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture is
unable to maintain normal level of operations at the units due
to a lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 1750 is to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into
agreements with States and political subdivisions of States
providing for the continued operation of public land, units of
the National Park System, units of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and units of the National Forest System in the State
during any period in which the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture is unable to maintain normal level of
operations at the units due to a lapse in appropriations.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
The Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, prohibits Federal
agencies and their officers and employees administering public
lands from making or authorizing any expenditure or obligation
before Congress appropriates sufficient funds for the
expenditure or obligation. As a result, Federal agencies have
had to suspend most non-essential functions when Congress has
failed to appropriate the funds needed to pay for those
functions. During past lapses of appropriations in 1995-1996
and 2013, partial government shutdowns have required Federal
agencies managing public lands to close national parks,
national forests, national wildlife refuges, and other public
lands to the public. The closure of these sites hurt
communities near these Federal lands that rely on visitor
spending.
In both the 1995-1996 and 2013 shutdowns, the National Park
Service entered into individual agreements with certain states,
at the States' request, to temporarily reopen several National
Park sites with funds donated by the States. The agreements did
not allow for reimbursement as that would create an obligation
to pay money prior to Congressional appropriation.
In 1996, Congress appropriated funds before the National
Park Service spent the States' money. The parks were reopened
using Federal funds and the National Park Service was able to
return the unspent donated funds to the States. In 2013,
however, the National Park Service spent the States' money to
reopen parks before Congress appropriated Federal funds. The
National Park Service has been unable to reimburse the States
because it has no legal authority to do so.
S. 1750 will give the public land management agencies
authority to enter into agreements with States allowing the
agencies to reimburse the States for State funds donated to the
agencies to keep Federal lands open to the public during future
appropriation lapses.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 1750 was introduced by Senator Flake on November 20,
2013. Senators Hatch, McCain, and Lee are original cosponsors.
The Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing on S. 1750 on
July 23, 2014. A similar bill (H.R. 3661) has been introduced
in the House by Representative Gosar with four cosponsors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in
open business session on November 13, 2014, by a majority vote
of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 1750.
The rollcall vote on reporting the measure was 12 yeas, 10
nays as follows:
Yeas Nays
Ms. Murkowski Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Barrasso* Mr. Wyden
Mr. Risch* Mr. Johnson
Mr. Lee* Ms. Cantwell
Mr. Heller* Mr. Sanders
Mr. Flake Ms. Stabenow*
Mr. Scott* Mr. Udall
Mr. Alexander* Mr. Franken
Mr. Portman Mr. Schatz
Mr. Hoeven* Ms. Baldwin
Mr. Manchin
Mr. Heinrich
*Indicates vote by proxy
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 provides the short title, the ``Public Access to
Public Land Guarantee Act''.
Section 2 contains Congressional findings.
Section 3 defines key terms used in the bill.
Section 4 requires the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements in which they
may use funds from a State or public subdivision of the State
to reopen.
Subsection (b) limits the authority of the agreement to
periods in which the Secretary is unable to operate covered
Federal lands at normal levels.
Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to refund to the
State or political subdivision of the State funds either on the
date that funds are appropriated to return the covered unit to
normal operating levels, or on the date on which the State or
political subdivision of the State establishes, and fees for
entrance or use of the covered unit are collected.
Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary, if appropriations
allow, to reimburse the State or political subdivision of the
State if the requirements of subsection (c) are not met.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of
this measure has been requested but was not received at the
time the report was filed. When the Congressional Budget Office
completes its cost estimate, it will be posted on the Internet
at www.cbo.gov.
REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 1750.
The Act is not a regulatory measure in the sense of
imposing Government-established standards or significant
economic responsibilities on private individuals and
businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 1750, as ordered reported.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
S. 1750, as reported, does not contain any congressionally
directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The testimony provided by the National Park Service at the
July 23, 2014, Subcommittee on National Parks hearing on S.
1750 follows:
Statement of Christina Goldfuss, Deputy Director, Congressional and
External Relations, National Park Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to provide the views of the Department on S.
1750, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with States
and political subdivisions of States providing for the
continued operation, in whole or in part, of public land, units
of the National Park System, units of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, and units of the National Forest System in the
State during any period in which the Secretary of the Interior
or the Secretary of Agriculture, is unable to maintain normal
level of operations at the units due to a lapse in
appropriations, and for other purposes.
The Department strongly opposes S. 1750. We have a great
deal of sympathy for the businesses and communities that
experienced a disruption of activity and loss of revenue during
last fall's government shutdown and that stand to lose more if
there is another funding lapse in the future. However, we
disagree generally with the idea of enacting laws to try to
lessen the impact of a future government shutdown for a few
select governmental activities rather than protecting all such
activities by avoiding a lapse in appropriations. We also
believe that this legislation specifically, with its mandate to
enter into agreements to reopen public lands at the request of
a state, would be very difficult to execute. Furthermore, we
are concerned that agreements to have states provide funding
for activities that are inherently Federal in nature, even for
a short period of time, would undermine the longstanding
framework established by Congress for the management of Federal
lands under the stewardship of the Department.
S. 1750 would require the Secretary of the Interior and
Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with States
or their political subdivisions, upon their request, to accept
funds to open National Park units, National Wildlife Refuges,
Bureau of Land Management lands, and National Forests. The
authority would be in effect only during a period when the
Secretary is unable to operate and manage the units at normal
levels. The bill would also provide for reimbursement for the
amounts provided to the Secretaries to reopen the sites when
appropriations are enacted providing retroactive funding, or
when the State or political subdivision establishes that
entrance fees were collected for the period covered by the
agreement. If those requirements are not met, the Secretary
would have discretionary authority to provide reimbursement to
the states, subject to the availability of appropriations.
The desire to avoid the kind of disappointment to the
public and disruption of economic activity that results from a
lapse in Federal appropriations is understandable. When the
partial government shutdown occurred from October 1 through
October 16, 2013, a lot of attention was focused on effects of
closures of national parks, national wildlife refuges, public
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and national
forests--all places that are highly valued by the public for
their recreational offerings and that serve as economic engines
for the communities in which they are located.
It was because of the critical importance of these sites
that the Secretary of the Interior agreed to reopen several of
them using donated funds during the partial shutdown. As the
shutdown entered its second week, the National Park Service
entered into donation agreements with six states to accept the
donation of funds necessary to allow the National Park Service
to temporarily reopen 13 national park units. In these cases,
the states were concerned enough about the loss of economic
activity associated with certain national parks to use their
own funds to alleviate the impact of park closures.
These agreements did help a select number of businesses and
communities. However, they should not be held up as a model of
how the Federal government should do business. The national
parks that were opened during the shutdown were fortunate to be
located in states that had the resources and political will to
fund them. The National Park Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which all
seek to treat the land units under their stewardship equitably,
have grave concerns about enshrining in law a process that
favors units located in states willing to donate funds to
operate them over those located in other states.
Furthermore, the agreements were designed to be temporary,
emergency measures for some individual situations, and would
not necessarily work for operating all Federal lands. Even for
those sites where agreements might work, the potential
difficulty of executing agreements on the scale envisioned by
S. 1570--every agreement that every state or political
subdivision requests--at a time when most of the agencies'
staff would be furloughed, cannot be overstated. During last
October's partial shutdown, it was an enormous burden on the
National Park Service and the Department, with their skeletal
staffs, to execute just six agreements to reopen 13 park units.
If a large number of states requested such agreements for a
large number of sites in a future shutdown, the agencies likely
would not have the capacity to respond to all of the requests.
The 2013 Federal government shutdown had terrible impacts
for American citizens, businesses, communities, states, and the
economy as a whole. These impacts are summarized in the report
released by the Office of Management and Budget entitled
``Impacts and Costs of the October 2013 Federal Government
Shutdown'' (November 2013). The report makes clear that the
economic effects and disruption to lives and activities from
the shutdown were felt far and wide. Enacting a law to try to
avoid the impact of a future shutdown on specified activities
is not a responsible alternative to simply making the political
commitment to avoid a shutdown in the future by providing
appropriations for all the vital functions the Federal
government performs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or any other members of the
subcommittee may have.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by S. 1750, as ordered
reported.