Senate Energy and Natural Resources (Murkowski): Business meeting to consider S.365 and H.R.1729, bills to amend the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to allow for additional entities to be eligible to complete the maintenance work on Bolts Ditch and the Bolts Ditch Headgate within the Holy Cross Wilderness, Colorado, S.764, to provide for the designation of certain wilderness areas, recreation management areas, and conservation areas in the State of Colorado, S.791, to establish the Justice Thurgood Marshall National Historic Site in the State of Maryland as an affiliated area of the National Park System, S.888, to designate certain land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service in the State of Oregon as wilderness and national recreation areas, to withdraw certain land located in Curry County and Josephine County, Oregon, from all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws, S.945, to amend the Smith River National Recreation Area Act to include certain additions to the Smith River National Recreation Area, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain wild rivers in the State of Oregon, S.1005, to provide for conservation and economic development in the State of Nevada, S.1088, to provide that the memorial to commemorate the sacrifice and service of the women who worked on the home front to support the efforts of the United States military during World War II may be located on the National Mall, S.1195, to promote conservation, improve public land management, and provide for sensible development in Pershing County, Nevada, S.1257, to amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to authorize the use of funds for certain additional Carey Act projects, S.1341, to amend the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 to add certain land to the Sarvis Creek Wilderness, S.1349, to withdraw the National Forest System land in the Ruby Mountains subdistrict of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the National Wildlife Refuge System land in Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada, from operation under the mineral leasing laws, S.1476, to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Gila River system in the State of New Mexico as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, to provide for the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain Federal land in the State of New Mexico, S.1737, to designate and expand wilderness areas in Olympic National Forest in the State of Washington, and to designate certain rivers in Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park as wild and scenic rivers, S.1777, to amend the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 to expand the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park, to redesignate the Cottonwood Visitor Center at Joshua Tree National Park as the "Dianne Feinstein Visitor Center", S.1870, to adjust the boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor, S.2498, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend certain leases within units of the National Park System without opening the lease to bidding, S.2767 and H.R.5254, bills to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the Gateway Arch Park Foundation to host private events in Gateway Arch National Park buildings, S.2801, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating the Canterbury Shaker Village National Heritage Area, S.2887, to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Route 66 National Historic Trail, S.2933, to redesignate a playground in the New River Gorge National Park and Preserve in the State of West Virginia as the "Hearts of Gold Playground

Committee will come to order. Today we're going to consider a series of 20 bills with some accompanying amendments. I support all the bills and encourage each of my colleagues to join me in supporting them. I'll give my opening statement and then recognize Senator Heinrich for his opening statement. Given the number of bills that we're going to try to get through, along with some amendments where we'll be voting, to accommodate our members' competing schedules with other committees, as soon as There's a voting quorum present.

I'll pause our statements and move to voting. After both the voting and the statements are concluded, I'll recognize any senator who may wish to speak on any of the legislation pending, uh, uh, uh, based on the notice of today's hearing. Uh, good bills that our constituents need., need to move forward and, and are being held hostage. Across the committee, we've got members who have worked together across party lines to advance legislation that has no substantive opposition. Some of these bills passed unanimously, uh, in the last Congress.

Others have already received bipartisan approval from the committee. And yet, uh, many of these remain stalled because a few Senate Democrats are deliberately creating a backlog of non-controversial bills, uh, to create a contrived justification for bundling them into a massive lands package filled with unrelated priorities, including massive federal land grabs that could not independently pass on their own. I said this before, and I'll say it again, uh, that's not what we're going to do. The committee has done its work. These bills have been reported.

They are ready, to clear the Senate and to be sent to the House, and they should be. Time is running out in this Congress. Every week that these bills sit idle makes it less likely that they'll reach the president's desk. The best path to enactment in this chamber and in the other chamber and getting these things to the president's desk involves moving these bills through the Senate individually or in reasonable bipartisan pairings. We don't need to hold dozens of local priorities hostage especially when they're non-controversial, while waiting for a massive package that has never been written, introduced, debated, or voted on, and has no chance of making it across the finish line and being signed into law.

Last week, the committee reported another group of bills that face no substantive opposition. I asked Ranking Member Heinrich and every member of the committee to work with me to move these bills through the Senate promptly, uh, either separately or in reasonable bipartisan pairings. I don't want members of the committee returning home to explain that legislation that their communities need failed to pass simply because one or more of those priorities became leverage in negotiations over an unrelated land package. So let's pass bills on which we agree, let's debate the bills on which we disagree, and let's get measures to the House and ultimately to the President's desk.

Now, turning to the legislation before us, I'd like to highlight one bill that deserves the committee's support. The License to Drill Act reauthorizes the Bureau of Land Management's authority to collect fees for new applications for permit to drill. Bureau of Land Management uses those fees to process applications and permits. Reauthorizing this authority gives the agency the certainty and resources it needs to process permits on time without imposing additional costs on taxpayers. Energy producers should not have to wonder whether the permitting system will have the resources necessary to review their applications.

They deserve permitting process that's predictable and capable of doing its job.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. More importantly, I hope We continue giving bills like this one the opportunity to succeed rather than allowing them to become bargaining chips for a package that's destined to fail. America is going to need a lot more energy in the years ahead, and we need to build it quickly. Last year, Republicans on this committee advanced the most significant energy legislation in decades, putting our country on a path toward American energy independence. But that was only part of the job.

Now we must reform our permitting system so that energy producers can get to work and build the projects that our nation needs. I'm grateful to all my colleagues for working with me and with my team on this process, and I hope we can carry the same spirit of cooperation across the finish line. The chair now recognizes Ranking Member Senator Martin Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. There are a number of bills on this agenda that I am pleased to see move forward today, particularly the Geothermal Energy Advancement Act that modernizes the way that the Bureau of Land Management processes geothermal energy permits on public land.

Geothermal energy will be an increasingly important part of our energy mix in the future, and the BLM needs an efficient permitting process to get those projects built. Unfortunately, this is yet another markup in this committee where we are not conserving a single additional acre of public land for the American people. We could be voting on the Joshua Tree National Park Expansion Act, which would add more than 18,000 acres of land to Joshua Tree National Park, permanently protecting that land for generations to come. Instead, we will vote to remove 22,000 acres of land from Denali National Park. Sometimes national park boundaries need to change, and it is this committee's job to decide when that is appropriate and a good idea.

But that work cannot be one-sided, only advancing bills that remove protections and not those that add them. For that reason, I will oppose S.4399 when the committee considers it today, and I hope that soon we can advance legislation from members of this committee that conserves public land. So that we can have a reasonable balance with bills like S.4399. I have one last comment on S.2767, the Gateway Partnerships Act. This bill will allow the Gateway Arch Park Foundation to host private events at Gateway Arch National Park.

While most national parks are frankly not appropriate venues for convention meetings and holiday parties, Gateway Arch is a unique unit of the park system where such events are not inconsistent with the overall management of the park. Because of that unique character, I will support S. 2767 today. But I want to be clear that I would not support similar proposals for other units within the National Park Service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.

We'll now proceed with today's business meeting. The committee will have voice votes on amendments to 10 bills, followed by voice votes on the bills themselves, and then proceed With roll call votes at the request of Senator Heinrich on two bills. Afterwards, I'll recognize any member of the committee who may wish to speak. The committee will vote on 10 amendments by voice unless any member feels compelled to speak on any of the amendments prior to voting. I ask that we proceed to a voice vote on the four amendments on block.

The amendments are Amendment 16A to Agenda Item 16, Amendment 17A, to Agenda Item 17; Amendment #18A to agenda item 18; amendment number A22-A to agenda item 22; Number B23-A for—to add an amended Article XXIV-B into our rules of procedure: amend Rule XXXVII ; Amend No. LXXIII-1, no changes from original rule. Ammendment Twenty-Eight-Seven-a to agenda item twenty-eight. And then it's Twentynine—a-to-agenda-item-twenty-nine-and-amendments-Thirty-One-a—to to Agenda Item 31. The Committee will vote by voice and block on these amendments.

There are two on the list that you didn't mention. Oh, tell me what I left out. 16A and 16A. Hang on one second. Thanks.

We're going to— 16A? Oh, they are in A now. Oh, we are not voting on those. We are. What's that?

We are not. We're not voting on those.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So the question is on those amendments that I've just identified.

The committee will vote on them and block by voice. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The amendments are agreed to. We'll now proceed to the bills as amended. Those bills are agenda items 9, 16 to 20, 22, 23, 25 through 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, and 39.

Those are respectively S. 1257, 2498, S.2767 and the House companion H.R. 5254. S.2801, S.2887, S.2993, S.3914, S.3313 and its House companion H.R. 6365, S.3635 and the House companion H.R. 7250, S.3715, and the House companion H.R.

6380, S. 3720, S. 3732, S. 3738, S. 4041, S. 4238, S. 4538, S. 5039, and the House companion H.R. 7831 And H.R. 5631. The committee will vote on these 18 bills and block by voice. As amended, if amended, for these 18 bills as a block.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it.

These 18 bills will be reported favorably to the Senate.

And we've got a quorum. And we've got a voting quorum present. And so now we'll turn to roll call votes on 2 additional bills. First is agenda item 33, Which is S.4339, sponsored by Senator Murkowski. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Lee. Aye. Mr. Barrasso. Aye. Mr. Risch.

Aye. Mr. Daines. Aye by proxy. Mr. Cotton. Aye.

Mr. McCormick. Aye. Mr. Justice. Aye. Mr. Cassidy.

Aye. Ms. Hyde-Smith. Aye. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Hoeven.

Aye. Mr. Heinrich. No. Mr. Widen.

No by proxy. Ms. Cantwell. No. Ms. Hirono. No.

Mr. King. No. Ms. Cortez Masto. No by proxy. Mr. Hickenlooper.

No by proxy. Mr. Padilla. No. Mr. Gallego. No by proxy.

On this vote, the yeas are 11, the nays are 9.

In that case, the bill will be reported favorably to the Senate. Second is Agenda Item 34, S4410, sponsored by Senator Barrasso. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Lee. Aye.

Mr. Barrasso. Aye. Mr. Risch. Aye. Mr. Daines.

Aye, by proxy. Mr. Cotton. Aye. Mr. McCormick. Aye.

Mr. Justice. Aye. Mr. Cassidy. Aye. Ms. Hyde-Smith.

Aye. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Hoeven. Mr. Heinrich. No.

Mr. Wyden. No by proxy. Ms. Cantwell. No. Ms. Hirono.

No. Mr. King. No. Ms. Cortez Masto. No by proxy.

Mr. Hickenlooper. No by proxy. Mr. Padilla. No. Mr. Gallego.

No by proxy. On this vote, the yeas are 11, the nays are 9. The ayes have it. S4410 will be reported favorably to the Senate. At this time, I'll now recognize any senator who may want to be heard on any of the legislation we voted on today.

Any senators want to be heard? Yes, Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you for— and the rest of the committee here— for advancing my bill, S.4399. This is the Geese House Site Conveyance Act. I'm pleased that we've been able to move it out of committee this morning, but I do find it somewhat disheartening to see that what should be a non-controversial measure received a wholly partisan vote.

From what I hear from the ranking member in your.

Initial comments, the concern is not so much on the substance of the matter, but that we have not paired taking lands out of the federal estate with other conservation matters. I understand that the Chairman's challenges in trying to— to try to advance bills through this committee with a little bit of parity. I get that, and yet sometimes, as he has indicated, there are matters that are so very local, so very parochial, and maybe there's just more that accumulate on our side than on the other side. That's obviously a discussion that the Chairman and the Ranking Member have as you set agendas, but I would like to just share with colleagues who may feel that they have concerns based on substance as opposed to the construct of the measures that we worked to advance this morning. This is not something that is new.

Once again, we are seeking to address failures within the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that was passed back in 1971 to address aspects of that settlement that have not yet been fulfilled. So we are building— this legislation is building on decades of work by Doyon to fulfill their land entitlement. The sacred— the Gies House site is a sacred site for the Athabascan people who have called this land home for millennia. After the passage of ANCSA, the Native Claims Settlement Act in '71, Doyon initiated a pretty aggressive effort to help identify the significant sites and ensure conveyance of lands with historic and cultural importance. And it was through this process that the Geese House site was identified And then Doyon formally filed its selection in 1978.

So we're going back a long ways, folks. But then in 1980, what happens, we have ANILCA, which is the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, that was passed by Congress. And in that act, it established the boundaries of the Denali National Park and Preserve. So you have Doyon that is acting to complete their selection of sacred and historic sites. Anilka comes in, overlays on top of that.

And so there has been, again, a decades-long effort by Doyon to secure the Geese House site. And then last administration, in the Biden administration, the National Park Service determined that the conveyance was going to require an act of Congress. Up to that point in time, there had been efforts to try to advance it through the administrative process, but Park Service comes back and says you got to legislate. So here we are, nearly 50 years after the site was selected, the conveyance remains unfulfilled. To the merits of the selection itself, this bill would facilitate the transfer in the form of a parcel.

It is, as the ranking member has noted, it is a little shy of 22,000 acres. It is 21,750 acres. But it fulfills the commitments that were established under ANCSA to provide for the conveyance of culturally significant and historic lands. And it wasn't that Doyaan just kind of willy-nilly said, "We want this section." They worked with the Park Service. They got feedback from the Park Service to— it allows for clear and manageable boundaries for the Park Service to continue the administration of the lands across the whole preserve.

But it also establishes protection for cultural sites and ensures that Doyon can secure reasonable access to the site. We did this in consultation with the local tribes, with the communities, many of which have provided resolutions in support for the conveyance. And we have had opportunities within this committee over the years to to talk about the significance of what it means within these, these native lands to ensure that we are protecting sacred sites and culturally historic sites. And we certainly saw that with the ranking member's passion when it came to Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. There was at that time working with the last administration, a public land order withdrawing more than 336,000 acres surrounding Chaco Cultural National Historic Park.

And so that was an effort where, again, I certainly respected the ranking member's desire and what he sought to do with those protections for the cultural sites. Some have suggested that this, this 21,000 acres is too large and we need to narrow it down. But again, I'm looking back to Táchaco. That was about 34,000 acres— excuse me, that was 336,000 acres in an area that's only about 34,000. The concern that we are hearing is that this is too much.

And again, as I related in the last committee markup when we were moving the landless bill, part of the challenge that we have in Alaska is that so much of our, of our lands are held in the federal estate, roughly 223 million acres of federal lands. And so when we need to try to make reasonable adjustments, We've got to come to Congress to do so. So when you put the Geese House conveyance into perspective, Denali National Park and Preserve spans more than 6 million acres, and the land that we're talking about conveying is less than 1/2 of 1%. It's 0.36%, to be exact. We also strictly limit the conveyance by prohibiting mining.

We protect the site's cultural significance. And we bar transfer of it to anyone other than the United States. So what we're trying to do here is, again, ensure that the land that was faithfully stewarded by the area's Native people for thousands of years can again be managed by and for them. We would maintain that this conveyance is not— is not excessive, and it's deliberately sized to avoid revealing the exact sacred site in a public manner. So I am again pleased that we've been able to move it out of committee, but I would hope that given the protections that we establish in this legislation and the work carried out to develop the selections in coordination with the Park Service and with good support from the communities in the region, that we will be able to work together in a reasonable manner and find full agreement to return the Geese House site to the Athabascan people before the end of this Congress.

So I'm happy, Mr. Chairman, to work with anyone on this committee, obviously on both sides of the aisle, to give further clarification, answer any questions or concerns. But I am pleased that we were able to advance it this morning. Great, thank you. Okay, we're gonna go to Senator McCormick, then Senator Heinrich. Senator Padilla, then Senator Justice.

Oh, then we'll go to Senator Carone. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the ranking member and the committee for including my legislation to establish the Endless Mountains as a National Heritage Area in today's markup. Thanks to Senator Daines and Senator King for including that in last week's National Park Subcommittee hearing. Pennsylvania's Endless Mountains region encompasses Bradford, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Wyoming County is in the northeast part of our state.

It's known for scenic vistas and extensive trail networks and great waterfalls and waterways. The region also includes abundant natural resources including the Susquehanna River and extensive game lands, forests, and parks. It's already designated a state heritage area, but national designation would increase national visibility, attract more visitors, and unlock federal resources, and it could generate up to about $350 million in annual economic activity. So this is a big deal for Pennsylvania. I'm grateful to Senator Fetterman for joining me in leading this bill and Congressman Dan Muser for introducing a companion version in the House.

I look forward to working with the committee to get this bill across the finish line here in the Senate and bestow the Endless Mountains the national recognition it deserves. I also want to thank Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich for including legislation introduced by my friend, Pennsylvania's senior senator, which I'm proud to co-lead with him. The S-4-538, the Washington's Trail 1753 National Historic Trail Feasibility Study. That would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility test to designate Washington's Trail as a National Historic Trail. Washington's Trail follows George Washington's path in 1753, quite appropriate, I think, in the 250th birthday.

It's from Fort LeBoeuf and what's known as Waterford.

PA to Erie County. In Pennsylvania, the trail recognizes scenic markers and highlights major tourist and historical destinations. The Fort Pitt Museum, the Old Economy Village in Ambridge, the Fort LeBoeuf Museum in Erie. And securing historic trail status for Washington's Trail is more than just about preservation. It's about an investment in Pennsylvania's heritage and the journey of a young George Washington.

He was actually wounded in Braddock, Pennsylvania, one of his first battles. So I'm proud to join Senator Fetterman and my colleagues in the— in this designation that will turn a critical piece of our frontier history into a lasting educational and economic asset. These two bills are great examples of how Republicans and Democrats can work together to advance the interests of the states and the constituents we serve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you, Senator Heinrich. As I said in my opening statement, there are cases where transfers of land out of a National Park System unit is the right thing to do. I do have concerns with the size. This is a 600-acre archaeological site and a 22,000-acre transfer. I very much respect the, the senator from Alaska and look forward to continuing to work with you on this legislation.

And given the Chaco reference that you brought up, I just want to make it clear that in the Chaco case there was no land transfer. All of that land remained in public hands. There was a mineral withdrawal that was designed to protect thousands of individual archaeological and cultural sites. And I would also make the point that right now this administration is stripping those protections away in an effort to facilitate oil and gas drilling. And New Mexico is no stranger to oil and gas Truly, we are the second largest producer of oil in the country, but this particular area is incredibly important, and those protections were necessary to, to strike that balance.

So I know the, uh, the senator from Alaska knows about balance. She has passed a lot of legislation out of this committee, and I think today, unfortunately, we are not finding that balance. We are are not moving forward on legislation from many of my colleagues that would conserve public lands in their states in the way that their communities would like to see. So I look forward to working with the senator to try and find that balance so that we can move more legislation forward in this committee. To the issue of Senator Barrasso's legislation, I just want to make the point that That bill is a— simply a subsidy to coal companies.

When the United States sells the right to mine publicly owned coal, the company buys that right at a lease sale, uh, and agrees to pay a certain amount of money for the lease. Under current law, the company actually has 5 years to pay that amount, which means that if they pay at the end of 5 years, they're actually paying quite a bit less than they bid. This bill would give them 10 years to make that payment, and as we all know, with inflation where it is under the Trump administration, a dollar today is not worth a dollar next year, and it is certainly not worth a dollar 10 years from now. Coal companies already have 5 years to complete these payments. Giving them more time means less money to the American people, and that is why I could not support that legislation.

Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first, while she's still here, speak to Senator Murkowski's Geese House Site Conveyance Act. And echoing not just Ranking Member Heinrich's remarks, but I think the sentiments of several of our colleagues on this side of the dais. First, let me be clear, Senator Murkowski, I am so grateful for your work and the work of your team, along with my office, to advance legislation that returns land back to tribes in California.

And it's in that spirit that I want to make clear that I don't have any policy or substantive concerns with your bill. I believe we should be allowing tribes to play a more active role in co-managing our public lands, as they have been the stewards of these lands since time immemorial. However, my colleagues and I have said repeatedly during numerous markups that we would like to see more conservation bills considered by the committee. But the members vote how they will. But have more conservation bills considered by the committee.

And while the Gee's House Site Conveyance Act would, uh, convey over 21,000 acres of National Park Service land, my Joshua Tree National Park Expansion Act, as Senator Heinrich has mentioned, would convey a similar amount of Bureau of Land Management land to the National Park Service. To me, it seems like that's a natural opportunity for these two bills to be paired on a markup. However, while my Joshua Tree bill was on the agenda today, it was not on the shortlist to receive a vote. And because of these reasons I share with my Democratic colleagues, I was against your bill for today, but look forward to working with you, with the chairman, with all of our colleagues to strike a balanced approach to conservation in this committee. And I'm glad you are still here.

To hear me provide these remarks for the record. Mr. Chairman, I also do want to thank you for including on today's markup my MORE Water Act and other bills to address drought across the West. The MORE Water Act is a companion to Senator Cortez Masto and Senator Curtis's Large-Scale Water Recycling Reauthorization Act, which the committee previously marked up, and Senator Gallego's Water Security and Drought Resilience Act, which the committee also marked up today. Together, these bills renew Reclamation's programmatic authority to support a range of water recycling and other drought resilience projects which are essential for combating severely dry conditions that we're finding in the Colorado River Basin and elsewhere throughout the West. Without these bills, Reclamation's programmatic authority to support these projects would expire later this year.

The MORE WATER Act and related legislation advance on a bipartisan basis the goal of speeding up federal assistance to our drought-stricken communities and avoiding the cost increases that inevitably result from delays in project approvals. So I greatly appreciate your action on this critical topic. I also appreciate your inclusion of both my Monterey Bay National Heritage Area Study Act and Senator Schiff's Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study Act. The Monterey Bay National Heritage Area Study Act would assess the feasibility of designating certain land along California's Central Coast as a national heritage area. Monterey Bay— and I know many of you have visited— it's not just a beautiful area, beautiful region, but has many notable sites with unique cultural, historical, and ecological significance, including Cannery Row, Big Sur, Highway 1, Hearst Castle, and several John Steinbeck literary sites.

A designation would allow for public-private partnerships to empower local conservation efforts, provide technical assistance, and spur economic activity in the region. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation to recognize unique cultural, historical, and environmental treasures of the Monterey Bay region. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks so much, Senator Padilla.

We'll go next to Senator Justice, followed by Senator Hirono.

Well, the first thing I'd like to do is brag on us a little bit. To be perfectly honest, a lot of times all we do is fight with one another and continue on with the food fight. But I introduced a bill, Senate Bill 2933, and we may think it's just so tiny that it really doesn't matter. But it all centered around childhood cancer. And can you just imagine, really at the end of the day, can you really just imagine if you were a parent, many, many, many times it happens, and many, and it may very well have happened right here, but all of a sudden the diagnosis is your child has cancer.

It's terrible. And it would just absolutely jerk your guts out in every single way. Well, Senator Capito and Congressman Miller and myself introduced this bill, and thank goodness we all got on board, because all it is is the renaming— it seems so, so tiny— the renaming of a playground, Hearts of Gold. Absolutely, even though it seems so tiny, If you'd been me, and I did different things, you know, from license plates to meeting with these great kids and everything, and there these kids are right with you. Now just imagine little girls, no hair, fighting for their life, bravery like you can't fathom.

This means a lot. It means a lot in our state. It means a lot at the New River Gorge National Park and Preserve. And I thank you. I thank you for all of us just standing up for those kids because they're in the fight of their life and they're the best of the best of the best.

And it's not a little thing. It's a big thing. And so I thank you in every way. I yield, sir.

Thank you. Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Senator Murkowski for her advocacy on behalf of Alaska Natives, because of course we in Hawaii, there are a lot of significant sites that impact Native Hawaiians, and I certainly advocate for their concerns and interests. So I understand your desire to get this bill passed, but I want to explain my no vote.

On your Geese House site conveyance. It has to do with my understanding that the explanation for the size of this conveyance has to do with the application of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and that this kind of conveyance requires the size of a township. But I am told that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act does not require, or does not have applicability to this kind of conveyance. So what I'm hearing from you, Senator Murkowski, is a willingness to work with us to support your, your bill, and that's certainly where I want to be, because I very much understand the importance of these culturally significant sites to Alaska Natives, just as there are such sites important to Native Hawaiians. So my hope is that we will be able to come to some kind of an agreement as to, first of all, as to the applicability of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, uh, and, and The understanding that I have that, that there is no requirement for this kind of size of, of conveyance as the size of a township under that act.

So, Senator Murkowski, I very much am on your page in terms of what you're trying to do. And I would like us to be able to come to an agreement so that we can all agree on getting this bill over the finish line. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Yes.

May I respond to Senator Hirono? With regards to the 21,000 acres, I do believe that you are correct. It is not a requirement of ANCSA that it be the size of a township. The rationale for the size was based on, again, consultation with National Park Service in terms of how they would be able to manage the surrounding parklands, you have to have consistency there, we understand that. But also another factor was, as you well know, sacred sites are exactly that, they're sacred.

These are not sites that are designed for tourists to come and take pictures. These are not places that we advertise with big "Come here and look at a sacred site." It is that spiritual, um, uh, the— where the cultural traditions, uh, lie. And so, uh, a part of— part of the— of the significance of where this sits within a larger parcel is, is to basically ensure that there is that level of, of privacy afforded to a, a histo— an historical sacred site. But I, I would be more than happy to walk you through exactly how this, this 21,000 acres came to be and the recommendations of our federal agencies as well. But I look forward to that.

Thanks. Anything else? Okay, that concludes today's business meeting. I want to thank my colleagues for their participation, and the committee is adjourned.