    [Senate Hearing 116-367]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 116-367

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                 NATIONAL PARKS

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

    S. 1863               S. 2827              S. 3265
    S. 1910               S. 2924              S. 3331
    S. 1969               S. 3098              S. 508/H.R. 182
    S. 2206               S. 3119              H.R. 1472
    S. 2340               S. 3121

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 4, 2020

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    40-913                      WASHINGTON : 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

                             STEVE DAINES, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO                        ANGUS S. KING, JR.
    MIKE LEE                             BERNARD SANDERS
    CORY GARDNER                         DEBBIE STABENOW
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH                     MARTIN HEINRICH
    LAMAR ALEXANDER                      MAZIE K. HIRONO
    JOHN HOEVEN

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                         Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
                Annie Hoefler, Senior Professional Staff Member
                     Renae Black, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                    David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel
                   Peter Stahley, Democratic Bevinetto Fellow
                         Darla Ripchensky, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Daines, Hon. Steve, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from
      Montana........................................................     1
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S., Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S.
      Senator from Maine.............................................     2

                                    WITNESS

    Benge, Shawn, Acting Deputy Director, Operations, National Park
      Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.......................    10

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    American Battle Monuments Commission:
        Statement for the Record from William M. Matz................    43
    Andrews, Dr. Cheryl L.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    49
    Avellar, Mary-Jo:
        Letter for the Record........................................    51
    Beatrice Area Chamber of Commerce and Gage County Tourism:
        Letter for the Record........................................    52
    Benge, Shawn:
        Opening Statement............................................    10
        Written Testimony............................................    12
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    41
    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................     4
    Chadwick, Erin:
        Letter for the Record........................................    53
    Coalition for American Heritage:
        Letter for the Record........................................    54
    Cohen, Gail:
        Statement for the Record dated 3/2/20........................    56
        Letter for the Record........................................    58
    Daines, Hon. Steve:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Dorn, Hon. Myron:
        Letter for the Record........................................    59
    Friends of Homestead National Monument of America Board of
      Directors:
        Letter for the Record........................................    60
        Resolution No. 6293..........................................    62
        Resolution No. 19-01.........................................    64
    Gage County (NE) Tourism:
        Letter for the Record........................................    65
    Green, Lilli-Ann:
        Letter for the Record........................................    66
    History Nebraska:
        Letter for the Record........................................    67
    King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
    Main Street Beatrice:
        Letter for the Record........................................    68
    National Trust for Historic Preservation:
        Letter for the Record........................................    69
    Pueblo de Cochiti:
        Opposition and Proposal for the Record.......................    72
    Provincetown (MA) Select Board:
        Letter for the Record........................................    74
    Ricks, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................    75
    Sasse, Hon. Ben:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    76
    Slama, Hon. Julie:
        Letter for the Record........................................    78
    Southeast Community College:
        Letter for the Record........................................    79
    Town of Chatham (MA):
        Letter for the Record........................................    80
    Town of Eastham (MA):
        Letter for the Record........................................    83
    Town of Orleans (MA):
        Letter for the Record........................................    86
    Town of Provincetown (MA):
        Letter for the Record........................................    87
    Town of Truro (MA):
        Letter for the Record........................................    90
    Town of Wellfleet (MA):
        Letter for the Record........................................    93
    (The) Wilderness Society:
        Letter for the Record........................................    96

    ----------
    The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can
    be found on the committee's website at: http://www.energy.senate.gov/
    public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=4BA6057F-4B8A-4352-
    8C7A-DBF137426853.

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2020

                                   U.S. Senate,
                        Subcommittee on National Parks,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in
    Room SD-336, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Steve Daines,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Daines. The Subcommittee will come to order. I am
    excited to be here to chair the Subcommittee on National Parks,
    our very first hearing of the year. While we are about to
    discuss 15 interesting pieces of legislation before us, I want
    to take a minute to reflect on some of the changes the National
    Park Service has seen over the past ten years as we enter into
    the 2020's.
        Just last week, the National Park Service released its
    annual visitation statistics. In 2019, there were 327.5 million
    visits to units of the National Park System. That is an
    increase of 46 million visits going back to just 2010. That is
    a 16 percent increase. These numbers are impressive, and I
    think they are a testament to the enthusiasm from Americans and
    visitors from abroad who want to see the incredible landscapes
    and cultural sites that are in our National Park System. But,
    and here is the but--there always is one it seems, there are
    also significant management challenges for the Park Service.
    Chief among those is how to address the Park Service's almost
    $12 billion deferred maintenance backlog.
        The good news is, just yesterday the President reiterated
    his full support for this important issue, and as we are here
    at the dais today, I am most grateful for Ranking Member Angus
    King and for Senator Martin Heinrich as well from New Mexico
    who were just standing a few minutes ago at a press conference
    announcing this great news of the progress we are making on the
    Restore Our Parks Act to deal with this $12.5 billion deferred
    maintenance. As Senator Angus King has just said, we should
    view that as debt, and he is exactly right. We have to address
    it.
        I know that Congress has an important role in these
    discussions, and I want to thank my colleagues on this
    Subcommittee who are here and who are not here who support the
    Restore Our Parks Act. We have a chance to get this done, to
    actually get this done in the near-term, and I look forward to
    working with the Ranking Member and my colleagues to see this
    through. It has truly been a great example of checking egos in
    at the door and bringing Republicans and Democrats together to
    solve an important problem.
        In the long-term will be how to plan and account for
    routine and unexpected maintenance to ensure that visitation is
    growing in a sustainable way. I also believe that as the
    Subcommittee debates designating new park units or adding more
    responsibilities for the Park Service to manage, we need to
    think critically about the National Park Service's capacity to
    respond to a bigger workload.
        As mentioned earlier, there are 15 bills being considered
    today. We have some simple renaming bills, like one from
    Senator Sasse that redesignates the Homestead National Monument
    of America as the Homestead National Historic Park. We have
    some good governance bills like Senator Gardner's legislation
    to convey about 0.18 acres of Rocky Mountain National Park back
    to a private landowner that was mistakenly conveyed to the
    National Park Service.
        Additionally, we have some bills that would change the
    management status of certain units. This is one of Senator
    Heinrich's bills to designate the Bandelier National Monument
    as the Bandelier National Park and Preserve as well as Senator
    McSally's Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Boundary
    Modification Act. It is a lot of words to get out there in one
    title.
        One of my personal favorites is Senator Tillis' legislation
    to provide a Sense of Congress to encourage the American Battle
    Monuments Commission to help care for the Mardasson Memorial.
    That Memorial, which is located in Belgium, honors the service
    of Americans who were wounded or killed while fighting in the
    Battle of the Bulge, the famous battle that ended World War II.
        I look forward to a good discussion, and with that, I want
    to ask unanimous consent to include written statements and
    letters that have been sent to the Subcommittee in the official
    hearing record, without objection.
        We have one witness today, Mr. Shawn Benge, who is the
    Acting Deputy Director of Operations for the National Park
    Service within the U.S. Department of the Interior. I want to
    welcome you and thank you for being here today, and for your
    patience. I will now turn to Ranking Member King for his
    opening remarks.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. ANGUS S. KING, JR.,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE

        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And your statement
    about the press conference that we just had only told half the
    story of the press conference to announce bipartisan support,
    including the support of the Administration, for not only the
    Restore Our Parks Act but permanent funding for the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund. This is the best news for land
    conservation in many, many years.
        I joked at the press conference that we were the most
    distinguished group of conservationists since Teddy Roosevelt
    had breakfast by himself. But it is an extraordinary moment and
    we really think that we are on the verge of passing truly
    historic legislation in terms of both maintaining the National
    Parks but also permanent funding for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, which is really going to make a huge
    difference in this country. The Chair is one of the two guys
    who pulled this together over the last several days, brought
    the Administration along, and I think this is a major
    achievement.
        I look forward to putting it over the finish line,
    hopefully, in a couple of weeks. This is our first meeting of
    this Subcommittee of this year. We have worked very well
    together over the last several years. We have moved quite a few
    bipartisan bills, including the Restore Our Parks Act, and we
    have a wide range of bills here today, as the Chairman alluded,
    in different areas. Ten of the 15 bills look at creating new
    park units or re-designating existing units with new names, and
    I want to understand the criteria bit for that process.
        Senator Cardin also, Mr. Chairman, asked me to introduce a
    statement that he has for the record relating to his bill, S.
    1969, so I will put that in the record.
        Senator Daines. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator King. And there are some policy questions we have
    to face in connection with these bills. I just really want to
    thank our witness, Mr. Benge, for being here. I understand he
    worked in planning and facilities at the Park Planning,
    Facilities and Lands, so he is certainly knowledgeable about
    the issues that we are going to be discussing. I welcome my
    colleague, Senator Heinrich. I have been to Bandelier. I know
    it well. It is an extraordinary place----
        Senator Heinrich. It is in your book.
        Senator King. It is in my book. That is right. Thank you
    for--you mean the book--never mind. I was skating close to the
    ethics rules there for a moment, but I do appreciate the work
    of this Committee and look forward to the hearing. Mr.
    Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Daines. We will now proceed to the witness
    testimony. At the end of the testimony, we will begin
    questions. Mr. Benge, your full written testimony will be made
    part of the official hearing record. Mr. Benge, you may
    proceed, welcome.

     STATEMENT OF SHAWN BENGE, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS,
         NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Benge. Chairman Daines, Ranking Member King, and
    members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    present the Department of the Interior's views on 14 of the
    bills on today's agenda. I would like to submit our full
    statements for the record and summarize the Department's views.
        The Department supports the following four bills: S. 1910
    and H.R. 1472, which would redesignate the Homestead National
    Monument of America; S. 3098, which would redesignate the Jimmy
    Carter National Historic Site; and S. 3265, which would
    redesignate the Weir Farm National Historical Site. These three
    sites would become National Historical Parks. We would like to
    work with the Committee on technical amendments for S. 3265,
    the Weir Farm bill. We also support S. 3121, to redesignate
    Chiricahua National Monument to call it a National Park. The
    Department believes that these redesignations are appropriate
    for all four units.
        S. 1969 would authorize the Fallen Journalists Memorial
    Foundation to establish a commemorative work to honor the
    sacrifices made by journalists working as guardians of
    democracy and for a free and independent press. The Department
    would support the bill if amended to clarify the purpose and
    focus of the commemorative work.
        H.R. 182 and S. 508 would reauthorize the Cape Cod National
    Seashore Advisory Commission. The Department does not support
    this legislation, but if the Committee takes action on it, we
    would recommend amending the original legislation to remove a
    specific authority for the Commission.
        S. 1863 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
    conduct a special resource study of the sites associated with
    the life and legacy of Julius Rosenwald and the Rosenwald
    schools. The Department recognizes that this subject represents
    an important story, but we do not support S. 1863 at this time.
    There are more than 5,000 Rosenwald schools in 12 states. If
    the Committee acts on the legislation, we would like to work
    with the Committee to refine the scope of the study.
        S. 2340 would authorize the establishment of Cahokia Mounds
    Mississippian Culture National Historical Park. The Department
    recognizes the important contribution to the American story
    that this site represents. If the Committee acts on the bill,
    the Department would recommend amending S. 2340 to authorize a
    special resource study limited to the three sites recommended
    for further study by the National Park Service's recently
    completed reconnaissance survey.
        S. 2827 would established the U.S. African American Burial
    Ground Network. The Department recognizes the important
    contribution to the American story that this represents led by
    African American burial grounds; however, we do not support S.
    2827 at this time. If the Committee acts on this legislation,
    we would recommend providing a study rather than establishing
    this new program.
        S. 2924 would redesignate Bandelier National Monument as
    Bandelier National Park and Preserve. Hunting would be allowed
    within the National Preserve. Among several new authorities
    provided in this legislation, S. 2924 would establish a tribal
    commission to provide guidance and recommendations to implement
    management plans and policy. The Department supports S. 2924
    but would like to work with the Committee to address concerns
    that we have about the bill.
        S. 3119 would authorize boundary modifications to Casa
    Grande National Monument to further protect key archaeological
    resources associated with the site, and the Department supports
    this bill.
        S. 3331 would authorize the addition of an important track
    of land to Rocky Mountain National Park and also resolve a
    longstanding ownership issue within the Park. The Department
    supports this bill.
        Finally, as noted in several of our written statements, the
    Department is continuing to focus resources on reducing the
    National Park Service's deferred maintenance backlog and
    addressing other critical infrastructure needs of our current
    park assets. Chairman Daines, this concludes my statement and I
    would be pleased to answer your questions.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Benge follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Mr. Benge, thank you, and thanks again for
    being here today. I think the proposals before the Subcommittee
    are really well intentioned. Some aim to preserve a piece of
    history that may not be well known while others want to be put
    on the map in order to increase its visitation and local
    economic development. I held a field hearing in Montana last
    summer at the Grant-Kohrs National Historic Site, which of
    course when you think about our National Parks in Montana, we
    have Yellowstone, we have Glacier, and we have Custer
    Battlefield. But some of these really amazing crown jewels are
    little sleepers that don't always get the visitation they
    should receive. We held that field hearing of this Committee
    there for that reason to bring more awareness to it. As you
    know though, many on Capitol Hill are concerned about the Park
    Service's ability to manage the existing 419 units, especially
    with a growing maintenance backlog, which as Senator King
    mentioned earlier, we are making some great progress there with
    the Administration to get a bill through to deal with a major
    chunk of that.
        My question is this, how does the National Park Service
    plan for continued maintenance of new or redesignated units?
        Mr. Benge. Thank you, Senator. It is true that we don't
    have unlimited resources, and it is true the National Park
    Service priority is improving existing assets and not adding
    new responsibilities. We also understand our role in the
    legislative process is advisory and remain committed to
    implementing any law enacted by Congress.
        Senator Daines. So to follow up, if the bills like the
    Chiricahua, if I said that properly, or the Weir Farm are
    passed and the redesignations lead to increased visitation,
    does the National Park Service have the capacity to manage more
    visitors and care for the cultural or the natural resources?
        Mr. Benge. Senator, we do the best we can. We don't have
    unlimited resources, but if enacted, we would continue to
    welcome the visiting public in those parks.
        Senator Daines. The Bandelier National Park and Preserve,
    another bill before the Subcommittee, would redesignate about
    26,700 acres of the Bandelier National Monument as a National
    Park, and the remaining 4,000 acres as a National Preserve.
        I understand there are some concerns from local
    stakeholders, including whether or not additional tribal
    consultation may be needed. Can you explain how tribal
    consultation is currently managed at Bandelier and how is it
    different from other National Park units?
        Mr. Benge. Senator, I am not aware that consultation that
    is accomplished at Bandelier is different than the way we
    approach consultation, tribal consultation, in any other park,
    which is to me our statutory requirements under a number of
    statutes, including NRPA and Section 106 of the National
    Historic Preservation Act.
        Senator Daines. Along that line, does the Department
    believe that there is a need for more consultation at Bandelier
    than what is being done now or are you satisfied?
        Mr. Benge. I think the tools that we utilize in order to
    accomplish consultation are in place, sir.
        Senator Daines. So is more needed or are you satisfied?
        Mr. Benge. We are satisfied.
        Senator Daines. Okay.
        Would the Department need additional resources to manage
    Bandelier if it is designated as a National Park and Preserve,
    and if so, do you have any idea how much additional funding
    might be needed?
        Mr. Benge. I do not believe there would be a significant
    financial burden, but I don't have the specifics of the
    additional operational costs and I could get that for you and
    get back to you.
        Senator Daines. Okay. That would be helpful. Thank you.
        I am going to switch gears and talk about advisory
    commissions. Two of the bills before the Subcommittee are H.R.
    182 and S. 508. These bills would reauthorize the Cape Cod
    National Seashore Advisory Commission for 10 years. The
    Commission was established in 1961, and Congress originally
    intended it to sunset 10 years later once the park was up and
    running.
        My question is this, generally what is the purpose of
    advisory commissions and does the Department believe that the
    Cape Cod Advisory Commission is still needed nearly 60 years
    after the establishment of the National Seashore?
        Mr. Benge. Senator, the Department believes that the
    advisory committee has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer
    needed.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        I am going to respect my colleagues' time here, and I have
    one more question, but I am going to turn it over now to the
    Ranking Member, Senator King.
        Senator King. First, I noticed your prior position was with
    facilities. I take it you believe that the Restore Our Parks
    Act would be a positive step toward dealing with the
    maintenance backlog?
        Mr. Benge. Senator, I think it would be historic.
        Senator King. That is a good answer. I will take that.
        Senator Daines. You said the same thing, right? Didn't you?
        Senator King. I think I did. No, I appreciate that. And you
    know well, probably better than anyone, the condition that we
    have and this is a responsibility that we have to the next
    generation to maintain those parks.
        On Bandelier, there is a provision as I understand, that
    part of the preserve would allow hunting and this is property
    that it isn't--hunting isn't allowed presently under the
    present designation. What is the status of hunting on National
    Parks and Preserves? Is this a unique proposal or is this
    consistent with other Parks--other units in the Park System?
        Mr. Benge. Senator, hunting is prohibited by regulation
    unless it is specifically authorized through the enabling
    legislation of a Park.
        Senator King. But there are parks where it is specifically
    authorized, are there not?
        Mr. Benge. Yes.
        Senator King. So this is not a departure, this would not be
    unique among National Parks?
        Mr. Benge. It would not be unique, and the hunting would be
    allowed within the National Park System.
        Senator King. Okay. Let's see, Casa Grande. The Casa Grande
    bill has a provision that I have not seen before that says the
    Secretary can convey, ``any other federal asset of equal value
    located in the state,'' as a kind of a swap, and that is pretty
    broad authority. Is that typical? Have you seen authority that
    broad before or is this a unique proposal?
        Mr. Benge. Could you repeat the question? I am not sure I
    understood.
        Senator King. My understanding--the Casa Grande bill has a
    provision that says in order to establish, put the land
    together, the Secretary can convey, ``any other federal asset
    of equal value located in the state.'' That is anywhere in the
    state. Usually these swaps are adjacent parcels or within the
    vicinity and I am just--this is not a hostile question, I am
    just wondering if that is a typical provision or if that is a
    broader authority and is unusual in these circumstances.
        Mr. Benge. Senator, the somewhat uniqueness is in this
    particular case. The State of Arizona does not donate public
    trust lands, they only sell or trade lands hence this
    legislation would provide for the purchase of such lands.
        Senator King. And the purchase--but the purchase could be
    by swap, by other assets of equal value?
        Mr. Benge. We do have the ability to exchange lands, that
    is true, of equal value.
        Senator King. You mentioned the advisory committees. Does
    the Department have a general view on advisory committees or is
    this particular, the opposition to the advisory committee at
    Cape Cod, is that particular to that park or is this a more
    generalized resistance to advisory committees?
        Mr. Benge. Senator, in general the Department has been
    trying to reduce the number of advisory committees to save
    money and staff time that these committees require. Generally,
    these types of committees or commissions have been established
    in the infancy of a park, when a park is first established in
    order to be able to advise as the park is being stood up. And
    as the park matures, the need and purpose of the advisory
    committee diminishes.
        Senator King. So generally, as you say, you are skeptical,
    I think, of advisory committees, but we, for example, have one
    at Acadia National Park that is very active and important in
    the life of the park. So I hope you will forget you ever heard
    about that one, and we will keep it going.
        Final question, several of these bills talked about moving
    units from a National Monument or one status to National Park
    status. As a practical matter, what does that mean to the Park
    Service? Does it raise the level of staffing or costs or
    maintenance or is it simply the change in the name?
        Mr. Benge. Senator, it is simply the change in the name.
    There are no additional costs. Minor costs to change the sign,
    letterhead, those kinds of things. We still encourage Congress
    to follow the traditional patterns of nomenclature. The naming
    patterns are only customary, but we think there is some value
    in keeping similar type units similarly named.
        Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Thanks, Senator King. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Welcome. It is kind of a fortuitous day
    to be here. I think we are all pretty excited about the
    developments of the last few days. One of my favorite
    organizations, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, has a hashtag.
    It is #wwtrd, and it stands for ``What Would Teddy Roosevelt
    Do?'' I think we have done all right in the last 48 hours by
    that standard. I just want to ask you one quick question and it
    relates to the question that Chairman Daines brought up with
    regard to tribal consultation which I think is incredibly
    important.
        I want to start by saying that I think the Park
    Superintendent, Bandelier's Superintendent Jason Lott, has done
    a remarkable job really cementing relationships with the
    Pueblos. And the Pueblos have--this is their homeland, this is
    where their ancestors lived and it is a living cultural
    landscape. That said, one of the goals of this legislation is
    to go beyond consultation and to create a tribal commission to
    make recommendations on management and policy decisions, and to
    incorporate traditional knowledge into that management.
        And I just want to ask, would that be, in this case, a
    unique level of involvement for tribes in the management of a
    National Park Service unit?
        Mr. Benge. Thank you, Senator. The National Park Service
    engages in tribal consultation as a matter of practice, but to
    our knowledge, the commission established in this legislation
    would certainly be unique.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. I just have
    one follow-up question for the second round. This is regarding
    these special resource studies. Two of the bills before us are
    designating new units of the National Park System while another
    one directs the Department to conduct a special resources study
    to determine the feasibility and need for establishing new
    units. We have a few questions regarding that process. First,
    why are special resource studies important?
        Mr. Benge. Senator, special resource studies are important
    in order to be able to understand the significance of the
    resource, the suitability for inclusion in the National Park
    Service, and the feasibility for inclusion in the National Park
    Service.
        Senator Daines. What information can the Department learn
    from the studies, and then, how can that help Congress when we
    might be debating a new designation?
        Mr. Benge. Senator, it really is providing information to
    Congress on four fronts. One is the level of significance, how
    significant the resource is, whether it is worthy of protection
    and at what level, at the national level, regional level. The
    feasibility and then the suitability, and then management
    options associated with the proposed site.
        Senator Daines. Mr. Benge, I am kind of digging in the
    weeds a little bit here. Could you talk a bit more about the
    scope of the study for the Rosenwald schools?
        Mr. Benge. Senator, the scope of the proposed study is
    overly broad. To study every resource that reflects Julius
    Rosenwald's life and legacy would be a huge undertaking. If the
    Committee decides to move forward with the legislation, we
    would like to work to refine the scope of the study, work with
    the Committee to refine the scope of the study.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, that is helpful. And along the
    lines of these special resource studies, how could a special
    resource study help refine the purpose and the boundaries of
    the proposed Cahokia Mounds site?
        Mr. Benge. In this particular case, Senator, we have
    completed a reconnaissance survey, which is a cursory survey,
    which we can only spend by statute $25,000 in order to
    accomplish, but it is very cursory. And the outcome of a survey
    is really to determine whether there is value in moving forward
    with the full study or whether there is no value in moving
    forward. In this particular case, the results of the
    reconnaissance survey recommended moving forward with a full
    study to better understand significance in three sites.
        Senator Daines. Last question, the special resource
    studies. In general, does the Department support establishing
    new units of the National Park System without a special
    resource study being conducted?
        Mr. Benge. As a matter of practice, we support the concept
    of a special resource study.
        Senator Daines. As a precondition----
        Mr. Benge. As a precondition.
        Senator Daines. ----to establish new units?
        Mr. Benge. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Benge.
        Senator Heinrich, you are recognized.
        Senator Heinrich. I actually don't have any additional
    questions. I do have a statement but whenever that is
    convenient----
        Senator Daines. You are most welcome to make a statement,
    and then we will wrap up the hearing.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
    for holding this hearing. When I talk to people about what
    makes the State of New Mexico unique, it typically comes back
    to our breathtaking landscapes, our deep and complex history,
    and our unique cultures. Bandelier National Monument really
    encapsulates each of those in unrivaled ways.
        That is why I am so proud to work with communities in
    Northern New Mexico to introduce legislation to make Bandelier
    our nation's newest National Park. Bandelier's mesas and
    canyons have a human history that dates back more than 10,000
    years. Nearly 1,000 years ago, the ancestral Pueblo people
    built homes along cliff faces, dug ceremonial kivas, and
    planted crops on mesa top fields. What these people left behind
    are a living cultural landscape and sites with ongoing
    spiritual and religious significance for their descendants.
        More than a century ago, some of these same sites were
    desecrated, destroyed by looters seeking to profit from a
    growing illicit market for Native American artifacts and even
    bones. Those deplorable actions inspired a fervent campaign at
    the start of the last century to permanently protect the area's
    treasures by creating a National Park. That proposal got caught
    up in bureaucratic, and yes Congressional, gridlock prompting
    President Woodrow Wilson to use his authority under the
    Antiquities Act to create Bandelier National Monument in 1916.
    Only Congress can create a National Park and provide the
    highest level of both attention and protection for cultural
    resources.
        In addition, only Congress can ensure that a current or
    future President can't undo those protections. I believe that
    it is long past time that we recognize that Bandelier's unique
    historical and natural resources are more than worthy of this
    same treatment. We also need to build upon the strong
    relationship that already exists between the Park Service and
    the Pueblos whose history and culture lies in Bandelier. This
    is, after all, a living cultural landscape.
        That is why my legislation will put into law the current
    access and protections that are afforded to these Pueblos. It
    would also establish a Tribal Advisory Commission which would
    provide guidance for park management that reflects traditional
    and historical knowledge and values.
        I believe that creating this new National Park is the best
    way to ensure that Bandelier's cultural treasures receive the
    recognition and the protection that they have long, really
    always, deserved. I look forward to working with all New
    Mexicans as well as my colleagues and the Administration to
    establish Bandelier as our newest and Northern New Mexico's
    first National Park.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. If there are
    no more questions for today, members may also submit follow-up
    written questions for the record. I think I can speak for the
    three of us here today, we are still coming down from our high
    today that is truly a historic moment for conservation in
    Washington, DC, to see Democrats and Republicans, to see, I
    think as Senator Heinrich said, it is not years of work, but
    decades of work that came together to move something forward
    here. It is not often that it all aligns.
        But to address really two major conservation issues that
    this Committee uniquely has been working on in terms of dealing
    with this maintenance backlog of $12.5 billion, and, of course,
    the full and mandatory funding of $900 million a year for the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is a good day for
    conservation. Senator King, you look like you have some
    additional wisdom to share here.
        Senator King. No, it is not really wisdom, it is just, I
    want to join you in recognizing the significance. I was
    thinking as we were talking over in the Capitol, I started
    working on land conservation issues in Maine in 1987 when we
    created something called the Land for Maine's Future Program,
    which has set aside I think about 600,000 acres of priceless
    properties in the State of Maine for future generations. To be
    able to carry that work on here is the legacy of a lifetime.
        I deeply appreciate the work that my colleagues have done
    and we feel like we are on the 5-yard line and hopefully in the
    next couple of weeks we can cross the goal line.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Benge, for your testimony and for
    your career and work on behalf of the American people at the
    Park Service. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Daines. The last sentence, and then I will have
    some official verbiage to close out the hearing, but I think
    about if we just had a map of the United States on the wall
    behind us--Maine, Montana, New Mexico--we just about pinned the
    corners here. We have the Southern border. We have our Northern
    border, East, West, Southwest as it should be.
        I want to thank Mr. Benge for his time and his testimony
    today. As I mentioned, the hearing record will remain open for
    two more weeks.
        This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:43 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  [all]