[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]