[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]