Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text: CR S2668: 1)
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of Cahokia Mounds, Emerald Mounds, and Pulcher Mounds in Illinois. The study must evaluate national significance, assess suitability and feasibility for National Park System designation, consider preservation alternatives, consult stakeholders, estimate costs, follow title 54 procedures, and report findings to congressional committees within three years of funding.
Liberals prioritize explicit tribal consultation and implementation funding
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well‑constructed special resource study authorization.
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of Cahokia Mounds, Emerald Mounds, and Pulcher Mounds in Illinois.
The study must evaluate national significance, assess suitability and feasibility for National Park System designation, consider preservation alternatives, consult stakeholders, estimate costs, follow title 54 procedures, and report findings to congressional committees within three years of funding.
Routine National Park Service study bill with low ideological conflict and modest fiscal impact historically has high chance, subject to funding and calendar.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well‑constructed special resource study authorization. It clearly defines the study scope and required contents, ties the study to the applicable statute, designates the responsible official, and sets a reporting deadline.
Liberals prioritize explicit tribal consultation and implementation funding
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals prioritize explicit tribal consultation and implementation funding
Likely supportive overall as cultural preservation and Indigenous heritage recognition.
Would want explicit tribal consultation, protections, and commitments for long-term funding and interpretation.
Generally favorable toward a study to gather facts before action.
Supports careful cost analysis and multi‑stakeholder engagement to avoid unintended federal overreach or fiscal surprises.
Cautiously open to a study if narrowly focused, but skeptical that it could be a precursor to federal land acquisition and costly National Park obligations.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Routine National Park Service study bill with low ideological conflict and modest fiscal impact historically has high chance, subject to funding and calendar.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals prioritize explicit tribal consultation and implementation funding
Routine National Park Service study bill with low ideological conflict and modest fiscal impact historically has high chance, subject to fu…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well‑constructed special resource study authorization. It clearly defines the study scope and required contents, ties the study to the applicable statute, design…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.