[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 272, H.R. 437 and H.R. 1113
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
86-339 PS
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Tom Udall, New Mexico
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Mark Udall, Colorado
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Chris Cannon, Utah Dennis A. Cardoza, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Mark E. Souder, Indiana ex officio
Rob Bishop, Utah
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 8, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 2
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 4
Prepared statement on H.R. 272........................... 5
Kingston, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 1113.......................... 10
Larson, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut....................................... 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 437........................... 8
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 272, H.R. 437 and H.R. 1113... 2
Rahall, Hon. Nick J. II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia, Prepared statement on H.R. 437. 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, Bob, Acting Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty
and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C................ 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 272........................... 19
Kohn, Robert, Chief Operating Officer, Colt Gateway LLC,
Hartford, Connecticut...................................... 31
Prepared statement on H.R. 437........................... 32
Manning, Gloria, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C............................................ 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 272........................... 12
Mattingly, Hon. Mack, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia,
Retired, St. Simons, Georgia............................... 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 1113.......................... 30
Taylor, Jeffrey, Assistant Director, Legislative and
Congressional Affairs, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C................ 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 437........................... 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 1113.......................... 17
Additional materials supplied:
Kingston Town Board, Letter submitted for the record by The
Honorable Jim Gibbons...................................... 28
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 272, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
TO CONVEY CERTAIN LAND TO LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA, AND THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN LAND TO EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA, FOR
CONTINUED USE AS CEMETERIES; H.R. 437, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF COLTSVILLE IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
FOR POTENTIAL INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM; AND H.R. 1113, TO
AUTHORIZE AN EXCHANGE OF LAND AT FORT FREDERICA NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George P.
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Radanovich, Gibbons, Christensen,
and Bordallo
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good afternoon. I apologize for the late
start of this. We had something else going on in another
Committee room that I was finally able to break away from. I
appreciate your patience.
And with that, the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands will receive testimony on three
bills: H.R. 272, H.R. 437, and H.R. 1113.
Our first bill is H.R. 272, introduced by our Subcommittee
colleague Mr. Gibbons, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture
to convey certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the
Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka
County, Nevada, for continued use as cemeteries.
Our second bill, which is H.R. 437, is introduced by
Congressman Larson of Connecticut, to direct the Secretary of
the Interior to conduct a study of Coltsville in the State of
Connecticut for potential inclusion into the National Park
System.
And our last bill, H.R. 1113, introduced by Congressman
Kingston of Georgia, authorizes an exchange of land at the Fort
Frederica National Monument.
Before turning time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Larson and Mr. Kingston would be
permitted to sit on the dais following the statements. There
being no objection, so ordered.
And I now turn my time over to the Ranking Member, Mrs.
Donna Christensen, for any opening statement you may have.
Donna?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, on H.R. 272, H.R. 437,
and H.R. 1113
Good afternoon. The hearing will come to order.
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and
Public Lands will receive testimony on three bills--H.R. 272, H.R. 437
and H.R. 1113.
Our first bill, H.R. 272, introduced by our Subcommittee colleague
Mr. Gibbons, would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the
Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued
use as cemeteries.
Our second bill, H.R. 437, introduced by Congressman Larson of
Connecticut, directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study
of Coltsville in the State of Connecticut for potential inclusion in
the National Park System.
Our last bill, H.R. 1113, introduced by Congressman Kingston of
Georgia, authorizes an exchange of land at Fort Frederica National
Monument.
Before turning the time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Larson and Mr. Kingston be permitted to sit
on the dais following their statements. Without objection, so ordered.
I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen for any opening
statement she may have.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, would like to welcome our colleagues and the other
witnesses to our hearing today. And we are receiving testimony
on three unrelated measures.
Our first bill, H.R. 272, requires the Secretary of
Agriculture to convey to Lander County, Nevada, approximately
10 acres of Forest Service land free of charge. Further, the
Secretary would be required to grant the county an easement
over adjacent national forest lands for the purpose of allowing
access to the parcel to be conveyed.
Currently, the land in question is used as a cemetery under
a special use permit, and the legislation contains a reverter
clause that would be triggered should the parcel ever be
converted to another use.
Section 2 of the legislation directs the Secretary of the
Interior to make a similar conveyance of BLM land to Eureka
County, Nevada. This 10-acre parcel is also being used as a
cemetery, and the conveyance would require a similar easement
and contains a similar reverter clause.
While this measure is generally noncontroversial, it is our
understanding that the BLM and Forest Service raised several
technical issues during the Senate consideration of this
legislation during the previous Congress. And so, we look
forward to hearing from our witnesses today regarding whether
these issues have been resolved.
Our second bill, H.R. 437, introduced by our colleague
Representative John Larson, would authorize the study of the
Coltsville historic site in Connecticut. The site, which is
associated with the historically significant Colt Manufacturing
Company, contains a number of historic resources. The
legislation has the support of the entire Connecticut
delegation, and a similar legislation has passed the Senate
twice.
Resources Committee Ranking Member Rahall is a strong
supporter of H.R. 437, and on his behalf, I would ask that his
statement of support for the bill be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Nick Rahall, Ranking Democrat,
Committee on Resources, on H.R. 437
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong support for H.R. 437, the
Coltsville Study Act. My good friend and colleague John Larson has done
yeomen's work on this legislative initiative. Rep. Larson has assembled
the bipartisan cosponsorship of the Connecticut Congressional
delegation and has the support of both the local community and the
National Park Service for this study.
The Coltsville site is closely associated with the Colt
Manufacturing Company, made famous by the Colt six-shooter. But the
history of the area is more than just one gun. During the Industrial
Revolution the company was at the forefront of innovation and
technology. The self-contained Coltsville community boasted many
amenities. We are fortunate that a significant number of historic
resources survive, including the landmark blue onion dome.
I want to commend my colleague Rep. Larson for working to preserve
this piece of American history. I look forward to working with him to
see this historic resource study brought to fruition.
______
Mrs. Christensen. The last bill, H.R. 1113, which
authorizes a land exchange at Fort Frederica National Monument,
raises a number of issues. Evidently, appraisals and
archeological surveys of the sites to be exchanged have not
been completed. Further, the noncontiguous parcel that the Park
Service would acquire through the exchange will likely increase
the administrative and operational costs of the national
monument.
Finally, we understand that there may be additional
modifications to the lands proposed to be exchanged, and these
modifications may create further issues. The National Park
Service testimony on how H.R. 1113 echoes these concerns but
provides little guidance on how they should be addressed. As a
general rule, any land exchange we authorize should enhance the
national monument.
We have to be careful about altering the boundaries of the
National Park System units. Former Resources Committee Chairman
Hansen spoke many times about the National Park Service
acquiring an historic site, Charles Pickney National Historic
Site, that didn't contain the historic resources that were
claimed. We shouldn't make the same mistake here.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the presence of our witnesses
here today and look forward to their insights on the
legislation before us. And I am sure it was just an oversight,
but I am sure our colleague John Larson will be welcome to sit
up on the dais.
Mr. Radanovich. Oh, absolutely. I think we included that in
our--
Mrs. Christensen. OK.
Mr. Radanovich. If not, yes.
Mrs. Christensen. All right. Thanks.
Mr. Radanovich. You are welcome to join us as well. With
that, we are going to begin hearing testimony from our
distinctive panel, including Mr. Jim Gibbons from the State of
Nevada. Jim, if you would like to begin. Welcome to your
Subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent that the full statement I have be submitted for the
record.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity also
to discuss an issue that is of utmost importance to the
constituents that I represent in rural Nevada.
As many of you know, Nevada has the highest percentage of
public lands in all the States of the Union, with close to 90
percent of our State being managed by the Federal Government.
This poses many problems for my constituents, including one
which we will discuss here today--the burial of our loved ones
and the preservation of grave sites for our ancestors.
I introduced H.R. 272 to authorize a conveyance of two
cemeteries, both in existence since the late 1800's, back to
the local control of Lander and Eureka Counties.
Mr. Chairman, on March 2, 1970, nearly 33 years ago, the
Kingston Cemetery in Lander County was officially created with
a 10-acre special use permit from the Forest Service. The
intent of this permit was to protect the existing graves dating
back to 1891, decades before the Forest Service ever existed.
Again, in 1979, the Forest Service issued another 10-acre
permit as the management of the cemetery was transferred to the
Town of Kingston, Nevada.
In February 1990, after 20 years of permitting burials, the
Forest Service informed the Town of Kingston that the cemetery
was in trespass of public lands. Furthermore, the town was told
that the present Forest Service policy was to not authorize new
cemetery permits as this was deemed a permanent use of the
land.
To resolve this problem, the Town of Kingston offered 2.58
acres of land to the Forest Service in exchange for the 10
acres of cemetery land. The town thought this was a very
reasonable offer, especially considering that the Forest
Service had already accidentally built a campground on their
parcel of ground. But the Forest Service refused this proposal.
In 1998, under the Freedom of Information Act, Kingston
began to request documents and to research history in an effort
to start negotiations for a deed to the Kingston Cemetery
project. After 7 months of correspondence, the Forest Service
said that this action could take anywhere from 2 to 7 years. As
a last resort, the Kingston town board asked for my assistance.
It is my intention to ensure that these honest, diligent
people have some certainty and closure on this issue, which
they have been burdened with for nearly three decades.
Unfortunately, the Forest Service will testify today that they
can meet the objectives of this bill under its current
statutory authority by conveying lands to the county for
comparable lands or at fair market value in cash.
Now I am very troubled, if not outraged, that this agency
is forcing the people of Lander County and those that are
buried there to buy or exchange land for the graves of their
parents. The county does not have the financial ability to
purchase these lands and are understandably reluctant to
exchange them with what extremely limited private land they may
have and limited resources they do have.
I call on the Forest Service to live up to its motto of
caring for the land and serving people. The Forest Service
should serve the people of Lander County by giving them their
ancestral graveyard instead of trying to extort the highest
price possible for the land.
Mr. Chairman, while I am dismayed and disappointed by the
greediness of the Forest Service, I applaud the BLM, which
understands the sensitivity of transferring control of
ancestral graveyards to local communities. The BLM understands
that these sites are sacred and should be in the possession of
local governments.
Consequently, they are not seeking ``fair market value'' in
the second transfer authorized in H.R. 272--the transfer of the
Maiden's Grave Cemetery in Eureka County. What a breath of
fresh air that is.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that each member of this
Committee will see the importance of this legislation, the
simple fairness of transferring these historic graveyards back
to the communities that have buried their loved ones there
since the 1800's.
After all, the role of the Federal Government is not to
play real estate agent. The role of the Federal Government is
to serve the people. H.R. 272 serves the people of Eureka and
Lander Counties, Nevada, fairly, and this legislation should be
fairly and expeditiously passed by this Committee and by
Congress and serve the people of Nevada.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 31 seconds I have
remaining.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada, on H.R. 272
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss an issue
that is of utmost importance to my constituents in rural Nevada.
As you may know, Nevada has the highest percentage of public lands
of all the States in the Union'' close to 90 percent of our state is
managed by the Federal Government.
This poses many problems for my constituents, including one which
we discuss here today--the burial of our loved ones and the
preservation of the grave sites of our ancestors.
I introduced H.R. 272 to authorize the conveyance of two
cemeteries--both in existence since the late 1800s--back to the
respective local control of Lander and Eureka counties.
Mr. Chairman, on March 2, 1970, the Kingston Cemetery in Lander
County was officially created with a 10-acre Special Use Permit from
the Forest Service.
The intent of this permit was to protect the existing graves dating
back to 1891'' decades before the Forest Service ever existed.
Again, in 1979 the Forest Service issued another 10-acre permit as
the management of the cemetery was transferred to the Town of Kingston.
In February of 1990, after 20 years of permitting burials, the
Forest Service informed the Town of Kingston that the Cemetery was in
trespass of public lands.
Furthermore, the town was told that the present Forest Service
policy was to not authorize new cemetery permits as this was deemed a
Permanent Use of the Land!
To resolve this problem, the Town of Kingston offered 2.58 acres of
land to the Forest Service in exchange for the 10 acres of cemetery
land.
The town thought this was a very reasonable offer, especially
considering that the Forest Service had already accidently built a
campground on this parcel.
But, the Forest Service refused this proposal.
In 1998, under the Freedom of Information Act, Kingston began to
request documents and to research history in an effort to start
negotiations for a deed to the Kingston Cemetery property.
After 7 months of correspondence, the Forest Service said that this
action could take anywhere from 2 to 7 years.
As a last resort, the Kingston Town Board asked for my assistance.
It is my intention to ensure that these honest, diligent people
have some certainty and closure on this issue which they have been
burdened with for decades.
Unfortunately, the Forest Service will testify today that they can
meet the objectives of this bill under its current statutory
authorities by conveying lands to the county for comparable land or for
fair market value in cash.
I am disgusted and outraged that this agency is forcing the people
of Lander County to buy or exchange land for the graves of their
parents.
The County does not have the financial ability to purchase these
lands and are understandably reluctant to exchange what EXTREMELY
limited private land they do have.
I call on the U.S. Forest Service to live up to its motto: ``Caring
for the Land and Serving People.''
The Forest Service should serve the people of Lander County by
giving them their ancestral grave yard, instead of trying to extort the
highest price possible for the land.
Mr. Chairman, while I am dismayed and disappointed by the
greediness of the Forest Service, I applaud the BLM which understands
the sensitivity of transferring control of ancestral grave yards to the
local communities.
The BLM understands that these sites are sacred and should be in
the possession of local governments.
Consequently, they are not seeking ``fair market value'' in the
second transfer authorized in H.R. 272--the transfer of the Maiden's
Grave Cemetery in Eureka County.
What a breath of fresh air.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that each member of this Committee will
see the importance of this legislation and the simple fairness of
transferring these historic grave yards back to the communities that
have buried their loved ones there since the 1800s.
After all, the role of the Federal Government is not to play real
estate agent. The role of the Federal Government is to serve the
people.
H.R. 272 serves the people of Eureka and Lander Counties, Nevada
fairly and should be expeditiously passed by this Committee and
Congress.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons. Wonderful
testimony.
Next we will move on to the Honorable John Larson to speak
on bill number H.R. 437. Mr. Larson, welcome to the Committee,
and please begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN LARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Christensen.
I have a written statement that I ask unanimous consent of
the Committee to be inserted for the record, as well as several
other extraneous news articles and information about
Coltsville, with the Committee's permission. Is that OK?
Mr. Radanovich. That would be just fine.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, sir.
I want to thank from the outset Chairman Pombo and Ranking
Member Rahall for helping expedite the process, and certainly
the Chair and the Ranking Member here today.
I also want to congratulate members of our delegation. As
was pointed out by Mrs. Christensen, it has the unanimous
support of the Connecticut delegation as well as our Governor,
John Rowland; the mayor of the City of Hartford, Eddie Perez;
various members of the Connecticut General Assembly; and most
notably, the community, especially Mr. William Gordon and Carol
Coburn, who is the executive director for the Coalition To
Strengthen the Sheldon/Charter Oak Neighborhood, commonly
referred to as CSSCON.
Later, you will hear from the Park Service in testimony and
also from Mr. Kohn, who heads up the Colt Gateway, Inc., that
is responsible for commercially developing that property as
well.
I want to underscore the importance of this and
specifically point out that the Coltsville Study Act would
direct the National Park Service to study the site commonly
known as Coltsville and its surrounding area within the City of
Hartford.
In doing so, now this would provide an opportunity for
Connecticut to evaluate the national significance, suitability,
and feasibility for designation as a unit of the National Park
System. It also asks the National Park Service to evaluate the
importance of the area to the history of precision
manufacturing.
We are very proud in the State of Connecticut, and I am
very proud to hail from the Hartford area. We have long been
known as the Constitution State because we established the
oldest continuous constitutional democracy in the world on the
banks of the Connecticut River back in 1638.
We have also been known as the arsenal for democracy, since
our revolution, as being a provider State and having been the
inventors of gunpowder. We also, from that same region, hail
the oldest continuous museum, public museum in the Country, as
well as the oldest continuous newspaper in the Country, the
Hartford Current.
Samuel Colt is known to many Americans, and especially the
Colt .45, which was generally referred to as ``the gun that won
the West.'' But what is not known to most people across the
Country is that it was Elizabeth Colt, his wife, who--when
Samuel Colt died at a rather young age--was the person who took
over and manned the company and actually brought it to its
heyday.
It is quite a history of Mrs. Colt, who was way ahead of
her time, and before she had the right to vote was probably one
of the--if they had a Fortune 500, she would be part of the
Fortune Top 10 of the Country at that time. An extraordinary
woman, who, at the time of the industrial revolution, drove one
of the Nation's leading manufacturers to the kind of success
that Colt firearms enjoys even to this day.
But to look at this area just simply as a manufacturer of
firearms would be doing a disservice to Samuel and Elizabeth
Colt. To understand their significance is to understand what
was happening throughout the Connecticut River Valley in terms
of the industrial revolution and precision manufacturing as
well.
The Colts were the first American company to establish a
factory overseas, and they were also first to focus on the
needs of the workplace and their workforce. And whether they be
safety or fire concerns that plagued the Country during the
time of the industrial revolution, whether it be providing
housing and church services and public parks areas for people,
the Colts clearly were ahead of their time.
You are going to hear further testimony from both the Park
Service and from Mr. Kohn in that specific area. But the most
heartening thing for me, representing the area, is to see how
the community has come together to embrace this.
Not only has it been spearheaded by the neighborhood and
the developer himself and the various historical societies and
also the State's paper of record, the Hartford Current,
virtually the whole State and its delegation have come together
around this very historic and significant study that we think
is so necessary for our future.
I want to thank the Committee. I see that my time has
expired. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present
this legislation, which, as Representative Christensen pointed
out, passed the Senate twice unanimously.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John B. Larson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Connecticut, on H.R. 437
As the sponsor of the House version of the Coltsville Study Act,
H.R. 437, I would like to thank the Committee for allowing me to speak
this afternoon on an issue of importance to my constituents and to the
historic preservation of an important American landmark of achievement.
I would also like to thank the rest of my delegation colleagues here in
the House, Representatives DeLauro, Johnson, Shays, and Simmons, for
their support of this proposal, as well as Senator Dodd and Senator
Lieberman, for their support and leadership on this issue in the
Senate.
Specifically, the Coltsville Study Act would direct the National
Park Service to study the site commonly known as ``Coltsville,'' and
its surrounding area within the City of Hartford, Connecticut to
evaluate its national significance, suitability, and feasibility for
designation as a unit of the National Park System. It also asks the
National Park Service to evaluate the importance of the area to the
history of precision manufacturing.
Last June the National Park Service testified before the Senate
Energy and National Resouces Subcommittee on National Parks in support
of the Senate version of the legislation authorizing this study. Later
today you will be hearing from a representative from the National Park
Service about the version of the Coltsville Study Act before you today.
The Coltsville region of Hartford Connecticut is comprised of
approximately 260 acres of land. The region is anchored by the 17-Acre
Coltsville Heritage Park, which houses 10 historic buildings. Bordered
by Interstate-91, The Connecticut River, the central business district
of Hartford, the Museum of Connecticut State History, as well as the
State Capitol, Coltsville represents a region rich in culture and
history.
The history of Coltsville is a unique regional & international
landmark characterized by its many industrial achievements during the
industrial revolution. Beginning with Samuel and Elizabeth Colt,
founders of Colt Manufacturing Company, known for the production of
firearms, the Colt's inspired the entire community to flourish during
the industrial revolution. Coltsville is noted for its Victorian
mansions, an open green area, botanical gardens, and even a deer park.
The residence of Samuel and Elizabeth Colt in Hartford, CT, know as
``Armsmear'', is a national historic landmark, and the distinctive Colt
manufacturing factory's blue dome is a prominent feature in the
Hartford, Connecticut skyline.
When you look deeper at the county one begins to see the unique and
holistic community that developed in the area and attracted early
industrial leaders such as Col. Albert Pope of Pope Manufacturing who
produced the nations most prominent bicycles and automobiles, which
ultimately bloomed into what we now know as Pratt and Whitney located
in East Hartford. Henry Ford, was drawn to the community because of his
interest in learning about the innovative manufacturing techniques and
equipment being invented and developed in Coltsville.
It is important to emphasize that the Colt legacy is not just about
firerearms, but also about industrial innovation and the development of
technology that would change the way of life in the United States. Mr.
Colt worked with Samuel Morse in the development of the telegraph, and
Colt manufacturing contributed to the development of technology in many
ways, inspiring the jet engine pioneers Francis Pratt and Amos Whitney,
who served as apprentices at Colt manufacturing. The influence of the
community was extended overseas when Samuel Colt became the first
individual in the United States to open a manufacturing plant overseas.
It is also the story of Elizabeth Colt and of women entrepreneurs
of the early industrial age, as she successfully and profitably guided
Colt Industries for more than 40 years after Samuel Colt's death in
1862.
Coltsville set the standard for excellence during the Industrial
Revolution and continues to prove significant as a place in which
people of the United States can learn about that important period in
history and its association with the Mark Twain House, Trinity College,
Old North Cemetery, and many historic homesteads and architecturally
renowned buildings.
This legislation and its overwhelming local support and excitement
signifies that we are starting on the road to developing and
cultivating Coltsville's history and its importance to Hartford and the
State of Connecticut. The Senate version of this legislation, S. 233,
was approved by unanimous consent on March 4, 2003. Along with other
members of the delegation and the community, I am committed to
preserving the area's immeasurable historical value. Coltsville is a
unique regional and international landmark. I look forward to seeing
the immense potential that the property holds fully utilized.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Larson.
Appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. And we will hear from our next witness, and
then if you would please join us on the dais for the rest of
the hearing?
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. That would be terrific. All right.
Next up is the Honorable Jack Kingston from Georgia,
speaking on H.R. 1113, which would authorize the exchange of
land at Fort Frederica National Monument for other purposes.
Jack, welcome to the Committee. Please begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACK KINGSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is great to be with you all. And a question, Mr.
Chairman, I have also former U.S. Senator Mack Mattingly here
to testify. Should I yield him my time, or is that--
Mr. Radanovich. Welcome, Senator. And, no, you go ahead.
And what we will do is invite you onto the dais, move to the
next panel. Senator Mattingly is on one of the next panels.
Mr. Kingston. OK. Well, let me be brief in my general
description of this.
If you think about it, we just have three points of a
triangle. A historic church--historic land, a historic church
where John Wesley actually at one time preached and who, of
course, was the founder of Methodism. And then we have an
historic piece of land where General James Oglethorpe, one of
the founders of Georgia, actually lived at one point. And then
we have some raw land that is owned by Sea Island Company.
And basically, it is just a swap of the three, but it is
not directly like that. It is more the church swaps with Sea
Island and then obtains land that the National Park Service
wants, and the National Park Service wants to do the trade with
the church from that point on.
And to my knowledge, and we have vetted this now for about
2 years. There were some kinks in this 2 years ago, but
everybody wants this. There is no apparent opposition. The Park
Service has looked at it fairly closely, and we think it is a
good piece of legislation to move forward on.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kingston follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jack Kingston, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Georgia, on H.R. 1113
Since 1995, Christ Church, Frederica has been working with the NPS
to broker a land exchange that would benefit all parties involved.
Christ Church, Frederica, in an effort to expand their current
facilities, would like to acquire 6 acres of NPS land, adjacent to the
church, in exchange for 8.69 acres of land currently owned by the Sea
Island Company. The Sea Island Company has brokered a deal with the
Church to exchange this land for other land currently owned by the
Church.
On May 1, 2000, the NPS declined to participate in a land exchange
with Christ Church for a variety of legal and policy reasons that were
in enumerated in a memorandum signed by then acting Regional Director
Dan Brown. Under that proposal, Fort Frederica would have received 7
acres of land on its northern boundary from the Christ Church rectory
property in exchange for 6 acres of National Monument land adjacent to
the historic church property. Neither of the parcels involved in this
proposed agreement contained any historic resources; as such, Director
Brown found that there was no demonstrable benefit to the United States
in acquiring the land.
The agreement proposed in H.R. 1113 is different from the proposal
of 2000. It involves an exchange of an 8.69 acre parcel of property
containing the archeological ruins believed to be the former homestead
of General James G. Oglethorpe, the founder of the State of Georgia.
The NPS has conveyed to me that they are interested in obtaining the
land with the Oglethorpe Ruins and they likewise assisted in the
drafting of this legislation. There is an error in the current
legislation that identifies the land to be given to Christ Church as
approximately 4.8 acres rather than the actual amount, which is 6
acres. I plan to amend the bill to reflect this change in acreage. A
land amount of approximately 4.8 acres had been proposed during prior
negotiations. However, that parcel contained a building that belonged
to the NPS, which they wish to retain. As such, the NPS and Christ
Church have agreed that the 6 acre tract, which adjoins Christ Church,
Fort Frederica, and is appropriate because it does not contain the
building or any historic resources.
When Director Brown rejected this opportunity in 2000, he cited the
NPS policy that prohibits land exchanges where there is no demonstrable
benefit to the United States. I wholly believe that this proposed
exchange would benefit the United States, as we have an interest in
protecting and conserving the significant cultural resources such as
the Oglethorpe Ruins. This property contains historical and
archaeological resources that are non-renewable and should be protected
and preserved by the NPS so that future generations will have the
opportunity to visit this site of historical significance.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Kingston.
Are there any questions of the panel members? And if there
are not, by any other members, then I want to thank you for
your testimony and ask you to join us on the dais, and we will
get right to the substance of the matters.
Panel two--if I could call up panel two, please--consists
of Mr. Bob Anderson, who is the acting assistant director for
minerals, realty, and resource protection, from BLM in
Washington, D.C.; also Ms. Gloria Manning is the Associate
Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, Washington, D.C.;
also Mr. Jeff Taylor, Assistant Director of legislative and
congressional affairs for the National Park Service.
Good afternoon, and welcome to the Subcommittee. If you
would begin, Ms. Manning, welcome back to the Subcommittee. I
know you visited us before, and we appreciate what you bring.
And if you would like to go ahead and begin your testimony?
If you would, please keep to the 5-minute clock. Otherwise,
you will hear from me. But please take the time to let us know
your feelings on the appropriate bills.
Ms. Manning. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GLORIA MANNING, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM
Ms. Manning. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I am Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief for National
Forest System. I am here to provide you the Department's view
on H.R. 272, a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey certain lands to Lander County, Nevada.
In summary, Section 1 of H.R. 272 requires the Secretary,
through the Chief of the Forest Service, to convey to Lander
County, Nevada, for no consideration, all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the 10 acres of
National Forest System land known as Kingston Cemetery.
In accordance with Public Law 85-569, the Townsite Act, we
have already conveyed 1.25 acres of land (on which the cemetery
is located) to the Town of Kingston for $500 on August 1, 2000.
At the time of the conveyance, the Town of Kingston indicated
the 1.25 acres encompassed all known marked and unmarked grave
sites.
The Town of Kingston also indicated that the 1.25 acres was
adequate to accommodate their future expansion needs.
Specifically, all of the grave sites were accounted for within
a half-acre fenced area that the 1.25 acres encompassed. The
additional .75 acres were intended for parking and anticipated
expansion of the current cemetery.
If new unmarked grave sites have been discovered or the
needs of the Kingston Cemetery have changed and are in the
public interest, we would be supportive of making additional
Federal lands available to the county or city for fair market
value and granting the county an easement to maintain the
access road to the cemetery as a county road.
If Lander County is not willing to pay fair market value to
purchase this land, we would be willing to consider authorizing
its current and future use of this land under a special use
permit authorization.
The Department does not object to making additional Federal
lands available to Lander County, but the Department believes
that the Forest Service can meet the objectives of Section 1 of
this legislation under its current statutory authorities that
would allow it to convey National Forest System lands to Lander
County for land or fair market value in cash.
For example, under the Townsite Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture may convey, for fair market value, up to 640 acres
of land to established communities located adjacent to national
forests in Alaska or the contiguous western States. Within
certain limits, the Sisk Act authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to exchange lands with States, counties, or
municipal governments or public school districts for lands or
money.
These laws require the Secretary of Agriculture to obtain
fair market value for exchange or sales of national forest
lands. Indeed, the Federal policy in recent decades has moved
toward obtaining a fair return to the public for the value of
lands conveyed out of Federal ownership.
This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer
any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Manning follows:]
Statement of Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 272
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Gloria Manning, Associate
Deputy Chief for National Forest System, USDA Forest Service. I am here
today to provide the Department's views on H.R. 272, a bill to direct
the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands to Lander County,
Nevada.
H.R. 272 Convey certain land to Lander County, Nevada for continued use
as a cemetery
In summary, Section 1 of H.R. 272 requires the Secretary through
the Chief of the Forest Service to convey to Lander County, Nevada, for
no consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States
in and to the 10 acres of National Forest System land known as Kingston
Cemetery.
In accordance with Public Law 85-569, the Townsite Act, we have
already conveyed 1.25 acres of land (on which the cemetery is located)
to the Town of Kingston for $500 on August 1, 2000. At the time of the
conveyance, the Town of Kingston indicated the 1.25 acres encompassed
all known marked and unmarked gravesites. The Town of Kingston also
indicated that the 1.25 acres was adequate to accommodate their future
expansion needs. Specifically, all of the gravesites were accounted for
within a half acre fenced area that the 1.25 acres encompassed. The
additional .75 acres were intended for parking and anticipated
expansion of the current cemetery.
If new unmarked gravesites have been discovered or the needs of the
Kingston Cemetery have changed and are in the public interest, we would
be supportive of making additional Federal lands available to the
county or city for fair market value and granting the county an
easement to maintain the access road to the cemetery as a county road.
If Lander County is not willing to pay fair market value to
purchase this land, we would be willing to consider authorizing its
current and future use of this land under a special-use permit
authorization.
The Department does not object to making additional Federal lands
available to Lander County, Nevada in H.R. 272, but the Department
believes that the Forest Service can meet the objectives of Section 1
of this legislation under its current statutory authorities that would
allow it to convey National Forest System lands to Lander County for
land or fair-market value in cash.
For example, under the Townsite Act, the Secretary of Agriculture
may convey, for fair market value, up to 640 acres of land to
established communities located adjacent to National Forests in Alaska
or the contiguous western states. Within certain limits, the Sisk Act
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands with states,
counties, or municipal governments or public school districts for lands
or money.
Moreover, under the General Exchange Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture can exchange National Forest System lands with State and
local governments. These laws require the Secretary of Agriculture to
obtain fair market value for exchanges or sales of National Forest
lands. Indeed, the Federal policy, in recent decades has moved toward
obtaining a fair return to the public for the value of lands conveyed
out of Federal ownership.
Conclusion:
This concludes my statement; I would be happy to answer your
questions.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Ms. Manning. We are going to
hear from the entire panel before we open up the entire panel
for questions. So thank you for delivering your testimony.
Next up is Mr. Jeff Taylor, who is the Assistant Director
with the National Park Service. Jeff, welcome to the
Subcommittee, and please begin your testimony. Again, if you
could stick to 5 minutes, that would be great.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY TAYLOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE
AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Christensen, for inviting me to testify today.
I have been asked to testify on two specific bills, H.R.
437 and H.R. 1113. And I would just ask that I would be able to
submit my full testimony for the record.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
The first one, H.R. 437, this is a bill that directs the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of Coltsville in
Hartford, Connecticut, for potential inclusion in the National
Park System.
The Department supports H.R. 437. The Coltsville study area
includes nationally significant buildings, including Armsmear,
a national historic landmark, and structures that are a part of
the Colt Industrial National Register District.
The history of this site complements that of the
Springfield Armory National Historic Site, also a unit of the
National Park Service. Together, they show how innovations in
the firearms industry laid the foundation for the American
system of manufacturing.
Only through further investigation will it be possible to
determine if some part of the study area is feasible and
suitable for inclusion in the park system and what role, if
any, the National Park Service should play at this site. The
study should cost approximately $300,000 to complete.
The bill directs the service to study the site commonly
known as Coltsville and its surrounding area within the City of
Hartford to evaluate its national significance, suitability,
and feasibility for designation as a unit of the National Park
System. It also directs the park system to evaluate the
importance of the site to the history of precision
manufacturing.
This is approximately a 260-acre site, and in the middle of
it is a 17-acre Coltsville Heritage Park. This was recently
acquired by a private developer from a nonprofit subsidiary of
the Goodrich Corporation, and it contains 10 historic
buildings, some of which are occupied by commercial,
residential, and office tenants; a number of artists who also
live there and work in the complex.
Also within the study area, but in separate ownership, are
examples of former Colt worker housing and other buildings
associated with Colt history.
The Colt revolver was a revolutionary weapon that changed
military tactics and eventually made the sword obsolete in
combat. It was first produced in 1847, and it maintained its
reputation through the Civil War despite competition from other
manufacturers.
Colt's salesmanship was legendary, and the company grew due
to his marketing, advertising, and public relations skills. He
began construction of his first factory in Hartford in 1847. At
the 1851 Crystal Palace Exhibition in London, Colt revolvers
were displayed and their interchangeability demonstrated a
highlight of the American system of manufacturing.
Colt would continue to supply sidearms to the United States
military until 1985. Colt weapons were carried not only by the
American soldier on the frontier but were the personal weapon
of choice of cowboys, both famous and infamous.
Colt history complements that of Springfield Armory
National Historic Site, which is managed by the Park Service in
Springfield, Massachusetts, 25 miles north of Hartford.
Originally, Springfield Armory produced shoulder arms, while
Colt made handguns. Later, they worked together to bring the
rapid-fire gun and, later, the machine gun into the inventories
of the U.S. military.
In our 1998 Connecticut River Valley Special Resource
Reconnaissance Study, we said, ``Innovations stimulated by
firearms manufacture, notably mass production and the concept
of interchangeable parts, had far-reaching consequences
throughout American industry.'' As the skills developed in
firearms manufacture were given broader application, the
corridor between New Haven, Connecticut, and Windsor, Vermont,
became known as the ``Precision Valley.''
Developments in arms making translated to other metal-
working industries, such as sewing machines, typewriters,
bicycles, railway equipment, and clocks.
The study would be undertaken with the full involvement of
representatives of the State of Connecticut, the City of
Hartford, property owners in the study area, and other
interested organizations and individuals in the region.
Secondly, I would like to speak on H.R. 1113. This is a
bill that would authorize an exchange of land at Fort Frederica
National Monument in Georgia.
The Department also supports this bill, this land exchange,
as outlined in H.R. 1113. Although appraisals have not been
done for the two parcels, we expect that the value of the land
received by the Park Service will be more than the value of the
land given up, so there would be no need for land acquisition
funding.
The Park Service would incur increased operational costs
associated with the exchange because of the archeological value
to the park of the acquired lands. However, the amount of those
costs cannot be determined at this time until the significance
of the resources present on the site is established by the Park
Service. We would also suggest a technical amendment to provide
the identification information required for the map referenced
in the bill.
H.R. 1113 would authorize the Secretary to convey to Christ
Church of St. Simons Island approximately 4.8 acres of land
within the boundary of Fort Frederica National Monument in
exchange for approximately 8.7 acres of land near Fort
Frederica that will be acquired by Christ Church. Upon
completion of the exchange, the Secretary shall revise the
boundary of the monument and administer the land acquired
through the exchange as part of the monument.
Fort Frederica is located 12 miles northeast of Brunswick
on St. Simons Island. The monument's authorized boundary
contains 250 acres and preserves the remains of a fortified
town established and laid out by Governor James Oglethorpe in
1736 to defend against invasion from Spanish colonies in
Florida.
Fort Frederica was one of the earliest English settlements
in what ultimately became the State of Georgia, and it was
established and planned by Oglethorpe. Fort Frederica was a
prosperous community of substantial homes whose residents were
tradesmen and farmers and supplied the garrison stationed there
much the same way communities provide goods and services to our
current military installations.
In 1739, Britain and Spain entered a war that eventually
involved the fort. And after the 1748 treaty, Frederica's
military garrison was withdrawn, and the Town of Fort Frederica
fell into decline. In 1758, a fire destroyed most of the
existing structures.
The 8.7-acre site that Christ Church proposes to exchange
for the land at Fort Frederica contains archeological remains
that have been established to be from the colonial period. And
in addition, tradition indicates that the land includes General
Oglethorpe's home. However, we are not aware currently of any
archeological survey that has been completed on this tract to
positively determine if that is the case.
The main town site within the national monument contains
several well-preserved and partially reconstructed colonial
ruins. There may be additional administrative and operational
costs associated with protecting a small archeological site
detached from the main park unit, and it has not been
determined if that cost is commensurate with the limited
additional interpretive value of the site if it only contains
additional Frederica era resources but does not include
Oglethorpe's home.
We understand that Representative Kingston may amend H.R.
1113 to adjust the acreage figures of the land subject to the
exchange. We have prepared a land exchange map based on the
language currently in the bill and the existing surveys of the
two properties proposed for exchange.
We would be happy to prepare a new map, and we just would
like to work with Mr. Kingston closely to assure that the
artifact storage facility currently on Fort Frederica remains
in the current boundary.
That concludes my testimony. I would stand ready to answer
any questions that the Committee may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Taylor follow:]
Statement of Jeffrey Taylor, Assistant Director, Legislative and
Congressional Affairs, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 437
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
Committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 437. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
undertake a study of Coltsville, a site in Hartford, Connecticut, for
potential inclusion in the National Park System.
The Department supports H.R. 437. The Coltsville study area
includes nationally-significant buildings including Armsmear, a
National Historic Landmark, and structures that are part of the Colt
Industrial National Register District. The history of this site
complements that of the Springfield Armory National Historic Site, a
unit of the National Park Service. Together they could show how
innovations in the firearms industry laid the foundation for the
American system of manufacturing. Only through further investigation
will it be possible to determine if some part of the study area is
feasible and suitable for inclusion in the National Park System, and
what role, if any, the National Park Service should play at this site.
The study should cost approximately $300,000 to complete.
The National Park Service is in various stages of progress with 40
studies previously authorized by Congress. At least 17 of those studies
are scheduled to be completed in Fiscal Year 2003. Seven additional
studies are expected to be completed early in Fiscal Year 2004. Our
highest priority is to complete the studies previously authorized by
Congress, but we expect to begin work on newly authorized studies as
soon as funds are available.
The bill directs the National Park Service to study the site
commonly known as ``Coltsville,'' and its surrounding area within the
City of Hartford, to evaluate its national significance, suitability,
and feasibility for designation as a unit of the National Park System.
The bill also directs NPS to evaluate the importance of the site to the
history of precision manufacturing.
At the core of the Coltsville area, which is estimated at some 260-
acres, is the 17-acre Coltsville Heritage Park. Recently acquired by a
private developer from a non-profit subsidiary of the Goodrich
Corporation, this site contains ten historic buildings, some of which
are occupied by commercial, residential, and office tenants; a number
of artists also live and work in the complex. Also within the study
area, but in separate ownership, are examples of former Colt worker
housing and other buildings associated with Colt history. The potential
study area borders Interstate 91, which parallels the Connecticut
River, and is close to the central business district where the State
Capitol and Museum of Connecticut State History are located. The State
Museum is a major repository of Colt-related artifacts and archives, as
is the Wadsworth Atheneum, a renowned museum also in the city center.
Samuel Colt was born in Hartford in 1814 and died there in 1862. He
obtained his first patent in 1836 and went on to found a company that
is still in operation today, although it moved from the historic armory
to West Hartford, Connecticut and is no longer owned by the Colt
family. The Colt name is known throughout the world. Colt firearms and
other products have been used in every major conflict from the U.S.-
Mexican War to the present.
The Colt revolver was a revolutionary weapon that changed military
tactics and eventually made the sword obsolete in combat. First
produced in 1847, it maintained its reputation through the Civil War
despite competition from other manufacturers. Colt's salesmanship was
legendary, and the company grew due to his marketing, advertising, and
public relations skills. He began construction of his first factory in
Hartford in 1847. At the 1851 Crystal Palace Exhibition in London, Colt
revolvers were displayed and their interchangeability demonstrated as a
highlight of the ``American System of Manufacturing.'' Colt was so
impressed with his reception in England that he would build a factory
there, becoming the first American to set up a manufacturing plant
overseas.
The Hartford facility expanded in the mid-19th century. The
armory's distinctive blue onion dome, a Hartford landmark visible from
I-91, was built in 1855. In order to attract laborers, Colt built a
self-contained community surrounding the factory at Coltsville that
included housing, gardens, beer halls, and a band. A library and school
were established for the children of the workers, as well as a church
and social hall. Many of these structures are still extant and are part
of the Colt Industrial National Register District that was listed in
1976. The Colt family home, Armsmear, a National Historic Landmark, and
its surrounding grounds are situated in Colt Park, abutting the armory
site. The original factory burned in 1864, but was rebuilt soon after.
Colt would continue to supply sidearms to the United States
military until 1985. Colt weapons were carried not only by the American
soldier on the frontier, but were the personal weapon of choice of
cowboys, both famous and infamous.
Colt history complements that of Springfield Armory National
Historic Site, which is managed by the National Park Service in
Springfield, Massachusetts, 25-miles north of Hartford along the
Connecticut River. Originally Springfield Armory produced shoulder arms
while Colt made handguns. Later they worked together to bring the
rapid-fire gun and later the machine-gun into the inventories of the
U.S. military. But in 1961 Colt challenged Springfield Armory's M14
rifle while promoting its competing AR-15, now known as the M16 rifle.
This ultimately resulted in the demise of Springfield Armory in 1968.
The Colt story is also the story of Elizabeth Colt, who took over
the factory after her husband's death in 1862, and ran it successfully
for another 39 years. The history of this remarkable woman is not well-
known and should be included as part of the study.
In our 1998 Connecticut River Valley Special Resource
Reconnaissance Study, we said, ``innovations stimulated by firearms
manufacture, notably mass production and the concept of interchangeable
parts, had far-reaching consequences throughout American industry.'' As
the skills developed in firearms manufacture were given broader
application, the corridor between New Haven, Connecticut and Windsor,
Vermont became known as the ``Precision Valley.'' Developments in arms
making translated to other metal working industries, such as sewing
machines, typewriters, bicycles, railway equipment, and clocks.
The study would be undertaken with the full involvement of
representatives of the State of Connecticut, the City of Hartford,
property owners in the study area, and other interested organizations
and individuals in the region.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my
prepared remarks. I would be glad to answer any questions that you or
the members of the Committee may have.
______
Statement of Jeffrey Taylor, Assistant Director, Legislative and
Congressional Affairs, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 1113
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Department's views on H.R. 1113. This bill
would authorize an exchange of land at Fort Frederica National
Monument.
The Department supports an exchange of land between Christ Church
Frederica and Fort Frederica National Monument, as outlined in H.R.
1113, in accordance with this testimony. Although appraisals have not
been completed for the two parcels, we expect that the value of the
land received by the National Park Service (NPS) will be more than the
value of the land given up so there will be no need for land
acquisition funding. The NPS would incur increased operational costs
associated with the exchange because of the archeological value to the
park of the acquired lands. However, the amount of those costs cannot
be determined until the significance of the resources present on the
site NPS acquires is established. We also suggest a technical amendment
to provide the identification information required for the map
referenced in the bill.
H.R. 1113 would authorize the Secretary to convey to Christ Church
of St. Simons Island, Georgia approximately 4.8 acres of land within
the boundary of Fort Frederica National Monument in exchange for
approximately 8.7 acres of land near Fort Frederica that will be
acquired by Christ Church. Upon completion of the exchange, the
Secretary shall revise the boundary of Fort Frederica National Monument
and administer the land acquired through the exchange as part of the
monument.
Fort Frederica National Monument is located 12 miles northeast of
Brunswick on St. Simons Island, Georgia. The monument's authorized
boundary contains 250 acres and preserves the remains of a fortified
town established and laid out by Governor James Oglethorpe in 1736 to
defend against invasion from Spanish colonies in Florida.
Fort Frederica was one of the earliest English settlements in what
ultimately became the State of Georgia, preceded by Fort King George
(1721), located near Darien, Georgia, and the Cities of Savannah (1733)
and Augusta (1735), also established and planned by Oglethorpe. Fort
Frederica was a prosperous community of substantial homes whose
residents were tradesmen and farmers supplying the garrison stationed
there much the same way communities provide goods and services to
military installations today. In 1739, Britain and Spain entered a war
that eventually involved Fort Frederica. After the 1748 treaty,
Frederica's military garrison was withdrawn and the Town of Fort
Frederica fell into decline. In 1758, a fire destroyed most of the
existing structures.
Fort Frederica National Monument was established on May 26, 1936.
Subsequent legislation increased the authorized boundary to 250 acres
and directed the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the Battle of
Bloody Marsh memorial site on St. Simons Island. Subject to the 250-
acre limitation, the Secretary was also authorized to acquire
additional marshland acreage west of the Frederica River, across from
the National Monument, for additional protection of the historic scene.
On June 29, 1993, following a lengthy campaign involving the
efforts and support of the Trust for Public Land and many private
citizens of St. Simons Island, Fort Frederica acquired 28 acres of
land, including river frontage on the south side of the town site, that
had been planned for a major marina development. This acquisition
preserved the historic view of the river approach to Fort Frederica.
The 4.8-acre parcel that H.R. 1113 directs the Secretary to give to
Christ Church is within this 28-acre acquisition.
The 8.7-acre site that Christ Church proposes to exchange for the
land at Fort Frederica contains archeological remains that have been
established to be from the colonial period. Tradition indicates that
the land includes General Oglethorpe's home, however we are unaware of
any archeological survey work that has been completed on this tract to
positively determine if this is the case.
The main town site within the National Monument contains several
well-preserved and partially reconstructed colonial ruins. There may be
additional administrative and operational costs associated with
protecting a small archeological site detached from the main park unit
and it has not been determined if that cost is commensurate with the
limited additional interpretive value of the site if it only contains
additional Frederica era resources but does not include Oglethorpe's
home.
We understand that Representative Kingston may amend H.R. 1113 to
adjust the acreage figures of the land subject to the exchange. We have
prepared a land exchange map based on the language currently in the
bill and the existing surveys of the two properties proposed for
exchange. We would be happy to prepare a new map, but want to work
closely with Mr. Kingston in order to assure that the National
Monument's artifact storage facility and other buildings remain within
the current boundary of Fort Frederica and that the historic scene is
protected. It also would be important to ensure that the value of the
lands exchanged does not require land acquisition funding.
Our technical amendment to provide the map number, title, and date
is attached to this testimony.
That completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or any members of the Subcommittee may have.
Proposed Amendment; H.R. 1113
On page 1, line 9, strike out everything starting with ``Church
and'' through the end of subsection (a) and replace it with the
following:
``Church and depicted as ``NPS Lands for Exchange'' on the map
entitled ``Fort Frederica National Monument 2003 Boundary Revision'',
numbered 369/80016, and dated March 2003, in exchange for the
approximately 8.7 acres of land to be acquired by Christ Church, which
is depicted as ``Private Lands for Addition'' on the same map.''
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I appreciate your
testimony.
Next up is Mr. Bob Anderson from BLM, here to speak on H.R.
272. Mr. Anderson, welcome to the Committee, and please begin
your testimony. And again, please try to keep to the 5-minute
clock.
STATEMENT OF BOB ANDERSON, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
MINERALS, REALTY, AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT
Mr. Anderson. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here
today. The Forest Service has already addressed Section 1 of
H.R. 272, and I will now address Section 2.
The Bureau of Land Management supports Section 2 of H.R.
272, which provides for the conveyance of the Maiden's Grave
Cemetery near Beowawe, Nevada, to Eureka County. Approximately
10 acres would be conveyed to the county, which would maintain
the area as a cemetery. In addition, the Bureau of Land
Management would be required to grant access to the cemetery
across adjacent public land.
The Maiden's Grave is the final resting place of Lucinda
Duncan, who, on August 15, 1863, died on her way to the gold
and silver fields of Nevada. Today, the site continues to
receive occasional burials. Therefore, it is considered a
modern cemetery and does not qualify for the National Register
of Historic Places.
The BLM, through its planning process, has identified the
cemetery as suitable for disposal, and the county has indicated
a strong interest in taking responsibility for this parcel.
We appreciate this opportunity to work with local interests
to the betterment of the community. We would like the
opportunity to work with Congressman Gibbons and the
Subcommittee to address technical issues, including
modifications to the reversionary clause, clarification of
timing on the transfer of the lands, specificity on the access
route, and to assure that the mineral estate is conveyed along
with the land.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Statement of Bob Anderson, Acting Assistant Director for Minerals,
Realty and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, on H.R. 272,
Eureka County, Nevada Land Conveyance
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. H.R. 272
provides for the conveyance of two cemeteries in Nevada to Lander and
Eureka counties. I will confine my comments to section two of the bill
and defer to the Forest Service on section one. The BLM supports
section two of H.R. 272 which provides for the conveyance of the
``Maiden's Grave Cemetery'' near Beowawe, Nevada (Bay-o-wah'-wee) to
Eureka County, Nevada. Approximately 10 acres would be conveyed to the
county which would maintain the area as a cemetery. In addition, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would be required to grant access to
the cemetery across adjacent public land.
``The Maiden's Grave'' is the final resting place of Lucinda Duncan
who on August 15, 1863, died on her way to the gold and silver fields
of Nevada. Mrs. Duncan at 71 was ``the mother of the wagon train''
which consisted largely of her seven surviving children, their spouses
and a multitude of grandchildren. Following her death, the wagon train
held a ceremony and their leaving was memorialized by a member of the
party:
``...we paid our last debt & respect to the remains of the
departed mother. There upon that wild & lonely spot, we left
her, until Gabriel shall sound his trumpet in the last day. The
scene was truly a sad one to leave a beloved mother on the wild
and desolate plains. A board with the name of the deceased was
put up at the head & boulder was laid over the grave to keep
wolves from scratching in it. After this the train moved on.''
Today, the site continues to receive occasional burials. Therefore,
it is considered a ``modern cemetery'' and does not qualify for the
National Register of Historic Places. The BLM, through its planning
process, has identified the cemetery as suitable for disposal and the
county has indicated a strong interest in taking responsibility for
this parcel.
While we would typically expect to receive market value for such a
transfer, we understand the unique circumstances in this case, and the
unique needs of Eureka County. Under other circumstances, we might have
considered a Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act conveyance to
lower the cost to the county, but the need for permanency in this
transfer prevents this from being a viable option, thus the need for
legislative intervention.
We appreciate this opportunity to work cooperatively with local
interests to the betterment of the community. We would like the
opportunity to work with Congressman Gibbons and the Subcommittee to
address technical issues including: modifications to the reversionary
clause, clarification of timing on the transfer of the lands,
specificity on the access route, and to assure that the mineral estate
is conveyed along with the land.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Appreciate your
testimony.
I will now begin to open up for questions for the members,
and each one will have 5 minutes to ask questions. I am going
to defer to Mr. Gibbons. Jim, if you want to go ahead and
start, you have my 5 minutes.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate your generosity. And I would like to ask Ms.
Manning, first of all, when did you come to the Forest Service?
Ms. Manning. In 1979.
Mr. Gibbons. And you were with the Forest Service in the
year 2000?
Ms. Manning. Yes.
Mr. Gibbons. And what was your job title in 2000?
Ms. Manning. I was associate deputy chief for business
operations, I think.
Mr. Gibbons. All right.
Ms. Manning. I think that is what I was.
Mr. Gibbons. Ms. Manning, let me bring you up to date.
Because you were obviously in the Forest Service during this
period of time but may not have had the direct contact during
this 2000 timeframe that you mentioned in your testimony with
regard to this parcel of land in Kingston, Nevada.
In your testimony, you suggested that since 2000 or at
2000, the Town of Kingston changed its mind regarding the need
for more than 1.25 acres, and I would suggest to you that that
is not true. 1970, the township and the Forestry Department
agreed that 10 acres was the adequate size of the parcel of
land for this.
Having talked to the representatives of the Town of
Kingston just last week, they have not revised their need for
10 acres, and they have not revised it down to 1.25 from the 10
acres that they had originally had. But rather, it was the
United States Forest Service that decided that the town did not
require the 10 acres, and the town respectfully disagrees with
you on that issue.
The Town of Kingston did not believe that the 1.25 acres
was adequate, as the Forest Service and your testimony claims,
but rather that that 1.25 acres was the maximum acreage that
the United States Forest Service was willing to sell the town.
And it was the Forest Service that judged that the 1.25 acres
was adequate, not the Town of Kingston.
The Forest Service has been willing to allow the Town of
Kingston to hold the 10 acres for nearly 30 years. And despite
recently revising the permit to reduce the site to 1.25 acres,
the United States Forest Service has already agreed that it
would be willing to sell the 8.75 remaining acres to the Town
of Kingston, but only at fair market value or trade for
appropriate land.
Now we are back to where your testimony was. Let me ask you
a question. Do you agree or on the basis of the United States
Forest Service that the 8.75 acres which is the subject of this
bill is needed or not needed for proper management of the
United States Forest Service lands in that area? Is it on the
disposal list is what I am asking?
Ms. Manning. As far as I know, it is not on the disposal
list.
Mr. Gibbons. Is it needed as part of the adequate
management of the Toiyabe National Forest in that area?
Ms. Manning. I would have to confer with the district
ranger there and find out if it is actually needed.
Mr. Gibbons. But you are saying that you are willing to
sell it?
Ms. Manning. What we strive to do in the Forest Service, if
the county indicates that there is a need for this land for its
cemetery, then we will entertain that because of the need being
a greater public need.
Mr. Gibbons. So here it is, the City of Kingston, Nevada,
has indicated that it needed 10 acres, and it has needed 10
acres since 1970. You agreed in 1970 that 10 acres was the
adequate size because you put it under a special use permit for
them as a cemetery.
Today, you are saying they only need 1.25. They say they
still need the 10 acres. Adequate parking, growth of a
cemetery, which is the inevitability of all of us on this
earth. And you are disagreeing that they only need 1.25 versus
10 acres. Is that what you are saying today?
Ms. Manning. No, what I am saying is they have not come to
us since that time asking for additional usage. And we do have
a letter from them saying that is all they needed. And since
that time--
Mr. Gibbons. What is the date of the letter, and would you
submit it for the testimony in the record, please?
Ms. Manning. Yes, I will. It is October 1, 1999.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. So that was the reason why it came back.
But you stated also that you only permitted 1.25 acres to be
the maximum that you would sell them. And they said they could
get along with that for $500.
Ms. Manning. That I am not sure of. I will have to check
the records to see that we said that.
Mr. Gibbons. I would like to see a copy of that letter as
well. One thing I want to ask for is what is the fair market
value, Ms. Manning, of a cemetery?
Ms. Manning. I don't know that. We would have to have it
appraised. But we think it is approximately $6,000, based on
what we know, but we haven't had it appraised.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, my time is up.
Mr. Radanovich. You are on a roll. You don't want to
continue, or you need another couple of minutes, Jim? We can go
around, and everybody can have their 5 minutes and come back.
Mr. Gibbons. Why don't I let others ask the questions, and
I will come back and fill in?
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Great. I yield to Mrs. Christensen for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would be willing to allow my colleague, Mr. Larson,
to go ahead of me if he had a few questions, and I reserve my
time, though.
Mr. Larson. I just have a point.
Mr. Radanovich. OK.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
I just simply want to thank the National Park Service for
coming forward and testifying so eloquently with regard to this
need, and I would yield back. And again, thank both you and the
Chairman for the courtesies that you have shown us today.
Mrs. Christensen. OK? OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I would start with Ms. Manning. Just one question.
On the Forest Service parcel, Section 1D requires that the
Secretary grant an easement over a specific forest development
road, and it says, ``Notwithstanding any future closing of the
road for other use.''
Are you comfortable with that language, and doesn't this
effectively mean that the Forest Service would never be able to
close that road?
Ms. Manning. Well, we don't interpret it as never because
we usually work with the county for safety and health reasons
if there is a need to close it. But we would confer with the
county on things like that. And with that understanding, we are
comfortable with it.
Mrs. Christensen. Even though the legislation said
``notwithstanding any future closing of the road for other
use''? I mean, that is how it is written.
Ms. Manning. We would--
Mrs. Christensen. It seems pretty clear. Would you be
uncomfortable leaving that road open? I mean, not having the
complete authority to close that road because the legislation
says that it cannot be closed?
Ms. Manning. Well, we always like to work with the
community to modify so that if there are safety reasons or
health reasons--
Mrs. Christensen. Right.
Ms. Manning. And usually, in the past, when we have worked
with the counties, they will agree to allow us to close it
under those conditions.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. Thanks.
I guess I would go to Mr. Anderson next. In your testimony,
you said that BLM might have considered accomplishing the
conveyance in H.R. 272 under Recreation and Public Purposes
Act, but that the need for permanency prevented that from being
a viable option.
If it had been conveyed under RPPA, the Federal Government
would have received compensation, which is not the case under
the legislation before us. Could you expand on why the RPPA was
not a viable alternative to legislating this transfer?
Mr. Anderson. It would be a viable alternative, actually,
if the county were willing to pay 50 percent of the fair market
value.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. Does the permanency relate to that in
any way?
Mr. Anderson. Well, under the R&PP Act, there is a reverter
clause always. And under H.R. 272, I know there is, you have
built in a reverter.
To be real candid, I am not sure that a reverter is
necessary here. And if there is a reverter, we would want it to
be discretionary because before we take something back in
ownership, we would want to make sure that the land is clear of
encumbrances or hazardous materials.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. So you answered a part of my next
question.
So the other technical issues that you mentioned beside the
reverter clause is a clarification of timing on the transfer of
lands, the specificity on the access route, and the issue--the
last one, I think, was regarding conveyance of the mineral
estate.
Could you just expand on each of those for me, please? The
timing, the specificity on the access route, the conveyance of
mineral.
Mr. Anderson. Well, on the timing, since there is no
deadline in H.R. 272 in terms of granting the parcel to the
county, BLM would do a National Environmental Policy Act, a
NEPA document, probably an environmental assessment. We would
also have cultural surveys in there, as well as threatened and
endangered species inventories. And that takes time.
Although I don't think it would take much time, that is why
we would have to work with our field office to see what
timeframe we would be talking about on that one.
In terms of the access, the county road is adjacent to the
10-acre parcel. And if you were to look at a map, there doesn't
appear to be access off the county road. And if the county
would desire, we would grant an easement. I am not sure it is
necessary. But if they would like that insurance, we could
accommodate that.
Mrs. Christensen. OK.
Mr. Anderson. In terms of the mineral interests, actually
it is just a reiteration that the mineral estate would go with
the conveyance. It wouldn't be practical, I don't think, to
reserve the minerals here. We don't think it has potential for
mineral development, and of course, we wouldn't want to be
interfering with the purposes for the cemetery either.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. Let me see if I can get a question in
for Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor, in your testimony, you said that if the parcel
the NPS is to acquire didn't contain General Oglethorpe's home,
it would have limited interpretive value. Doesn't it make sense
to do the archeological survey to establish whether this is the
Oglethorpe site before we acquire it?
Mr. Taylor. It is my understanding there have been some
limited archeological studies done already that does indicate
there are some resources from the Fort Frederica area. So it
does already include some valuable resource areas.
Mrs. Christensen. Would it be--
Mr. Taylor. It would be advantageous to have an
archeological appraisal done to see if, in fact, this is the
site that the Governor had his home located on. That is what--
Mrs. Christensen. But if it was not the home, would the
site have equal interpretive value? Would it make the
exchange--
Mr. Taylor. It would probably have less interpretive value,
but it still does have interpretive value at this--from what we
know about the site already.
Mrs. Christensen. So if that was not there and you were
asked to do the exchange, you would still support the exchange?
Mr. Taylor. That is correct.
Mrs. Christensen. My time is up.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Donna.
Jack, did you want to be recognized? I recognize Mr.
Kingston for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to say Mr. Taylor had mentioned that we need
to amend the bill because of the acreage point, and we are
certainly all in agreement with any kind of technical amendment
to that nature, and we are all on the same page.
Also, Mr. Chairman, if I might use some time.
Unfortunately, I have a 3 leadership meeting at the Capitol
that I am going to have to leave. So I am not going to be able
to introduce Senator Mattingly, but I trust that he is going to
be in good hands with this distinguished bipartisan Committee.
If not, I know I am going to hear from him on it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. We will take good care of him,
Jack. Don't worry.
Ms. Bordallo, would you like to address? No questions?
Ms. Bordallo. No questions.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Thank you. Then I recognize Mr.
Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to a line of questioning that Mrs.
Christensen started off with, which is the closure of the road
from Kingston to the cemetery. Do you know how far it is from
the town site of Kingston to the cemetery?
Ms. Manning. I don't know the exact mileage.
Mr. Gibbons. Do you have a guesstimate?
Ms. Manning. No, I don't.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, I can tell you I have a map sitting in
front of me, a survey map that shows the 1.25 acres within the
10-acre boundary limitation that they have asked for, or the
original permit. And that shows right at about 249.18 feet.
Now, if you want to close a road for a certain reason,
would you close a road that is 249.18 feet from the city limits
to their cemetery?
Ms. Manning. As I stated earlier, only if it is for safety
and, you know, or health reasons, and we don't--
Mr. Gibbons. Can you imagine, in the comfort of your chair
while you sit there, a safety reason that would indicate that
you would close a road for that length of time?
Ms. Manning. At the moment, no. But if there is some
outbreak of something and--
Mr. Gibbons. OK.
Ms. Manning. But normally, no. And if we did, we wouldn't
do it without conferring with the county.
Mr. Gibbons. Now, you have indicated that the Forest
Service is willing to sell the City of Kingston this property
at fair market value, which you have established ball park
figure of around $6,000, somewhere in there?
Ms. Manning. But that is just a guess.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. That suggests to this Committee that you
are willing to part with this property because it is not needed
for the real management of the Toiyabe Humboldt National Forest
System.
How large would you tell this Committee is the Toiyabe
Humboldt forest system? How big? How many acres?
Ms. Manning. I don't know.
Mr. Gibbons. Do you have a guess?
Ms. Manning. No, I don't. I would rather not. But--
Mr. Gibbons. Is it more than 6 million acres?
Ms. Manning. No, it isn't.
Mr. Gibbons. Is it less than 6 million?
Ms. Manning. Yes, it is.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. So you know its approximate size?
Ms. Manning. I don't know. I would rather not go on record
as saying how big it is because--
Mr. Gibbons. OK. Is it bigger than 1,000 acres?
Ms. Manning. Yes, it is.
Mr. Gibbons. Is it bigger than 100,000 acres?
Ms. Manning. If you are going to make me guess, I would
think it is less than a million acres.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. So we are talking about 1/10,000 of a
percent of the land which would be conveyed. So, obviously, you
have got a large Forest Service area out there, and we are
talking 10 acres right next to this town site that has been
used for a cemetery.
When would the Forest Service ever issue a special use
permit for a permanent use?
Ms. Manning. Well, normally, we issue special use for 20
years, and I think that is about the max. But it can be
renewed. And so, in essence, it ends up being permanent. But it
is reissued, taking into consideration the public needs at that
particular time.
Mr. Gibbons. A cemetery would definitely be a public
permanent use?
Ms. Manning. Right. And likely we would issue a special use
permit for what they needed for as long as they needed.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. And that is fine. And I just want you to
know that, you know, I am not here to put you in a trap. I am
not here to get the Forest Service to commit to something they
haven't already done, which they have done.
What would you do if, at the end of those 20 years, the
City of Kingston said to the Forest Service, ``We no longer
want the cemetery. We want you to go out there and maintain
those grave sites. We want you to maintain that road. And we
want you to be responsible for all of those grave sites.'' What
would you do at that point in time?
Ms. Manning. It would revert back, and we would, within the
fiscal ability we had, we would take care of it.
Mr. Gibbons. So you are saying that if you don't want to do
this, they can't buy it, the Forest Service would be willing to
maintain that cemetery in perpetuity?
Ms. Manning. We would have no choice if it reverted back to
us. But what we are saying is on the authorities that we have,
we can convey it. But it is only on that authority which is for
fair market value.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, this bill mandates that you bypass that
authority because that authority was granted by Congress or
mandated by Congress, and we can grant that authority to bypass
that, can we not?
Ms. Manning. Yes, you can.
Mr. Gibbons. And that is what this bill does.
Ms. Manning. If the bill is passed, sir, we would--
Mr. Gibbons. So the Forest Service merely wants $6,000 out
of a very small community that probably doesn't have the
financial means at this point in time to pay for the 10 acres
for its cemetery?
Ms. Manning. It is a matter of our implementing the acts as
they are. And at the moment, the only authority that we have
exists within the Townsite Act.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, Mr. Chairman, one final question for Ms.
Manning, and then I will let her go because I know she has got
a lot of other things to deal with.
Is your only complaint with this bill that it requires you
to convey that 8.75 acres at zero cost to you, at no cost to
you, versus the fair market value? Is that your only complaint
with Section 1?
Ms. Manning. It is that complaint and the fact that, and
within our records, we have documentation that the town no
longer needs that acreage.
Mr. Gibbons. All right. If I can get you a statement from
the township, from the leadership of Kingston Township that
they actually wanted the 10 acres and have always wanted the 10
acres, your only complaint then would be that they are asking
for it free?
Ms. Manning. And the precedent that that would set.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, I could stay here and issue
these comments until we actually got the land out of them by
forcing them to sit here. But I won't do that to this
Committee.
Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.
Mrs. Christensen for 5 minutes?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. And I hope I won't take that
long.
I had a few more questions for Mr. Taylor. The site in H.R.
1113 is a small, detached site. What are the other uses
surrounding that site, and what are the costs that you
associate with administering a detached site like that?
Mr. Taylor. I am sorry. The first part was what other--
Mrs. Christensen. Yes. What is surrounding--
Mr. Taylor. My understanding is that one portion of the
land, or it is included in a larger portion that is currently
owned by Sea Island Plantation that is an undeveloped site. And
I am not sure of the actual acreage of that particular site.
And then on the other side that is actually contiguous with
Fort Frederica, it is a small residential neighborhood.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. What are the costs that would be
associated with administering a small site that is detached
from the other--
Mr. Taylor. There could certainly--
Mrs. Christensen. Because I think in your testimony, you
also say that you weren't sure that the cost to administer
would be justified if the Oglethorpe house was not on that
property.
Mr. Taylor. Well, it actually seems that the costs for
oversight of that particular land will actually increase if it
turns out that that is where Governor Oglethorpe had his home,
simply because there will be more resources that will need to
be protected. So there may be some fencing needs that would
need to be taken--
Mrs. Christensen. But then the interpretive value if the
home was, indeed, there would be worth--
Mr. Taylor. It would justify a higher cost.
Mrs. Christensen. And if it were not there, the cost to
administer would be justified with the lesser interpretive
value?
Mr. Taylor. I am not exactly sure what costs are going to
be incurred. But there would certainly be, you know, a ranger
is going to need to go by and check on the site on a regular
basis. There may need to be some fencing even if Oglethorpe's
home does not show up on that property.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. I just have one other short question.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, ma'am?
Mrs. Christensen. You also said that you had some concern
about the proposed alterations to the exchange. Is there some
question that those changes could include the service
facilities, National Park Service facilities?
Mr. Taylor. I think there was actually some confusion on
our part as our understanding is that the parcel that the
Christ Church wants does not include the curator's facility--
Mrs. Christensen. Right.
Mr. Taylor. --or any of the other maintenance facilities
that we have in that corner of Fort Frederica. And as long as
it doesn't, then we are totally supportive of the exchange.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. But you are not clear what the
alterations might--
Mr. Taylor. It seemed that there seemed to be some
confusion, frankly, between Congressman Kingston's office and
ours as to what the land looked like. But our understanding was
that the 4.7 acres did not include and does not include any of
our supporting facilities.
Mrs. Christensen. And would not include.
Mr. Taylor. And would not include. That is correct.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Any other questions for the panel?
[No response.]
Mr. Radanovich. If not, thank you very much for coming. And
with that, we will call up our third panel. Thank you.
Next is the Honorable Mack Mattingly, former U.S. senator
from the State of Georgia, from St. Simons, Georgia, and also
Mr. Robert Kohn, chief operating officer from the Colt Gateway
LLC in Hartford, Connecticut.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question--
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Mr. Gibbons. --to the Chairman? Assuming that I get this
letter of statement of fact from the City of Kingston with
regard to the need for 10 acres versus the 1.25 acres, would it
be appropriate to submit that to the Committee for inclusion
into the record--
Mr. Radanovich. Absolutely.
Mr. Gibbons. --when that arrives. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. No objection at all.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you.
[The letter from the Kingston Town Board submitted for the
record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6339.001
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Welcome to the Subcommittee.
Senator Mattingly, welcome. And on behalf of Jack Kingston,
too, I want to welcome you and assure you that we will take
very good care of you.
And if you would like to begin your testimony on the Fort
Frederica issue, please begin to do so.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MACK MATTINGLY, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Mattingly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Christensen.
Having sat on both sides, this is the first time I have
ever testified. But I was a Subcommittee Chairman for 6 years
on Appropriations, and some Committee meetings are painless and
some are painful. So sometimes I know how you feel.
But it is my pleasure to be here today in order to testify
before you in regards to H.R. 1113. As a Vestry member of
Christ Church, Frederica, it has been my task to try to assist
our church in trying to obtain a land exchange between Fort
Frederica and the church that would benefit both parties.
I sincerely believe that we have accomplished this with the
legislation now before you. This effort was started several
years ago. But with the assistance of Congressman Kingston that
he and I started in actually March of 2002, we have arrived at
a solution with H.R. 1113, when the acreage stated is amended
to read 6.0 acres and not 4.8 acres.
Christ Church has agreed with the Sea Island Company to
exchange approximately 23.124 acres of Christ Church land for
8.69 acres of land that the Sea Island Company owns that is
noted, and has been for years, as the Oglethorpe site.
And we now want to exchange the Oglethorpe site of 8.69
acres designated by the Shupe Surveying Company, dated
September 19th in the year 2000, for 6.0 acres of land as
designated by the Shupe Surveying Company, dated December 20,
1999.
The land that we exchange to Sea Island will be usable to
them, whereas the land that we obtain from Sea Island would not
be usable by them because of its historical value. Anybody that
has been involved in land and properties and exchanges of
historical value knows that you cannot build on something that
has historical value.
And Christ Church itself has doubled in size in the last 9
years, and the additional land is really needed for its
expansion. That 6.0 acres that is adjacent to Christ Church
owned by Fort Frederica National Monument does not detract from
the national monument and is a perfect site for the church. But
in addition, the 8.69 acres that Fort Frederica National
Monument will acquire is not only larger, but it is a
historical site that is contiguous to the monument and is no
doubt of great value.
James Oglethorpe, as many have stated, briefly occupied
this 8.69 acres as his homestead. Now, preservation of such
sites, as they are really nonrenewable resources, should be
protected by the Park Service from damage and destruction and
also preserved for future scientists and the public.
The Oglethorpe site was on around 300 acres with probably
only about 50 acres of high ground, and the balance of that was
marsh. And this site really has a really great scientific value
and potential, and it deserves to be protected and nominated
for inclusion in the National Record of Historic Places. I
believe that public access and damage to this site can be
reduced by deeding it to the Federal Government.
And I think, as Mr. Taylor testified, that it does have
value even if Oglethorpe hadn't been there because it is an
historical site. And in the larger issue, the National Park
Service gets a greater land area in this exchange, and it is
contiguous with the Park Service.
And as far as the change from 4.7 to 6.0 acres, the
original 4.7 acres had in it a government building, and it was
really the National Park Service that came to the assistance of
the church to say that to make this a 6-acre site and cut that
building out of that site. So as a former 1985 Georgia
conservation of the year, which few people acquire that title
in the State of Georgia as a representative, I ask
consideration by this Committee to approve this legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Mattingly follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mack Mattingly, a U.S. Senator from the
State of Georgia, Retired, St. Simons, Georgia, on H.R. 1113
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here today in order to testify
before you regards to H.R. 1113. As a Vestry member of Christ Church,
Federica, it has been my task to assist our church in trying to obtain
a land exchange between Fort Federica and the church that would benefit
both parties. I sincerely believe we have accomplished this with the
legislation now before you. This effort was started some several years
ago, but with the assistance of Congressman Kingston that he and I
started in March of 2002 we have arrived at a solution with H.R. 1113
when the acreage states is amended to read 6.0 acres not 4.8 acres.
Christ Church has agreed with Sea Island Company of Sea Island,
Georgia to exchange approximately 23.124 acres of land that belong to
Christ Church for 8.69 acres of land Sea Island owns, that is noted as
the Oglethorpe site. We now want to exchange the General Oglethorpe
site of 8.69 acres designated by Shupe Surveying Co., PPC dated 9/19/00
for 6.0 acres of land Ft. Federica, as designated by Shupe Surveying
Co. dated 12/20/99. The land we exchange to Sea Island will be useable
for them, whereas the land we receive from Sea Island would not be
because of its historical value.
Christ Church has doubled in size in the last 9 years and the
additional land is needed for its expansion. The 6.0 acres that is
adjacent to Christ Church owned by Ft. Federica National Monument does
not detract from the National Monument, and is a perfect site of the
church, but in addition the 8.69 acres that Fort Federica National
Monument will acquire is not only larger, but is a historical site that
is contiguous to the monument and is no doubt of great value.
James Oglethorpe as many have stated, briefly occupied this 8.69
acre area as his homestead. Preservation of such sites, as they are
non-renewable resources, should be protected by the Park Service from
damage and destruction and also preserved for future scientists and the
public. The Oglethorpe site was on the around 300 acres with probably
on 50 acres of high ground and the balance of the marsh. This site has
great scientific potential and deserves to be protected and nominated
for inclusion in the National Record of Historic Places. Deeding it to
the Federal Government should reduce public access and damage to the
site.
Thank you for your time and attention to this testimony Mr.
Chairman.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Senator.
Next up will be Mr. Robert Kohn, who is the Colt Gateway
Chairman of the LLC. Mr. Kohn, welcome to the Committee, and we
will look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT KOHN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, COLT GATEWAY
LLC
Mr. Kohn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
It is an honor to be here today and to share with you some
of the many attributes of both Samuel and Elizabeth Colt and
the legacy that they left behind for all of us to share.
I have a written statement that I would ask unanimous
consent from the Committee to have inserted in the record and
would ask your permission to briefly summarize the highlights
of that document for your convenience.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Kohn. Thank you. My name is Robert Kohn. I am the chief
operating officer for the parent company, Homes For America
Holdings, Inc., that owns this incredible 17-acre site known as
Coltsville in Hartford, Connecticut.
I would like to highlight some of the many salient points
that make Coltsville a truly unique candidate for National Park
Service status.
Samuel Colt, born in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814, was a
man of extraordinary drive and vision. At the age of 22, he
received his first patent and founded a company that helped
lead America into the industrial revolution.
At the age of 33, he started the construction of the
Coltsville factory, crowning it with its nationally recognized
blue onion dome in 1855. Sam Colt created an entire village
around the factory, including gardens, schools, housing, a
library, social halls, and a church in order to attract skilled
labor to his factory.
Sam Colt died in 1862. And 2 years later, the factory
burned to the ground. By all rights, this should have been the
end of the story. But, in fact, it is the beginning of another
fascinating story, the mostly untold story that matches any of
the lessons we have studied in American history about the great
industrialists of our Nation.
It was 10 years after Sam Colt's death that the gun that
won the West, the Colt .45 Peacemaker, was developed and
produced. It was the latter part of the 19th century, well
after Sam Colt's death, that saw Coltsville's greatest
prosperity.
So with the death of Samuel Colt and destruction by fire of
his plant shortly thereafter, who was responsible for the
rebirth of Coltsville? And who was responsible for the most
famous of the Colt handguns being produced?
Who guided Coltsville for 40 years after Sam's death into a
period of tremendous financial success? And finally, who kept
the factory on the cutting edge of technology all of this time?
One person--his wife, Elizabeth Colt, perhaps America's first
and foremost national and international industrialist.
The story of Sam and Elizabeth Colt needs to be told. The
impact of the manufacturing techniques used at Colt needs to be
shown. Henry Ford visited Coltsville to learn more about
combining quality and quantity in production. Connecticut,
Vermont, and Massachusetts became known as Precision Valley,
based on exacting quality in manufacturing. Bicycles, sewing
machines, cars, jet engines, clocks, and typewriters have been
built using manufacturing skills learned at Coltsville.
Sam and Elizabeth Colt were gun manufacturers, first and
foremost. Colt firearms have served this Country well through
countless battles and in lands near and far. But the legacy
that the Colt family has left us to preserve is not just their
firearms, but the proof that in America, with hard work,
dedication, and drive, man or woman alike can achieve greatness
and bring about significant change and improvements to a
business, an industry, and to the overall quality of life for
all.
Elizabeth Colt did all that against all odds and at a time
when a woman in the workplace was a rarity. I hope you all
agree that Coltsville has a multifaceted story to be told,
replete with a hero and heroine.
Creation of a national park of any size is an ongoing
formidable financial commitment by the government. We at
Coltsville know and understand this, and we are committed to
help. Here are a few of the possibilities.
The proposed park could encompass the entire 17-acre site
of Coltsville with both public and private space, gardens,
museums, visitor center, and a tour of the dome. All of the
buildings of Coltsville are being renovated and/or restored to
national landmark specifications currently.
Space for the visitors center containing original steam-
driven pistons for the factory, access to the blue onion dome,
as well as museum space in one or two of the oldest buildings
on the site--those being the foundry and/or polishing
buildings--could be available to the public.
The owners of Coltsville are spending in excess of $100
million to restore Coltsville, thereby minimizing the need for
National Park Service's capital outlays. We hope that this
Subcommittee will recommend to the Secretary of the Interior
that a formal study of this site be conducted for inclusion of
Coltsville as part of the National Park System.
With what Coltsville represents historically to this
Country, along with the stories of Samuel and Elizabeth Colt,
with $100 million investment we are making privately, and with
its proximity to the Springfield Armory and the Lowell,
Massachusetts, park, I am sure this would be an invaluable
addition to the National Park System and a site that would be
visited by many people across the United States and afar for
years to come.
Thank you all for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kohn follows:]
Statement of Robert M. Kohn, Chief Operating Officer,
Colt Gateway LLC, Hartford, Connecticut
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Committee to
present the views of Colt Gateway LLC and Homes For America Holdings,
Inc. on H.R. 437. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a study of the site commonly known as ``Coltsville'' in the
State of Connecticut for potential inclusion in the National Park
System.
An Introduction
As the Chief Operating Officer of Colt Gateway LLC, a subsidiary of
Homes For America Holdings, Inc., I strongly support a study to include
Coltsville in the National Park System. Coltsville's national
significance, suitability and feasibility for designation as well as
the importance of the site to the historic preservation of an American
legacy make this site an ideal candidate for inclusion in the National
Park System. In my opinion, there are few more deserving locations for
the National Park designation than Coltsville. Coltville's fascinating
history, its impact on innovation and American history, its positioning
as the home of Elizabeth Colt as one of the first female
industrialists, the site's compatibility with other nearby National
Parks and the momentum, planning and financing currently in place to
make this Park a reality'' all are persuasive grounds for supporting
this study.
The Coltsville Study Area
Coltsville is a 17-acre community in Hartford, Connecticut built
around Samuel and Elizabeth Colt's firearms factory during the
Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. Currently owned and operated
by Colt Gateway LLC, the site itself contains ten historic buildings,
portions of which are occupied by both commercial and residential
tenants, including a large number of artists who live and work in the
complex. Colt Gateway LLC is currently conducting a substantial $102
million historic rehabilitation and preservation of the site, in full
accordance with national historic standards. The East Armory building
within the site, with its landmark red brick building and distinctive
blue onion dome, would serve as the ideal center for the Park
Easily accessible from Interstates 91 and 84, Coltsville runs
parallel to the nearby Connecticut River and is within walking distance
of the Hartford central business district. Within the immediate area
are former buildings that housed Colt workers as well as splendid
Victorian homes such as Armsmear, which served as the home of Samuel
and Elizabeth Colt and is now a National Historic Landmark. Other
attractions in the immediate area help to make Coltsville even more of
a destination, including the houses of Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher
Stowe, the Museum of American Political Life, the Colt Memorial and of
course the riverfront. Other significant nearby attractions include the
State Capitol, the Museum of Connecticut State History and the
Wadsworth Atheneum museum, which stores vast collections of Colt-
related artifacts and archives.
A Brief History of Coltsville
Samuel Colt, born in Hartford in 1814, lived the life of a legend.
With his first patent in 1836, he founded a company that played a
leading role in the Industrial Revolution. Construction of the
Coltsville factory began in 1847 and expanded throughout the mid-19th
century, including the construction in 1855 of the armory's distinctive
blue onion dome, a Hartford landmark visible from I-91. In order to
attract laborers, Colt built a self-contained community surrounding the
factory that included housing, gardens, and entertainment halls as well
as a library, school, church and social hall. Many of the structures
still exist today and are part of the Colt Industrial National Register
District that was listed in 1976.
Samuel Colt died in 1862, and two years later the factory burned to
the ground. In a fascinating example of one of this country's first
female industrialists, Elizabeth Colt took over the factory and ran it
successfully for another 40 years. In fact, Samuel Colt's most
recognized accomplishment, the Colt 45 Peacemaker, was not actually
developed or manufactured until ten years after his death. Elizabeth
presided over the company during its most prosperous years, in a period
when men dominated the industrial world. Her significant contributions
to American industrialism make Coltsville distinct from other
historical sites and establish a broader base than the history of
munitions manufacture. This is a place where a dynamic woman seized the
helm of her husband's company, steering it to ongoing success through
the manufacture of innovations that changed the face of American
history. Elizabeth Colt gives the site a central story, broad utility,
a greater audience and a compelling reason to visit.
Coltsville Innovation & Impact on American History
Coltsville is most known as the birthplace of a concept that
transformed the firearm from a single shot device into a multiple shot
device and changed the course of American economic and military
history. The Colt revolver was a revolutionary weapon that changed
military tactics and eventually made all weapons that came before it
obsolete in combat.
Coltsville's unique and considerable impact on Connecticut and New
England is clear. The skills developed in firearms manufacture were
given broader application here. Developments in arms-making influenced
other metalworking industries, such as sewing machines, typewriters,
bicycles, automobiles, railway equipment, jet engines and clocks. Early
industrial leaders like Henry Ford came to Coltsville to learn the
innovative manufacturing techniques and equipment being developed in
the area. The corridor between New Haven, Connecticut and Windsor,
Vermont became known as ``Precision Valley.''
In addition to the impact on Connecticut and New England,
Coltsville's impact in America and abroad cannot be understated. As the
first American to set up a foreign manufacturing plant, Samuel Colt's
influence was extended overseas. Ambitious entrepreneurs with big
ideas, Elizabeth and Samuel were willing to take risks and work hard to
shape the future and to reap the rewards. In doing so they have powered
American capitalism. The Colt legacy is not just about firearms, but
also about industrial innovation and the development of technology and
a system of manufacturing that would change the way of life in the
United States. That same spirit of innovation today powers all of
American industry and can be seen in such sectors as information
technology, medical research, biotechnology, defense technology, public
relations and many others.
Today, the Colt name is known throughout the world. Colt firearms
and other products have been used in every major conflict--from the
U.S.-Mexican War to the present. As such they have been an integral
factor in the security, confidence and self-reliance of this country.
The impact on Coltsville in this arena confirms our conviction that
Coltsville should be designated a National Park.
The National Park: A Preliminary Plan
A national park at Coltsville would ideally encompass all seventeen
acres of the Coltsville site and would include both public and private
space. The centerpiece would be a visitor center within the armory,
including original steam-driven pistons and the accessible blue onion
dome that provides 360 views of Hartford, the Connecticut River and
surrounding areas. Coincidentally, this armory already houses a
business that manufactures replica Colt firearms, which would only
enhance the proposed museum. The interactive museum could be housed in
Building 8 and/or 10, which are two of the oldest buildings on the site
and originally served as the factory's foundry and polishing rooms. The
museum and visitors' center would be dedicated as public space for the
Park. The remaining commercial and residential space would be left
private.
It is important to note that because Colt Gateway LLC is already in
the process of privately restoring this national treasure, the cost of
designating Coltsville would be minimal. A comprehensive $102 million
historic preservation in accordance national historic standards is
currently underway. As the developer, Colt Gateway LLC would prepare
virtually all the space required, giving the National Park Service the
rare opportunity to add a spectacular park to the system with an
investment and operating costs at a fraction (less than 10%) of the
value of the site. It is our opinion that, please forgive the pun,
Coltsville gives the National Parks System a real bang for the buck.
The tourist interest sparked by the Coltsville Park would work in
tandem with other endeavors stimulating business growth, such as the
adjacent Adriaen's Landing project, to contribute to the continuing
economic revival of Connecticut's capital city. Lowell, Massachusetts
is a good example of what a national park can do for a city. The
textile mills and canals at Lowell have been described as must-see
attractions in tourist guidebooks. I believe that if Coltsville is
designated a national park, the same will be said about the Colt armory
and its surroundings. Moreover, the history of Colt complements that of
the Springfield Armory National Historic Site just 25 miles north in
Massachusetts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is my opinion that it is not only feasible and
suitable to include Coltsville in the National Park System, but that
Coltsville is the ideal candidate for that inclusion. We are committed
to preserving Coltsville's immeasurable historical value, and we
certainly appreciate the Committee's consideration of this proposal. We
are eager to work with the National Park Service in any way we can to
continue this process.
While we acknowledge the budgetary and scheduling obstacles of our
request, we believe that the overwhelming bipartisan support for
designation is a sign that we are well on our way to preserving
Coltsville's legacy. Support from public officials such as Connecticut
Governor John Rowland and Mayor of Hartford Eddie Perez as well as from
important civic groups in Connecticut and elsewhere has been
considerable. I would also like to commend Representatives Larson,
DeLauro, Shays and Simmons as well as Senators Dodd and Lieberman for
their leadership and integral role in supporting Coltsville.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. We will do all we
can to assist you, Mr. Chairman, and all the members of the Committee,
to make this a reality. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
glad to answer any questions that you or the members of the Committee
may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Kohn.
With that, I will go ahead and open up the Committee to
questions.
Senator Mattingly, can you tell me should the church obtain
the National Park Service land in exchange, what would the
church plan on doing with the land? Do you have any idea?
Senator Mattingly. Well, first off, the current church
would stay there since it is the oldest church, Anglican Church
built in 1736. So on the new site, there would be a new church.
And that is what it would be used for.
Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Kohn, should the site become a unit of the National
Park Service, is the Colt Gateway LLC prepared to donate the
land to the Park Service should that occur, or have you given
any consideration to that at all?
Mr. Kohn. Well, we are prepared to donate the areas that
would be necessary for public use, such as the visitors center,
and to make rental space available to entities such as national
historic societies that have expressed an interest in operating
museums space for their ability to do so.
Mr. Radanovich. Would it be the expectation of the Park
Service then to purchase the remaining land that was not
donated, or would it be the intention of the LLC to keep the
land?
Mr. Kohn. We would keep the land but make it available to
the National Park Service toward and for its presentation to
the public.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. I have one question, and I have seen the
old Colt site when I had an opportunity to travel to Hartford
with my colleague here, as well as visit some other places in
Connecticut.
But my question would be to Senator Mattingly. The 23 or
so--
Senator Mattingly. Twenty-three acres. Right. Excuse me.
Mrs. Christensen. Oh, 23 acres that belongs to the church
that is going to be transferred to Sea Island, is that in the
same vicinity?
Senator Mattingly. Yes.
Mrs. Christensen. OK.
Senator Mattingly. But not--
Mrs. Christensen. It would be adjoining the park?
Senator Mattingly. Oh, no. It does not adjoin the park.
Mrs. Christensen. Or the monument?
Senator Mattingly. No.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Senator Mattingly. OK.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Bordallo?
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am just curious. I did come late and didn't hear panel
one. But is the Administration's position still unknown on this
particular piece of legislation?
Mr. Radanovich. I am not sure which one you are referring
to. Would it be the Colt?
Ms. Bordallo. The 1113.
Mr. Radanovich. H.R. 1113?
Ms. Bordallo. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Radanovich. They were in support of it. Yes, I think
they are in support of it.
Ms. Bordallo. Pardon?
Mr. Radanovich. They are in support of the--yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Because the paper we have here states their
position as unknown.
Mr. Radanovich. Oh, I see. They have explained, I think,
during the hearing that they are in support of the transfer.
Ms. Bordallo. I see. Thank you very much for the
clarification.
Mr. Radanovich. Uh-huh. Mr. Larson?
Mr. Larson. Yes, I thank you again, Mr. Chairman and the
Ranking Member Christensen, for the courtesies you have
extended us.
I want to thank Mr. Kohn personally for coming to testify
and also for the, like so many projects that are important in
urban areas, to see the kind of private commitment that has
been made here and the synergistic relationship between
community, government, developer, and the private sector is
very heartening.
And again, I want to thank him for his testimony and the
Committee for allowing us the opportunity to be here.
Mr. Radanovich. My pleasure. Any other questions of the
panel?
[No response.]
Mr. Radanovich. If not, Senator, Mr. Kohn, thank you very
much for being here. We really appreciate it.
That concludes this hearing. And thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-