[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 919, H.R. 938, H.R. 1278, H.R. 2240, H.R. 2489, H.R. 3411, AND
H.R. 3440
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-91
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-506 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Mark Amodei, NV
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, January 24, 2012........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Benishek, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 3411.......................... 21
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Holt, Hon. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey, Oral statement on H.R. 2489................. 21
Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, Oral statement on H.R. 2240........ 19
Statement of Witnesses:
Baacke, Adam, Assistant City Manager and Director of Planning
and Development, City of Lowell, Massachusetts............. 51
Prepared statement on H.R. 2240.......................... 53
Cleaver, Hon. Emanuel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, Oral statement on H.R. 938.............. 10
Fischer, David Hackett, University Professor and Earl Warren
Professor of History, Brandeis University.................. 64
Prepared statement on H.R. 2489.......................... 66
Flake, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 3440.......................... 18
Fountain, Edwin L, Director, World War I Memorial Foundation. 41
Prepared statement on H.R. 938........................... 43
Franks, Hon. Trent, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, Oral statement on H.R. 919............... 6
May, Peter, Associate Regional Director, National Capital
Region, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 36
Prepared statement on H.R. 938........................... 37
Prepared statement on H.R. 1278.......................... 38
Prepared statement on H.R. 2240.......................... 39
Prepared statement on H.R. 2489.......................... 40
Poe, Hon. Ted, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas...................................................... 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 938........................... 13
Ratcliffe, Bob, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources & Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 919........................... 28
Prepared statement on H.R. 3411.......................... 30
Prepared statement on H.R. 3440.......................... 31
Recce, Susan, Director of Conservation, Wildlife and Natural
Resources, National Rifle Association...................... 33
Prepared statement on H.R. 919, H.R. 3440................ 33
Rimensnyder, Nelson F., Historian, The Association of the
Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia............. 44
Prepared statement on H.R. 938........................... 46
Sullivan, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oklahoma.......................................... 14
Prepared statement on H.R. 1278.......................... 16
Additional materials supplied:
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Letter submitted for the
record on H.R. 919......................................... 8
Civil War Trust, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 2489 24
Crossroads of the American Revolution Association, Letter
submitted for the record on H.R. 2489...................... 25
National Park Conservation Association, Letter submitted for
the record on H.R. 2489.................................... 26
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 919, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE
OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND IN MOHAVE VALLEY, MOHAVE COUNTY,
ARIZONA, ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
TO THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, FOR USE AS A
PUBLIC SHOOTING RANGE. ``MOHAVE VALLEY LAND CONVEYANCE
ACT OF 2011''; H.R. 938, TO ESTABLISH A COMMISSION TO
ENSURE A SUITABLE OBSERVANCE OF THE CENTENNIAL OF WORLD
WAR I AND TO DESIGNATE MEMORIALS TO THE SERVICE OF MEN
AND WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES IN WORLD WAR I. ``FRANK
BUCKLES WORLD WAR I MEMORIAL ACT''; H.R. 1278, TO
DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A
SPECIAL RESOURCES STUDY REGARDING THE SUITABILITY AND
FEASIBILITY OF DESIGNATING THE JOHN HOPE FRANKLIN
RECONCILIATION PARK AND OTHER SITES IN TULSA, OKLAHOMA,
RELATING TO THE 1921 TULSA RACE RIOT AS A UNIT OF THE
NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R.
2240, TO AUTHORIZE THE EXCHANGE OF LAND OR INTEREST IN
LAND BETWEEN LOWELL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK AND THE
CITY OF LOWELL IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``LOWELL NATIONAL HISTORICAL
PARK LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2011''; H.R. 2489, TO
AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION AND PROTECTION OF NATIONALLY
SIGNIFICANT BATTLEFIELDS AND ASSOCIATED SITES OF THE
REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND THE WAR OF 1812 UNDER THE
AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM. ``AMERICAN
BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF
2011''; H.R. 3411, TO MODIFY A LAND GRANT PATENT ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR; AND H.R. 3440, TO
PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN OVERSIGHT AND APPROVAL ON ANY
DECISIONS TO CLOSE NATIONAL MONUMENT LAND UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TO
RECREATIONAL SHOOTING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
``RECREATIONAL SHOOTING PROTECTION ACT.''
----------
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Tipton, Amodei, Grijalva,
Holt, Tsongas, and Garamendi.
Also Present: Representative Benishek
Mr. Bishop. All right. The hearing will come to order. The
Chair notes the presence of a quorum. The Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is meeting today to
hear testimony on seven bills. Under the rules, the opening
statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member.
However, I ask unanimous consent to include any Member's
opening statement in the hearing record if submitted to the
clerk by the close of business today.
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. So, hearing no objection, it will be so
ordered.
I also want to thank our colleagues and the other witnesses
who have agreed to testify today on these seven bills that will
be before us.
Today we are going to review bills that address unique land
management issues with the Bureau of Land Management, as well
as the Park Service. I understand we have a few Members with
scheduling conflicts, so we will do our best to try and
accommodate those. Any of the Members that need to leave after
they provide their testimony are welcome to do so, but you are
also welcome to join us here on the dais afterwards to
participate. So I ask unanimous consent at this time to allow
them to stay and participate with us on the dais.
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. And, without objection, so ordered.
In order to accommodate those Members with the tight
schedules, I am going to not make a lengthy opening statement.
But I do want to make one comment about one of the bills of
which I am a cosponsor, the ``Recreational Shooting Protection
Act.''
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. This bill is another in a series of our trust-
but-verify approaches when dealing with the Administration.
It is no secret to me and many of my colleagues that this
Administration shows itself hostile to the individual rights
guaranteed in the Second Amendment. From tactics from the
Justice Department's Fast and Furious calamity to the State
Department's prevention of the re-importation of surplus M-1 to
the appointment of the anti-gun advocates to our judiciary, BLM
now is looking for reasons to prevent target shooting on public
lands. We have seen what this Administration thinks of the
Second Amendment.
It is an election year. It appears the Administration wants
to put off a lot of decisions until after votes are in. They
know that the wider scale of closure of public lands for
recreational shooting would not sit well with Western
electorate who enjoy this historic and traditional and
legitimate activity on our public lands.
The trouble is I am not sure the Obama Administration would
have backed down and abandoned their anti-sportsman policy were
it not an election year. And there appears to be a real
penchant by this Administration to manage the use of public
lands based on personal preference, rather than multiple use,
which is mandated by the law.
Well, I am glad that the BLM will now abandon--for now will
abandon--this ill-conceived policy. My colleagues and I want to
make sure it is not revisited at a later date. If it is not a
good time to do it in an election year, it is not a good time
to do it at all.
With that--and again, in an effort to keep this as short as
possible for the sake of my colleagues--I am going to stop
right now, and will recognize the Ranking Member for any
opening remarks he would like to make at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Today we are reviewing three bills that address unique land
management issues with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and four
with the Park Service. I understand we have a few Members with
scheduling conflicts so we'll do our best to accommodate those folks.
Any of the Members that need to leave after they provide their
testimony are welcome to do so. They are also welcome to join us here
on the dais afterwards to participate. I ask Unanimous Consent at this
time to allow it. Without objection, so ordered.
In order to accommodate those Members with tight schedules, I will
forego a lengthy opening statement and just make a couple brief
comments about one of the bills of which I am cosponsor, H.R. 3440--The
Recreational Shooting Protection Act.
This bill is another in a series of our trust but verify approaches
when dealing with this administration. It is no secret to me and many
of my colleagues that this administration is hostile to the individual
right guaranteed in the Second Amendment. From the tactics and
leadership at DOJ that brought us the ``Fast and Furious'' calamity and
the State Department's prevention of the re-importation of old surplus
M-1 Garands to the appointment of anti-gun advocates to our judiciary
and now BLM looking for reasons to prevent target shooting on our
public lands, we have seen what this administration thinks of the
Second Amendment.
This is an election year and it appears that the Administration
wants to put off a lot of decisions until after the votes are in. They
know that the wide scale closure of our public lands for recreational
shooting would not sit well with a Western electorate that enjoys this
historic, traditional and legitimate activity on our public lands. The
trouble is, I am not sure the Obama administration would have backed
down and abandoned their anti-sportsmen policy were it not an election
year. There appears to be a real penchant by this administration to
manage the use of our public lands based on personal preference rather
than the multiple uses mandated by law. While I am glad that the BLM
will for now abandon their ill-conceived policy, my colleagues and I
want to make sure it is not revisited at a later date. If it's not a
good time to do it in an election year, it's not a good time to do it
at all.
Again, in an effort to keep this short for the sake of my
colleagues, I will stop there and I now recognize the Ranking Member
for any opening remarks he would like to make at this time.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I won't be as
courteous as yours; I have a rather lengthy opening statement.
But I will try to run through it quickly. Let me first thank
our witnesses and our colleagues today who have taken the time
to testify on these seven bills.
Before we begin I want to take a moment to honor the life
of Margaret Anderson, the Park Service ranger who recently lost
her life at Mount Rainier National Park. It is a tragedy and a
reminder of the risk to our law enforcement officers and the
bravery in which they serve us.
Today the Subcommittee will consider seven bills. I am
pleased that we are considering my colleague, Congressman
Holt's, battlefield protection legislation, along with
Congresswoman Tsongas's legislation related to the Lowell
Historic Park. I am eager to learn more from the Bureau of Land
Management about the need for Congressman Frank's bill to
complete a land conveyance in Mohave County, and look forward
to better understanding the motivation behind Congressman
Flake's legislation dealing with recreation shooting in
national monuments.
And I am confused, quite frankly, by the approach
Congressman Flake takes to address the long-standing debate
over recreational shooting in Arizona. I can't count the number
of times I have heard from my colleagues on the other side of
the dais to praise the wisdom of local land managers and
celebrate local involvement in land management decisions. Now
we have a bill to centralize that decision-making in
Washington, D.C.
The issue of recreational shooting in Arizona is not a new
one. In 2002, the BLM engaged the Mo Udall Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution in an effort to find common
ground on the issue of recreational shooting in the Tucson
Basin. A final report was issued in 2006 that included nearly 4
years of public engagement on behalf of all local Federal land
management agencies and Arizona Game and Fish. As this broader
conversation was concluding, the Ironwood National Forest
initiated the formal resource management plan process.
In response to a number of comments received on the draft
resource management plan, the BLM went the extra effort to re-
examine where there might be areas for shooting activities. The
22-page analysis evaluated a range of topics through the use of
GIS analysis and on-site visits. In the end they decided that
no area existed that could safely support recreational shooting
in the monument.
What we need to do is keep in mind that the Ironwood
National Forest Monument isn't the only place in Tucson that
can access recreational shooting. Based on the information
provided by Arizona Game and Fish, there are nine shooting
ranges in the Tucson area, including the Pima County Southeast
Regional Park shooting range and the Three Points Shooting
Range. Further, U.S. Forest Service has worked with the Tucson
Rod and Gun Club to identify a new shooting range in the
Redington Pass area.
The point I am making here is that Congressman Flake's bill
would ignore all of these local discussions, and instead give
one person within the Department of the Interior the ability to
make local closures for six months. Congress would have to
enact laws to make them longer.
Changing gears now is, I believe--I want to--changing those
gears now--and I want to look forward also to Congressman Poe's
legislation on the World War I Memorial, and hearing from Mr.
Rimensnyder, who is opposed to this legislation.
Finally, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton of the
District of Columbia is attending another hearing affecting her
district and has asked me to submit her written testimony for
the record. I note that Congresswoman Norton strongly opposes
H.R. 938 because the bill would confiscate the District of
Columbia's war memorial which was authorized by Congress to
honor more than 26,000 District of Columbia World War I
veterans, including the 499 men and women who lost their lives,
and was built by public subscription of District residents and
school children. These veterans served without a vote in
Congress that sent them to war.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses. I look forward to
their testimony. And with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate it. At
this time we will turn to our first panel, who will be the
Members, our colleagues here, who are going to testify on the
bills that they have. We will simply go down the row, if that
is OK with you.
Once again, after you are done, if you would like to join
us on the dais please feel free to do so. If you need to go to
some other meeting, have at it.
So, Mr. Franks, if we can start with you on H.R. 919, the
conveyance of public lands in the Mohave Valley.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Thank you, to our witnesses today who have taken the time to
testify on these seven bills. Before we begin that, I want to take a
moment to honor the life of Margaret Anderson, the Park Service ranger
who recently lost her life at Mount Rainier National Park. It is a
tragedy and a reminder of the risks taken by our law enforcement
offices and the bravery with which they serve.
Today the subcommittee will consider seven bills. I am pleased that
we are considering my colleague Congressman Holt's Battlefield
Protection legislation along with Congresswoman Tsongas' legislation
related to Lowell National Historical Park.
I am eager to learn more from the Bureau of Land Management about
the need for Congressman Franks' bill to complete a land conveyance in
Mohave County and look forward to better understanding the motivation
behind Congressman Flake's legislation dealing with recreational
shooting in national monuments and.
I'm confused by the approach Congressman Flake takes to address the
longstanding debate over recreational shooting in Arizona.
I can't count the number of times I have heard my colleagues on the
other side of the dais praise the wisdom of local land managers and
celebrate local involvement in land management decisions.
Now we have a bill to centralize decision-making to Washington,
D.C.
The issue of recreational shooting in Arizona is not a new one. In
2002, the BLM engaged the Mo Udall Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution in an effort to find common ground on the issue of
recreational shooting in the Tucson Basin.
A final report was issued in 2006 that included nearly four years
of public engagement on behalf of all local federal land management
agencies and Arizona Game and Fish.
As this broader conversation was concluding, the Ironwood Forest
National initiated their formal resource management plan process. In
response to the number of comments received on the Draft Resource
Management plan, the BLM went to the extra effort to re-examine where
there might be areas for shooting activities.
The 22-page analysis evaluated a range of topics through the use of
GIS analysis and on-site visits. In the end, they decided that no areas
existed that could safely support recreation shooting in the monument.
What we need to keep in mind is that the Ironwood Forest National
Monument isn't the only place people in Tucson can access for
recreational shooting.
Based on information provided by the Arizona Game and Fish, there
are nine shooting ranges in the Tucson area including the Pima County
Southeast Regional Park Shooting Range and the Three Points Shooting
Range. Further, the U.S Forest Service has worked with the Tucson Rod
and Gun Club to identify a new shooting range in the Redington Pass
area.
The point I am making here is that Congressman Flake's bill would
ignore all of these local discussions and instead give one person
within the Department of the Interior the ability to make local
closures for six months. Congress would have to enact laws to make them
longer.
Changing gears now, I look forward to learning more about
Congressman Poe's legislation on World War I Memorials and hearing from
Mr. Rimensnyder who is opposed to this legislation.
Finally, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of
Columbia is attending another hearing affecting her district and has
asked me to submit her written testimony for the record.
I note that Congresswoman Norton strongly opposes H.R. 938, because
the bill would confiscate the District of Columbia War Memorial, which
was authorized by the Congress to honor the more than 26,000 District
of Columbia World War I veterans, including the 499 men and women who
lost their lives, and was built by public subscription of District
residents and school children. These veterans served without a vote in
the Congress that sent them to war.
Again, thank you to our witnesses.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TRENT FRANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of
this Committee. I happen to be one of those that will have to
leave after the testimony for a mark-up in the Judiciary
Committee, and I am just grateful to be able to testify on H.R.
919 this morning, the ``Mohave Valley Land Conveyance Act.''
I introduced this legislation, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of
constituents in Mohave Valley, Arizona. My bill provides for
the conveyance of 315 acres of public land to the Arizona Game
and Fish Department for use as a public shooting range. The
Mohave County shooting range proposal has been under
consideration now and evaluation for more than 13 years.
Arizona's Mohave County has experienced rapid growth over the
last few years, and traditional locations for target shooting
are now too close to populated areas for safety.
Mr. Chairman, there is a need to designate a centralized,
multi-purpose shooting range location in Mohave County to
promote safe hunting and shooting practices, to provide the
public with safe shooting areas, to support the hunter
education program, and encourage hunters to become more
proficient with their equipment.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps even more importantly, there is also
a major need for a central facility for persons training in the
use of firearms such as local law enforcement and security
personnel to achieve and maintain firearms qualifications. Some
of these officers are forced to travel long distances now in
order to practice and improve their marksmanship skills, which
are central and a major component of their job requirements.
Mr. Chairman, the shooting range project would consist of
seven different types of ranges, including a trap and skeet
range, sports clay range, a police rifle range, pistol bays and
range, a public range, and an archery range.
Throughout the evaluation process I, along with the Arizona
Game and Fish Department and the Bureau of Land Management,
have taken the concerns of the neighboring Hualapai and Fort
Mohave tribes very seriously. The Mohave shooting range
proposal contains a rigorous set of standards and criteria that
would apply to any facility that would be built. And it would
address and significantly reduce the visual and sound issues
raised by the tribes.
The final BLM record of decision specifically states that
any plan of development shall include mitigation measures to
limit the footprint or the area of ground disturbance, optimize
noise reduction, restrict operating hours to coincide with
tribal practice of traditional cultural activities and
coordinate with tribes to educate the public about the cultural
significance of the nearby tribal land.
The BLM used an alternative dispute resolution process
facilitated by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution in an effort to resolve differences over boundary
and the effect of the proposed shooting range. During the ADR
process 18 possible locations, alternative locations, were
considered. After several years of effort, no viable
alternative was identified, and the consulted tribes were
unable to accept any alternative shooting range location within
the entire Mohave Valley as suitable.
Mr. Chairman, the BLM is tasked with weighing all concerns
from all groups in making decisions affecting resources on
public lands. The BLM has indeed accomplished this during years
of tribal consultation and the subsequent release of the record
of decision approving the land transfer. Therefore, some may
question whether this legislation is even necessary. However, I
would submit to you that it has been two full years now since
the final record of decision was released. Furthermore, the
process may continue to be held up because of the frivolous
lawsuits.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is needed to move the
process to completion and get shovels in the ground. And so, I
would just thank you again for this opportunity to testify
before you on H.R. 919, and I would also ask that a letter of
support from the Game and Fish Department be submitted for the
record. And I trust the Members of this Committee will
recognize the need for this range and provide support for this
long-overdue legislation. And I thank you all very much, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman. The letter will be
submitted to the record, without objection.
[The letter from the Arizona Game and Fish Department
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. We appreciate your testimony. Once again, if
you would like to stay, feel free. If you need to go, I
understand.
Mr. Franks. I do have a mark-up in Judiciary, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. And you actually think that is more important
than us?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Franks. I don't know what possessed me here.
Mr. Bishop. I don't, either. I appreciate it.
Mr. Cleaver, I understand you are here as a substitute
witness right now to speak on, I believe--I don't know which
one--938? OK. Recognized for five minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. EMANUEL CLEAVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to you and
Ranking Member Grijalva, I appreciate this. And I will try to
do it as quickly as possible.
Judge Poe and I introduced H.R. 938, and I need to explain
some things so that the Committee will have a full
understanding of what has been done, and what we are trying to
do.
In 1920 the City Council of Kansas City, Missouri approved
an ordinance to begin the planning for a commemorative
structure for World War I. In 1921, November 1, 1921, a site
dedication drew 100,000 people, including all of the leaders of
the Allied Forces. General John Pershing represented the United
States. We had the leaders from France, Great Britain, Belgium,
and Italy all there among 100,000 people.
It took a few more years before the money was raised, a
substantial amount raised from children who put a project
together over a three-year period to raise money to build this
majestic structure. And, as you can see, this is not some
little deal. This is a major structure. And if anybody has ever
flown into Kansas City, you can't land without seeing this from
any direction you fly into Kansas City.
So, when I was mayor of Kansas City, we put forth before
the people a measure so that we could repair the museum. This
is above the fold, Kansas City Star newspaper. On the night of
the election we won the election, put $45 million into the
museum in 1997. The museum and the monument are now in top
shape. It is the only museum in the world solely dedicated to
World War I.
And so, what we were trying to do, Congressman Poe and I,
is to prepare for the commemoration of the war in 2014. We only
have two years left. And so we were trying to get this done
where we would have a commission that would begin the planning
for a duplication of what happened in 1921.
Someone then sent out an email yesterday saying that there
was an attempt to place the D.C. memorial under Kansas City. It
was not true yesterday. It was not true when we introduced the
bill. And it was designed to kill the bill. Kansas City has no
interest in controlling the D.C. monument at all. We have had
our commitment to maintain this monument without any Federal
funds. We haven't asked for any, we don't plan to ask for any.
We are asking that we have this bill approved so that we can
begin the process of planning for the 100-year commemoration of
the war.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, what we hope we can do is to get
this bill moving. It has already been approved by the House
with only one dissenting vote. And I might add that the person
who voted against it on suspension was one of the sponsors. And
that was probably the first time that has ever happened in the
history of the House of Representatives.
But we think that this is something that is extremely
important. It gives us the chance to have the Nation remember
what happened in World War I. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Cleaver. I appreciate
that. Once again, if you would like to stay with us through the
remainder of this hearing, you may. If you have other
engagements----
Mr. Cleaver. I have another engagement. It is not more
important.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. All right. I will accept that if you check your
cosponsors next time here.
Let us turn to Mr. Poe, next on the line, to talk about the
same issue. Mr. Poe, you are also recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TED POE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. I
appreciate the opportunity to talk about H.R. 928, as amended.
This bill does three things, and I want to give a quick
background on the purpose of this bill. It has to do with--it
is called the Frank Buckles Bill, World War I bill, because
Frank Buckles was the last lone survivor, last doughboy that
represented the United States in World War I.
He lied to get into the Army, he was 16. He convinced a
recruiter he was 21. He drove an ambulance in France, rescued
other doughboys. Came back to America. When the great World War
II started, he was in the Philippines. He was captured by the
Japanese, held as a prisoner of war for 3-1/2 years, and
finished out the rest of his 110 years in West Virginia,
driving a tractor until he was 107.
One of his desires before he died, as he communicated to
me, other Members of Congress, and some of our Senators--
specifically Roy Blunt and Senator Rockefeller--was to see a
memorial for all of the World War I troops that served in that
Great War. They are all gone. They have all died, except one, I
believe, from Australia. But all the Americans have died. And
he is the lone survivor.
On the Mall there is a memorial, the District of Columbia
memorial for people who served from the District of Columbia.
It is on the National Mall. It is the only memorial on the
National Mall that I know of that represents a small or one
unique portion of America.
In the last century there were four great wars, and we
built memorials to all of them in reverse order: the Vietnam
Memorial; the Korean Memorial; the World War II Memorial. But
there is no memorial for all that served in the great World War
I.
In fact, many people don't even know anything about World
War I. I asked a person not too long ago what he knew about
World War I and he said, ``Is that where Snoopy fought the Red
Baron?''
Unfortunately, history is being forgotten. And one way we
can remember our heritage is to put the fourth memorial on the
Mall, not to dishonor D.C., but to expand D.C.
In fact, the memorial maybe should be added--it is going to
be the District of Columbia and National Memorial for World War
I. We should mark the fact that it was built by D.C. residents.
We should mark the fact that it was built and paid for by
school children in the District of Columbia, and not dishonor
it, but embolden it to include everyone who served in the great
World War I. They are all dead, they don't have any lobbyists,
it is just up to Congress to authorize it.
So, this bill will do three things. First of all, it
rededicates the D.C. memorial on the Mall as the ``District of
Columbia National World War I Memorial.'' Of course D.C. should
be left in the name, because it does honor those veterans that
served and those that died. There is no reconstruction that
needs to be done to it. After all, the Park Service is taking
care and maintaining the D.C. memorial here.
The second thing the bill does is dedicates, or
rededicates, the Liberty Memorial of Kansas City as the
National World War I Museum and Memorial. As Congressman
Cleaver pointed out, this memorial is the only public museum
that specifically dedicates its history to World War I. And it
is great that it does that. It needs the national recognition.
The bill does a third and separate thing. As Congressman
Cleaver pointed out, we are coming up on the 100th anniversary
of the beginning of the great World War I. The United States
basically has done little, if anything, to recognize that
Americans fought in World War I; 4 million fought, 114,000 of
them died. Many of them died from the flu that they got in
France and came back home.
We need to have the commission set up to honor World War I,
not to control the monument and the memorial in D.C., not to
control the Liberty Museum in Kansas City, but to make sure
America remembers those troops that served, like Frank Buckles,
in World War I.
Mr. Chairman, it is one thing to die in battle for your
country. But the worst casualty of war is to be forgotten. And
we have the obligation to erect this memorial and honor D.C.
and national heroes that served almost 100 years ago. I yield
back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Poe. I appreciate, once
again, your testimony, and extend the invitation to stay with
us, if you can or desire to do so. But if you have other
commitments, we understand that one as well.
Mr. Poe. I need to go to Judiciary and offset Franks's
vote.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Poe. But I would like to submit my entire testimony in
writing to the Committee.
Mr. Bishop. We are going to have a long talk with Lamar
Smith here. All right. Thank you, and we will accept your
written testimony, as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Poe follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you for inviting me here to speak about H.R. 938, the Frank
Buckles WWI Memorial Act. I'm glad to be joined by Rep. Cleaver in
introducing this bill and thankful for the 42 of my colleagues that
have signed onto the bill so far.
Before I get into a summary of the bill, I'd like to talk about its
namesake, Mr. Buckles.
Frank Buckles, Jr. was too young to officially enlist when WWI
started but that didn't stop him.
He wanted to join the doughboys ``over there'' as the song by
George Cohan put it.
So he told a Marines recruiter at the Kansas State Fair that he was
18, but even that was too young--he had to be 21.
After trying three more recruiting offices and being turned down,
he finally went to the Army and gave the recruiter the family Bible to
prove his age. The Army accepted it and off to WWI he went.
An old Army sergeant told Mr. Buckles that the Ambulance Service
was the quickest way to get to France because the French were begging
for ambulance services, so that's what Mr. Buckles did.
After the war, he came back home, although 116,000 of his fellow
doughboys didn't. That's 25 times the number of soldiers we lost in
Iraq.
He was in the Philippines when World War II started, and was
captured by the Japanese and held in a prisoner of war camp for 3\1/2\
years. He was rescued, came back home to America and went to his farm
in West Virginia, where his forefathers first settled back in 1732. He
would ride his tractor until he was 106. On February 27, 2011, at the
age of 110, Mr. Buckles passed away.
Mr. Buckles was a great American whose life encompassed nearly half
our nation's history. But that's not the main reason I bring him up.
Mr. Buckles was the last doughboy. This was a role he did not choose,
but gracefully accepted. As the sole survivor of the 4 million that
served in WWI, he felt it was his duty to make sure they were properly
remembered.
His dying wish was for a memorial on the National Mall for all who
served in WWI. You see, Mr. Chairman, we have a memorial for Vietnam
veterans, we have a memorial for Korean veterans, and we have a
memorial for World War II veterans. There is a small memorial for the
D.C. troops that served in World War I, but there's no memorial on the
Mall for all of the doughboys like Mr. Buckles. And they have all died,
all 4.7 million of them. It's our job to make sure they are not
forgotten.
The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 938 honors all
our WWI veterans.
First, the bill rededicates the DC memorial on the Mall as the
District of Columbia and National World War I Memorial. DC should be
left in the name of the memorial to honor the history of the memorial
even while we add to its significance by making it a national memorial.
The bill allows for a commemorative work, like a statue, to reflect the
national nature of the memorial, but the memorial itself will stay the
same. It is a beautiful and fitting memorial--we do not need to do any
major reconstruction.
Second, the bill rededicates the Liberty Memorial of Kansas City as
the National World War I Museum and Memorial. The Liberty Memorial has
the only public museum specifically dedicated to the history of WWI and
is important to our national remembrance.
Finally, the bill establishes a commission of 12 members to ensure
the WWI centennial is properly observed, much like commissions
established for the anniversaries of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.
The members will be appointed by the President and party leaders in the
House and Senate.
The United States is already behind the ball in getting
commemorating efforts going. Australia and New Zealand have had a full
commission set up since 2010. France has already released a dossier of
their plans and appointed commemorative chairmen. The UK has appointed
a Special Representative of the Prime Minister for the Centennial to
take charge of their efforts.
Our WWI veterans are heroes. They faced some of the most horrific
weapons of war ever invented by man.
Nations were still experimenting with just how lethal biological
weapons could be during WWI. Biological weapons turned out to be so bad
that the world would come together to sign the Geneva Protocol in 1925,
one of the earliest treaties limiting weapons of war.
Then there were diseases like gang-green that thrived in the dark,
wet, and muddy trenches that killed as many Americans in one year than
perished in combat.
Despite these terrible sacrifices, the 4.7 million veterans who
returned home never got a GI bill, didn't have a Veterans Affairs
Department to watch out for them, and didn't get help in going to
college or buying a house. But they would fight so that future veterans
did.
Our veterans represent some of the greatest Americans. By properly
honoring WWI veterans, we show our veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq
wars today that we will never forget them.
To our shame, we did not get this done before Mr. Buckles passed,
but we still have an opportunity to honor his and all his compatriots'
sacrifice.
It is one thing to die for your country. It is another thing and
the worst casualty of war to be forgotten by your country.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Sullivan, I appreciate you sneaking in
here. You are next in the line, if you would like to go with
your bill, which is H.R. 1278.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. And Chairman
Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and distinguished Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today on my legislation pertaining to the John Hope
Franklin Reconciliation Park, located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
I am pleased to be here among my colleagues to speak in
favor of my bill, H.R. 1278, which authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to conduct a special resource study regarding the
inclusion of the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park and
other sites associated with the 1921 Tulsa race riot as a unit
of the National Park System.
Prior to the Tulsa race riots, the community of Greenwood
in Tulsa was a thriving African American business community and
a home to nearly 11,000 citizens. On May 31, 1921, angry mobs
invaded Tulsa's Greenwood community and destroyed nearly 40
square blocks of residential area, and virtually the
community's entire business district. An estimated 300 people
lost their lives. Over 700 people were injured. And
approximately 9,000 Greenwood residents were left homeless. And
the area was left with almost 1.5 million worth of damages.
In November 2005, the United States National Park Service
issued a survey certifying the 1921 race riot as an
historically significant event because it possesses exceptional
value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the national
or cultural themes of our national heritage. The study goes
into great depth about the national significance of the riot.
And I encourage Members of the Committee and all Americans to
read it.
John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park, dedicated in Tulsa,
Oklahoma on October 27, 2010, memorializes the 1921 race riot,
and honors the legacy of the late Dr. John Hope Franklin,
world-renowned American historian, a 1995 recipient of the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a native son of Oklahoma.
Dr. Franklin attended the ground-breaking ceremony for the park
in November 2008. It was his last public appearance before he
passed away at the age of 94 in March 2009. H.R. 1278 was
introduced in March of this year, in remembrance of the second
anniversary of Dr. Franklin's passing.
It is fitting that this park is named after the late Dr.
John Hope Franklin for several reasons. First, Dr. Franklin
recognized the important role this park would serve in
educating Americans of all walks of life, creed, and color
about our shared history.
Second, Dr. Franklin's admiration and advocacy for the
National Park Service was clear throughout his lifetime. He
served as a distinguished tenure as--he served a distinguished
tenure as Chairman of the National Park Service Advisory Board.
Dr. Franklin took every opportunity to champion the National
Park Service's mission to encourage the study of America's past
by linking specific places to the narrative of our country's
history.
H.R. 1278, with over 30 bipartisan cosponsors, and much
community support, including that of the City of Tulsa,
authorizes the National Park Service to conduct a special
resource study on the suitability and feasibility of designing
the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park and Greenwood area
sites in Tulsa, Oklahoma relating to the 1921 Tulsa race riot
as a unit of the National Park System. H.R. 1278 is the next
logical step in helping to bring national historical
significance to the 1921 Tulsa race riot.
I would like to close with the words from Dr. Franklin,
that ``our parks are a setting for a celebration, as well as
remorse, leading to a determination to do better things in the
future.''
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I respectfully ask for the
Subcommittee's support of H.R. 1278, and thank you for the
opportunity to deliver my testimony today. And I would also
like to recognize Dr. John Hope Franklin's son, John Franklin,
who is here today, that lives in this area.
I thank you, and I appreciate you letting me testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John Sullivan, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, in Support of H.R. 1278
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and distinguished Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today on my legislation pertaining to the John Hope Franklin
Reconciliation Park located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I am pleased to be here
among my colleagues to speak in favor of my bill, H.R. 1278, which
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource
study regarding the inclusion of the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation
Park and other sites associated with the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot as a unit
of the National Park System.
Prior to the Tulsa Race Riots, the community of Greenwood in Tulsa
was a thriving African-American business community and home to nearly
11,000 citizens. On May 31, 1921, angry mobs invaded Tulsa's Greenwood
community and destroyed nearly 40 square blocks of residential area and
virtually the community's entire business district. An estimated 300
people lost their lives, over 700 people were injured, approximately
9,000 Greenwood residents were left homeless, and the area was left
with almost $1.5 million worth of damages.
In November 2005, the United States National Park Service issued a
Reconnaissance Survey, certifying the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot as a
historically significant event because it ``possesses exceptional value
or quality in illustrating or interpreting the national or cultural
themes of our national heritage.'' The study goes into great depth
about the national significance of the riot and I encourage Members of
the Committee and all Americans to read it.
John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park, dedicated in Tulsa,
Oklahoma on October 27, 2010, memorializes the 1921 race riot and
honors the legacy of the late Dr. John Hope Franklin, world renowned
American historian, 1995 recipient of the Presidential Medal of
Freedom, and a native son of Oklahoma. Dr. Franklin attended the
groundbreaking ceremony for the Park in November 2008. It was his last
public appearance before he passed away at the age of 94 in March 2009.
H.R. 1278 was introduced in March of this year, in remembrance of the
second anniversary of Dr. Franklin's passing.
It is fitting that this Park is named after the late Dr. John Hope
Franklin for several reasons. First, Dr. Franklin recognized the
important role this Park would serve in educating Americans of all
walks of life, creed and color, about our shared history. Second, Dr.
Franklin's admiration and advocacy for the National Park Service was
clear throughout his lifetime. He served a distinguished tenure as
Chairman of the National Park Service Advisory Board. Dr. Franklin took
every opportunity to champion the National Park Service's mission to
encourage the study of America's past by linking specific places to the
narrative of our country's history.
H.R. 1278, with over 30 bipartisan cosponsors, and much community
support including that of the City of Tulsa, authorizes the National
Park Service to conduct a special resource study on the suitability and
feasibility of designating the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park
and Greenwood area sites in Tulsa, Oklahoma, relating to the 1921 Tulsa
Race Riot as a unit of the National Park System. H.R. 1278 is the next
logical step in helping to bring national historical significance to
the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot.
I would like to close with words from Dr. Franklin, that ``our
parks are settings for celebration as well as remorse, leading to a
determination to do better things in the future.''
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Grijalva, I respectfully ask for
the Subcommittee's support for H.R. 1278, and I thank you for the
opportunity to deliver my testimony today.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Sullivan. We appreciate
that, as well as the guest who is with us today. We appreciate
both of you being here. Thank you for your testimony.
Once again, same offer as the others. No one has taken me
up on it yet, but if you would like to stay you may.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, Chairman Bishop, I would love to stay.
Mr. Bishop. But?
Mr. Sullivan. I do have another event I have to go to. Fred
Upton wants me in Energy and Commerce. We are having a retreat
today, so I apologize.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, I am taking this all personally. All
right.
Representative Flake, we welcome you back to the Committee,
and we would like to ask you if you wish to testify or
introduce your bill, which is 3440. Recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF FLAKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Flake. Great. Thank you. And I want to apologize in
advance. I do have to leave, as well, afterwards. But I
appreciate the opportunity, and thank you for allowing me here,
and to Ranking Member Grijalva, as well.
This is the Recreational Shooting Protection Act. And
Representative Grijalva mentioned that there is a lot of
collaboration, there is a lot of discussion that goes on at the
local level when these shooting bans are put into effect. I
think that that is only right and proper, as there should be.
What this legislation seeks to do, it would simply direct
the BLM to manage monument lands among the public lands. And
Arizona, as we all know, is largely public land. More than 80
percent of the state is public land, either state, Federal, or
tribal. And so, to have opportunities to actually engage in
recreational shooting, you need to be on public lands. And a
lot of those lands are monument lands, as well.
So, it would simply direct the BLM to manage national
monument lands in a manner that enhances recreational shooting
opportunities. And I know that some of the folks at the Federal
level and the BLM and other management agencies try to do that.
But at times--sometimes I think they act precipitously.
Right now, there are more than a million acres across the
country that are being looked at, in terms of a ban for
recreational shooting, a million acres. Keep in mind that more
than half of that is in Arizona. And when you think of all that
land that would be put aside and prohibited, in terms of
recreational shooting, I think that it behooves Congress to
step in and make sure that it is done in the most deliberative
way possible.
So, this legislation would simply direct the BLM, when it
authorizes certain lands to be prohibited from recreational
shooting, that that decision come before Congress and Congress
has six months to approve that, to ensure that it's proper.
We have seen, unfortunately, a lot of overreach by the
agencies recently, with regard to public lands. In Arizona we
have just endured a million acres being set aside in northern
Arizona from economic activity, specifically mining in the
Arizona strip. And so, we do know--I think it is recognized by
everyone--that there is substantial overreach that can occur.
And this simply brings the Congress, the representative
body, where people who want to go and have recreational
shooting, they have--they can't go and appeal to the agencies,
they have no recourse there. But they do have recourse with us.
That is why we are here. We represent our constituents in that
way.
And so, this gives Congress a role in ensuring that those
areas where shooting needs to be prohibited--and there are some
areas, certainly--that Congress has a role. And so that is all
this legislation does.
I appreciate having the opportunity to be here. And thank
you for your forbearance.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Flake follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jeff Flake, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arizona
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in
support of H.R. 3440, the Recreational Shooting Protection Act, which I
have introduced this Congress.
This legislation is endorsed by both the National Rifle Association
and the National Shooting Sports Foundation and has two necessary
goals.
The bill would direct the BLM to manage national monument lands in
a manner that enhances recreational shooting opportunities; and it
would require Congressional approval for existing and future
recreational shooting restrictions on BLM-managed national monument
lands.
On November 22nd of last year, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
issued a memorandum to the Director of the Bureau Land Management.
Titled ``Protecting Recreational Shooting on Public Lands,'' the
directive walked back a controversial draft proposal that sought to
expand BLM's authority to ban recreational shooting on public lands.
When exposed to a nation wary of this Administration's many
overreaches, Secretary Salazar abandoned the draft policy. It survived
public scrutiny for just six days.
In the memo he ultimately finalized and released, Secretary Salazar
declared that ``[i]t is a priority of the Department of the Interior to
support opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on
America's public lands,'' and indicated that ``the Bureau of Land
Management helps ensure that the vast majority of the 245 million acres
it oversees are open and remain open to recreational shooting.''
Here we have a crystal clear show of support for recreational
shooting on public lands from the Administration, and--to their
credit--they waited a whole two days to contradict it.
On November 25, two thousand miles away, the BLM moved a proposal
to ban recreational shooting across the entire 470,000 acre Sonoran
Desert National Monument in Arizona one step closer to approval.
How could this possibly be consistent? Unfortunately, that same
memo directed the BLM to ``continue to manage recreational shooting on
public lands under the status quo. . .''
The status quo is what most threatens the rights of recreational
shooters today--it is under the status quo that the BLM has already
allowed 616,000 acres of national monument land to be closed to
recreational shooting since 2010.
It is the status quo that compelled me to introduce the
Recreational Shooting Protection Act. This Administration could use a
little oversight when it comes to land management decisions.
This Administration's BLM has closed or begun to ban recreational
shooting on more than one million acres of national monument lands and
more than half of that acreage is in Arizona.
Sadly, critics are quick to ignore the many recreational
enthusiasts that responsibly use their federal lands as well as the
existing laws on the books that already make disreputable actions
illegal. They instead point to the actions of some bad actors as a
reason to restrict access.
Based on its actions, one could easily reach the conclusion that
this Administration is not intent on simply restricting recreational
shooting where appropriate, but instead is trying to end the sport
outright.
In Arizona, where two monument closures are currently being
pursued, the BLM has purportedly been unable to find any suitable area
worth recommending for recreational shooters to enjoy in an area
equivalent of nearly half a million football fields.
I say Congress ought to have the ability to tell BLM to look
harder. That's all this bill provides. It does not prevent the closure
of BLM lands to recreational shooting; it simply adds an additional
layer of supervision and oversight to the process.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony in
support of the Recreational Shooting Protection Act. I look forward to
this bill moving through the legislative process.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you again, Representative Flake. I
appreciate your time. Welcome back to our Committee, as well.
We also have three bills that are before us in this hearing
with Members who are Members of the Committee or the
Subcommittee. So, with that, I would like to give them the
opportunity to introduce their bill at the same time.
Ms. Tsongas, the gentlelady from Massachusetts, you have
2240. If you would like to introduce your bill at this time, we
would be happy to hear that.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and thank you,
Ranking Member Grijalva, for holding this hearing today, and
for providing me the opportunity to share my remarks on H.R.
2240, the Lowell National Historical Park Land Exchange Act.
And I would also like to thank Dr. Peter May of the
National Park Service and Adam Baacke of the City of Lowell,
who will be testifying today in support of this bill. And I
want to recognize Michael Creasey, Superintendent of the Lowell
National Historical Park, who is in attendance today, for his
support.
In 1978 legislation was passed establishing the Lowell
National Historical Park. It was championed by my late husband,
as well as two Republican Members of Congress who preceded him.
We should take bipartisan pride in its great success.
This national park was given a unique mandate to not only
preserve and interpret the resources representing Lowell's
central role in our 19th century Industrial Revolution, but
also to serve as a catalyst in revitalizing the city's
physical, economic, and cultural environments, all outgrowths
of the city's industrial history. Working together with the
City of Lowell, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and many
other public and private partners, the Lowell National
Historical Park has played a vital role in rehabilitating over
400 structures, and has since 1978 helped spur an estimated $1
billion in private investment in the city.
And all of this has been done while the park has developed
a compelling array of programs, exhibits, guided tours, and
other interpretive programs. H.R. 2240 would allow the park and
its partners to continue working to advance the park's mission
to preserve the city's historic industrial architecture, while
creating jobs and continuing to partner with the City of Lowell
to advance a critical economic development project: the
Hamilton Canal District. This legislation would most
immediately allow the park to exchange a current surface
parking lot for an equivalent number of spaces in a new garage
that will be built by the City of Lowell adjacent to the
present parking lot, guaranteeing necessary parking spaces for
park visitors while freeing the surface parking lot for
incorporation into the Hamilton Canal District redevelopment.
On the space of the current parking lot, an adjacent vacant
property, the city, working with private partners, plans to
construct over 400,000 square feet of commercial and R&D space,
generating as many as 1,600 jobs. As such, it is a critical
piece in the master redevelopment plan for the area.
The land exchange is supported by the Lowell National Park,
the City of Lowell, and all local stakeholders, and has
received all major state permits and local zoning allowances.
However, the enabling law for the park only provides for the
park to receive additional funds. It is not allowed to exchange
land. This legislation and similar legislation introduced by
Senator Kerry in the Senate would allow this mutually agreed-
upon exchange.
I want to stress that this legislation costs nothing. There
will be absolutely no cost to the taxpayers.
It will also extend the preservation loan program for
another 25 years. This program was designed as an innovative
way to leverage development funds to preserve and rehabilitate
nationally significant buildings that are part of the city's
historic industrial architecture. Funds from the program are
loaned at favorably low rates to private developers who
complete redevelopment projects in Lowell that are consistent
with historic preservation guidelines developed by the City of
Lowell and the National Park Service.
This program has been an incredibly successful tool in
facilitating partnerships with private developers to advance
the park's mission. Since its creation, the program has funded
21 redevelopment projects of structures that otherwise might
have been demolished or languished in disrepair. But there is
still much work to be done. This bill would extend the program
for another 25 years at no cost to taxpayers.
In closing, I would like to again thank you, Chairman
Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, as well as all the Members
of the Subcommittee, for holding this hearing on H.R. 2240.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I will turn to the representative from Michigan, Mr.
Benishek, if you would like to introduce 3411 to us.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN BENISHEK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Dr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this hearing. This bill is simply a straightforward technical
correction to a land patent granted to the Great Lakes
Shipwrecks Historical Society, which is located in my district.
Located in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan along Lake Superior,
the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum presents a firsthand look at
the history of those who have navigated the Great Lakes over
the years, and it attracts about 60,000 visitors a year.
The bill ensures that visitors will continue to learn this
maritime history by modifying the patent to reflect a 2002
consensus agreement that allows for the development and
expansion of new facilities.
Senator Levin successfully passed this legislation in the
Senate without objection.
And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding the hearing, and
ask for your support in reporting this bill favorably to the
Floor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Benishek follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Dan Benishek, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for your
leadership on this Committee. My bill is a simple and straightforward
technical correction to a land patent granted to the Great Lakes
Shipwreck Historical Society, located in my district.
Located in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan along Lake Superior, the
Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum presents a firsthand look at the history
of those who bravely navigated the Great Lakes, attracting roughly
60,000 visitors a year.
My bill ensures that visitors will continue to learn this maritime
history by modifying the patent to reflect a 2002 consensus agreement
that allows for the development and expansion of new facilities.
Senator Levin successfully passed this legislation in the Senate
without objection.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for holding this hearing and ask
for your support in reporting this bill favorably to the floor.
______
Mr. Bishop. That is it?
Dr. Benishek. That is it.
Mr. Bishop. You are the fastest one here, so far. Thank
you. Thank you for the introduction to that bill.
The final bill that we have in this hearing is 2489 by
Representative Holt. Representative Holt, if you are prepared
to introduce your bill, I think I can give you one guarantee,
that if this bill comes to the Floor we promise that when we
take your bill we will at least put your bill back into it
before we pass it on again.
Representative Holt, you are recognized to introduce your
bill.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Representative
Grijalva, Members of the Committee, and Members of Congress who
are still in the room. I am pleased to bring forward again the
American Battlefield Protection Act.
From Lexington, where the first shot was heard around the
world, to Gettysburg, the site of the brilliantly concise
description of the conception and proposition that make up
America, the stories of the American Revolution and the Civil
War bring to life the ideals of liberty and democracy fostered
by our nation's founders.
History is best experienced by those who can touch it and
feel it and live it. And the battlefields of the American
Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, provide an
opportunity for Americans to experience where and how the epic
struggle for our nation's independence and identity took place.
Preserving these historic treasures is really essential for
Americans to remember the sacrifices of our forefathers, and
how they secured our freedom and independence and later fought
to keep the Nation whole. And it is essential for educating
future generations about our rich cultural history.
It can actually help to see--help to ensure that a nation
conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all
are created equal can long endure. Unfortunately, urbanization,
suburban sprawl, unplanned commercial and residential
development are constantly encroaching on many significant
battlefields of the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
And this encroachment poses a severe and growing risk to the
preservation of these historically significant sites.
Now, Congress recognized this danger to our shared history,
and in the late 1990s created the American Battlefield
Protection Program, a competitive grant program that matches
Federal dollars with private money to preserve Civil War sites.
Since Congress first appropriated funding to this program more
than a dozen years ago, the program has helped save more than
17,000 acres of hallowed ground in 14 states, dozens and dozens
of grants averaging about $35,000, and leveraging far more
money in private matching funds.
Congress authorized the National Park Service to study
historic sites associated with the War of Independence and the
other war with Britain that occurred several decades later. And
in September 2007 the Park Service delivered its report to this
Committee. This report shows that there is really a desperate
need to act, and to act quickly to preserve these sites.
Out of the 825 nationally significant battlefields and
associated sites from these 2 early conflicts, 107 of these
battlefields have been lost, 245 are in fragmented or poor
condition, 222 are in danger of being destroyed soon.
The bill before us today would build on the success of the
American Battlefield Protection Program in preserving--that it
has had in preserving Civil War battlefield sites, and would
re-authorize the program and extend the protection and
preservation to battlefields from the Revolutionary War and the
War of 1812. It would allow officials in the American
Battlefield Protection Program to collaborate with state and
local governments and non-profit organizations to preserve and
protect the most endangered historical sites, and provide up to
50 percent of the cost of purchasing battlefield land
threatened by sprawl and commercial development.
Previously, this legislation has been approved twice by the
House with near-unanimous support. This is what the Chairman
was referring to. In this Congress the American Battlefield
Protection Program Amendments Act is again enjoying bipartisan
support. I would like to invite all Members of the Committee to
become cosponsors of this legislation. And I do hope that the
other body of Congress will get its act together.
I would also like to invite you to become a cosponsor of my
legislation, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefields
Commemorative Coin Act. This legislation would authorize
creation and issuance of commemorative coins to raise money for
the preservation program, just as a similar Civil War
battlefield commemorative coin act has raised nearly $6 million
for preservation.
I look forward to hearing this morning from David Hackett
Fischer, who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his fine book,
``Washington's Crossing,'' and who will testify today on behalf
of the legislation. The works of Professor Fischer, along with
others like David McCullough, Richard Ketchum, and numerous
other authors, have helped to revive the national interest in
American history and the history of the American Revolution and
the Civil War.
However, learning history, with all respect to Mr. Fischer,
learning history through reading or watching a movie can't
compare with the experience of being where the history took
place. The Civil War Trust said, in their letter supporting
this legislation, ``The battlefields of the American
Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 and the Civil War provide
a unique opportunity for Americans to experience the epic
battles that helped define our nation.''
Preserving these historic treasures is essential to
remember the sacrifices of our ancestors--that our ancestors
made to secure our freedom and independence.
Historical sites once lost are gone forever. And we really
must act now to preserve these valuable sites. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask unanimous consent to enter in the record
letters of support for this legislation from the Civil War
Trust, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the
Crossroads of the American Revolution.
And I thank--with--if you will grant that request, I would
appreciate it. And I thank you, Chairman, for bringing forward
this legislation.
Mr. Bishop. Without objection, those will be added to the
record.
[The letters from the Civil War Trust, Crossroads of the
American Revolution Association, and National Parks
Conservation Association follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bishop. We appreciate your testimony. If you hadn't
added that plug for the second bill, you would have been under
time, too. Appreciate that.
With that, I am going to try and save some time and combine
the second and the third panels together. So I would invite--I
think the staff needs to put a couple more chairs up there--I
would invite the following to join us up at the dais, as well.
Or not the dais, the panel down there.
If I can get Mr. Bob Ratcliffe, who is the deputy assistant
director for renewable resources and planning at the BLM; Ms.
Susan Recce, who is the director of conservation, wildlife, and
natural resources with the National Rifle Association; Mr.
Peter May, who is the associate regional director for the
National Park Service; Mr. Adam Baacke, who is the assistant
city manager and director of planning in Lowell, Massachusetts;
Mr. Edwin Fountain, who is the director of the World War I
Memorial Foundation; Mr. Nelson Rimensnyder, who is the
historian with The Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the
District of Columbia; and Mr. David Hackett Fischer, who is a
university professor at Brandeis University. And I realize I am
squishing you together there. Mr. Ratcliffe, if I can have you
kind of move down a bit, everyone slide slightly here. This way
we have seven people at the table.
We are going to go through these, bill by bill. So, some of
you, like Mr. Ratcliffe, Ms. Recce, and Mr. May, I am assuming,
are talking about multiple bills. What I would like you to do
is try and ferret out that portion of your testimony that deals
with each bill as we go through them. We will take that
testimony, and then we will allow questions from the panel, if
there are any for those particular bills.
So, let us start once again now with the first one from
which we heard, which was Mr. Franks's bill, 919. And once
again, for all of you who are here, I appreciate your
testimony. Whether you are talking about one bill or multiple
bills, written testimony has already been included. We ask you
to limit everything to a maximum of five minutes. Obviously, if
you want to go less than that, you are more than welcome to do
that.
You will see the timers in front of you. Please notice that
when the light turns yellow you have one minute left. And when
it turns red, the time has expired.
May we start with Mr. Ratcliffe? If you would, give us your
remarks simply to House bill 919 by Mr. Franks.
STATEMENT OF BOB RATCLIFFE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva.
H.R. 919 transfers 315 acres of public lands within Mohave
Valley of Arizona to the Arizona Game and Fish Department for
use as a public shooting range.
The BLM supports the goals of this bill, but opposes the
legislation as currently drafted.
After 10-plus years of negotiation with the Arizona Game
and Fish Department, interested tribes, the public, and the BLM
are nearing completion of the administrative process to
transfer land under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
Our decision includes important mitigation measures which
are not included in the current legislation.
If the Congress chooses to legislate this conveyance, the
BLM looks forward to working with the Subcommittee on
improvements to the bill that include changes to section 3(b),
mitigation measures to address tribal concerns, protection of
valid existing rights, as well as a cause to allow the lands to
revert back to the BLM if they are not being used consistent
with the R&PP Act.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Ratcliffe follow:]
Statement of Bob Ratcliffe, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources & Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 919, Mohave Valley Land Conveyance Act of 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 919, the Mohave
Valley Land Conveyance Act of 2011, which proposes to transfer 315
acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) for use as a public
shooting range. The BLM supports the goals of H.R. 919, but opposes the
legislation as currently drafted. The BLM notes that the agency is
nearing completion of the administrative process to accomplish the
transfer, but its decision for the authorization includes important
mitigation measures which are not in the current legislation.
For the past ten years, the BLM has been working with the AGFD, the
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, and the public to find
appropriate lands for a public shooting range within the Mohave Valley
in Arizona. On February 10, 2010, the BLM made the decision to
authorize the transfer of BLM lands to the AGFD (through the Recreation
and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.;
R&PP) for use as a public shooting range. The decision, which is
consistent with the goals of H.R. 919, provides a safe, designated
shooting area for the public, and includes stipulations designed to
respect the traditional beliefs of the Fort Mojave and Hualapai Tribes.
The BLM will continue working with interested parties as we move
forward with authorizing the shooting range.
Background
In 1999, the AGFD first submitted an application to the BLM for
development of a public shooting range on BLM-managed lands in Mohave
County, near Bullhead City in northwestern Arizona. As a result, the
BLM began working with the AGFD and other interested parties to assess
appropriate lands to transfer to the AGFD for the purposes of a
shooting range under the R&PP.
The BLM evaluated the AGFD's application through an environmental
assessment (EA) and considered numerous alternative locations
throughout the Mohave Valley. The evaluation process was conducted with
full public and tribal participation. There is an identified need for a
designated public shooting range in this region because of the lack of
a nearby facility, the amount of dispersed recreational shooting
occurring on public and private lands raising public safety concerns,
and the associated natural resource impacts from spent ammunition and
associated waste.
In 2002, the BLM began consultations with the Fort Mojave Indian
Tribe and the Hualapai Tribe. In 2003, the BLM initiated consultation
with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); and in
2006, the BLM initiated Section 106 consultation with the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). These consultations, as
required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
other authorities, ensure Federal agencies consider the effects of
their actions on historic properties, and provide the ACHP and SHPO an
opportunity to comment on Federal projects prior to implementation.
In addition to the Section 106 consultation process, the BLM
initiated a year-long Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process in
2004 to help identify issues, stakeholder perspectives, and additional
alternatives to meet the criteria for a safe and effective public
shooting range in the Mohave Valley. However, the ADR process failed to
reconcile differences between several consulting parties regarding a
proposed location.
In 2006, as part of continued Section 106 consultation with the
ACHP, the BLM initiated site visits by the concerned parties and also
continued efforts to identify alternative sites. Unfortunately, despite
these efforts, the BLM was unable to reach an agreement with the
consulted Tribes on any area within the Mohave Valley that the Tribes
would find acceptable for a shooting range. The Tribes maintained their
position that there is no place suitable within the Mohave Valley,
which encompasses approximately 140 square miles between Bullhead City,
Arizona, and Needles, California.
Through the EA process, the BLM identified the Boundary Cone Road
alternative to be the preferred location. Boundary Cone Butte, a highly
visible mountain on the eastern edge of the Mohave Valley, lies
approximately 3 miles east of the Boundary Cone Road site, and is of
cultural, religious, and traditional importance to both the Fort Mojave
Indian Tribe and the Hualapai Tribe. In an effort to address the
primary concerns expressed by the Tribes over visual and sound issues,
the BLM and AGFD developed a set of potential mitigation measures.
Again, there was a failure to agree between the consulting parties on
possible mitigation. In the end, the BLM formally terminated the
Section 106 process with the ACHP in September 2008. In November 2008,
ACHP provided their final comments in a letter from the Chairman of the
ACHP to then-Secretary of the Interior Kempthorne.
Although the Section 106 process was terminated, the BLM continued
government-to-government consultations with the Tribes. In May of 2009,
the BLM met with the Chairman of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the
AGFD, and the Tri-State Shooting Club in a renewed effort to find a
solution. On February 3, 2010, after continued efforts to reach a
mutually agreeable solution, the BLM presented the decision to approve
the shooting range to the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the AGFD. The
final decision included mitigation measures to address the concerns of
the Tribes such as reducing the amount of actual ground disturbance;
reducing noise levels with berm construction; monitoring and annual
reporting on noise levels; and fencing to avoid culturally sensitive
areas. The Secretary has the authority to take action to revest title
to the land covered by the proposed R&PP patent if the AGFD fails to
comply with mitigation measures. The final decision to amend the
Kingman Resource Management Plan and dispose of the lands through the
R&PP was signed on February 10, 2010.
The BLM decision was appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals
(IBLA) on February 23, 2010, by a private landowner near the proposed
shooting range; and on March 15, 2010, a joint appeal by the Fort
Mojave Indian Tribe and Hualapai Tribe was filed. The IBLA dismissed
the appeal of the private landowner on July 29, 2010. The IBLA issued a
stay of the BLM decision on April 15, 2010, at the request of the
Tribes. A final decision by the IBLA on the Tribes' appeal was issued
on December 7, 2010 (180 IBLA 158). The IBLA affirmed the BLM's
decisions and determined that the BLM had taken a ``hard look'' at the
impacts of conveying public lands to the AGFD for a shooting range. The
IBLA decision stated that the EA had an appropriate range of
alternatives and the environmental consequences were insignificant or
if significant could be reduced or eliminated by mitigation. The IBLA
also confirmed that the BLM complied with National Historic
Preservation Act obligations. This decision allows the BLM to move
forward in conveying the public lands to the AGFD.
On December 21, 2010, the BLM informed the AGFD of the next steps
for processing the administrative action of conveying the land for the
shooting range. The AGFD is required to: (1) purchase the mineral
estate or obtain a non-development agreement for the Santa Fe Railroad
mineral estate (390 acres) under the disposal and buffer lands; (2)
provide a detailed Plan of Development (POD) that addresses the
mitigation measures found in the BLM's Decision Record; (3) develop a
Cooperative Management Agreement with the BLM for the 470-acre buffer
area; and (4) provide the funds ($3,150) for purchase of the property.
It is the BLM's understanding that the AGFD obtained a non-development
agreement with Santa Fe Railroad in December 2011. The BLM has reviewed
the detailed POD that addresses the mitigation measures in the decision
and is currently reviewing the Cooperative Management Agreement
provided by the AGFD. Once the Agreement is signed, the BLM will
prepare the conveyance documents and then transfer the property to
AGFD. The BLM expects to convey the land to the AGFD in spring 2012.
H.R. 919
H.R. 919 provides for the conveyance at no cost to the AGFD of all
right, title, and interest to the approximately 315 acres of BLM-
managed public lands as identified in the final decision signed by the
BLM on February 10, 2010, to be used as a public shooting range.
Furthermore, the legislation makes a determination that the February
10, 2010, Record of Decision is ``final and determined to be legally
sufficient'' and ``not be subject to judicial review.''
As a matter of policy, the BLM supports working with local
governments, tribes, and other stakeholders to resolve land tenure
issues that advance worthwhile public policy objectives. The BLM
acknowledges the lands proposed for development as a shooting range are
of cultural, religious, and traditional significance to the Tribes
which is why we support important mitigation measures. The bill as
drafted does not include such mitigation measures. In general, the BLM
supports the goals of the proposed conveyance, as it is similar to the
transfer the BLM has been addressing through its administrative process
for the last ten years. As noted, a decision has been made through the
BLM administrative process and the IBLA affirmed the BLM decision,
thereby dismissing the Tribes appeal that the BLM did not comply with
various environmental laws. Under the provisions of H.R. 919, judicial
review would be prohibited. The BLM will continue working to complete
the conveyance of the lands to the AGFD for a shooting range.
If the Congress chooses to legislate this conveyance, the BLM would
recommend some improvements to the bill, including changes to section
3(b), the incorporation of mitigation measures to address Tribal
concerns, protection of valid existing rights, as well as a clause to
allow the lands to revert back to the BLM at the discretion of the
Secretary if the lands are not being used consistent with the purposes
allowed in the R&PP Act. The BLM would like to work with the sponsor
and the Committee to create an appropriate map that identifies the
Federal land to be conveyed to AGFD.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Resolution of this
conveyance in a manner that is acceptable to all parties has been an
important goal of the BLM as evidenced by more than ten years of
negotiations and review. The BLM is confident the issued decision
addresses the concerns of the interested parties, while providing
critical recreational opportunities and benefits to the public.
______
Statement of Bob Ratcliffe, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of
the Interior, on H.R. 3411, Modification of Patent for Whitefish Point
Light Station (Michigan)
Thank you for the invitation to present testimony on H.R. 3411,
legislation to modify a land patent pertaining to the Whitefish Point
Light Station (Michigan). Although the Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM) role under the legislation is ministerial, preservation of
historic lighthouses such as the Whitefish Point Light Station is a
priority for the Department of the Interior. The BLM supports H.R.
3411.
Background
In the late 18th and 19th centuries, the United States built a
series of lighthouses in and around Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake
Superior to aid in navigation of the Great Lakes. The role played by
these lighthouses in the westward expansion and economic growth of the
United States is part of our national heritage, with ships and
shipwrecks recalled in story and song. The Great Lakes lighthouses--
including the Whitefish Point Light Station at issue in H.R. 3411--are
listed on the National Register of Historic Properties.
The U.S. Coast Guard retains responsibility for aid to navigation
in the Great Lakes, as it (or its predecessor, the Revenue Marine) has
since 1790. In the mid-1990s, concerns reached the Congress that the
Coast Guard, in carrying out its mission in the Great Lakes, was unable
to assure preservation of the historic lighthouses. Interest in
preserving the Whitefish Point Light Station led the Congress, in 1996,
to convey land adjacent to the Light Station to two non-profit
organizations dedicated to conservation and historic preservation--an
8.27 acre parcel to the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society
(Historical Society) and a 2.69 acre parcel to the Michigan Audubon
Society (Audubon Society) of Chippewa County--and a 33 acre parcel to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (Public Law 104-208, Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1997, Section 5505).
This law contains limitations on development at the historic
lighthouse, and explicitly requires compliance with the ``Whitefish
Point Comprehensive Plan of October 1992.'' The patents the BLM issued
under this authority (including the most recent, number 61-2000-0007,
issued March 10, 2000, to the Historical Society) contain this
reference.
In 1999, the Audubon Society brought suit against the Historical
Society and the FWS over plans to develop a museum at the site. The
parties reached a settlement agreement under which the three groups
developed the ``Human Use/Natural Resource Plan for Whitefish Point,
December 2002,'' to supersede the Whitefish Point Comprehensive Plan of
1992.
H.R. 3411
H.R. 3411 directs the Secretary of the Interior to modify patent
number 61-2000-0007 by striking reference to the Whitefish Point
Comprehensive Plan of October 1992 and inserting the ``Human Use/
Natural Resource Plan for Whitefish Point, dated December 2002.'' H.R.
3411 affirms the applicability of the National Historic Preservation
Act to the Whitefish Point Light Station. H.R. 3411 requires that the
property be used in a manner that does not impair or interfere with its
conservation values. The BLM supports this legislation.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of
H.R. 3411.
______
Statement of Bob Ratcliffe, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of
the Interior, on H.R. 3440
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM's) views on H.R. 3440, the Recreational Shooting
Protection Act. The Department of the Interior strongly supports the
goal of promoting opportunities for outdoor recreation, including
recreational shooting on America's public lands. The BLM is responsible
for the protection of resources and multiple-use management of our
Nation's 245 million acres of public land. The vast majority of these
public lands are open to recreational shooting.
H.R. 3440 would replace the BLM's locally driven land-use planning
and management with top-down oversight and intervention from
Washington, as it relates to placing limits on recreational shooting in
National Monuments. The BLM's multiple-use mission is best achieved
when land management issues are handled locally through its site-
specific land-use planning and public involvement processes. Since H.R.
3440 would overturn this critical local management structure, and
because the bill also could potentially jeopardize public safety and
our ability to protect resources, the Department of the Interior
opposes the measure.
Background
The BLM manages the public lands for a variety of uses, including
energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber
harvesting, while protecting an array of natural, cultural, and
historical resources. The Bureau's multiple-use management activities
are authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)
and a host of other statutes. Management of specific, local areas is
shaped by public input through the land use planning process authorized
by FLPMA and through environmental review documents required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Approximately 4.8 million acres of BLM-managed public lands have
been designated as 16 National Monuments. These Monuments are managed
in accordance with FLPMA and other authorities, and comprise part of
the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS).
The National Monuments managed by the BLM encompass landscapes of
tremendous beauty and diversity, ranging from rugged California
coastline to vividly-hued desert canyons. They exemplify not only our
landscape, but our character as a nation. They include irreplaceable
and fragile national treasures such as Pompey's Pillar in Montana, the
site of William Clark's 1806 signature on the face of the 150-foot
butte, named for Sacagawea's son and the only tangible evidence left
from Lewis and Clark's historic expedition; the Canyon of the Ancients
in Colorado, which has the highest known density of archaeological
sites in the nation; and Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks in New Mexico with its
delicate, boulder-capped, tapering volcanic hoodoo formations in banded
shades of gray and pink.
The BLM estimates that well over 95 percent of the 245 million
acres of BLM-managed public lands are open to recreational shooting. Of
the BLM's 4.8 million acres of National Monument lands, currently 88
percent are open to recreational shooting. While the BLM lands are open
to hunting virtually everywhere the individual states allow it, the
agency must occasionally restrict recreational target shooting in
extremely limited circumstances to ensure public safety or protect
fragile resources. Restrictions on recreational shooting are determined
through extensive analysis as part of the BLM's land-use planning
process which is informed by local public input. Typically,
recreational shooting closures include: administrative sites,
campgrounds, and other developed facilities; certain areas with
intensive energy, industrial, or mineral operations; lands near
residential or community development; or areas with significant and
sensitive natural or cultural resources. When lands are closed to
recreational shooting, those restrictions are often implemented to
comply with state and local public safety laws and ordinances, or are
implemented at the request of local communities or other adjacent
private property owners.
Any consideration of closures or restrictions on BLM-managed lands
is completed through the BLM's public participation framework for
planning and decision making established under FLPMA and NEPA. Through
public comments and scoping periods, land use actions are guided and
shaped by the public input. This is an open process through which BLM's
proposals for managing particular resources are made known to the
public before management action is taken, except in certain emergency
situations. The BLM responds to substantive comments received from the
public and stakeholders on the proposed management action during the
NEPA public review process.
H.R. 3440
The Department of the Interior opposes H.R. 3440 as it runs counter
to the BLM's fundamental and locally-driven land-use planning and
management processes, and potentially jeopardizes public safety. H.R.
3440 declares that recreational shooting shall be allowed in National
Monuments administered by the BLM, except if the BLM Director
determines that restrictions on shooting are necessary for reasons of
public safety, national security, or to comply with a Federal statute.
The bill requires the BLM Director to publish public notice of all
pending closures and provide a detailed report to Congress before, or
in certain cases, no later than 30 days after, a closure. Under the
bill, closures would be limited to six months unless specifically
enacted into law by Congress.
Currently, any determination to close public lands to recreational
shooting activities is made by the BLM local or State Office following
detailed analysis and extensive public involvement and notification,
including contacting over 40 hunting and fishing interest non-
government organizations, as specified in the Federal Land Hunting,
Fishing and Shooting Sports Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU). For example, in 2010 the BLM made a decision to close the
70,000-acre Agua Fria National Monument near Phoenix to recreational
shooting in order to protect sensitive cultural and biological
resources. This was accomplished with the support of the Shooting
Sports Roundtable, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and local
recreationists, in conjunction with a decision to enhance opportunities
to allow recreational shooting on the adjacent 900,000 acres of public
lands outside the Monument. H.R. 3440 strips local BLM managers of
their ability to make such closure decisions at a local level,
dismisses the time and effort contributed by members of the public who
participate in the public planning process, and shifts responsibility
thousands of miles away in Washington to the BLM Director and to
Congress.
H.R. 3440 also removes all existing recreational shooting
restrictions or closures in National Monuments under BLM jurisdiction.
Enactment of the bill could result in the automatic repeal of all
current closures and restrictions for recreational shooting, even those
that are the result of collaborative resource management plans
developed with extensive public input. Any such blanket repeal of
closures may jeopardize public safety and property. The bill makes no
reference or exception to restrictions or closures consistent with
State laws or local regulations which may restrict recreational
shooting. This could undermine local cooperative relationships in rural
areas where BLM Law Enforcement Rangers work closely with Counties.
The effects of the bill are far-reaching, and could potentially
jeopardize public safety on the public lands. Consider, for example, a
BLM Field Manager who is evaluating whether to establish a restriction
or closure to recreational shooting to reduce the risk of wildfire from
ammunition strike. Recent examples of such public land wildfires
initiated by recreational shooting include the 12,000-acre Lakeside
fire that occurred this past summer 45 miles west of Salt Lake City,
Utah, with an estimated suppression cost of $800,000. In addition in
2009 the Sand Hollow fire in Idaho burned 864 acres of public land and
caused over $400,000 in damages. The risk of wildfire from recreational
target shooting is real and local Field Managers should have every tool
available to them, including permanent, temporary, or seasonal
closures, to manage resources and reduce the likelihood of wildfire and
protect communities and resources at the local level.
Under H.R. 3440, regardless of on-the-ground conditions, only the
BLM Director in Washington could issue such a closure. Furthermore,
under the bill, such closures would cease after six months, never to be
issued again--even to prevent wildfires--unless Congress approves the
closure by enacting it into law. Providing for public safety should not
be a temporary, six-month consideration in public land management.
Conclusion
H.R. 3440 establishes a remote and unwieldy framework for the
management of nearly five million acres of public land--thus tying the
hands of a multiple-use land management agency striving to provide for
public safety with timely responses to on-the-ground conditions,
informed by local input.
The BLM looks forward to continuing its work with the Congress and
stakeholders in promoting and facilitating safe recreational shooting
opportunities on lands administered by the BLM. Thank you for the
opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 3440. I would be glad to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Recce on 919.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN RECCE, DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
Ms. Recce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to
testify. I can make this short and sweet.
The NRA supports H.R. 919. It has been some 13 years, as
was stated previously, since the community of Bullhead City
lost its shooting range on BLM land. The required NEPA work has
been completed. And it is time to move forward to build this
much-needed range.
I will point out that several years ago Congress passed a
similar bill which accelerated the transfer of BLM land in
Nevada to Clark County for a shooting range, 3,000 acres of BLM
land. And so this is not breaking new ground. But NRA does
fully support it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Susan Recce follows:]
Statement of Susan Recce, Director of Conservation, Wildlife and
Natural Resources, National Rifle Association, on H.R. 3440
``Recreational Shooting Protection Act'' and H.R. 919 ``Mohave Valley
Land Conveyance Act''
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear today in
support of enactment of H.R. 3440 and H.R. 919, two bills that are
necessary for the present and future protection and enhancement of
recreational shooting on federal public lands.
Recreational shooting is a historic, traditional and legitimate
activity on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Thousands of NRA's members and unaffiliated hunters and shooters depend
upon informal and formal places to shoot on BLM lands, especially in
the western states where their communities are surrounded by federal
lands.
People need places to go not only for the sheer enjoyment of target
shooting, but also to teach family members and friends the safe and
responsible use of firearms. Hunters need places to practice
marksmanship skills and to sight-in their hunting rifles.
In its most recent management plan for a national monument, the BLM
acknowledged that the need for places to shoot is growing as the
interest in this recreational activity expands, but that urban
encroachment on private lands is making it difficult to find places to
target shoot. The plan noted that the population growth and subsequent
urbanization of the American West has caused edges of property to
become closer, the outskirts of communities more crowded, remote areas
fewer, and closures to recreational shooting more common.
In response to these demographic changes, the BLM's preferred
alternative in the management plan for the Sonoran Desert National
Monument (AZ) is to close the entire 500,000-acre monument to
recreational shooting. The release of the Sonoran Desert plan followed
on the heels of BLM's announcement that it was intending to close the
entire Ironwood Forest National Monument (AZ) to recreational shooting.
H.R. 3440 is needed to stop this progression of monument closures
by the BLM. There is no restriction against recreational shooting in
any Act that has designated specific BLM lands as national monuments.
However, the BLM has taken it upon itself to declare that recreational
shooting should be excluded from national monuments.
BLM managers have been open about this discriminatory and anti-gun
attitude in the press. The Ironwood Forest manager stated that closing
the monument was ``an appropriate management choice.'' The Sonoran
Desert manager told the press that ``The monument's not an appropriate
place to have recreational target shooting.'' Both statements were made
during the public comment period which not only prejudiced the review
process, but signaled that monument closure was a conclusion BLM
intended to reach regardless of public comment received. In neither
management plan was consideration given to leaving open any of the
scores of sites that had long been used by target shooters.
The Ironwood Forest and the Sonoran Desert are just two national
monuments that BLM has closed. Excluding Sonoran Desert which is still
in the planning stage, the BLM has closed nearly 1.3 million acres to
the shooting public in recent years.
The BLM has stated that the designation of a national monument
requires a greater level of resource protection. But resource
protection is not the real issue. The real issue is that the BLM is
choosing not to recognize and manage shooting as a legitimate
recreational activity and is using the designation of national monument
as a means to escape this management responsibility.
Safety has also been used as an excuse for closures. In justifying
the closure of Ironwood Forest, a BLM spokesperson said that the
agency's desire was to promote a safe environment for all visitors.
This statement was made in spite of the incontrovertible fact that
recreational shooting has one of the lowest incidents of injuries and
deaths of any recreational activity conducted on public lands.
Target shooters would also like to recreate in a safe environment,
but no environment can be safe for any visitor unless BLM steps up to
its management responsibilities. In the face of a documented need to
find safe places for the public to shoot, BLM's response is to be an
advocate for more closure.
The BLM justifies closures by stating that there are millions of
acres of public lands remaining open for target shooting. However, none
of the monument plans has ever evaluated the impact of land closures on
access (travel distance and roads) and opportunities for the displaced
shooters. None of the plans has ever analyzed the impact of forcing
shooters onto other lands and how the increase in shooters would affect
the safe use of sites elsewhere.
It is clear that the BLM is using the designation of national
monument to eliminate a recreational activity it does not want to
manage. In my opinion, the BLM is keeping other lands open to
recreational shooting until such time as it can find an excuse or
opportunity to close them. Right now, the agency believes that national
monument designation gives them carte blanche to close vast acreages to
recreational shooting.
Closing public lands to shooters thrusts management
responsibilities upon the states and other federal land agencies to
respond to what the BLM so pointedly acknowledges as the need to find
places to accommodate the growing number of people who enjoy target
shooting. H.R. 3440 is necessary to end BLM's prejudicial treatment of
recreational shooting and to manage this recreational activity with the
same attention it gives to all other recreational activities on public
lands.
In turning to H.R. 919, the NRA fully supports the legislative
transfer of certain BLM-managed lands in Mojave County to the Arizona
Game and Fish Department for the purpose of building a public shooting
facility. This will not be the first time that a transfer of BLM lands
for such purpose has been legislated by Congress. Congress previously
transferred 3,000 acres of BLM land to Clark County, NV to create a
shooting park. It has been 14 years since the community of Bullhead
City lost its shooting range. The required NEPA work has been completed
on the new site. H.R. 919 is intended to get the spade in the ground to
build the much-needed shooting range and the NRA supports the sponsor's
intent to make that happen.
This concludes my remarks. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to
testify on two bills of importance to hunters and recreational
shooters.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. As I understand none of the others
have testimony on 919. So we will turn to the Committee if they
have any questions. I will allow the Ranking Member to go
first, if he wishes to.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, let me. Mr. Ratcliffe, thank you. Can
you talk to us about the current status of the Mohave land
conveyance, and what has happened with Arizona Game and Fish in
this last year?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir--
Mr. Grijalva. Also under this legislation, what obligation
would Arizona Game and Fish have to the tribes for any
negotiated mitigation measures?
Mr. Ratcliffe. We are very close to completion of the
conveyance. We expect it to be completed in the spring of this
year. We have been working with Arizona Game and Fish closely
on a number of related mitigation measures with the tribes,
including closure during certain ceremonial times
So, I think we are very close. We are now--the conveyance
itself is sitting with the Arizona Game and Fish Department for
finalizing the conveyance.
Mr. Grijalva. And the sufficiency language, that would
exempt Arizona Game and Fish from litigation if they fail to
provide any of the negotiated mitigation? Is that one of the
areas that you pointed out?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. And that is problematic to you?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, in the proposed legislation there are
concerns that--over the mineral rights in the Santa Fe
Railroad, as well as whether or not the tribal mitigation
measures could be enforced.
The other issue is that the lands, if they weren't used for
the shooting range ultimately, there is no reversionary clause
to allow the lands to come back--
Mr. Grijalva. I was going to ask you about that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. So that would--the lands would--what would
happen if it didn't materialize into a shooting range?
Mr. Ratcliffe. If it didn't, under the current legislation
it remains the property of the State of Arizona.
Mr. Grijalva. And so the areas in which you said, if this
legislation moves forward, those are the areas that you are
speaking of, in terms of--
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is correct. We would like to see the--
Mr. Grijalva. The sufficiency clause--
Mr. Ratcliffe. Sufficiency and mitigation concerns,
especially the tribal ones.
Mr. Grijalva. In support of the legislation, Ms. Recce,
those points that just--that Mr. Ratcliffe just brought up in
response to my question, you see those as significant
obstacles, or issues that should be dealt with?
Ms. Recce. I think those issues need to be addressed with
the state. I don't see them as significant obstacles--
Mr. Grijalva. But if the legislation exempts the state from
having to carry out any of the negotiated mitigation that we
are talking about with the conveyance now, there is no
empowerment to do that.
Ms. Recce. In the past, it has been typical for these kinds
of contracts to require the land to be reverted back to the
Federal agency if the purpose for which it was transferred
isn't fulfilled. But--and so, I don't see that the NRA has any
issue if that language was put in. And I would trust that the
state wouldn't either, because it is typical language.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. I don't have any further questions. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Holt, do you have questions on this bill,
Ms. Tsongas on this bill?
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask just a couple of questions, Mr.
Ratcliffe, on this particular one.
I am assuming there was a record of decision on the Mohave
shooting range.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. When was that?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was earlier this year, I believe.
Mr. Bishop. This year?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes. Or was it late last year?
Mr. Bishop. OK. Did the record of--
Mr. Ratcliffe. February 2010.
Mr. Bishop. 2010. Did the record of decision for the
shooting range address mitigation?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Has there been litigation on this issue?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No.
Mr. Bishop. OK. With that, I have actually no other
questions on this particular bill. With that, I appreciate the
testimony on this bill. We ask you to stay here, because
obviously there are some other issues that will be coming up.
Let us turn our attention to H.R. 938 by Representative
Poe. It is the Frank Buckles World War I Memorial Act. On this
one, 938, I believe Mr. May, you are testifying on the part of
the Park Service on this particular Act.
STATEMENT OF PETER MAY, ASSOCIATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CAPITAL REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. May. Yes. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before the Subcommittee to present the Department of
the Interior's views on four National Park Service bills on
today's agenda. I would like to submit our full statements for
these bills to the record, and summarize the Department's
positions. And we will do that one by one.
H.R. 938 would establish the World War I Centennial
Commission and designate memorials to the service of men and
women of the United States in World War I. The Department
appreciates the sponsor's recognition of the sacrifices of
Americans who served in World War I. The Department shares the
sponsor's sentiment on this subject, and would like to continue
working with the Congress on appropriate ways to recognize that
service.
This is an important era in American history, and that has
been honored through a number of monuments throughout the
nation. Unfortunately, there has been no study to determine
which of the various World War I memorials in the United States
would be best suited to be named as the official national World
War I Memorial, and the bill conflicts with the Commemorative
Works Act, which was enacted to govern the establishment and
placement of memorials in the Nation's capital so as to protect
existing memorials, open space, and the historic vistas of this
iconic area.
For these reasons, the Department has serious concerns with
H.R. 938, and we would like to work with the Committee to
address our concerns.
The Department defers to the General Services
Administration on the establishment of a World War I Centennial
Commission, as this is a responsibility that would not fall
under the purview of the National Park Service.
[The prepared statements of Mr. May follow:]
Statement of Peter May, Associate Regional Director, Lands, Resources
and Planning, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
on H.R. 938, To Establish a Commission to Ensure a Suitable Observance
of the Centennial of World War I and to Designate Memorials to the
Service of Men and Women of the United States in World War I.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior (Department) regarding H.R. 938, a bill
to establish a World War I Centennial Commission and to designate
memorials to the service of men and women of the United States in World
War I.
The Department appreciates the sponsors' recognition of the
sacrifices of Americans who served in World War I. The Department
shares the sponsors' sentiment on this subject and would like to
continue working with Congress on appropriate ways to recognize that
service. This is an important era in American history that has been
honored through a number of monuments throughout the nation.
Unfortunately, there has been no study to determine which of the
various World War I Memorials in the United States would be best suited
to be named as the official National World War I Memorial, and the bill
conflicts with the Commemorative Works Act (the Act), which was enacted
to govern the establishment and placement of memorials in the Nation's
Capital so as to protect existing memorials, open space and the
historic vistas in this iconic area. For these reasons, the Department
has serious concerns with H.R. 938 and we would like to work with the
Committee to address our concerns.
The Department defers to the General Services Administration on the
establishment of the World War I Centennial Commission as this
responsibility would not fall under the purview of the National Park
Service.
H.R. 938 would authorize the World War I Memorial Foundation
(Foundation) to establish a commemorative work rededicating the
existing District of Columbia War Memorial as the ``District of
Columbia and National World War I Memorial'' by adding an appropriate
sculptural or other commemorative element deemed appropriate to reflect
the character of a national memorial.
The District of Columbia War Veterans Memorial (D.C. War Memorial)
was authorized by Congress on June 7, 1924, to commemorate the citizens
of the District of Columbia who served in World War I. The memorial was
funded both by organizations and citizens of the District of Columbia.
Construction of the memorial began in the spring of 1931 and it was
dedicated by President Herbert Hoover on November 11, 1931. It was the
first war memorial to be erected in West Potomac Park and remains the
only local District of Columbia memorial on the National Mall. The
memorial is a contributing structure in East and West Potomac Parks
entry in the National Register of Historic Places.
The memorial was designed by Washington architect Frederick H.
Brooke, with Horace W. Peaslee and Nathan C. Wyeth as associate
architects, and inscribed on the base of the Memorial are the names of
the 499 District of Columbia citizens who lost their lives in the war.
The Memorial was designed to be used as a bandstand and is large enough
to hold an 80-member band. Concerts were held there until May 1, 1960.
For many years, its visitors were likely those who were there to enjoy
its peaceful and contemplative setting. Today, as a result of the
recent and considerable investment of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act funds, $7.3 million, the memorial's original material,
landscaping and character have been restored and rehabilitated and as
announced at its re-dedication on Veteran's Day 2011, it will again be
the focus of District of Columbia commemorative activities. And while
this memorial is dedicated to District residents, there have long been
several national World War I memorials in the District that are also
located in the prime area known as the Reserve.
A national memorial to World War I veterans is located in Pershing
Park, on Pennsylvania Avenue between 14th and 15th Avenues, in
Washington, D.C. near the White House. This memorial, constructed by
the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation and the ABMC, includes
a statue of General Pershing, as well as artwork detailing the major
battles in World War I that involved U.S. troops. This commemorative
work represents all who served in that conflict. Quotations on this
existing World War I Memorial include General Pershing's tribute to the
officers and men of the American Expeditionary Forces of World War I
and a commemoration of those who served in the United States Navy in
World War I. Veterans of World War I are also honored by the 1st
Division and 2nd Division Memorials, also located near the White House.
Just a few blocks from these World War I memorials, H.R. 938 would
effectively supplant the intent of the D.C. War Memorial's sponsors who
lived through that war, the citizens and organizations of the District,
who advocated for and funded this memorial to honor their family
members, friends and neighbors who served and died in World War I.
Superimposing another subject on an existing memorial, particularly if
new features are added, is an encroachment prohibited by the
Commemorative Works Act. Moreover, adding this new commemoration
contradicts the Act's concept of the Reserve, which honors the National
Mall as a completed work of civic art where no more memorials are to be
placed. Section 8908 of the Act precludes the addition of new memorials
in the Reserve, defined as the great cross-axis of the Mall, from the
United States Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, and the White House to
the Jefferson Memorial.
In addition, H.R. 938 exempts this proposal from key provisions
that are at the heart of the Commemorative Works Act. If a new memorial
is proposed, Section 8905 of that Act requires the site and design for
the new memorial be developed in a public process, first obtaining the
advice of the NCMAC and then obtaining approvals by the National
Capital Planning Commission and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.
The site for the Liberty Memorial at the National World War I
Museum, in Kansas City, Missouri, was dedicated in 1921. The ceremony
was attended by over 200,000 people, including General John J.
Pershing, General John J. Lejeune, Ferdinand Foch, Admiral David
Beatty, and military leaders from Belgium, Italy, and Serbia. In 1926,
President Calvin Coolidge delivered the keynote address at the
Memorial's dedication. The memorial and surrounding grounds were
completed in 1938. The 108th Congress designated the museum at the base
of the Liberty Memorial as the ``National World War I Museum of the
United States.''
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
______
Statement of Peter May, Associate Regional Director, Lands, Resources
and Planning, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
on H.R. 1278, A Bill to Direct the Secretary of the Interior to Conduct
a Special Resource Study Regarding the Suitability and Feasibility of
Designating the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park and Other Sites
in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Relating to the 1921 Race Riot as a Unit of the
National Park System, and for Other Purposes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
1278, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study regarding the suitability and feasibility of
designating the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park and other sites
in Tulsa, Oklahoma, relating to the 1921 Tulsa race riot as a unit of
the National Park System and, for other purposes.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation. However, we
feel that priority should be given to the 37 previously authorized
studies for potential units of the National Park System, potential new
National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails
System and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have not yet
been transmitted to Congress.
The Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa witnessed one of the most
violent episodes of racial conflict in the early 20th century. On May
31, 1921, a white mob entered the city's segregated African-American
community and burned more than 35 city blocks of residences and
businesses. Rioters destroyed approximately 70% of Greenwood's
residential area and virtually the entire business district. An unknown
number of people, somewhere between 36 and 300, lost their lives; more
than 700 were injured; and nearly 9,000 African Americans were left
homeless.
The riot was sparked by the conflict that occurred after the arrest
of an African-American youth, Dick Rowland. He was accused of
assaulting a white teenaged girl in a public elevator on May 30.
Rowland was arrested the next day, May 31, and was held in custody in
the Tulsa County Courthouse. That evening, an angry white mob of more
than 2,000 men confronted about 75 armed African-American men outside
the downtown courthouse.
When a white man attempted to forcibly disarm an African-American
World War I veteran, a struggle ensued and a gun was fired. Almost
immediately, members of the white mob opened fire. The African-American
men returned the volleys and retreated from downtown to the Greenwood
neighborhood with the armed white men in close pursuit. Within hours,
much of Greenwood was in flames.
Order was not restored until the following day when a special train
carrying 110 soldiers of the Oklahoma City-based National Guard
arrived. By then, most of the damage to property and loss of life had
already occurred. The case against Dick Rowland was dismissed in
September, 1921.
The National Park Service completed a reconnaissance survey of the
1921 Tulsa race riot in 2005. The report concluded that the riot is
nationally significant because of the potential ability to illustrate
and interpret a tragic and important chapter in the history of the
United States. Despite the substantial loss of historic fabric and
setting, key historic resources, including the Greenwood Cultural
Center, Mt. Zion Baptist Church (listed on the National Register of
Historic Places), Vernon Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church,
Greenwood Avenue, Frisco and Santa Fe Railroad tracks, and the site of
the Royal Hotel have survived.
The John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park is an important element
in a memorial of the 1921 Tulsa race riot. The reconciliation park,
established in 2001, tells the story of African Americans' role in
building Oklahoma and contributes to a more full account of Oklahoma's
history. It is named for John Hope Franklin, who was born in Oklahoma
in 1915 and graduated from the then-segregated Booker T. Washington
High School. Franklin went on to graduate from Harvard University and
became a noted historian and writer. He died in 2009.
Collectively, these resources warrant further study for ways to
memorialize and interpret this tragic chapter in American history.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
regarding this bill.
______
Statement of Peter May, Associate Regional Director, Lands, Resources
and Planning, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
on H.R. 2240, To Authorize the Exchange of Land or Interest in Land
Between Lowell National Historical Park and the City of Lowell in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and for Other Purposes.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 2240, a bill to authorize the exchange of land or interest in land
between Lowell National Historical Park and the city of Lowell in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and for other purposes.
The Department supports enactment of this legislation. H.R. 2240
would enable Lowell National Historical Park to acquire land by means
of exchange with public entities and to continue beyond 2018 the
successful use of the Preservation Loan Fund to help finance the
restoration and redevelopment of historic structures. Both of these
provisions would facilitate the park's long-term goals without
requiring any additional appropriations.
Public Law 95-290, enacted in 1978, established Lowell National
Historical Park to preserve and interpret the city's nationally
significant historical and cultural sites, structures, and districts
associated with the city's role in the 19th Century American industrial
revolution. Along with the park, the law established the Lowell
Historic Preservation Commission to complement and coordinate the
efforts of the park, the Commonwealth, and local and private entities
in developing and managing the historic and cultural resources and to
administer the Lowell Historic Preservation District. The law
established an arrangement that requires a high level of cooperation
between the Federal, Commonwealth, and local governments, and the
private sector. The General Management Plan (GMP) and the Lowell
Preservation Plan were designed to be supportive of local government
preservation and community development efforts and to encourage
substantial private investment in the redevelopment of the city's vast
19th-century urban resources.
Over the past three decades, the park and the commission have
played a key role in the city's revitalization. Working in cooperation
with the city, Commonwealth, and other public entities and private
partners, the National Park Service has contributed to the
rehabilitation of over 400 structures and the creation of extensive
public programs to preserve and interpret the city's cultural
resources. An estimated $1 billion in private investment has occurred
within the park and preservation district since the creation of the
park. To date, 88 percent of the 5.2 million square feet of vacant mill
space within the park and preservation district has been renovated or
is in the process of being renovated in accordance with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Because of changes in the vicinity of the park as these
preservation and redevelopment efforts have occurred, the National Park
Service would like to shift the use, management, or ownership of some
park lands in order to facilitate their redevelopment for other uses.
The park's maintenance facility and visitor center parking lot sites,
which are not historic, have been identified by the University of
Massachusetts--Lowell, and the City of Lowell, respectively, as
critical to their master plan redevelopment programs. The university
and city seek to acquire these sites from the park, have proposed to
develop them in ways consistent with the mission, intent and purposes
of the park, and have expressed a willingness to work with the park to
help facilitate the equitable exchange and relocation of these
facilities. The park's September 2010 GMP Amendment specifically
recommended the Visitor Center Parking Lot exchange with the city. The
University's request to exchange the park's maintenance facility came
after the GMP, but is in the park's long-term interest. The National
Park Service supports the exchange of both the Visitor Center Parking
Lot and the park's maintenance facility.
Under current law, the park has authority to acquire property from
the Commonwealth or its political subdivisions only by donation. H.R.
2240 would give the park the authority to acquire land by exchange from
the Commonwealth, the city of Lowell, or the University of
Massachusetts Building Authority. This authority would enable the park
to conduct both proposed land exchanges. The legislation ensures that
if the value of land to be acquired by the park is lower than the value
of the land exchanged, the city or Commonwealth would be required to
make a cash payment to equalize values and the park would have use of
those funds for the purpose of replacing exchanged facilities and
infrastructure. At this time the National Park Service has not
identified potential exchange properties.
The Preservation Loan Fund was also authorized in the Public Law
95-290 and formally established in 1983. The purpose of the fund is to
stimulate private investment in nationally significant historic
buildings to meet the historic preservation mandate within the Lowell
National Historical Park and Preservation District. The law directed
the commission to loan the funds to the non-profit Lowell Development
and Financial Corporation, to create a revolving loan fund to
accomplish historic preservation goals. The program has funded twenty-
one nationally significant historic building projects with loans
totaling approximately $2.5 million. The original Federal appropriation
of $750,000 leveraged non-federal project investments totaling
approximately $130.3 million to date, representing over $173 in non-
federal investment for each Federal dollar appropriated.
The Preservation Loan Fund was initially authorized for a 35-year
period expiring in 2018. H.R. 2240 would extend the program for an
additional 25 years. The extension of the program would enable existing
funds to continue in a revolving fund for the purposes identified in
the original authorization. No additional appropriations would be
needed. Despite what has been accomplished in Lowell, numerous historic
structures still require rehabilitation, and this program is an
important catalyst for generating the private and non-federal funding
needed to ensure the preservation of these structures. Extending this
authorization would greatly enhance the park's efforts to assure the
integrity of the park and preservation district.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or members of the subcommittee may have
regarding H.R. 2240.
______
Statement of Peter May, Associate Regional Director, Lands, Resources
and Planning, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
on H.R. 2489, A Bill to Authorize the Acquisition and Protection of
Nationally Significant Battlefields and Associated Sites of the
Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American Battlefield
Protection Program.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
2489, to authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally
significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War
and the War of 1812 under the American Battlefield Protection Program.
The Department supports H.R. 2489. This legislation would expand
the American Battlefield Protection Program to include both the War of
1812 and Revolutionary War battlefields in addition to Civil War
battlefields, which are covered under the current program. It would
authorize $10 million in grants for Revolutionary War and War of 1812
battlefield sites, as well as $10 million in grants for Civil War
battlefield sites, for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2022. The
American Battlefield Protection Program is currently authorized through
fiscal 2013.
In March 2008, the National Park Service transmitted the Report to
Congress on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and the War
of 1812 Sites in the United States, which identified and determined the
relative significance of sites related to the Revolutionary War and the
War of 1812. The study assessed the short and long-term threats to the
sites. Following the success of the 1993 Civil War Sites Advisory
Commission Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, this study
similarly provides alternatives for the preservation and interpretation
of the sites by Federal, State, and local governments or other public
or private entities.
The direction from Congress for the study was the same as for a
Civil War sites study of the early 1990s. As authorized by Congress,
the National Park Service looked at sites and structures that are
thematically tied with the nationally significant events that occurred
during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The result was a more
thorough survey of the remaining battlefields associated with our
nation's initial struggle for independence and sovereignty that
represents twice the field effort undertaken for the Civil War study.
Building upon this study, H.R. 2489 would create a matching grant
program for Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 sites that closely
mirrors a very successful matching grant program for Civil War sites.
The Civil War acquisition grant program was first authorized by
Congress in the Civil War Battlefield Protection Act of 2002 (Public
Law 107-359), and was reauthorized through FY 2013 by the Omnibus
Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11). That grant fund
has been tremendously successful in allowing local preservation efforts
to permanently preserve Civil War battlefield land with a minimum of
Federal assistance.
With the release of the Report to Congress on the Historic
Preservation of Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 Sites in the
United States, communities interested in preserving their Revolutionary
War and the War of 1812 sites can take the first steps similar to those
taken by the Civil War advocates nearly two decades ago. If
established, this new grant program can complement the existing grant
program for Civil War battlefields and, in doing so, benefit the
American people by providing for the preservation and protection of a
greater number of sites from the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. All
funds would be subject to NPS priorities and the availability of
appropriations.
The NPS is currently finalizing its update to the 1993 Civil War
Sites report, which reviews the conditions of 383 Civil War
battlefields, and which we plan to transmit to Congress in 2012. As
currently drafted, H.R. 2489 requires another update of the condition
of these same Civil War battlefields in five years, in addition to an
update of the 677 sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812
identified in the 2007 report. The NPS feels that updating information
for all of these sites, most of which are not within the National Park
System itself, will not be feasible in five years. Therefore, the NPS
suggests one change in the reporting language of the bill so that the
reporting requirement for the Civil War update is ``not later than 10
years after the date of enactment''.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions from you and members of the committee.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Fountain, I understand this is your issue as well. If
you would speak to 938, we would appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN FOUNTAIN, DIRECTOR,
WORLD WAR I MEMORIAL FOUNDATION
Mr. Fountain. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva, Members of the Committee. My name is Edwin Fountain,
I am a founding director of the World War I Memorial
Foundation. The Foundation was founded in 2008 with two
missions. One, to secure funding for the restoration of the
D.C. War Memorial, which, in the eighty years of its existence
had fallen into severe disrepair and deterioration, partly
because it was a District memorial sitting on Federal property,
and stewardship, or the locus of stewardship, was unclear. We
are grateful to the Congress for passing the stimulus bill, and
to the Park Service for allocating some of those funds, and the
memorial is now fully restored.
Our second mission was to advocate for rededication of that
memorial as a national and District of Columbia World War I
Memorial. When it was built in 1931, the D.C. War Memorial was
the only memorial in that part of the Mall. At that time we
didn't have national memorials, we only had local war
memorials. Every town in the eastern part of the country had
its own Civil War memorial. Cities and towns around the country
had their own war memorials, which came out of World War I and
then were expanded to include World War II, and sometimes later
wars, as well.
But not until the Vietnam Veterans Memorial did we have a
truly national war memorial. And then, as Congressman Poe
pointed out, we now have Korea and World War II. So we have, in
effect, a de facto war memorial park in that part of the Mall
between 17th Street and the Lincoln Memorial. There are
memorials to the four great wars of the 20th century. Three of
those memorials are national. There is no national war memorial
to World War I.
By happenstance, the D.C. War Memorial is located right
there. The others were built up around it. And it completes the
quartet of memorials on that part of the wall. I don't think
anyone is opposed to--thinks that there should not be a
national memorial to World War I. The question is where or
which memorial should be so dedicated.
Our view--and there are--and Mr. May suggested a study
needed to be made of memorials around the country. I don't
think so. There are three likely candidates: one is the Liberty
Memorial in Kansas City; one is the D.C. War Memorial on the
National Mall; the third is the Pershing Memorial on
Pennsylvania Avenue. No others have been suggested, that I am
aware of.
None of those are perfect solutions. They all have
drawbacks, they all have advantages. To our mind, to our--the
Foundation's view is that to locate a national memorial to
World War I off the National Mall, away from those other three
national memorials to the other three great wars of the 20th
century, would send a message that somehow we honor the
sacrifice and service of those veterans to a lesser degree than
we do to the other wars. There is something to be said for the
primacy of place on the National Mall.
I agree that the Commemorative Works Act would bar the
establishment of a brand new memorial on the Mall. But we have
an existing memorial. The bill is written so that it does not
contravene the Commemorative Works Act. And I don't believe it
does, because it is a rededication of an existing site.
And so, our view is that the most appropriate place for the
25 million visitors from around the country and around the
world who come to the Mall each year is to have that national
memorial located on the Mall next to the other three wars of
the 20th century.
Objections have also been raised by residents and
representatives of the District of Columbia. Delegate Norton
was quoted as saying that this would confiscate the D.C. War
Memorial. Nothing of the sort.
We anticipated this concern from day one. We reached out to
the D.C. Council, Delegate Norton, the Mayor's office. Delegate
Norton was a cosponsor of a previous bill in the prior
Congress, and agreed to be an honorary trustee of our
foundation. The D.C. Council, under the chairmanship of now-
Mayor Gray, passed a unanimous resolution in our support. Only
recently, when some groups have linked this issue to D.C.
statehood and D.C. voting rights, have those representatives
chosen to change their position, which they are entitled to do.
But our purpose all along has not been to confiscate the
D.C. War Memorial or Federalize it in some way, but to elevate
its status. It was--much as World War I is a forgotten war,
this was a forgotten memorial. It wasn't until the efforts of
my foundation and other groups such as the D.C. Preservation
League brought national attention to this memorial did it get
funded, did it get on the front page of the Washington Post,
did it make the cover of Parade Magazine, and people finally
started paying attention to it.
Our attention has been to elevate the status, to elevate
the recognition of the D.C. veterans, the D.C. residents who
fought in the war, to bring more people to that memorial. It
wasn't even on the Park Service maps. It wasn't in the guide
books. The Park Service, frankly, treated it as a second-class
citizen on the Mall, precisely because it was not a national
memorial.
And our goal all along was to elevate it to the same status
as the other memorials so that the local memorial would be more
prominently featured.
And so, we think it does no disservice to the local
memorial to rededicate it as a national and D.C. memorial.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fountain follows:]
Statement of Edwin L. Fountain, Director,
World War I Memorial Foundation, on H.R. 938
Chairman Bishop and members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Edwin Fountain. I am an attorney in private practice
here in Washington, and the grandson of two World War I veterans. I am
a co-founder and director of the World War I Memorial Foundation. I am
pleased to appear today to testify in support of H.R. 938, the ``Frank
Buckles World War I Memorial Act.''
Until he passed away last year at the age of 110, Mr. Buckles was
the last surviving American veteran of World War I. The Foundation was
proud to have Mr. Buckles serve as its honorary chairman.
In 2008, Mr. Buckles came to Washington for a ceremony in his honor
at the Pentagon. During that trip he visited the District of Columbia
War Memorial, located on the Mall between the World War II and Korean
War memorials. He was distressed to see that it was only a memorial to
the veterans of D.C., and not a national memorial.
Throughout our country's history, towns and cities have erected
their own war memorials, be they to local veterans of the Civil War, or
of World War I, or of all the nation's wars collectively. In
Washington, there are of course numerous memorials to generals and
statesmen of the Revolution and the Civil War. But until the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial was dedicated thirty years ago, there were no
national war memorials.
Today we have on the Mall national memorials to three of the four
great wars of the 20th century, located in what has become a de facto
``war memorial park'' around the Lincoln Reflecting Pool.
There is, however, no national memorial to World War I. With the
irony of hindsight, that war was at first called ``the war to end all
wars.'' In retrospect, we now know that ``the Great War'' was but the
first time that American soldiers would go overseas in defense of
liberty against foreign aggression. Over 4.7 million Americans served
in uniform, and 116,516 gave their lives--more than in Korea and
Vietnam combined.
World War I was also the first great conflict of what has come to
be known as ``the American century.'' It led directly to the Second
World War, and its consequences are still felt today in ongoing
conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Israel and Palestine, and Iraq.
Few Americans today know this history, and the absence of a
national memorial to World War I on the Mall in Washington has become a
glaring omission, all the more so because the centennial of the war is
less than three years away.
H.R. 938 would fill that void, by authorizing the re-dedication of
the District of Columbia War Memorial as a ``National and District of
Columbia World War I Memorial.''
The D.C. War Memorial was dedicated in 1931 as a memorial to the
499 residents of the District who died in the war. President Hoover
spoke at its dedication, and John Philip Sousa conducted the Marine
Corps band. It stood alone for fifty years, until it was joined by the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and then later by the Korean War and World
War II memorials.
As indicated on the attached map, together with those three other
memorials, it comprises a quartet of memorials to the major wars of the
20th century. Yet alone among those memorials, it lacks national
status. Few residents or visitors are even aware of the memorial, much
less know what it is. Most maps and signs do not even refer to the
memorial.
H.R. 938 would authorize its re-dedication as a national memorial,
and thereby give honor to the veterans of World War I that is equal to
that bestowed on the veterans of the other major wars, while helping
future generations of Americans to know the complete history of
American's 20th-century struggle against aggression and
totalitarianism.
Re-dedication of the D.C. memorial would not be contrary to the
Commemorative Works Act. That Act prohibits the location of any new
commemorative works on the Mall. However, H.R. 938 does not authorize a
new commemorative work, but rather the re-dedication and enhancement of
a memorial that already exists on the Mall.
Moreover, the local character of the existing memorial would be
preserved. While Section 10(b)(3) of the proposed bill permits the
addition of an appropriate sculptural or other commemorative element,
in order to give the memorial a national character, it also specifies
that any such feature shall ``complement and preserve'' the existing
memorial and its landscape. In this way the sacrifice of District
residents in the war will continue to be honored, and the peaceful and
secluded character of the site will be preserved.
We emphasize that H.R. 938 is not meant to somehow ``federalize''
the District's memorial. Rather, it will bring attention to the
memorial by elevating it to the same status enjoyed by the surrounding
war memorials. At the same time, the memorial will provide visitors a
lesson in the history of our memorials, while calling their attention
to their own memorials back home.
The Foundation also supports the designation of the Liberty
Memorial in Kansas City as a national World War I memorial. While it
may be unconventional to have two national memorials, there is no
reason why there cannot be two, and there is every reason to
commemorate a profound national event such as World War I more widely,
rather than less.
Finally, the Foundation supports the provisions in H.R. 938 to
establish a World War I centennial commission.
Twenty-five million people, from around the country and across the
world, visit the Mall each year. As we have heard from thousands of
students, veterans and citizens around the country who support our
cause, those visitors expect to honor the nation's veterans in the
nation's capital--as evidenced by the location of the other great war
memorials in Washington.
Congress would be minimizing the sacrifice of Frank Buckles and
almost five million other Americans in World War I, including 116,000
dead, if it did not honor them on the Mall in the same manner as the
veterans of the wars that followed.
We ask the House to pass H.R. 938. On behalf of the Frank Buckles
family and the Foundation, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Fountain.
Mr. Rimensnyder, if you would also like to take five
minutes to address this issue.
STATEMENT OF NELSON RIMENSNYDER, HISTORIAN, THE ASSOCIATION OF
THE OLDEST INHABITANTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Rimensnyder. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee and ladies and gentlemen. I am Nelson
Rimensnyder, the historian of The Association of the Oldest
Inhabitants of the District of Columbia. Since 1865, when we
were organized, we have been preserving and promoting the
District's history and civic accomplishments. Our association
is currently celebrating its 147th year of continuous service
to the residents and civic leaders of our great city.
We oppose the--changing the name, of making the District of
Columbia Great War Memorial a national World War I memorial.
And we would like to associate with the remarks of
Congresswoman Norton, whose statement has been submitted to the
record.
In March of last year, a member of our association, Joseph
Grano, wrote to the board of directors of the National World
War I Memorial Foundation, proposing an alternative to their
proposal, and that is looking at the Pershing Memorial, which
is a memorial to the expeditionary forces that fought for the
United States in Europe, and making that a national World War I
memorial. Its location across from the visitor's center, White
House Visitor's Center, it is in view of the White House and
the Capitol, if you look to the east, it is a wonderful
location. Elements could be added to make it more national in
scope. There is a blank wall on the Pennsylvania Avenue side
that could just be engraved with World War I--``National World
War I Memorial.''
Let's put Frank Buckles in there, a nice statue of Frank
Buckles, and maybe a doughgirl, too. Because when the D.C.
National Memorial--and other women also fought and died for the
United States in that war.
It is interesting that, if we look at history, there was a
proposal to build a national World War I memorial in the
District of Columbia in late 1920s. There was a national
commission, they came up with a design and were raising money
when the crash came in 1929. Congress was reluctant to put
money up for it, because of the financial situation. Veterans
weren't enthusiastic, because they were looking for their
bonus, which hadn't been paid. And that site that was chosen
was where the current National Gallery of Art is located,
Pennsylvania Avenue and--facing both Pennsylvania Avenue and
Constitution Avenue. And it was considered a wonderful
location. The Mall was never even considered.
So, why not just take a page out of history and move it
further down the Avenue and--won't expend much money, Federal
money involved. Maybe local money can be raised, national
money, to make the Pershing Memorial the National World War I
Memorial.
I would like to also add that veterans in the District of
Columbia--I am a veteran and there are some veterans sitting
behind me--are very much opposed to changing the name. It is
our memorial, and it represents our sacrifice of our citizens
in not only that war, but all the wars we fought for without
any representation in Congress. And so we are--veterans are
very much opposed to changing this name.
I would like to conclude with--Eleanor Holmes Norton, our
delegate, has introduced a House resolution, 346. I would like
to just read the last two parts of that. ``Resolved, that it is
the sense of the House of Representatives that, one, the
District of Columbia War Memorial should remain a memorial
dedicated solely to the residents of the District of Columbia
who served in World War I; and two, a congressionally
authorized study or commission should determine a proper
location for a national memorial dedicated to all Americans who
served in World War I.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am available to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rimensnyder follows:]
Statement of Nelson F. Rimensnyder, Historian, The Association of the
Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia, H.R. 938, a National
World War I Memorial, aka The Frank Buckles Act
Chairman Bishop, Committee Members, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am
Nelson Rimensnyder the Historian of the Association of the Oldest
Inhabitants of the District of Columbia. Dedicated since 1865 to
preserving and promoting the District's history and civic
accomplishments, the AOI is currently celebrating its 147th year of
continuous service to the residents and civic leaders of our great
city.
On March 21, 2011 AOI member Joseph N. Grano wrote to the Board of
Directors of the National World War I Memorial Foundation proposing an
alternative to H.R. 938 and Senate Bill 253 which would establish a
commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World
War I and to designate memorials to the service of men and women of the
United States in World War I. These proposals include altering the name
of our District of Columbia War Memorial to insert the words ``and
National'' (District of Columbia and National World War I Memorial).
The Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia
joins with our member Mr. Grano in urging you to consider an
alternative to the pending legislation. The portion of the legislation
which re-names the District's memorial is wrong on several fronts, the
most noteworthy being that it ignores the rights of the District's
residents and the fact that it was from District residents that so much
of the funds for the memorial were raised. Secondly, the Peristyle
Doric Temple located in Ash Grove on the National Mall in West Potomac
Park is the District's War Memorial, not the World War I Memorial as
when it was dedicated in 1931 the 1914-1918 conflict in Europe was
referred to as The Great War or simply The World War and no numerical
suffix was ascribed to the monument.
As Mr. Grano so eloquently points out, there is in fact already a
national World War I memorial bearing the name of General John
Pershing. The memorial, occupying an entire city block, is elegantly
situated opposite the White House Visitors' Center, within a half block
of the White House and Ellipse, closely situated to the Washington
Monument's axis of the National Mall and holds a distinguished position
at the western-most point of the main stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue
within view of the Capitol.
With a few, relatively simple architectural additions and
additional interpretive signage, Pershing Park would make a fitting and
appropriate venue for a `new' National World War I Memorial obviating
the need to tamper with the District of Columbia's existing War
Memorial in Ash Grove on Ohio Drive. In honor of Frank Buckles, a
doughboy statue could be crafted in his image and placed at the North
West entrance to the park--clearly visible from the 15th Street
approach, the White House Visitors' Center and to the hundreds of
thousands of visitors waiting to enter the White House grounds. The
existing long, unadorned wall on the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the
park could be boldly inscribed with, ``National World War I Memorial''
clearly visible from the White House Visitors' Center, the John A.
Wilson Building and the 14th Street approach.
While we believe the efforts of Representative Ted Poe and the co-
sponsors of H.R. 938 and Senator Rockefeller and his co-sponsors of
Senate Bill 253, together with the initiatives of the National World
War I Memorial Foundation are praiseworthy to help reconcile the
misperceptions and confusion facing the National World War Memorial in
Kansas City and our District of Columbia World War I Memorial, we
believe strongly that simply renaming or re-designating our existing
monument not only demeans the history of this existing memorial but, in
fact, does not go far enough to realize the dream of a true National
World War I Memorial in the Nation's Capital. The proponents of the
World War II Memorial on the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial
and the Washington Monument, after much controversy, realized their
dream of a truly wonderful tribute to the men and women who gave their
service and lives during the Second World War; however, if you visit
the Pershing Park site you will see that this existing memorial already
contains many of the features one would want in a national memorial: a
water feature (beautiful fountain and pool), an impressive statue of
General Pershing, historical and interpretive information engraved on
the stone walls, etc. The only features it is missing are the engraving
that would distinguish it as the ``National World War I Memorial,'' a
statue of a doughboy in honor of the military personnel who served--
like Frank W. Buckles--and recognition of the other military services'
contributions in World War I.
We believe these relative simple improvements to the existing
memorial would make it worthy of being designated as the National World
War I Memorial and by avoiding changes to either the National War I
Memorial in Kansas City or the District of Columbia World War I
Memorial would render controversial changes to these existing memorials
moot.
[Attached is a series of recent photographs which may help you
visualize how this impressive park could be transformed into a National
Memorial dedicated to the First World War.]
The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission is on record
opposing renaming the District's War Memorial (August 2, 2011) and
while considering Pershing Park as a worthy World War I Memorial was
not within the scope of either Congressman Poe's or Senator
Rockefeller's legislation, we believe together with the endorsement of
the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission our proposal deserves
your consideration and support for removing references to the District
of Columbia War Memorial and, in turn, endorsing our proposal to
designate Pershing Park as the National World War I Memorial.
Thank you for the opportunity for me to testify before you today.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. And I apologize. I
apparently mispronounced your name. It is Rimensnyder?
Mr. Rimensnyder. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. I apologize for the mispronunciation there.
I will turn to the Committee and see if there are questions
on this particular one. Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. May, Representative Poe's bill
renames the District of Columbia's World War I Memorial. Could
you please discuss what this means in terms of changing the
nature of the current memorial?
Mr. May. Well, what we understand the legislation to do is
to not only rededicate the memorial, but also a memorial to
expand its commemorative purpose. That expansion is what
becomes a conflict with the Commemorative Works Act. The
Commemorative Works Act states very clearly that new memorials
should not encroach upon existing memorials or change the
message, if you will--not quite that language, but that is the
essential issue.
Plus, the construction of new memorials within the area
that is defined as the reserve is also an area of conflict. The
reserve was defined to include the traditional Mall from 3rd to
14th, plus the grounds of the Lincoln Memorial, Washington
Monument, and all the way down through the Tidal Basin.
So that area is, in the views of the Congress, a completed
work of civic art, and new memorials should not be placed in
that area.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thank you. Mr. Rimensnyder, can you
describe your engagement with Congressman Poe and the
development of this legislation and/or with the World War I
Memorial Foundation? What has been your engagement, your
participation, your discussion?
Mr. Rimensnyder. Our only, I guess, direct engagement is we
did testify before the National Capital Memorial Commission,
which Representative--Mr. Poe testified there. And Mr. Fountain
also testified before that body.
As I said, a member of our organization, with our support,
did write last year, March of last year, Mr. Fountain, about
our proposal for--considering the--designating the Pershing
Memorial and making it a World War I memorial. And this could
be done in time for the commemoration of the war, which is
coming up. Time is very short, so that is another argument for
looking at this proposal seriously.
So, that is the extent of our engagement with these two
gentlemen.
Mr. Grijalva. And the response to your inquiry in March?
Mr. Rimensnyder. I am not aware that we did, no.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Mr. Fountain, just for my education, are
you aware of any instance where a local memorial like this one
that we are discussing has been renamed to be a national
memorial?
Mr. Fountain. I am not, Congressman. And I recognize this
is a unique situation. The Commemorative Works Act precludes us
from establishing a new memorial on the Mall. As I said
earlier, there is no perfect solution to this issue. To have it
on the Mall, we would need to join it with the D.C. War
Memorial. To have it off the Mall we think sends a disservice
to--sends a message that we value the service and sacrifice of
the World War I veterans less than we do the other wars. We are
a victim of historical circumstance.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Holt, do you have questions on this issue?
Mr. Holt. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Mr. May, when
you say this would be an expansion in concept, at least, of the
D.C. memorial, does that involve any physical changes that--an
actual expansion, physical expansion?
Mr. May. That is what I understand the proposals to be,
that there would be an enhancement to expand the message that
would go with the rededication. What it means physically has
not been designed----
Mr. Holt. By ``the message,'' you mean actual physical
changes to----
Mr. May. Yes.
Mr. Holt [continuing]. Communicate more message?
Mr. May. Exactly.
Mr. Holt. I see. Mr. Fountain, is there refurbishment work
that is needed on the D.C. memorial? Is there ongoing
maintenance that is needed? And would this change the ability
to accomplish those things?
Mr. Fountain. No, sir. The restoration is complete, and a
reopening ceremony was held on November 10th, the day before
Veterans Day. Obviously, ongoing maintenance is required. But
our proposal would not affect that.
To answer your question, Mr. May, yes. The bill provides
for the addition--for an additional commemorative element,
which would be an additional physical feature. The bill
specifically provides that any such addition would be
complementary of and would preserve the existing memorial. It
is not our intent to overwhelm the existing memorial as
something the scale of the World War II memorial.
We have something in mind the scale of the addition of the
realistic sculptural element to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial,
a statue of three Vietnam soldiers off to the side from the
wall. That is the scale of what we are talking about, but there
would be an additional element to the site to give it a
national character.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask just a couple questions, as well.
Mr. Fountain, if I could, why does the memorial in Kansas City
need to be national if you envision the D.C. memorial becoming
a national memorial?
Mr. Fountain. Legislative compromise, Mr. Chairman. The
objection I did not anticipate when we started this process was
that Kansas City would surface as a proposed alternative site.
And in the last Congress we had contending bills. And neither
one was moving forward as long as the other could block it.
So ultimately, we agreed that--to quote the great
philosopher Ernie Banks from the Chicago Cubs--let's have two.
A little unconventional to have two national memorials, but why
not? More commemoration is better than less. And the only way
that either bill could move forward was to join forces and to
designate both.
Mr. Bishop. Actually, you didn't have me until you quoted
my favorite Cub player, so well played.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Can you just tell me what the function of this
commission that would be established would be?
Mr. Fountain. The commission is separate and apart from the
memorials. There is, I believe, a Civil War Sesquicentennial
Commission. I believe there is a War of 1812 Bicentennial
Commission. It essentially would be a congressionally chartered
commission that would conceive and plan ceremonies, programs,
other events to mark the centennial of the war and, you know,
to raise public consciousness, and otherwise for the Nation to
pay its respects to the World War I generation.
Mr. Bishop. I am assuming from your testimony your only
concern with the Pershing Memorial is that it is not on the
Mall.
Mr. Fountain. It is a difficult site, Mr. Chairman. It is
in that busy intersection of 15th Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue in front of the Willard Hotel, very difficult for
pedestrian access. It is--and yes, primarily, it is not on the
Mall.
My main concern is that the Congress do something. If the
Congress, in its wisdom, chooses to go with Pershing Square and
make that the national memorial, I think that is better than
having no national memorial. You know? Our preference, we think
the Mall site is preferable. But if the Committee and the
Congress decide to go with Pershing Square, you know, we would
get behind that. I want to make that clear.
But there is no real proposal to make that happen yet. The
American Battle Monuments Commission and the Park Service have
said they think of that as a national war memorial, but they
haven't really treated it as such. And so, until there is
another proposal that I can get behind, I am left with ours
that is on the table.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Rimensnyder, if--I am making the
assumption, from the testimony you have had, that you believe
that nationalizing the D.C. memorial, World War I Memorial,
would do nothing to enhance its visibility or stature. Or would
it? Would nationalizing it enhance its visibility and stature?
That is the better question.
Mr. Rimensnyder. Yes, I suppose it would. More people would
visit it. But again, it would--I think the emphasis of visiting
it would be that it is a national memorial, not a District of
Columbia memorial. And that is our memorial. Members of our
association were very involved in raising funds for it. School
children raised funds for it. It is our memorial. And it--and
we want it to remain our memorial.
And, as I said, I think--and Mr. Fountain mentioned the
difficulty of the site. It is not difficult, the site where the
memorial is, the--to the expeditionary force on 15th and
Pennsylvania Avenue. Tourists go there all the time. They go
into the Visitor's Center, they go over to the White House,
they go down to the Capitol. It is a very accessible site. And
to say that it is not accessible, I don't buy that argument at
all.
Mr. Bishop. I thank you very much. This concludes the
questions and testimony on 938. Mr. Fountain and Mr.
Rimensnyder, if you would like to stay at the table, please
feel free to do so. If you would feel more comfortable leaving
the table, you are also free to do that as well, at your will.
We will turn now to testimony on H.R. 1278 by Congressman
Sullivan. I believe Mr. May, you are representing the
Administration on that one.
Mr. May. Yes. H.R. 1278 would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a special resource study regarding the
suitability and feasibility of dedicating the John Hope
Franklin Reconciliation Park and other sites in Tulsa, Oklahoma
relating to the 1921 Tulsa race riot as a unit of the National
Park system.
The National Park Service completed a reconnaissance survey
of the 1921 Tulsa race riot in 2005. The report concluded that
the riot is nationally significant because of the potential
ability to illustrate and interpret a tragic and important
chapter in the history of the United States. The Department
supports the bill.
And once again, we have a more detailed statement that has
been submitted for the record.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right,
Representative Grijalva, do you have questions on this one?
Mr. Grijalva. No, thank you.
Mr. Bishop. No questions? Mr. Holt, Ms. Tsongas, on this
particular bill? Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. Help me understand how the--as it is conceived
and proposed here--how the greatness of the historian Franklin
would not be lost in the larger struggle, that is, that would
be commemorated or recognized there.
Mr. May. So your concern is that John Hope Franklin's role
and the commemoration of him in the park might be lost.
The--in this proposal, I don't believe that we have gone
very far to try to establish exactly how all of this could work
together as a national unit of the National Park system. We
have somewhat related sites. Certainly the--all of the Tulsa
race riot sites that have been part of the reconnaissance
survey are related and are important. And the park is a--there
will be a center there that kind of ties it all together. And
with his name on the park and on the center, we believe that
the message there would not be lost.
It is also not clear exactly how this would be managed
overall. In other words, there may be--it may wind up with an
affiliated organization running some portion of this, as
opposed to simply a straight unit of the National Park Service.
Mr. Holt. OK, I--as you said, with his name there on the
park. It concerns me a little bit that that is what it would
be. And I think a great deal of thought would have to be put in
to how to capture the breadth of John Hope Franklin's work, and
elevate that, if this were to proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate those questions. We
will now turn to H.R. 2240 by Ms. Tsongas. I believe once
again, Mr. May, you represent the Administration's position on
this bill.
Mr. May. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. If you would, please.
Mr. May. H.R. 2240 would authorize the exchange of land or
interest in land between Lowell National Historical Park and
the City of Lowell in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and for
other purposes. H.R. 2240 would enable Lowell National
Historical Park to acquire land by means of exchange with
public entities, and to continue the successful use of the
preservation loan fund to help finance the restoration and
redevelopment of historic structures. Both of these provisions
would facilitate the park's long-term goals without requiring
any additional appropriations. The Department supports the
bill.
And, of course, full testimony has been submitted.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Mr.--is it--I don't know
if I mispronounced this one, as well. Is it Baacke?
Mr. Baacke. It is actually Baacke, but I answer to anything
close. So I appreciate it.
Mr. Bishop. Well, OK. I won't say, ``Hey you,'' then, but
Mr. Baacke, from the City of Lowell, your testimony on this
bill, if you would, please.
STATEMENT OF ADAM BAACKE, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND DIRECTOR
OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Baacke. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and Members of the Subcommittee. Good morning, and
thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of
H.R. 2240 on behalf of the City of Lowell.
Among other purposes, this legislation will grant the
Lowell National Historical Park authority to execute mutually
beneficial land exchanges with the City of Lowell and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Lowell National Historical
Park was created and empowered by Congress to preserve and
interpret the nationally significant historical and cultural
sites, structures, and districts in Lowell, Massachusetts.
However, it was also granted what was then a unique mission
to help facilitate economic and cultural revitalization in the
city. And to impart to the tremendous record of success that
the park has enjoyed in this, several similar parks have
subsequently been established.
This legislation will further the mission, intent, and
purpose of the park in two important ways. First, it will allow
the Lowell National Historical Park to continue its active and
supportive participation in the Hamilton Canal District, the
city's signature economic development project. Planned as a
mixed use redevelopment of more than 15 acres of under-utilized
and vacant publicly owned land, upon completion the Hamilton
Canal District will generate nearly 2 million square feet of
private real estate development, and create as many as 1,600
new permanent jobs.
This project has already rehabilitated one of the most
visible and nationally significant mill complexes within the
boundaries of the park, which represents an investment of $65
million, and the creation of over 200 well-paid construction
jobs during the depths of the recent recession.
This project is also notable as a model for expediting
local and state environmental and land use permitting, and the
entire development is currently positioned to proceed by right,
without any further discretionary local or state review.
With the active participation and consent of officials from
the Lowell National Historical Park, the Hamilton Canal
District site includes the redevelopment of land currently
owned by the park and utilized only for surface parking. The
plan envisions redeveloping this parking lot in a manner
consistent with the mission, vision, and general management
plan for the park, with new commercial buildings that will
house research and development, as well as general office
space.
In exchanging land presently owned by the Lowell National
Historical Park, the Federal Government will be in a position
to not only support the Hamilton Canal District project at no
cost, but also will obtain interest in real property and/or
structured parking spaces that are more consistent with the
Park Service's immediate and long-term needs.
This legislation is required in order for such a land
exchange to occur, because the Lowell National Historical Park
is currently prohibited from executing this type of real estate
transaction with the City of Lowell.
Second, it will extend the term of an existing revolving
loan program that has played a key role in facilitating the
redevelopment and restoration of over five million square feet
of formerly vacant mill buildings to productive re-use, and has
leveraged nearly $175 for every dollar originally invested. The
requested extension will merely allow existing loans to
continue to revolve within the fund to support the
rehabilitation and preservation of additional privately owned
historic buildings that contribute to the park. Importantly, it
will require no new appropriation of funds.
The City of Lowell remains tremendously grateful for the
contributions that the Federal Government and the U.S. Congress
have made to the renaissance of our city through the National
Park Service. Were it not for the wisdom and past commitments
of Congress and the National Park Service, Lowell would not
enjoy the reputation as a model for the revitalization and
redevelopment of smaller post-industrial cities that we do.
This legislation will allow for the highly successful
partnership to continue and expand at no cost to the Federal
treasury.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to testify and
strongly encourage you to join me in supporting it. I am happy
to address any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baacke follows:]
Statement of Adam Baacke, Assistant City Manager and Director of
Planning and Development, City of Lowell, Massachusetts, in Support of
H.R. 2240, the Lowell National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of
2011
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, good morning
and thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
City of Lowell, Massachusetts in support of H.R. 2240, the Lowell
National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2011. Among other
purposes, this legislation will grant the Lowell National Historical
Park (LNHP) authority to execute mutually beneficial land exchanges
with the City of Lowell and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Lowell National Historical Park (LNHP) was created and
empowered by Congress ``to preserve and interpret the nationally
significant historical and cultural sites, structures, and districts in
Lowell, Massachusetts.'' It was also granted a then unique mission to
help facilitate the economic and cultural revitalization of the city of
Lowell. Due in part to the tremendous record of success that the LNHP
has enjoyed in this, several similar parks have been established in the
decades since. This legislation will further the mission, intent, and
purpose of the LNHP in two important ways.
First, it will allow the LNHP to continue its active and supportive
participation in the Hamilton Canal District, the City's signature
economic development project. Planned as a mixed-use redevelopment of
more than 15 acres of underutilized and vacant publicly-owned land,
upon completion the Hamilton Canal District will generate nearly 2
million square feet of private real estate development, create as many
as 1600 new permanent jobs, and serve as a testament to the success of
the nation's first urban national park. This project has already
rehabilitated one of the most visible and nationally significant mill
complexes within the boundaries of the LNHP, which represented an
investment of $65 million and the creation of over 200 well-paid
construction jobs during the depths of the recent recession. The
project is also notable as a model for expediting local and state
environmental and land use permitting; the entire development is
currently positioned to proceed ``by right'' without any further
discretionary local or state review.
With the active participation and consent of officials from the
Lowell National Historical Park, the Hamilton Canal District site
includes the redevelopment of land currently owned by the park and
utilized only for surface parking. The plan envisions redeveloping this
parking lot in a manner consistent with the mission, vision, and
General Management Plans for the park with new commercial buildings
which will house research and development as well as general office
space. In exchanging land presently owned by the LNHP, the Federal
Government will be in a position to not only support the Hamilton Canal
District project at no cost but also obtain interest in real property
and/or structured parking spaces that are more consistent with the Park
Service's immediate and long-term needs.
This legislation is required in order for such a land exchange to
occur because the Lowell National Historical Park is currently
prohibited from executing this type of real estate transaction with the
City of Lowell or any political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
Second, it will extend the term of an existing revolving loan
program that has played a key role in facilitating the redevelopment
and restoration of over 5 million square feet of formerly vacant mill
buildings to productive reuse and leveraged nearly $175 for every
federal dollar originally invested. The requested extension will merely
allow existing loans to continue to revolve within the fund to support
the rehabilitation and preservation of additional privately-owned
historic buildings that contribute to the park. Importantly, it will
require no new appropriation of funds.
The City of Lowell remains tremendously grateful for the
contributions that the Federal Government and U.S. Congress have made
to the renaissance of our city through the National Park Service. Were
it not for the wisdom and past commitments of Congress and the National
Park Service, Lowell would not enjoy our reputation as a model for the
revitalization and redevelopment of smaller post-industrial cities.
This legislation will allow this highly successful partnership to
continue and expand at no cost to the Federal Treasury.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this
legislation and strongly encourage you to join me in supporting it. I
am happy to address any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I turn to the Committee
for questions. Mr. Grijalva? Mr. Amodei? Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. I do have questions, but I would yield to the
gentlelady from Massachusetts first.
Mr. Bishop. That is fair. Ms. Tsongas?
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. May, I would like
to address the issue a little bit of the land exchange, one
most immediately around the parking--the surface parking lot,
but also looking forward to the Commonwealth.
Isn't it true that most other national parks already have
the authority to undertake land exchanges such as H.R. 2240
would grant to the Lowell National Historical Park?
Mr. May. I believe that is typical, yes.
Ms. Tsongas. And what are the criteria that any proposed
exchange would have to meet in--to be considered?
Mr. May. Well, it always has to be an equal exchange or
approximately equal exchange. In some cases, an exchange may
involve the United States receiving something of greater value
than they are exchanging in return. In those circumstances it
is done with an acknowledgment by the exchanging partner that
the greater value that has been received by the government is,
in fact, a donation. So, the government always is--receives
equal or greater value.
Ms. Tsongas. And those requirements would be accommodated
in this proposed legislation?
Mr. May. Yes.
Ms. Tsongas. And wouldn't such a transfer in this instance
add to the economic development of Lowell, as well as advance
the park's mission?
Mr. May. Absolutely. We believe that.
Ms. Tsongas. So, in actuality, this provision really just
helps improve the flexibility for local agencies to make
decisions that would best help the city and the park removing
some of the regulatory burden that brings the park and the city
here today.
Mr. May. That is right.
Ms. Tsongas. And then, Mr. Baacke, I would like to ask you,
too. If you could, just talk a little bit about the
preservation loan program, the kinds of projects that it has
been so instrumental in advancing.
Mr. Baacke. Yes, thank you. The Preservation Loan Fund,
although not a significant amount of money was originally
invested, has actually touched a substantial number of
buildings in downtown Lowell that are now fully restored as a
result of that investment.
They generally fall into two categories: one, our smaller,
main-street-type commercial buildings; and the other are larger
mill complexes. And in each case it is unlikely that these
projects would have been able to proceed, absent that Federal
support.
Ms. Tsongas. And given that they are also very critical to
protecting the architectural heritage of the Industrial
Revolution, in essence the private sector is taking on the
preservation efforts and encouraged to do so by this
preservation program.
Mr. Baacke. That is absolutely correct.
Ms. Tsongas. So, as a result, we have seen tremendous
investment in very expensive projects that have helped protect
this tremendous heritage and adaptive re-use as well, knowing
that these buildings cannot function as they were originally
designed. And yet I happen to live in one, a mill that was home
to a textile industry that now is a beautiful place for many
different kinds of people to come and live and contribute to
the city.
So, you see over and over again how critically important
this loan program has been to making sure that we address the
mission of the park, and we also contribute to the economic
development of the city.
So, I thank you all for being here. And with that I yield
back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I--oh, Mr. Holt, did you
have questions on this bill?
Mr. Holt. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I have
visited the Lowell historic site and find it most impressive.
And it really is a testament to the vision of Paul Tsongas,
really a Janus-like vision that helps us look forward by
looking backward. And it really is a wonderful recognition of
the innovation and industry on which America has been built. I
would say only slightly tongue in cheek that it is perhaps
second in importance only to the Patterson National Historical
Park, recently dedicated in Patterson, New Jersey.
I would like to ask a question, Mr. Baacke, to understand
better the preservation loan program. I understand from the
sponsor, from Ms. Tsongas, that the bill--there is some urgency
in getting this reauthorization, because the loans would have
to stop without this. Please explain that, because we have got
five years until the expiration, as I understand it. So what is
the urgency here? Why would the lending stop now, if we don't
proceed with this?
Mr. Baacke. Thank you. That actually--you are entirely
correct, that the current authorization has five years
remaining on it. The difficulty is when you are doing real
estate development and lending. And to real estate development,
five years is about the minimum amount of time that anyone
would make a loan or be able to take on a loan with a project.
And in order for all the funding to be back and be
available from the program to return to the treasury, as is now
required at the end of the current term, no new loans can be
made at this point.
It is also important to note that there is almost no money
available in the program anyway, because all of it is actually
out doing its job at the moment.
Mr. Holt. Good. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I really don't have a question on
this, because I--Tsongas has done a good job on this particular
bill.
I do want to say one thing to Mr. May. It is one of the
offhanded comments you made in here, that the Federal
Government, with the land exchanges, especially government-to-
government land exchanges, always has to get equal or greater
value is an arrogance that is offensive. The idea that the
Federal Government can't give to another level of government,
it has to get something of equal value or greater value, I
don't care what kind of scoring you have to have on that, that
is a horrendous policy. And it is not your fault, but it is the
fault of the mindset that we have within the agencies of
government. And that is something that I just find abhorrent.
It is not a problem with this bill, it is a problem with the
agency. So take it back there and fix it.
With that, we end the discussion of this particular issue.
I wish to turn to H.R. 3440 of Mr. Flake at this particular
time, and talk about that one.
I believe, Mr. Ratcliffe, you have the Administration's
position on this one.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes. Thank you again. Finally, regarding
H.R. 3440, the BLM strongly supports the goal of promoting
opportunities for outdoor recreation, including recreational
shooting on America's public lands.
The BLM is responsible for the protection of resources and
multiple-use management of our nation's 245 million acres of
public land, a vast majority of which are open to recreational
shooting. The BLM estimates that over 98 percent of BLM-managed
public lands are open to recreational shooting, and currently
88 percent of the 4.8 million acres of national monuments
managed by BLM are open.
Restrictions on recreational shooting are determined
through extensive analysis as part of BLM's land use planning
process, which is informed by local public input. Typically,
recreational shooting closures include administrative sites,
campgrounds, and other developed facilities, certain areas with
intensive energy, industrial, or mineral operations, and lands
near residential or community development, or lands with
significant and sensitive natural or cultural resources.
When lands are closed to public--to recreational shooting,
those restrictions are often implemented to comply with state
and local public safety laws and ordinances, or are implemented
at the request of local communities or other adjacent private
land owners.
The BLM's multiple-use mission is best achieved when land
management issues are handled locally through its site-specific
planning and public involvement process. Since H.R. 3440 would
overturn this critical local management structure, and because
the bill also could potentially jeopardize public safety and
our ability to protect resources, we oppose this measure.
Under H.R. 3440, only the BLM director in Washington could
issue a closure for any reason, including something as locally
specific as on-the-ground fire conditions in a national
monument. Furthermore, under the bill such closures would cease
after six months, unless Congress approves the closure by
enacting it into law. Providing for public safety should not be
a temporary six-month consideration in public land management.
H.R. 3440 also removes all existing recreational shooting
restrictions or closures in national monuments under BLM
jurisdiction. Enactment of the bill could result in the
automatic repeal of all closures and restrictions for
recreational shooting, even those that are the result of
collaborative resource management plans developed with
extensive public input. Any such blanket repeal of closures may
jeopardize public safety and property.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. I
would be glad to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Recce, to this bill?
Ms. Recce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the NRA in support of
H.R. 3440.
Recreational shooting is a historic, traditional, and
legitimate activity on lands managed by the BLM. Thousands of
NRA members and unaffiliated hunters and shooters, especially
in the Western States, depend upon places to shoot on public
lands. People need places to go, not only for the enjoyment of
target shooting, but also to teach family members and friends
the safe and responsible use of firearms. And hunters need
places to practice marksmanship skills and to sight in their
hunting rifles.
BLM has acknowledged that the need for places to shoot is
growing, and that the population growth and subsequent
urbanization of the American West has caused edges of property
to become closer, outskirts of communities more crowded, remote
areas fewer, and closures to recreational shooting more common.
But what has been BLM's response? The Agency is proposing
to close another national monument to shooters, the 5,000-acre
Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona. This follows on
the heels of NRA's announcement last fall that it was closing
the Ironwood Forest National Monument, also in Arizona, to
shooters. Excluding the Sonoran Monument, which is still going
through the planning stage, BLM has closed nearly 1.3 million
acres of monument lands to the shooting public.
There is no restriction against recreational shooting in
the Antiquities Act used by Presidents to designate national
monuments. But the BLM is using the designation to close these
lands to recreational shooting. H.R. 3440 is needed to stop the
progression of monument closures.
BLM managers have been open about this discriminatory and
anti-gun attitude. One manager publicly stated that closing
Ironwood Forest was an appropriate management choice, and
another told the press that the Sonoran Desert was not an
appropriate place to have recreational target shooting. Both
statements were made during the public comment period on each
of the management plans, signaling that monument closure was a
conclusion BLM intended to reach, regardless of public comment
received. In neither management plan was consideration given to
leaving open any of the scores of sites that had long been used
by target shooters.
BLM has stated that the designation of a national monument
requires a greater level of resource protection, but resource
protection is not the issue. The real issue is that BLM is
choosing not to recognize and manage shooting as a legitimate
recreational activity, and is using monument designation as a
means to escape this management responsibility.
Safety has also been used as an excuse. In justifying the
closure of Ironwood Forest, BLM said its desire was to promote
a safe environment for all visitors. This statement was made in
spite of the incontrovertible fact that recreational shooting
has one of the lowest incidents of injuries and deaths of any
recreational activity allowed on public lands.
BLM will say that there are a million acres of public lands
remaining open for target shooting, but none of the monument
plans evaluated the impact of land closure on access and
opportunities for the displaced shooters. None of the plans
analyzed the impact of forcing shooters on to other lands, and
how the increase in numbers of shooters would affect the safe
use of sites elsewhere.
Closing public lands to shooters thrusts management
responsibilities upon the states and other Federal land
agencies to respond to the growing number of people who enjoy
target shooting. H.R. 3440 is necessary to end BLM's
prejudicial treatment of recreational shooting, and to manage
this activity with the same attention it gives to all other
recreational activities on public lands.
That, Mr. Chairman, concludes my remarks on the bill. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We will now turn to questions from
the Committee on this bill. Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ratcliffe, you
already answered one of my early questions, which was how much
land, monument land, is available for recreational shooting.
Let me ask you about the Flake bill. The bill permits the
closure and restriction of national monument lands by the BLM
for specific reasons, including national security and public
safety. This authority, as indicated in the legislation, is
limited to six months, unless Congress makes that closure
permanent.
If the BLM closes certain lands at the request of, let's
say, Homeland Security, local or state law enforcement agency,
or other Federal law agencies such as DEA, what authority do
you have to maintain any restrictions beyond the six months on
this legislation?
Mr. Ratcliffe. The only authority we have would reside in
endangerment and laws specifically for the use of firearms that
endanger others. Those laws only can be enforced if an incident
is witnessed, and that means actually shooting across the road,
other state laws that apply. Waterways, and so forth.
Mr. Grijalva. And what about publicizing the closure or
restriction? If law enforcement agencies state that it is in
the interest of national security, public safety, that the
closure restriction not be publicized for its length, what
would your agency do?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It would be extremely difficult for us to
manage recreational shooting or other activities on the public
lands. We need to have--it is important that we have local
public input into the development of these management plans.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Hypothetical. Let's say a state law
enforcement agency approaches BLM. And say that they have
credible information that certain lands within the national
monument may be used in connection with a crime, and request
that you restrict or close that area to firearms for the
duration of their investigation. They state that this
investigation could last up to a year, and that the release of
any information is going to jeopardize their confidential
informant that is giving them the information.
So, under the legislation as proposed by Mr. Flake, what
would you do?
Mr. Ratcliffe. We would be unable to comply. And we would
not be able to close the area for recreational shooting.
Mr. Grijalva. And Ms. Recce, your testimony talks about the
recreational shooting closures at Ironwood, the Ironwood
National Monument, the Sonoran Desert National Monument. You
intimated that the managers have already decided that those
closures prior to a public process--let me ask you. Was the NRA
involved in the Udall Institute's conflict resolution process
addressing shooting issues that started in 2002? And were they
involved at all in that citizens process that went on?
Ms. Recce. I don't know. I will have to find out. I know
that in the 1990s NRA was involved related to Forest Service
land in the Tucson Rod and Gun Club closure, and----
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, that question will be a little later.
From the list of the committee members, there were two
members specifically--as of 2004, specifically representing
NRA. And the reason I ask that is that, given that there was
some involvement by NRA, didn't some of the process feed into
the Ironwood Forest National Monument planning process?
In other words, didn't everybody included in the NRA know
that local land management agencies, Arizona Game and Fish, and
community members were looking at recreational shooting issues
throughout the entire Tucson basin?
Ms. Recce. The answer is yes. In fact, NRA was actively
involved during the planning process for the Ironwood Forest
National Monument. We had a lot of members, even board members,
involved in this process. Early on we raised a concern with BLM
over the plan itself, because it essentially gave only two
options: either leave the monument completely open to
recreational shooting, or close the monument completely. And we
weren't supporting the entire monument being open. It really
was a black and white proposal, which really is not a fair and
thoughtful plan.
We were told that they would go back, BLM would go back to
the board and take a look at this. And you know, it was all of
a sudden, you know, four years later, last fall, that the final
plan comes out the way it did.
Mr. Grijalva. I am going to have other questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Time is expired; we may have other
rounds of questions afterwards.
Mr. Holt, do you have any questions?
Mr. Holt. I would be happy to yield my time to Mr.
Grijalva.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Ratcliffe. I asked Ms. Recce
about the local collaborative process. Can you explain who
initiated that conflict resolution that was facilitated by the
Udall Institute, and when they did so? Just so we can have that
on the record.
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was BLM-initiated, in coordination with
interested parties around the Tucson area.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. And describe for the Committee the
process local BLM managers went through at Agua Fria, Ironwood
Forest National Monument, Sonoran Desert National Monument to
evaluate recreational shooting opportunities. What was that
survey's process, the inventory, the evaluations that went on?
Mr. Ratcliffe. BLM takes very seriously the opportunity to
provide recreational shooting opportunities on BLM lands, and
we do so extensively.
In the case of Ironwood, Agua Fria, and Sonora, Sonoran
Desert, we went through an extensive evaluation process as part
of the land use management planning process, as part of the
resource management plan. In all cases, the entire monuments
were evaluated for opportunities for recreational shooting,
where resources could be protected and safety ensured.
In the case of Agua Fria, we even worked with Ms. Recce in
the field to attempt to identify locations that might be
available within Agua Fria, and we compromised on the fact that
the surrounding 900,000 acres of Agua Fria would largely remain
open to recreational shooting. And, in fact, are today.
The opportunity for us to provide quality management of
these lands is extremely important, because these are national
monuments with significant cultural and natural resources. And
if the legislation were enacted, unfortunately areas like
Pompey's Pillar in Montana would be open to target shooting,
and that is where the only physical evidence of the Lewis and
Clark expedition is, is that William Clark's signature is on
the rocks there. And it is only 51 acres, but we would not be
able to enforce a closure there for longer than 6 months.
And similarly, San Jacinto National Monument in Palm
Springs, over 50,000 people live within a few miles of the
border of Santa Rosa San Jacinto National Monument, and that
too would be open for----
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, and that committee process that went on
under--since 2002, staff from my office were there, staff from
Mr. Kyl's office was there, observing the process. And the
reason I ask that is that under Flake's legislation, when local
land managers, communities such as the one that I live in--
which we are talking about with regard to Ironwood and
Sonoran--they work together, they come up with some suitable
compromises, they come up with some areas for shooting, and
mutually identify what areas of concern shouldn't be, and come
to some conclusion.
Under this legislation, what would happen to that process?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It has turned on its head. Basically, this
legislation would protect recreational shooting above all other
uses and/or recreational uses, and put both resources and
public safety at risk. It takes the decision-making capability
of the local land manager away and back to Washington, D.C.,
and would make it extremely difficult to manage for unforeseen
concerns, such as wildfire and other----
Mr. Grijalva. And the six-month issue makes a blanket
legislative policy for the entire Nation.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is correct, for all our----
Mr. Grijalva. Regardless of circumstances, regardless of
situations on the ground, and, quite frankly, regardless of
community opinion.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Correct. We could implement six-month
closures which would expire unless Congress enacted
legislation.
Mr. Grijalva. Yield, yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Tsongas, you have
questions on this bill? Mr. Amodei?
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ratcliffe, could
you describe for me briefly what fuels management efforts the
BLM has undertaken in national monuments such as the ones you
have been discussing today? We are talking a lot about public
safety and wildfire.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Correct----
Mr. Amodei. And I have got five minutes, so you have been
doing this longer than me, so----
Mr. Ratcliffe. I will try to be----
Mr. Amodei [continuing]. Fire fast, please.
Mr. Ratcliffe [continuing]. Be brief. We have enacted some
seasonal closures for campfires, let's say, and/or other
activities, such as recreational target shooting, in high-fire
danger areas. There are other national monuments and national
conservation areas that we have done so, especially with a lot
of cheatgrass and dry fields in the summer.
Mr. Amodei. But have you done any fuels management?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
Mr. Amodei. Removing fuel in national monument areas?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes. There is--as you know, cheatgrass is
not a native species, and there has been a great deal of
effort, particularly in Sonoran, on restoration of native
species----
Mr. Amodei. So----
Mr. Ratcliffe [continuing]. And the elimination of----
Mr. Amodei. So you are actively managing fuels in these
national monument areas----
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes----
Mr. Amodei [continuing]. As well as using the restrictions?
Mr. Ratcliffe. As best we can.
Mr. Amodei. What--OK. How is the budget for managing fuels?
Since you said, ``as best we can,'' can you give me a little
more definition to that?
Mr. Ratcliffe. The Agency, along with the Forest Service
and others, manages fuels as Congress allows, as far as
appropriations.
Mr. Amodei. OK, fair enough. I appreciate that. You get
lightning over these monuments from time to time, right?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Correct.
Mr. Amodei. You have any information that indicates how
often you get a fire in national monuments in the United States
via Mother Nature versus recreational shooting?
Mr. Ratcliffe. The vast majority of fire starts are either
lightning caused or human caused by other activities, such as
campgrounds and fires.
Mr. Amodei. OK, thank you. Now, you have talked about your
local process and that, and I appreciate that. Is there any--
has there ever been any thought to giving those folks in the
local process, whether it is public safety, whether it is local
land use managers--state, city, or county--actual authority in
terms of your records of decision? Or do your records of
decision ultimately rest with those district managers?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Records of decision rest with the district
managers and the state directors. The state--the national
director has oversight of all NEPA decisions.
Mr. Amodei. Well, I guess my point and my frustration here
is I don't disagree with some of your points. But ultimately--
and I am new here, but you know, this has been accused of a do-
nothing partisan outfit and blah, blah, blah. And so here is a
bill that--you know, you have got some good points.
But it frustrates me to see you coming in and saying, ``OK,
we love the local land use planning process in this state in
Arizona,'' and so, you know, it's like, well, why not come in
and suggest something that enfranchises, you know, the fish and
game director of Arizona, who must sign off on this, or the
local planning folks who must sign off.
Ultimately, at its core, the authority here to decide is
made by that district manager and that state director, who,
while I have great respect for many of those in my state,
ultimately are elected by no one in the State of Nevada, and in
this instance the State of Arizona.
Do you have any thoughts on--since your statement is pretty
strong on our local--would you be willing to give part of that,
you know, process in generating these records of decision a
veto or a must-approve to somebody at the local or state level
in these instances?
Mr. Ratcliffe. BLM complies with the National Environmental
Policy Act, which requires close coordination with local
entities, as well as input from the public----
Mr. Amodei. And I know that.
Mr. Ratcliffe [continuing]. Have relationship----
Mr. Amodei. I understand that. But I am aware of no law
that prohibits you from executing a local memorandum of
understanding saying, ``We won't go forward with this without
your sign-off.'' You willing to do something like that?
Mr. Ratcliffe. We have--we can enter into a cooperative
agency status with other local entities and interests.
Mr. Amodei. So is that something that this Committee should
explore, as a potential partial solution to all or nothing?
Because I agree with you with sending stuff to Washington--no
offense to the people here--but ultimately, I also find it
incredible to believe that there isn't perhaps occasionally
input from the Department of the Interior or from Mr. Abbey and
his staff down to those state folks, as--and I expect that, I
am not saying that is an evil thing.
But to come in here and say, you know, ``We don't want this
Washington involvement'' I think ignores the reality that
Interior and the Bureau here in D.C. obviously are free to and
often, you know, exercise that.
So, I will just end with this. While I appreciate some of
the points you are making, it probably provides nothing in the
way of solution to say, ``Leave it the way it is, because
obviously there is a concern that has brought it to cause the
bill to be introduced.'' So it is like all my way or all the
existing way or not the new way. It would be refreshing to see
somebody come in and go, ``Here is how we fixed some of our
biggest concerns. And if you want more local input, here is how
we do it.''
But anyhow, I appreciate your candor. Thank you. And I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me ask a couple of questions
myself on this one. Mr. Ratcliffe, have any of the management
plans for any national monument ever evaluated the impact of
land closures on access and opportunities for displaced
recreational shooters?
Mr. Ratcliffe. They take into consideration other public
lands and opportunities that exist for all types of
recreational activities, and the uniqueness that the particular
monument may serve in a particular recreational----
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. But have any of those plans
ever considered the impact on the closure for the access of
opportunity?
Mr. Ratcliffe. In Ironwood specifically, we recognized the
fact that other closures, including Arizona state-owned public
lands, are closed to shooting. In that particular case we also
have worked extensively with the state to provide shooting
opportunities at 63 ranges across Arizona that are managed by
the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Recce, do you think the BLM national
monuments are the only Federal lands where this approach of the
Flake bill is needed?
Ms. Recce. I would say that the congressman's bill was
introduced in reaction to a unwritten policy by BLM that
national monuments are not places for recreational shooters. I
have not seen this sort of wholesale closure like this on other
BLM lands.
We do have our issues and differences related to management
or non-management of recreational shooting elsewhere on BLM
lands. But in terms of a mindset and a policy on closures, it
has really been focused on national monuments.
Mr. Bishop. Have you seen the same thing in national
forests?
Ms. Recce. No. We have our issues with the national forest
on specific areas, but not wholesale closure of national
forests to recreational shooters.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you for
your testimony on this bill.
Let us move now to H.R. 2489, by Representative Holt. If I
could ask, I believe--who gets this one, Mr. May? You have the
Administration's approach on this?
Mr. May. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 2489 would
authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally
significant battlefields and associated sites of the
Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 under the American
Battlefield Protection Program.
This legislation would expand the American Battlefield
Protection Program to include both the War of 1812 and
Revolutionary War battlefields, in addition to Civil War
battlefields, which are covered under the current program. It
would authorize 10 million in grants for Revolutionary War and
War of 1812 battlefield sites, as well as 10 million in grants
for Civil War battlefield sites, for each of the Fiscal Years
2012 through 2022. The American Battlefield Protection Program
is currently authorized through Fiscal Year 2013. The
Department supports this bill and suggests one change in the
reporting language, as stated in our testimony. And that
concludes our statement, and there is a more detailed statement
in the record.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Mr. Holt, I understand--or
I would appreciate it if you would introduce to the Committee
Mr. Fischer.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to
introduce to the Subcommittee Professor David Hackett Fischer.
Professor Fischer is often credited with playing a pivotal role
in reviving popular and academic interest in American history
and its lessons for the present. He is the Earl Warren
Professor of History at Brandeis University, the author of
widely acclaimed books, including ``Historians' Fallacies,''
``Albion's Seed,'' ``Paul Revere's Ride,'' ``The Great Wave,''
``Liberty and Freedom,'' and is also the winner of the 2005
Pulitzer Prize for History for his book, ``Washington's
Crossing,'' which many call a masterpiece. I am particularly
fond of it, because it hinges on historical events that took
place in Central New Jersey.
Professor Fischer's credentials as a historian and author
and an advocate make him well-qualified to speak on the
benefits of historic preservation. He looks at large issues and
ideas of history, freedom, liberty, the cultural currents that
have made America. He is no stranger to the political
contention that sometimes is encountered in historical work,
including fights over monuments and such.
Although today I am sure he will elevate the discussion, I
think he will find not contention and opposition, but, I hope,
broad support and good feeling about this legislation.
I thank Professor Fischer for coming to speak on behalf of
the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Fischer, you are recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HACKETT FISCHER, UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR AND
EARL WARREN PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
Dr. Fischer. Thank you very much for inviting me here, Mr.
Chairman. And Rush Holt, thanks to you for the leadership you
have taken with everybody else who has become a cosponsor of
this legislation. I have submitted written testimony, and will
be brief here today.
The short of it is we need help on Revolutionary War
battlefields. Rush Holt summarized the quantitative evidence,
much of it very carefully compiled by the National Park Service
and other groups. There is another study that was done 20 years
ago by Howard Peckham which reinforces all that. He found that
there were something like 1,300 battles in the American
Revolution, 1,300. And a good many of them are not merely lost,
they can't be found. We don't know where they happened.
And one thing that could happen with support of this sort
is that we could identify more of these places, which could
have very important local connections for others who actually
live in the neighborhood. The--I won't go over the numbers that
have--that establish the dimensions of the problem, but I would
like to say a few more things about the--some of the
qualitative issues here.
It is the case that a good many of the most important
battlefields in the American Revolution are very much in
trouble, or have been damaged or severely fragmented or the
other sorts of problems that are mentioned here.
One of them, for example, is the fighting on the day of
Lexington and Concord, the first day of the war, and the
Lexington Green and Concord's North Bridge are very carefully
protected and preserved. But the heaviest fighting on that day
that really made a difference for people at the time happened
not in those towns, but to the east, from Lexington east to
Cambridge, and then to Charles Town. And very little of that
has been protected. Some of it still has possibilities on open
land. And if anything, the conditions there are getting worse.
It is the same for the fighting around New York in 1776,
and for Trenton and at Princeton. The Princeton battlefield is
in danger, as are both the first and the second battles of
Trenton. The second battle that happened on the 2nd of January
is almost totally neglected, not even in the other general
surveys of this.
It is the same for Philadelphia campaigning and the most
important battlefield is Brandywine. And it is on the top of
the list of endangered sites from the National Park Service. In
the fighting around Saratoga, one of the important battles was
the Battle of Bennington, very close to that small Vermont town
that is now thriving and growing. But the battle itself
actually happened just across the state line in New York, and
the result is that it has been an orphan. It is difficult, even
to find the battlefield today. And it has been much neglected.
And I could run through all the campaigns in the American
Revolution, and we find this problem recurring again and yet
again. And we have seen what difference this sort of
legislation can make for the Civil War. I very much hope that
that precedent will be applied to the Revolution, as well.
One might ask, ``Why are these sites important?
And I would like to testify to that, as a teacher. That is
what I mainly am. And I have just finished my 99th semester in
the classroom. And I can testify that some of my students
really love history, and some of them really don't. And when I
try to ask why they go one way or another, what I find is that
the students who are really engaged in history, before they
come into my classroom, have been taken to these sites. Their
families have gone on the ground. And that makes all the
difference. So much of history is an effort of imagination. And
when young people get on the ground, suddenly they discover
that others have walked that earth before them, and it has an
impact.
I have four or five long stories that are in my written
report, and I won't tell the stories here again. But we have
witnessed this many times over on the field.
At the same time that we have got problems, we also have
opportunities. As people are getting more interested in
history, they are becoming more concerned about these problems.
And the concerns have deepened just recently in the past few
years because so many of these sites that had maintenance funds
have been zero-funded in the last few years. History
maintenance funds, I think, are some of the first to be cut in
these difficult moments.
But people are getting concerned, and they have also been
doing something on their own about this, not so much on the
sites, but on trails. Trails are cheaper than sites. It is
easier to construct a trail. And they have been constructed
with extraordinary dimensions.
There is a trail that runs to the--mainly to the Battle of
Kings Mountain, which was the scene of a major battle at the
very end--almost at the end of the Revolution. And what the
trail does is to follow the route that the militia took who
converged on that battlefield. And the total length of all of
those trails is approximately 180 miles. And it is going to
grow beyond that. And it engages dozens of counties in five
Southern States, a huge catchment area. And many of the
counties and the local communities take great pride in their
connection with those trails.
The same thing is happening on an even larger scale with
the Washington-Rochambeau Trail, which is now in the process of
creation. That one covers 680 miles, following the routes of
the French and the American Continental Armies at the end of
the war. And again, it is knitting together a great many
communities.
There is another set of trails, it is the Star Spangled
Trails, which are in and around the City of Baltimore for the
War of 1812. In fact, there are 24 trails within that network.
And that is just three of many examples.
But there is a problem with those trails. The problem is
that the sites are not developed or protected along the trails.
And the sites are critical to the--as the anchors of the trails
themselves. And they--the trails have turned up many more sites
and problems of that sort. This legislation could make a major
difference, reinforcing those local efforts.
There are----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Fischer, you are significantly over time. I
need you to summarize, if you would, please.
Dr. Fischer. Sure. I will just add one last thought, which
is that it is very important, I think, that all of this is done
with the provision of willing sellers that is written into the
legislation. And the bill, I think, has been very well thought-
out in that way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fischer follows:]
Statement of David Hackett Fischer on H.R. 2489,
The American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act
Introduction: An Accelerating Problem
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I am here to
speak in support of a new bill for the acquisition and protection of
nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the
Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, under the
American Battlefield Protection Program.
On July 10, 2008, I was in this room to support an earlier version
of the bill, ``The Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield
Protection Act,'' It passed the House of Representatives with many
sponsors from both parties, and nearly unanimous support.
With every year that goes by, this legislation grows more urgent.
We continue to lose sites and historic buildings in many states.
Leaders of the National Parks Conservation Association estimated on
January 19, 2012 that ``every year this nation loses more than 1
million acres,'' of historic sites associated with the Civil War,
American Revolution, and War of 1812.
The National Park Service has surveyed 825 ``nationally
significant'' battlefields and associated sites for the American
Revolution and the War of 1812. Of that number it finds that 107 have
been lost, another 245 are in poor or fragmentary condition, and 22 are
in danger of destruction in the next ten years.
The rate of loss is accelerating. Sites now presently endangered
include some of the most important events in the history of the
American Revolution. Among them are sites of fighting on the day of the
day of Lexington and Concord in 1775, the fighting around New York at
Pell's Point and other places in 1776, the Delaware crossing on
Christmas night in 1776; the first battle of Trenton on December 26,
1776, the second battle of Trenton on January 2, 1777, the battle of
Princeton on January 3, 1777, the Forage War in New Jersey from January
to March in 1777, and Howe's East Jersey campaign against Washington in
the spring of 1777, the battle of Brandywine in September 1777, and
many more. These were not minor or marginal events. They were the major
campaigns. Some of these sites are now at risk, but might be preserved
and protected at least in part if we can act decisively.
These endangered sites are located on open land in suburban or
exurban areas around our cities and large towns. As urban growth begins
to revive after the great recession, real estate development is picking
up again, and the loss of historic sites will increase with it, unless
we find a way to deal with it.
Some of these losses are the inevitable price we pay for economic
growth, which is fundamental to the health of this great republic. But
even as development continues, we could protect some of the most
important sites, and this legislation would make a major difference
that way.
The existing Civil War Battlefield Protection Program was already
done so, with much success. It has helped to preserve 17,000 acres of
historic sites. In many cases, it did so with matching grants that
extended the reach of the program, while limiting costs. It has also
operated effectively on the principle of acquisition from ``willing
sellers'' only. Prior experience with the use of eminent domain for
historic sites, as at Minuteman Historic Park in the 1950s, clearly
demonstrates the wisdom and even the necessity o a ``willing seller''
rule.
Growing Interest in Historic Sites
Today, even as dangers to historic sites are increasing, so also
are our opportunities for their protection and preservation--and in
several ways. One factor is that more people who taking an interest in
the American Revolution, and in historic sites.
During the past two decades we have seen a growth of interest in
history generally, after a period in the late 20th century when the
trend had moved in the opposite direction. Before 1990, history books
disappeared from bestseller lists, history enrollments declined both in
undergraduate and graduate programs. Historical and patriotic
organizations tended to lose members. The popular culture of that
period turned away from the American past. In the universities the
movement called postmodernism denied the possibility of historical
truth.
Since about 1990, these trends reversed. One of the most
interesting tendencies was a sudden surge of interest in the American
Revolution and the War of Independence, without benefit of
anniversaries or commemorations. Part of it grew from the success of
new books on the American Revolution. A leading example was David
McCullough's excellent biography of John Adams--a massive work, on an
improbable subject, for a runaway best seller. Many other dense and
academic books about the American Revolution reached a large reading
public, to the surprise of their authors.
Clearly there is a new public for history today. Those of us who
write history know about it because our readers write to us and tell us
who they are and why they care. They are people in mid-career. They
were not history majors in college. Many of them are in the knowledge
business--the old professions, the new digital disciplines. They work
with complexity, and their skills require rigor, and they came to
history that spirit. They don't want it to be dumbed down, and they
also have very little interest in academic historiography which they
regard as the shadow of the thing and not the thing itself. Neither
popular history or academic history serves them well. A new genre of
history works better for them. It has the seriousness and breadth of
inclusion of the new social and cultural history. And it also has the
people, leaders, events, and choices. Most of all it's about people
making choices, and choices making a difference in the world. And in
that way, it speaks to our condition. It is also an idea of history
that is rooted in places such as the sites that this legislation seeks
to protect.
The Importance of Historical Sites
This newly enlarged constituency for this history in the United
States numbers in the millions, and the numbers are growing. But other
millions of people are not part of it. They have little interest in
history, and that is a problem for us all. Surveys show that people who
don't know much about history also know little of current events. They
are less apt to vote, or to have a sense of civic engagement. They are
less engaged in the civic life of the republic. The question is how to
reach these people, and to encourage an interest in history. One way to
reach some of them is to engage in thinking about history on the
ground.
A few stories might suggest some of the ways in which historic
sites can have a major impact. One place where I have seen it happening
is in the town of Lexington, Massachusetts, along the Battle Road where
the Revolutionary War began. We were there, on a small piece of
preserved ground, watching a reenactment. Some in the re-enactors
dressed as militia and others wore redcoats. A third group wore 18th
century civilian dress--men, women and children. They call themselves
pickets, and their job is to work the crowd, mingling among them,
engaging individuals in informal conversations about history. One of
these pickets was a lawyer named Miles McConnell. He stood on the edge
of the field, between the battle road and a bike path, popular with
families who were speeding by as the battle reenacting. We watched as a
family of bikers came by, outfitted in lycra bodysuits and
intergalactic helmets, bike helmets on the edge of the battle field.
One of the children noticed first. He screeched to a stop and came over
to the Miles McConnell, the picket, and they started to talk--the child
in his galactic biking helmet and Miles McConnell in a cocked hat. A
volley was fired and the child was fascinated. The parents came biking
over, and a crowd began to gather listening with close attention to
Mile McConnell. The old stories were new to them and they learned about
them on the ground with interest and even a sense of wonder. Their bike
trip suddenly became a journey of discovery. And a history that might
have been learned painfully in a classroom was absorbed effortlessly on
an historic site, with laughter and a light touch.
Another story. Recently my wife and I were in Charlotte, North
Carolina on history business. Afterward, we had some time to ourselves
and drove to National Battlefield Historic Park at Cowpens in South
Carolina. I noted in the parking lot an unmarked black van with New
York license plates. As we walked onto the field, we met two men, lean
and muscular, with haircuts high and tight. They were wearing black
combat fatigues, black jump boots, and black tee shirts that were
inscribed ``We own the streets! NYPD.'' They were New York cops who
worked on the sharp end in that city. Their hobby was history,
especially the history of the American Revolution. They took a week of
their vacation and drove several thousand miles to visit battlefields
in the southern states. From their reading they knew the ground of
Cowpens as intimately as the streets of their city. We learned from
their depth of knowledge. They responded to the site in another spirit,
as if they were on sacred ground. There is a book about that by a
philosopher, Edward Tabor Linenthal, called Sacred Ground; Americans
and Their Battlefields (Illinois Press, 1993). As we talked about what
had happened on the field at Cowpens, these hard men in a very tough
job were moved to tears by their memory of what had happened there.
A third story is not about laughter or tears, but history in
another key. It happened at Minuteman National Park. We were with a
Hollywood director, and producers and a screen writer. They were full
of high spirits and irreverent Hollywood humor. As we drove through
Concord, they were impressed by the houses, and one of them said, you
didn't tell us that the Revolution began in Boston's Beverly Hills. We
talked about what had happened there, in the fighting along a country
road. Then we walked a stretch of it, about half a mile called the
Nelson neighborhood, past the ruins of farm house that had belonged to
families of that name. The road was unpaved, very wide. It ran between
stone walls that had been built in the 18th century, with ancient oak
trees on either side of the road. The sunlight was filtered through the
leaves It was early in the morning, after a rain the night before. The
ground was wet and wisps of a ghostly mist were rising around us.
Suddenly the entire group went completely silent and we walked the old
road without a word. They knew what had happened there. But now
suddenly they felt it. And they knew in that deeper way that others had
walked this earth before them. That past was not a foreign country.
That our own forbears lived there, and their lives were linked to ours.
It came to them with the force of revelation. That's what an historic
site can do.
Sites and Trails
Since 2008, something else has been happening as a way of
preserving the historic sites of the American Revolution. Mainly it is
about the development of historic trails that link those sites
together. It has been going on since at least 1947, when William
Schofield and Bob Winn, a journalist and a church worker, founded
Boston's Freedom Trail--a ribbon of red brick, 2.5 miles long, that
connects sites for the Revolution, Early Republic, War of 1812, and the
Civil War.
Many other trails are now in process of development. One is
Baltimore's Star Spangled Trails, a network of 23 trails for driving
and walking. They follow many themes that variously center on the
American Revolution and Early Republic, the War of 1812, Slavery and
the Civil War, and the maritime and social and cultural history of
Baltimore. It is one of the most ambitious of many historical projects
in any of our cities.
Another is the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail. It
centers on a single event in the War of Independence--the battle of
King's Mountain in South Carolina on Oct. 7, 1780, where many
backcountry militia who supported the new America republic came
together to defeat an army that served the British Crown. The
Overmountain Trail follows the march of the many American units who
converged on that battle field. The result is a huge web of trails that
stretch for 200 miles across the states of Virginia, Tennessee, North
Carolina and South Carolina, It may eventually include parts of
Georgia, West Kentucky and Georgia. Many people have joined together to
make it work--private landowners, public officers, schoolchildren, boy
scouts many more.
One of the largest of these new history trails is the Washington-
Rochambeau-Revolutionary Route. It was given that name in the Public
Land Management Act of 2009, and known to many people as the W3R Trail.
This one presently runs for 680 miles through nine states and the
District of Columbia. It follows the movements of French and American
armies from Newport to Yorktown, and once again it brings together many
historic sites, and communities and individual people
All of these trails are works in progress. All have great
strengths, devoted organizers, and a very broad base of enthusiastic
support. All combine public and private assistance from individual
landowners, corporations, local governments, state agencies, and
national institutions such as the Park Service.
But even as they combine many strengths, they also share a major
challenge. The historic sites along the trails have presented many
problems--more than the trails themselves. Some sites are in bad
repair, or in danger of loss. Here again the Battlefield Bill could
make a difference.
A Few Examples in the Countryside.
Much of the Saratoga battlefield is carefully protected and
maintained, as a national Historic Park. But Saratoga was the name of a
campaign, and some very important small battles in the outcome. One of
them was the battle of Bennington in August, 1777. It bears the name of
a town in Vermont, but the battlefield itself is in the state of New
York, and the site has been neglected by both states. The land is
almost entirely unprotected, and it is increasingly at risk from the
spread of development through that area. A grant from a National
Battlefield Protection Program could bring the two states together in a
common cause, and protect one of the most interesting, and appealing
and important small battlefields in American history.
Other rural sites are in tidewater Virginia, and were part of
Lafayette's campaign in 1781, that preceded the larger campaign of
Washington Rochambeau. In the months before the Yorktown campaign there
were several small battles of large significance. Their sites have also
been neglected. An example is the battle of Greenspring, which is very
important for an understanding of the leadership of the Marquis de
Lafayette and the American General Anthony Wayne. It was also an event
that a major impact on the Continental army's sense of itself, and what
it could do, and it taught British and Hessian leaders what they could
not do. The National Park Service noted that this battlefield is almost
entirely intact, but in danger of development.
Many sites in central New Jersey were part of a campaign that has
not yet found its historian. It happened in the spring and early summer
of 1776, when General Howe led his troops from New York City to central
New Jersey in an attempt to trap and destroy Washington's army. The
result was a major campaign without a large battle--an eighteenth
century affair of small skirmishes. In the end Howe failed to trap
Washington and suffered serious losses. He also lost nearly half of the
campaigning season in 1777, with disastrous results for the
Philadelphia campaign and the Saratoga campaign that followed. It was
also a brilliant bit of soldiering by Washington and his lieutenants.
The two armies moved back and forth across spectacular terrain.
Washington made effective use of a high escarpment that runs diagonally
across the New Jersey countryside for many miles. Only a few years ago
it was mostly open land. Today is rapidly developing. Pockets of open
land still remain, and could draw many people to the study of history.
The Battlefield Protection Bill could make a difference here.
Examples from an American City: Boston
Another large-spirited program of small improvements in historic
sites might be envisioned for the center of a major American city. Here
are a few specific suggestions of some things that might be done with
the help of the Battlefield Protection Program.
Spring Lane is a small alley off Washington Street between Milk and
Water Streets. It is dark, gloomy, and forbidding, with an air of
danger and decay. To venture into it is to discover an old plaque that
marks the location of a spring that was a center of settlement and town
life in the seventeenth century. This dreary alley could be turned into
a very attractive place that might commemorate Boston's 17th century
beginnings in an active and engaging way. A fountain could be installed
to represent the old spring. Lively monuments might commemorate the
Puritan founders--men, women, and children. An outdoor cafe could be
set there, with banks of shade plants to soften the walls, and
imaginative lighting and music in the evening. In the summer it could
be a cool spot on a hot day. We could convert a dirty, dreary and
dangerous alley into an attractive and very interesting place, where
people might be invited to reflect on the Boston's early history.
Province Street just off the Freedom Trail from School Street,
offers a possibility for broadening the history of the Revolution in an
attractive way. The street takes its name from Province House, the seat
of the Royal government in Massachusetts. In 1775 it was the official
residence of General Thomas Gage and his American wife Margaret Gage
who was deeply divided in her heart by the revolution. Nothing remains
of Province House but an iron gate that led to 18th century gardens on
its grounds, and a heavy flight of granite steps that lead up to
Bosworth Street. One could reconstruct a small eighteenth century
garden at the dead end of Bosworth Street. It might be about 2000
square feet, with a monument to Boston's loyalists, the forgotten
Americans in the War for Independence. Perhaps it could also include a
memorial to General Gage and Mrs. Gage modelled after the Copley
portraits. All this could be done with care, restraint, and fidelity to
fact, but also with flair and color and imagination. One might turn a
shabby run-down dead-end corner on the edge of Boston's former combat
zone into a place of grace and beauty and historical interest. Once
more the Protection Bill could lead to something very creative.
Hanover Square is the forgotten eighteenth century name for the
intersection of Washington and Essex Streets. It was also called the
Elm Neighborhood, after a grove of ancient trees that had ben planted
by the founders of Boston. In 1765 one of those elms was adopted by the
Sons of Liberty and called the Liberty Tree. Many important events in
the history of the American Revolution happened here, from 1765 to
1775. The tree was cut down by a Tory mob in 1775, and for many years
the town venerated the Liberty Stump as it was called. At present,
nothing remains but a few old signs that are hard to find and harder to
read, and a few scrawny locust trees. There is an open space on the
south side of Essex Street in front of the China Trade Center. Here
again this Bill could have an impact.
A Suggestion for Funding: a New Source of Income
A major problem these days is about how to pay this program. The
bill envisions expenditures of $10 million a year for Civil War sites,
and another $10 million for the American Revolution and War of 1812
combined. How might we pay for it?
On the principle of ``pay as you go,'' and to win support both in
the Congress and the country, we might build on several precedents
which were adopted in the 1990s to support Civil War sites.
The first precedent was set by Congress in 1992, when it authorized
the Treasury to mint and sell Civil War commemorative coins which
yielded a net return of $5.9 million. This money was used to buy lands
for Civil War battlefields, and 5,200 acres were acquired.
A second precedent came also from Congress in 1998, when it
authorized approximately 32 million dollars in the form of grants to
the states from Land and Water Conservation Funds to acquire and
protect historic sites and battlefield lands in particular. These funds
were used to acquire and protect another 11,800 acres. There grants and
gifts were combined with matching funds which extended their reach.
Something similar could be done to pay for the acquisition of historic
sites and battlefields from the American Revolution and the war of
1812.
One could also encourage contributions that might have an added
purpose. A model in the 19th and again in the 20th century, was a
fundraising campaign for the preservation of USS Constitution. It
invited schoolchildren to send pennies for the Constitution. The drive
drew much attention, and succeeded in several ways. Many children
contributed pennies, The example of the children inspired adults to
pitch in. And for the children themselves, the experience of giving
encouraged them to form a sense of identity and even ownership of the
Constitution, and its history. It could happen again with battlefields
and historic sites. Very small contributions could be pay large
dividends, not only for the protection of the battlefields themselves,
but for the preservation of the Republic in generations to come.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Holt? Ms.
Tsongas?
Ms. Tsongas. I don't have a question so much, but just to
say that my district encompasses Concord, Massachusetts, and is
home to the Minuteman National Historical Park. And I just
visited there this past summer with two young members of my
family. And Mr. Fischer and Congressman Holt, you are so right
when you say how important it is that we be able to visit the
places where these remarkable events took place. It makes it so
real.
And it is not just that we sort of become stewards of those
places, but also we become stewards of what happened there. And
that can be a very complex effort. But nevertheless, I think it
is so important to us as a nation. We know that once these
spaces are gone, they are lost forever. And with it goes our
great personal connection to the past.
So, just to say I think I am supportive of this
legislation. I have seen over and over again how important it
is that we protect our heritage. Thank you.
Dr. Fischer. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Amodei, do you have question? Mr. Holt, do
you have questions?
Mr. Holt. Yes. Thank you. And, you know, as I said in my
opening remarks, I think that this is critically important for
moving forward, not just for looking back. Some students came
to see me in my office, and they brought me a button that says,
``History: Now, More Than Ever.``
Indeed, you know, if this nation is to long endure, we have
to continually remind ourselves on how it was conceived and to
what it is dedicated. And feeling that on the ground, as you
say, Professor Fischer, is, I think, critically important to
that.
Let me ask each of you, Mr. May and Mr. Fischer, to quickly
give some examples from the Civil War battlefield protection
that would be the kinds of things that would be brought to the
War of the Revolution and the War of 1812 that are really
necessary for drawing those lessons for the future.
Dr. Fischer. I would say one would be Fort Sumter, which
has been made much more accessible to visitors in South
Carolina. And it is now a major tourist magnet, easier of
access than ever before. And just across the water is Fort
Moultrie, a Revolutionary War site. And it could be exactly the
same there.
Mr. May. The--I have a few examples of grants from the
Battlefield Protection Program, overall. Recently, Citizens for
Fauquier County were given a grant for a project on nine
significant Civil War battlefields, including Brandy Station,
Cedar Mountain, Kelly's Ford, et cetera. I won't give the whole
list.
The program is quite extensive, and I--in terms of specific
acquisitions, I don't have a list of those in my possession at
the moment, but we certainly can give you a list of that.
Mr. Holt. Well, I will just finish by thanking Mr. Fischer
for the fine examples that you have given in your prepared
testimony of what a difference the visit to a well-presented
site can make, and also to thank Professor Fischer for
mentioning the Washington-Rochambeau Trail, which is moving
along nicely and I think will be important in this effort.
And to all present, I am sure many of you have read the
works of David Hackett Fischer. But if you haven't, I urge you
to do so. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. We have one last bill,
3411, by Mr. Benishek.
Mr. Ratcliffe, just tell us you like the bill.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is pretty much it.
Mr. Bishop. OK, we are done.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ratcliffe. All right.
Mr. Bishop. With that, I appreciate very much the testimony
and the patience of both the Members and the staff, and the
participants here. Members of the Subcommittee may have
additional questions for witnesses. And we would ask you to
respond to those in writing. The hearing record will be open
for 10 days to receive those responses.
If there is no further business, once again I do appreciate
all those who have waited and given the testimony on all these
bills very much. If there is no further business, this
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]