[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 386; H.R. 1318; H.R. 2717; H.R. 3448; AND H.R. 4377
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 13, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-46
__________
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.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-953PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Pete Stauber, MN CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, July 13, 2023.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin......................................... 2
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 4
Panel I:
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 5
Johnson, Hon. Dusty, a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Dakota...................................... 6
Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 7
Moore, Hon. Blake D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 9
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Chaudhary, Ravi I., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Energy, Installations, and Environment, United States Air
Force, Washington, DC...................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Questions submitted for the record....................... 14
Reynolds, Mike, Deputy Director, Congressional and External
Relations, National Park Service, Washington, DC........... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Questions submitted for the record....................... 19
Panel III:
Hill, Beth, President, The Fort Ticonderoga Association,
Ticonderoga, New York...................................... 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Duhamel, Hon. Helene, Senator, South Dakota Senate, Rapid
City, South Dakota......................................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Duncan, David, President, American Battlefield Trust,
Washington, DC............................................. 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Laymon, Anna, Executive Director, Women's Suffrage National
Monument Foundation, Daphne, Alabama....................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Slabinski, Britt, Master Chief, United States Navy, Retired,
Arlington, Texas........................................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Bureau of Land Management, Statement for the Record on H.R.
4377....................................................... 55
Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman
U.S. Marine Corps, Letter of support for H.R. 4377....... 57
Submissions for the Record by Representative Neguse
Letters of support for H.R. 1318...........................
Combs, Susan, Former Asst. Sec. Policy, Mgmt and Budget,
DOI.................................................... 60
Lemay, Kate Clarke, Historian, National Portrait Gallery. 60
Giddings, Paula J., Professor Emerita, Smith College..... 61
Preston, Ashley Robertson, Asst. Prof. of History, Howard
University............................................. 62
Matilda Joslyn Gage Foundation........................... 62
Meltzer, Brad, Author & Historian........................ 63
Duster, Michelle, Author & Public Historian.............. 63
National Sculpture Society............................... 64
Johns Hopkins University, Museum Studies Program......... 64
Mikulski, Barbara, Senator (Ret.)........................ 65
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 386, TO PROVIDE THAT NO FEDERAL
FUNDS SHALL BE USED TO ALTER, CHANGE, DESTROY, OR REMOVE, IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY NAME, FACE, OR OTHER FEATURE ON THE MOUNT
RUSHMORE NATIONAL MEMORIAL, ``MOUNT RUSHMORE PROTECTION ACT'';
H.R. 1318, TO AUTHORIZE THE LOCATION OF A MONUMENT ON THE
NATIONAL MALL TO COMMEMORATE AND HONOR THE WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE
MOVEMENT AND THE PASSAGE OF THE 19TH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE
NATIONAL MONUMENT LOCATION ACT''; H.R. 2717, TO AUTHORIZE THE
NATIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR MUSEUM FOUNDATION TO ESTABLISH A
COMMEMORATIVE WORK ON THE NATIONAL MALL TO HONOR THE
EXTRAORDINARY ACTS OF VALOR, SELFLESS SERVICE, AND SACRIFICE
DISPLAYED BY MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS, ``HERSHEL `WOODY'
WILLIAMS NATIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR MONUMENT LOCATION ACT''; H.R.
3448, TO AMEND CHAPTER 3081 OF TITLE 54, UNITED STATES CODE, TO
ENHANCE THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF AMERICA'S
BATTLEFIELDS, ``AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM
ENHANCEMENT ACT''; AND H.R. 4377, TO AMEND THE MILITARY LANDS
WITHDRAWAL ACT OF 1999 WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSIONS, ADDITIONS,
AND REVISIONS TO THE BARRY M. GOLDWATER RANGE IN ARIZONA
----------
Thursday, July 13, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Tiffany, Fulcher, Stauber,
Kiggans, Westerman; Kamlager-Dove, and Grijalva.
Also present: Representatives Moore of Utah, Hunt, Johnson
of South Dakota, and Stefanik.
Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to
order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider five bills:
H.R. 386, Representative Johnson's South Dakota's Mount
Rushmore Protection Act; H.R. 1318, Women's Suffrage National
Monument Location Act by Ranking Member Neguse; H.R. 2717,
Representative Moore of Utah's Hershel Woody Williams National
Medal of Honor Monument Location Act; H.R. 3448, Representative
Stefanik's American Battlefield Protection Program Enhancement
Act; and H.R. 4377, from Ranking Member Grijalva.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hunt; the gentlewoman from New York,
Ms. Stefanik; the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson; and
the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Moore.
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Tiffany. Earlier this month, we celebrated our
country's independence with the Fourth of July. Today, we
continue to celebrate America by considering five bills to
honor Americans, commemorate the history of our great country,
and ensure our national security for years to come.
As we approach the 250th anniversary of America, Natural
Resources Committee Republicans will celebrate our nation this
Congress by highlighting the multitude of stories that have
intertwined throughout our rich history to form the fabric of
our nation. Much of that history would not be possible without
the solemn sacrifices made by our nation's military and
veterans. That is why we are considering H.R. 2717 today, which
would honor the legacy of veterans who have demonstrated
unparalleled heroism, and ensure their sacrifices are
remembered for generations to come.
The Hershel Woody Williams National Medal of Honor Monument
Location Act, sponsored by Representative Moore of Utah, would
authorize the location of the National Medal of Honor Memorial
in a prominent location on the National Mall, here in DC. The
Medal of Honor is our nation's highest medal for valor in
combat. Over 3,500 Medals of Honor have been awarded since its
inception in 1861.
This year marks the 160th anniversary of President Abraham
Lincoln awarding the first Medal of Honor in the midst of the
Civil War. There are only 65 living recipients of the Medal of
Honor, including Master Chief Special Warfare Operator Britt
Slabinski, who is testifying today.
Master Chief Slabinski, thank you for your service and for
being here today.
H.R. 3448, the American Battlefield Protection Program
Enhancement Act, sponsored by Representative Stefanik, would
also honor our nation's earliest military history by making
several improvements to the American Battlefield Protection
program. Our nation's battlefields are hallowed sites
showcasing the sacrifice and struggle, trials and triumphs that
shaped our great nation, from the American Revolution to the
Civil War.
Unfortunately, despite the rich history of these locations,
many hallowed grounds have been lost or destroyed throughout
the past centuries. In fact, the American Battlefield Trust
estimates that our nation loses one acre of hallowed ground
every hour. Representative Stefanik's legislation would
strengthen our country's flagship program for protecting these
sites so that we don't lose any more important pieces of our
history.
Our great nation would be nothing without our Constitution
and our first presidents who helped forge our young country at
its outset. The Mount Rushmore Protection Act, led by
Representative Johnson of South Dakota, would protect this
shrine of democracy sculpture carved into the granite face of
Mount Rushmore. This unique sculpture commemorates the
beginnings of our country by honoring the founding growth and
perseverance of the United States of America.
In addition to honoring our past, the sculpture housed
within roughly 1,300 acres administered by the National Park
Service provides immense outdoor, recreational, and economic
opportunities, attracting over 2 million visitors a year.
It is important to recognize that America, like any nation,
has an imperfect past. Slavery was not abolished until 1865.
Women were not always allowed to vote. Our National Park System
helps us learn about and from the seminal events in our
history. That is why I would like to thank Ranking Member
Neguse and Congresswoman Lesko for introducing the bipartisan
Women's Suffrage National Monument to be placed on the National
Mall.
Like the Medal of Honor Memorial, this important monument
deserves a permanent home in the most prominent location in our
nation's capital. The consideration of this bill is
particularly timely, as today marks the 175th anniversary of
the start of the women's suffrage movement.
I am honored that my home state of Wisconsin played a
pivotal role in this history of this movement, because it
became the first state in the nation to ratify the 19th
Amendment. Thank you to my daughters, my three daughters, that
they are able to vote.
Finally, we will be considering important legislation to
ensure the Air Force and Navy's continued use of the Barry M.
Goldwater Range. Ranking Member Grijalva's legislation would
enhance the security and safety of flight operations at the
base, which is a critical training ground for our nation's top
pilots. This Committee is committed to working with the Air
Force to address their critical needs at the Goldwater Range in
Arizona, as well as other bases in the West.
I would like to thank all the Members for their leadership
on the important bills before us today.
I also want to thank all the witnesses for being here and
traveling long distances to provide your expert testimony. Your
work allows us to celebrate, honor, and protect veterans,
heroic Americans, and this great country we all call home. I
look forward to hearing from each of you.
With that, I would like to recognize the Chairman of the
Full Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Westerman, for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, for holding
this hearing today on the bills to celebrate America's past,
present, and our future. And I couldn't think of a better time
to hold this hearing, considering that this year marks the
160th anniversary of the awarding of the first Medal of Honor,
and today is also the 175th anniversary of the start of the
women's suffrage movement. So, it is a very fitting time to be
having hearings on these bills.
I welcome all the witnesses that will be here today.
Earlier this morning, I participated in an event called
Ruck the Reserve, which honors the brave men and women who have
fought in the global war on terrorism. Our ruck began at the
Lincoln Memorial and ended at the future site of the Global War
on Terrorism Memorial, which I was proud to support last
Congress. And once completed, this memorial will serve as a
lasting tribute on the National Mall so we never forget the
sacrifices that our veterans made to keep our nation safe from
terrorism.
It is not lost on me that just a few short years ago the
National Park Service was testifying before Congress in
opposition to locating this very monument on the National Mall,
much like they are today for the Medal of Honor and the Women's
Suffrage Memorial monuments.
In a world where we hear lots of buzz words like
``diversity'' and ``inclusion,'' it is pretty rich that those
concepts apparently don't extend to the inclusion of new
memorials in the most prominent location in our nation's
capital.
We also hear about support for our tribal community. We
hear about supporting tribal sovereignty. But as we will
discuss in a hearing later today, the Navajo were ignored when
it came to the Chaco Canyon withdrawal. This is disappointing.
But at this hearing we are having a hearing to put actions
behind our words, and to actually do what we claim that we want
to do. And these memorials that we are talking about, the
actions that we will take today and future actions, I think,
will show that there are more than just empty words in
Congress.
Millions of Americans and visitors from across the world
travel every year to our nation's capital to learn about the
history of our great nation. The monuments and memorials
located on the National Mall are the centerpiece of this
history. And including new memorials honoring the legacy of the
women's suffrage movement and the most courageous acts of valor
recognized by our country, I believe, are very appropriate.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
Committee on both sides of the aisle to ensure our National
Mall reflects these important aspects of our American history.
I am also proud to support a bill introduced by my friend
and colleague, Elise Stefanik, the American Battlefield
Protection Program Enhancement Act. This important legislation
will improve upon the successes of this vital program and
extend protections to pivotal battlefields across the nation.
Battlefields remind us of our storied, complex history.
They also provide a way to honor those who fought and whose
lives were lost. Most importantly, they not only serve as a way
to look into the past, but also to look into the future. The
American Battlefield Protection Program has already
successfully protected several battlefields in my home state of
Arkansas, including the Prairie Grove Battlefield. And
Congresswoman Stefanik's Bill would extend this program to also
include sites protected by state or local agencies. This would
benefit another battlefield in my district, the Jenkins Ferry
State Park.
Jenkins Ferry is one of three battlefields in south central
Arkansas that make up the Red River Campaign National Historic
Landmark. In 1864, Confederate soldiers attacked the Union Army
during the Battle of Jenkins Ferry. Union soldiers were able to
retreat using a ferry site that still exists within the park
today. Jenkins Ferry State Park also features many interpretive
sites and memorials to soldiers who lost their lives during the
Battle of Jenkins Ferry.
I look forward to considering the legislation that is
before us today, as well as other pieces of legislation that
are on the docket. I would like to thank the witnesses again
for being here, and I would especially like to take a moment,
as Chairman Tiffany did, to recognize Master Chief Britt
Slabinski. Master Chief Slabinski is one of only 65 living
Medal of Honor recipients.
And it is an honor to have you here to join us today, sir.
And as a witness, I look forward to hearing your testimony.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now I would like
to recognize the Ranking Member of the Natural Resources
Committee, Mr. Grijalva.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. I introduced H.R. 3477 at the request of the
U.S. Air Force, along with my good friend from Arizona, Mr.
Gallego, and member of this Committee. The bill extends the
withdrawal for the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range located
in my district, which is a top priority for the Air Force.
The Goldwater Range has served as a military training
facility for tactical aviation training and operational testing
activities since its establishment during World War II. The
current authorization is set to expire in October of 2024, so
the goal is to include the extension in this year's NDAA to
avoid any interruption in the access for this critical training
facility.
It is my understanding that the Rules Committee last night
en bloc included this particular amendment as part of a voice
vote to send to the Floor some time today. But I still believe
that a standalone piece of legislation is important because of
the critical nature of assuring that the Goldwater Range is
available to the Air Force and that extension, regardless of
the machinations that might happen under the Authorization Act
and other things that might or might not slow that down, that
this still has importance as a standalone piece of legislation.
In addition to ensuring the continued use of the range by
the Air Force and the Marine Corps for critical military
training until 2049, the Air Force's legislative proposal
includes the administrative transfer of some land back to the
Department of the Interior. This is a housekeeping matter that
is intended to simplify existing management protocol.
In addition to my bill, this hearing includes several bills
aimed to honor, preserve, and share the history of our country
while extending representation and inclusion of stories often
not told across the National Park System. This is an important
goal, especially when it comes to high-profile locations like
the National Mall, which I know can and always has been a
touchy subject, not only for this Committee, but for Congress.
Hopefully, we can meet together in a bipartisan manner to meet
the demand for new construction without compromising the long-
term vision of America's front yard.
Chair Tiffany, thanks again for the consideration. I look
forward to today's discussion.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. And first I would
like to recognize the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUSTY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk about H.R. 386, the Mount Rushmore
Protection Act.
It was maybe 10 years ago, Mr. Chairman, when I was running
a summer camp for teenagers in the Black Hills of South Dakota.
And we had pulled up the bus, and the kids had gotten off, and
we turned the corner. And there is this magnificent moment at
the monument where everything is sort of lined up, and you get
a shot of those four really impressive presidential faces. And
a 14-year-old that was a part of the group said, ``Oh, wow.''
Now, I don't know how much time you all have spent with 14-
year-olds, but they are pretty hard to impress. And it is
pretty hard to get them to disconnect from that supercomputer
that is in their hands. But in that moment, every single
teenager, Mr. Chairman, was locked in on those incredible
granite faces.
I suspect many of you have been to Mount Rushmore, so you
know exactly what I talk about when I talk about that ``oh
wow'' moment. These are massive faces of the presidents. When
you see pictures of the sculpting of the monument, the workers
hanging down from the top of the monument, they just seem so
small. They are the size of George Washington's nose.
But what is so impressive to me about the monument is not
the construction feat, but it is what it says about America.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy
Roosevelt. These are imperfect men. They are not up on that
monument because of their imperfections. They are up on that
monument because of their strengths, because of the values that
they brought to our country, the vision that they had for how
we can build a more perfect union. Not perfect yet, but every
day part of an endeavor to become more perfect.
So, the Mount Rushmore Protection Act makes it very clear
that we are not going to use one nickel of taxpayer dollars to
try to tear down that monument or to change its name. These are
not idle threats, I should note. It wasn't all that long ago
that South Dakota's tallest peak was renamed without a vote of
the people, without any acquiescence by the Governor, or the
State Legislature, or people from the area. An unelected group
just decided, well, your tallest mountain will be renamed,
whether you like it or not.
And, again, it is also not an idle threat that those faces
would be torn down from the monument. There have been some
pretty prominent elected voices in my state and elsewhere who
have called for just that to happen. We saw in Oregon not that
long ago statues of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington torn
down. We saw not all that long ago New York City take down
Teddy Roosevelt's statue outside of the Natural History Museum.
We even have some descendants of Thomas Jefferson who want his
memorial here in Washington, DC to be destroyed.
I understand that these are imperfect men. But to the
extent that, year in and year out, they were aware of their
imperfections and those of their country, the fact that they,
year in and year out, worked to move us closer to the kind of
nation we all know that we should be is worth celebrating.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank this Committee for having
a hearing on this bill. And I am honored that Senator Helene
Duhamel, who represents that area of the state, is going to
have an opportunity to tell you more about America's shrine to
democracy, and why it is worth protecting.
With that, I would yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Will the gentleman yield the balance of his
time?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. I just want to add a little anecdote. In the
state of Wisconsin, we saw this a couple of years ago, where
Lady Forward was torn down before the Wisconsin State Capitol,
and thrown into a lake. Lady Forward represents women's
suffrage, the state of Wisconsin being the first state to
ratify women's suffrage.
So, I hear the message that you are delivering, Mr.
Johnson. Thank you so much.
Now, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Neguse.
It is good to have you with us.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be with
you. And thank you to the witnesses for joining us here today.
It is certainly nice to see you again, Mr. Laymon, and I am
glad you could join us again in the Committee.
As the Chairman has, I suspect, already articulated, the
hearing today largely centers on the importance of national
memorials designed to ensure that the stories and lessons of
our shared history are not forgotten, allowing us to learn from
the past as we collectively work together to achieve a better
future for our great country.
I want to start by talking about my bill, H.R. 1318, the
Women's Suffrage National Monument Location Act, which I am
glad to see was included in today's hearing. During my first
term in Congress, we passed another one of my bills to
authorize the construction of the Women's Suffrage National
Monument on Federal lands in Washington, DC. It was in the
116th Congress, signed into law by the former President. And
since that bill was enacted, sponsors of the memorial have
coalesced around the idea of placing it directly on the
National Mall, a decision that requires another Act of
Congress.
The monument enjoys broad bipartisan support, including all
of our nation's living first ladies, currently serving as
honorary co-chairs. And I am grateful to them for their
leadership, in addition to many others who serve as ambassadors
and supporters of this movement.
I am glad to champion this cause and advocate for the
Women's Suffrage National Monument to ensure that the
contributions and struggles of women in the fight for equality
are duly recognized and celebrated in this iconic setting, and
I think this is a really important step forward.
Now, I understand there is always some hesitation about
authorizing new memorials in what Congress previously set aside
as a reserve area of the National Mall. But we also know that
national monuments serve as powerful symbols of our shared
history, reminding us of the struggles, achievements, and
values that have shaped our nation. They are not merely static
structures, they are living testaments to the many experiences
and contributions of our nation's people, and they provide
tangible connection to the past and other educational
opportunities for present and future generations.
So, as we advocate for the establishment and protection of
these monuments, it is essential that we lift up the voices
that are reflected by this particular monument and, again, an
effort that has been thoroughly bipartisan over the years,
passed by a Democratic House, a Republican Senate, signed into
law by President Trump 3 years ago, and excited to now see this
next step in the evolution of this particular monument.
We will also be discussing H.R. 2717, Representative Blake
Moore and Mark Veasey's bill, which authorizes the construction
of the Medal of Honor Memorial on the National Mall. I
certainly support their bill and look forward to discussing the
details and determining how we can best honor Medal of Honor
recipients, and I certainly think their proposal is worthy of
this Committee's consideration.
Mount Rushmore National Memorial also holds, of course,
historical and cultural sites of significance. And I know that
we are taking up H.R. 386, the Mount Rushmore Protection Act,
and look forward to the discussion on that bill, as well as the
discussion on H.R. 3448, the American Battlefield Protection
Program Enhancement Act.
And H.R. 4377, introduced, of course, by our Ranking Member
and former Chairman, Chairman Grijalva. The legislation would
provide a 25-year extension for the Barry M. Goldwater Air
Force Range in Arizona to ensure accurate property records to
support ongoing military training and operational activities.
Timing is very fitting, of course, given that we are
considering the NDAA on the Floor today, and I certainly look
forward to hearing more about that bill.
So, again, I look forward to continuing the work of this
Committee. I want to thank the Chairman. As I have said at
prior hearings, during the 117th Congress, when I chaired this
Subcommittee, we worked really hard to make sure that the work
done by this particular Subcommittee stayed bipartisan. I think
it is one of the last remaining bastions, I might suggest, in
the U.S. Congress of a functioning Subcommittee that is focused
on bipartisan work. And I am grateful to the Chairman for, I
think, doing his part to try to emulate that approach. And that
is reflected, I think, in the bills that he and the majority
have selected for this hearing today.
With that, I will yield back to the Chairman, and thank him
for his indulgence.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ranking Member Neguse. And I now
recognize Representative Moore for 5 minutes on H.R. 2717.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BLAKE D. MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member
Neguse, and to Chair Westerman, for the positive comments
already on this bill, H.R. 2717. I will add to that, and give a
little bit of a perspective, and even some personal.
I am so grateful for the opportunity I have today to
testify in support of this bill, the Hershel Woody Williams
National Medal of Honor Monument Act, which I introduced with
my friend, Congressman Marc Veasey from Texas. This important
bill builds upon an effort we initiated last Congress to build
a monument in Washington, DC to honor those who have received
the Medal of Honor, our nation's highest honor.
This bill passed with unanimous support, 419 to 0. I don't
know what else could emphasize clear support from our entire
country than that type of vote. It doesn't always happen here.
And this sets the stage for our new efforts to authorize a
specific location for this monument on the Reserve. And
candidly, equally important as establishing the momentum, we
have to get this done.
I believe this is a sacred effort. As Congressman Veasey
and I have written, our hope is that this monument will stand
as a testament to those who fought to safeguard the freedom and
democracy.
It is fitting, then, for this bill and this effort to be
named after a great American hero, Hershel Woody Williams, who
passed away last year, and who was the last Medal of Honor
recipient from World War II. Representative Veasey and I were
honored to pay our respects when he laid in honor last year in
the Rotunda. I understand that several of his family members
are here today with us, and we are grateful for his legacy,
which uplifts, inspires, and energizes us here today. I am
confident that you all and his family have inherited these
honorable traits from him.
The first Medal of Honor was awarded in 1863, and each
recipient since then has been regarded as some of the greatest
heroes our nation has to offer. Their stories remind us that we
are a nation of immense sacrifices put forth for the protection
of the liberties that we enjoy today. Are we giving these
heroes the recognition they deserve? Is enough light shed on
their memory to ensure the survival of their legacy?
A poll conducted this year by the Medal of Honor Foundation
found that a staggering 71 percent of Americans believe there
is not enough focus on values and character traits in American
society today. This lack of emphasis on essential values,
coupled with a shortage of positive role models, poses
significant challenges for our children today. We want them to
understand and embrace the principles that make our country
honorable.
When I am asked about this bill back home, the thing that I
boil it down to is, no matter what my time here is in Congress,
this will be the first thing that I ever did. I look at
completing legislation as our job. Some others focus on other
things. I believe we are supposed to be legislators, and this
was the first thing that I did. That is something that will
always stick with me. And when my kids come back to Washington,
DC, and we are successful in getting this placed where we want,
where the country wants, on the National Mall, they will be
able to recognize those values and those traits. This is
personal to every one of us. This is the time to re-emphasize
the most admirable traits of our nation and establish concrete
reminders of those who wholly embody those traits.
H.R. 2717, which we are here to discuss today, will
authorize the creation of this important monument within the
Reserve. The National Mall is renowned. It is our global stage,
and it offers a space to learn, commemorate, celebrate our
nation's rich cultural heritage. It is only fitting that this
monument be situated near the Lincoln Memorial, paying the
tribute to the president who established the Medal of Honor and
embodied its fundamental principles.
Since its creation, 3,516 Medals of Honor have been awarded
to members of all Department of Defense services. The award is
given sparingly by our Commander in Chief to those whose
personal bravery and self-sacrifice extend above and beyond the
call of duty. Only 65 of the recipients of the award are alive
today. And as we tell their stories, we learn about each other,
our nation, and about our potential as Americans.
The intentions of this bipartisan legislation are rooted in
unity, remembrance, and celebration. Now, more than ever, it is
crucial for us to reconnect with our national roots and create
a monument in the heart of our democracy that will serve as a
powerful symbol for our enduring gratitude and admiration for
our nation's brave and selfless defenders.
I joked earlier I have the Medal of Honor pinned, but this
opportunity has given me a chance to meet personally with
approximately maybe 10 actual Medal of Honor recipients. Two
are here today that I know of. That is the greatest honor that
I have had in my time in Congress, and may yet be the best that
I ever get, whatever my time is.
This is an important monument. It is reflective of our
nation's experience. It is unanimous here, and we need to make
this location Act happen.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Moore.
We are going to turn to the panel that we have before us
here now. Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee
Rules, you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but
your entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, press the ``on'' button.
We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn
green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I
will ask you to please complete your statement.
I would like now to introduce Dr. Ravi Chaudhary, the
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy Installations
and Environment.
Dr. Chaudhary, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and I hope
I pronounced your name accurately.
STATEMENT OF RAVI I. CHAUDHARY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT, UNITED STATES
AIR FORCE, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Chaudhary. Chairman, I am giving you a thumbs up. You
did it perfectly. Thank you very much.
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and esteemed
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for convening this
hearing to discuss H.R. 4377, an important bill to amend the
Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 to extend the withdrawal
and revision for the Barry M. Goldwater Range.
If not enacted during this legislative cycle, the current
land withdrawal will expire in October 2024, and the Department
of Defense will lose an important training capability.
The Department of the Air Force and the Department of the
Navy support Representative Grijalva's efforts regarding the
Barry M. Goldwater Range, or BMGR.
As a former Air Force pilot, I can state from firsthand
experience that open airspace and ranges are critical for
conducting training and flight tests that replicate combat
conditions. BMGR ensures that our air and naval forces are
ready to deter aggression and, if called upon, win decisively.
Collaborative relationships with stakeholders are important
for DoD. For the preparation of this legislation, the
Department of the Air Force and Navy worked extensively with
the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land
Management to ensure cooperation and collaboration for this
effort.
I would like to begin my testimony with a brief history of
BMGR. Located in southwestern Arizona, BMGR served as a
military training range originally used to train pilots and
aircrew for combat in World War II. Eighty years later, BMGR is
one of the nation's most capable and productive training
ranges. It remains indispensable to the ability of the U.S.
military to produce combat-ready aircrew needed to defend the
nation.
The BMGR encompasses approximately 1.6 million acres of
Federal public land withdrawn from public use and reserved for
military training and testing. Withdrawal of the range is not
permanent, and requires periodic extensions through
congressional action. The Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999
extended the BMGR withdrawal for 25 years, and we request your
support for another extension.
The BMGR is the nation's fourth largest land-based range
and is the largest in which tactical aviation training is the
predominant mission. It provides essential training capability
for the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the U.S.
Navy. It is used as an area for armament, high-hazard testing,
aerial gunnery, rocketry, electronic warfare training, tactical
maneuvering, and equipment and developmental testing. Users of
BMGR include the largest F-35 training wing in the Air Force
from Luke Air Force Base, F-16s from the Tucson Air National
Guard Base, and A-10s from the Special Operations units from
Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Users of BMGR West include pilots
and F-18 Hornets AV-8B Harriers, and F-35Bs from the Marine
Corps Air Force Station Yuma.
In summary, without an extension this fiscal year, the BMGR
land withdrawal will expire on October 4, 2024, resulting in
the cessation of critical training and test activities
conducted by the Departments of the Air Force and Navy. This
would directly impact our ability to train and test peer
adversaries as outlined in the National Defense Strategy.
I will close my opening statement by sharing my own
experience as a former Air Force pilot. In early September
2001, fresh out of pilot training, I had the honor of
qualifying in the C-17 aircraft. In a few short days, the
National Airspace System had been shut down due to the tragic
events of 9/11. At that point, our nation was fully mobilized,
and we quite simply didn't have the time to train. Our system
of ranges allowed me to quickly build reps, deploy, and get
into the fight. Were it not for the realistic training that my
fellow pilots and I received at our auxiliary field and
corresponding ranges, I would have been under-prepared for
months and years ahead in which the challenges that were
waiting for me.
I can honestly say that I am still with you today because
the training standard afforded to me by ranges like BMGR. So, I
thank you for your support of our ranges, but most importantly,
my family thanks you.
As someone who has direct experience flying our nation's
test and training ranges, then applying my training in combat
situations, I can easily say that this capability is crucial to
mission accomplishment and the safety of our pilots as they
execute important national security missions.
I respectfully request your support of H.R. 4377. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chaudhary follows:]
Prepared Statement of Honorable Ravi I. Chaudhary, Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force for Energy, Installations and Environment
on H.R. 4377
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and esteemed members of
this subcommittee, thank you for conducting this hearing to discuss
H.R. 4377--a vital bill to amend the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of
1999 to extend the withdrawal and revision for the Barry M. Goldwater
Range. If not enacted, the current land withdrawal will expire in
October 2024 and the Department of Defense will lose access to a
vitally important range.
The Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy
wholeheartedly support Representative Grijalva's efforts regarding the
Barry M. Goldwater Range, or BMGR. If the current withdrawal expires,
both departments will lose access to a vital training range that is
essential to our nation's defense.
The BMGR is in southwestern Arizona. Since 1941, the BGMR has
served as a military training range, originally used to train pilots
and aircrew for combat in World War II. Eighty years later, the BMGR is
one of the nation's most capable and productive training ranges and
remains indispensable to the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to
produce the combat-ready aircrews needed to defend the nation and its
interests.
The BMGR is the nation's fourth largest land-based range and the
largest at which tactical aviation training is the predominant mission.
It provides critical training capability for the U.S. Air Force, United
State Marine Corps, and the U.S. Navy. Users of BMGR East include the
largest F-35 training wing in the Air Force, from Luke Air Force Base,
F-16s from the Tucson Air National Guard base, and A-10s and Special
Operations units from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Users of BMGR West
include Marine pilots and Naval flight officers in F/A-18 Hornets, AV-
8B Harriers, and F-35Bs from Marine Corps Air Station Yuma.
Although aircrew training is the predominant mission of the BMGR,
the range is also vital for preparing personnel and units performing a
wide range of missions relevant to current and future threats to our
nation. It is routinely used for operational testing activities (also
referred to as operational test and evaluation). Some of the military
training and testing activities involve the use of live-fire air-to-
air, air-to-ground, ground-to-ground, and ground-to-air munitions. The
BMGR provides realistic training so that our servicemembers can train
to meet both current and future threats.
The BMGR encompasses approximately 1.6 million acres of federal
public land withdrawn from public use and reserved for military
training and testing. Although the BMGR has been in operation since it
was established in 1941, withdrawal of the range is not permanent and
requires periodic extensions through congressional action. The Military
Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 withdrew the federal public land as one
military range but reserved the eastern and western portions of the
range for separate use by the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy,
respectively. It is used as an area for armament and high-hazard
testing; aerial gunnery, rocketry, electronic warfare training;
tactical maneuvering and air support; equipment and tactics development
testing and training; and for other defense related purposes. The
Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 extended the BMGR withdrawal for
25 years and without Congressional action, the withdrawal will expire
on October 4, 2024.
The Departments of the Air Force and Navy enthusiastically support
H.R. 4377, which would extend the BMGR land withdrawal for 25-years.
This bill would not change underlying federal agency jurisdiction or
enact a 50-year or permanent withdrawal, which were alternatives
analyzed in the September 2021 Legislative Environmental Impact
Statement (LEIS). Public comments received during the LEIS process were
overwhelmingly supportive of the 25-year renewal of the withdrawal.
This bill also requests a small addition to the withdrawal
comprising approximately 2,366 acres or an increase of roughly 0.14
percent. The additional land is adjacent to the Gila Bend Air Force
Auxiliary Field (AFAF). The Gila Bend Auxiliary Field is a unique
support asset integral to the daily operation of the range. It is used
for practice touch-and-go landings, simulated flameout patterns,
precautionary flameout patterns, and as an emergency divert field. The
Gila Bend AFAF provides the facilities required to support maintenance
and operations for both the airfield and BMGR-East. Given its austere
nature and proximity to the range, the field is routinely used as a
forward operating base. It is quickly becoming a preferred training
location. The additional land would enhance security and safety of
flight operations by allowing the DAF to establish a complete security
perimeter adjacent to the airfield. The additional land would also
provide control of land that is within Accident Potential Zone-1 for
Runway 17/35, which would remove the potential for incompatible
activities or land uses to occur on that land. The additional land
would also allow the Department of the Air Force to control the use and
access to land under restricted airspace (R-2305) so that surface
activities in these parcels remain compatible with the training
operations in the overlying airspace, which extends from the ground
surface to 24,000 feet above mean sea level.
The Department of the Air Force appreciates the professional and
productive working relationship with the Department of Interior on this
legislation. In preparing this legislation, the Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Corps worked extensively with the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). Through its land withdrawal review processes, BLM identified
needed corrections to land status records, including the revocation of
historic Public Land Orders and Executive Orders from the World War II
era. BLM also identified a need to clarify the Military Lands
Withdrawal Act of 1986 regarding lands identified for relinquishment.
This bill corrects these land status anomalies and helps clarify the
current land status so that federal record keeping is accurate for
posterity. Finally, at the recommendation of BLM, and in consultation
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, language in this bill would
transfer to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approximately 21 acres
of land, which would be included in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife
Refuge and the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness.
In summary, without an extension, the BMGR land withdrawal will
expire on October 4, 2024, resulting in the cessation of critical
training and testing activities on the range conducted by the
Departments of the Air Force and Navy. This would directly impact our
ability to train and test against peer adversaries as directed in the
National Defense Strategy. I respectfully request your support of H.R.
4377 and look forward to your questions.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Ravi I. Chaudhary, Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment,
United States Air Force
Mr. Chaudhary did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. The extension for the Barry M. Goldwater Range, H.R.
4377, also includes a provision clearing the title for a parcel of land
to be included in an adjacent wildlife refuge. What is the Air Force's
position on this part of the proposal?
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Dr. Chaudhary. I now recognize Mr.
Mike Reynolds, the Deputy Director for Congressional and
External Relations at the National Park Service.
You have 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF MIKE REYNOLDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL AND
EXTERNAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tiffany,
Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to present the Department of the
Interior's views on four of the bills on today's agenda. I
would like to submit our full statements for the record, and
summarize the Department's views.
I would also like to submit a statement for the record on
H.R. 4377, which would extend an existing military withdrawal
and reservation for the Barry M. Goldwater Range in
southwestern Arizona. This statement was prepared by the Bureau
of Land Management, and we would request that any questions
about that bill be referred to them.
H.R. 386 would prohibit the National Park Service from
using Federal funds to alter, change, destroy, or remove in
whole or in part any name, face, or other feature on Mount
Rushmore National Memorial.
The Department takes seriously its commitment to protect
resources entrusted to its management, including protecting the
iconic carvings of the four Presidents on Mount Rushmore. The
Department, however, does not support H.R. 386, as it is
unnecessary and, as drafted, could potentially interfere with
the preservation and maintenance of this world-renowned
landmark. If the Committee decides to move forward with this
legislation, we would appreciate having the opportunity to work
with the sponsor and the Committee on amendments that would
help ensure that the necessary preservation and maintenance of
the memorial is not jeopardized.
H.R. 386 would also designate the mountain where Mount
Rushmore National Memorial is located as Mount Rushmore. The
Department recognizes Congress' prerogative to provide
confirmation of this designation in statute.
H.R. 1318 would authorize the location of a monument on the
National Mall to commemorate and honor the women's suffrage
movement and the passage of the 19th Amendment to the
Constitution.
Similarly, H.R. 2717 would authorize the location of a
monument on the National Mall to commemorate and honor the
extraordinary acts of valor, selfless service, and sacrifice
displayed by the Medal of Honor recipients.
The Department strongly supports honoring the American
suffragists' long struggle to secure the 19th Amendment, which
provided women with the right to vote. We also strongly support
honoring the extraordinary acts of our nation's Medal of Honor
recipients. We support establishing both of these monuments in
places of national honor and prominence.
However, since the establishment of the Reserve by Congress
in 2003, the Department has endeavored to protect the Reserve
by discouraging the establishment of any new commemorative
works within it. It is for that reason that we do not support
H.R. 1318 or H.R. 2717 as currently drafted. This position is
consistent with other testimony the Department has submitted on
legislation that proposes new commemorative works within the
Reserve.
H.R. 3448 would make several changes to the American
Battlefield Protection Program intended to enhance the
protection and preservation of America's battlefields. The
Department supports the goals of H.R. 3448 to expand access to
this program to a broader range of stakeholders. However, we
have concerns with certain provisions of the bill related to
ensuring the continued stewardship of lands receiving Federal
funding. But the Department would appreciate the opportunity to
work with the bill's sponsor and the Committee on amendments to
address the issues raised in our written statement.
Chairman Tiffany, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you have, and thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael T. Reynolds, Deputy Director,
Congressional and External Relations,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
on H.R. 386, H.R. 1318, H.R. 2717, and H.R. 3448
H.R. 386, ``Mount Rushmore National Protection Act''
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 386, a bill to provide that no Federal
funds shall be used to alter, change, destroy, or remove, in whole or
in part, any name, face, or other feature on the Mount Rushmore
National Memorial.
The Department takes seriously its commitment to protect resources
entrusted to its management, including protecting the iconic carving of
the four U.S. presidents on Mount Rushmore National Memorial. The
Department, however, does not support H.R. 386 as it is unnecessary
and, as drafted, could potentially interfere with the preservation and
maintenance of this world-renowned landmark. Regarding the bill's
naming of Mount Rushmore, the Department recognizes Congress'
prerogative to enact this designation.
Located in the Black Hills of South Dakota, Mount Rushmore National
Memorial was authorized in 1925 to commemorate the founding, expansion,
preservation, and unification of the United States and has been under
the administration of the National Park Service (NPS) since 1938. The
famous mountainside sculpture paying tribute to Presidents George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt
has become one of our Nation's most recognizable landmarks both at home
and abroad. The 1,278-acre Memorial receives over two million visitors
each year who have the opportunity not only to view the sculpture but
also to experience the beauty of the Black Hills and learn about the
complex and controversial history associated with the Memorial, which
was established on lands that are sacred to Indigenous peoples.
Section 3 of H.R. 386 would prohibit the National Park Service
(NPS) from using funds appropriated by Congress to administer the
Memorial to ``alter, change, destroy, or remove, in whole or in part,
any name, face, or other feature'' on the Memorial. Given the existing
laws, regulations, and policies that protect the Memorial's sculpture
in its historic form, the Department does not see a need for this
legislation. Additionally, the NPS routinely performs vegetation
treatments at the base of the sculpture to maintain the viewshed of the
Memorial; maintains sensors and monitoring equipment on the features of
the sculpture; and maintains and upgrades the security equipment,
including fencing and other infrastructure, that supports protection of
the sculpture. Depending on how the words ``alter'', ``change'', and
``feature'' are interpreted in the bill as drafted, this language could
prevent the NPS from carrying out the very activities that help ensure
that the Memorial remains safe and recognizable for future generations.
However, if the Committee decides to move forward with H.R. 386, we
would appreciate having the opportunity to work with the sponsor and
the Committee to try to ensure that the language does not jeopardize
the necessary preservation and maintenance of the Memorial.
Section 4 of H.R. 386 would designate the mountain where Mount
Rushmore National Memorial is located as Mount Rushmore. This section
would establish in statute the name for the mountain that was
recognized as Mount Rushmore by the United States Geographic Board in
1930. There is no proposal pending before that organization, now called
the Board on Geographic Names, or in Congress, to change the name of
Mount Rushmore. However, the Department recognizes that it is within
the prerogative of Congress to pass legislation designating any
geographic feature in the United States and thus provide a statutory
confirmation of an existing name.
Chairman Tiffany, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee
may have.
H.R. 1318, ``Women's Suffrage National Monument Location Act''
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 1318, a bill to authorize the location
of a monument on the National Mall to commemorate and honor the women's
suffrage movement and the passage of the 19th Amendment to the
Constitution, and for other purposes.
The Department strongly supports honoring the American suffragists'
long struggle to secure the 19th Amendment which provided women with
the right to vote. We support building the Women's Suffrage National
Monument in a place of national honor and prominence. However, since
the establishment of the Reserve by Congress in 2003, the Department
has endeavored to protect the Reserve by discouraging the establishment
of any new commemorative works within it. It is for that reason that we
do not support H.R. 1318 as currently drafted. This position is
consistent with other testimony the Department has submitted on
legislation that proposes new commemorative works within the Reserve.
H.R. 1318 would authorize the Women's Suffrage National Monument to
be established in the Reserve, which otherwise would not be permitted
under the Commemorative Works Act Commemorative Works Act (40 USC 89 et
seq.) (CWA). The bill requires the monument to comply with other
provisions of the CWA.
In December 2020, legislation to authorize the establishment of the
Women's Suffrage National Monument (then called Every Word We Utter
Monument) was enacted as Public Law 116-217. This law authorizes the
monument to be established on Federal land managed by the National Park
Service or the General Services Administration in Washington, DC, in
accordance with the CWA. The Department testified in support of
authorizing the establishment of the monument with the understanding
that the CWA, including the Act's prohibition on locating new memorials
in the Reserve, would apply.
The CWA was enacted to ensure that proper consideration is given to
authorization, location, and design of new memorials within Washington,
DC. Congress amended the CWA in 2003, establishing the Reserve and
declaring it a completed work of civic art where ``the siting of new
commemorative works is prohibited.'' The CWA identifies the Reserve as
``the great cross-axis of the Mall'' which extends from the United
States Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, and from the White House to the
Thomas Jefferson Memorial.
The Department's concerns about establishing the Women's Suffrage
National Monument in the Reserve are similar to those expressed by the
Department on similar legislation. Other sponsors of memorials have
sought prominent locations as well, and have worked with the National
Park Service, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the
Commission of Fine Arts to secure sites outside of the Reserve that
meet their needs. The National Park Service is committed to continuing
to work with the sponsors of the Women's Suffrage National Monument to
identify a suitable location for this monument that is not in the
Reserve.
Through communication that the National Park Service has had with
the monument sponsor, we understand that they are also considering
multiple sites in Area I. If the sponsors of the monument were to
obtain approval from Congress for placement in Area I, a number of
prominent sites would become available for consideration. Area I is
part of the monumental core but includes sites outside of the Reserve.
The monument sponsors would then have the full range of options
available in both Area I and Area II.
Congress' 2003 Reserve designation responded to a pressing need to
preserve the integrity of the National Mall and rapidly diminishing
public space in the city's monumental core. The pressures on the Mall's
open space have amplified through time. In addition to hosting over 35
million visitors to the Mall each year, more than 9,000 permitted
events including 1,000 first amendment demonstrations take place on or
near the National Mall annually. The space is also heavily used for
recreational activities, national celebrations, critical operational
and security movements associated with its placement at the city
center, and park visitation. Maintaining the Mall's open spaces and
existing architecture is essential to ensuring that it continues to
convey its significance as our nation's premier civic space. We urge
the Committee to protect this special place for the enjoyment of
Americans for generations to come.
Chairman Tiffany, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee
may have.
H.R. 2717, ``Hershel Woody Williams National Medal of Honor Monument
Location Act''
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 2717, a bill to authorize the location
of a monument on the National Mall to commemorate and honor the
extraordinary acts of valor, selfless service, and sacrifice displayed
by Medal of Honor recipients.
The Department strongly supports honoring the extraordinary acts of
our Nation's Medal of Honor recipients, and we support establishing the
monument authorized for that purpose in a place of national honor and
prominence. However, since the establishment of the Reserve by Congress
in 2003, the Department has endeavored to protect the Reserve by
discouraging the establishment of any new commemorative works within
it. It is for that reason that we do not support H.R. 2717 as currently
drafted. This position is consistent with other testimony the
Department has submitted on legislation that proposes new commemorative
works within the Reserve.
H.R. 2717 would authorize the National Medal of Honor Monument to
be established in the Reserve and attached to, or not more than 1,000
feet from, the Lincoln Memorial. Locating the monument in the Reserve
would otherwise not be permitted under the Commemorative Works Act (40
USC 89 et seq.) (CWA). In addition, siting the monument within 1,000
feet of the Lincoln Memorial would conflict with the CWA's prohibition
on interfering with or encroaching on an existing commemorative work.
Legislation to authorize the establishment of the National Medal of
Honor Monument was enacted in December, 2021, as Public Law 117-80.
This law authorizes the monument to be established on Federal land
managed by the National Park Service or the General Services
Administration in Washington, DC, in accordance with the CWA. The
Department testified in support of authorizing the establishment of the
monument with the understanding that the CWA, including the Act's
prohibition on locating new memorials in the Reserve, as well as its
prohibition on interfering with or encroaching on an existing
commemorative work, would apply.
The CWA was enacted to ensure that proper consideration is given to
authorization, location, and design of new memorials within Washington,
DC. Congress amended the CWA in 2003, establishing the Reserve and
declaring it a completed work of civic art where ``the siting of new
commemorative works is prohibited.'' The CWA identifies the Reserve as
``the great cross-axis of the Mall'' which extends from the United
States Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial, and from the White House to the
Thomas Jefferson Memorial.
The Department's concerns about establishing the National Medal of
Honor Monument in the Reserve are similar to those expressed by the
Department on similar legislation. Other sponsors of memorials have
sought prominent locations as well, and have worked with the National
Park Service, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the
Commission of Fine Arts to secure sites outside of the Reserve that
meet their needs. The National Park Service is committed to working
with the sponsors of the National Medal of Honor Monument to develop a
site selection study that would work toward identification of a
suitable location for this monument that is not in the Reserve.
Congress' 2003 Reserve designation responded to a pressing need to
preserve the integrity of the National Mall and rapidly diminishing
public space in the city's monumental core. The pressures on the Mall's
open space have amplified through time. In addition to hosting over 35
million visitors to the Mall each year, more than 9,000 permitted
events including 1,000 first amendment demonstrations take place on or
near the National Mall annually. The space is also heavily used for
recreational activities, national celebrations, critical operational
and security movements associated with its placement at the city
center, and park visitation. Maintaining the Mall's open spaces and
existing architecture is essential to ensuring that it continues to
convey its significance as our nation's premier civic space. We urge
the Committee to protect this special place for the enjoyment of
Americans for generations to come.
Chairman Tiffany, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee
may have.
H.R. 3448, ``American Battlefield Protection Program Enhancement''
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 3448, a bill to amend chapter 3081 of
title 54, United States Code, to enhance the protection and
preservation of America's battlefields.
The Department supports the goals of H.R. 3448 to expand access to
the American Battlefield Preservation Program to a broader range of
stakeholders. However, we have concerns with certain provisions of the
bill related to ensuring the continued stewardship of lands receiving
Federal funding.
H.R. 3448 would amend the existing statute to:
Add ``Tribes'' and ``nonprofit organizations'' to the list
of entities eligible to receive Battlefield Land
Acquisition Grants;
Make ``associated historic sites'' in the Report on the
Nation's Civil War Battlefields and the Report to Congress
on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and War
of 1812 Sites in the United States no longer eligible for
American Battlefield Protection Program grants;
Extend the eligibility for Battlefield Restoration Grants
to all eligible battlefield sites regardless of whether
they have previously received Battlefield Land Acquisition
Grants; and
Require the program to submit updates to Congress on the
Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields and the
Report to Congress on the Historic Preservation of
Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites in the United
States detailing preservation activities, changes in
condition, and other developments relating to the
battlefields two years after the enactment of the bill and
every ten years thereafter.
The American Battlefield Protection Act authorizes the National
Park Service to administer the American Battlefield Protection Program
(ABPP) to protect battlefields and sites of armed conflict on American
soil through technical assistance and financial assistance. The ABPP
supports community-driven stewardship of historic resources through
four grant opportunities: Preservation Planning, Battlefield
Restoration, Battlefield Interpretation, and Battlefield Land
Acquisition. All grants are awarded competitively and on an annual
basis, except for Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant awards, which are
made on a rolling basis throughout the year.
Preservation Planning Grants provide funds from National Recreation
& Preservation (Cultural Programs) to State, Tribal, and local
governments, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions to
support preservation and planning projects at historic battlefields and
associated sites in the United States. Battlefield Land Acquisition
Grant awards are made from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
to State and local governments to pay up to 50% of the cost of fee-
simple acquisition or easement interest in properties within eligible
sites; amounts available vary each year. Interpretation and Restoration
grants annually award up to $1 million each in LWCF funds to pay up to
50% of the cost for States, Tribes, local governments, and nonprofit
organizations to interpret and restore ``day of battle'' conditions,
respectively.
The Department would support expanding eligibility to include
Tribes if the bill were amended to address any necessary authorizations
related to tribal eligibility for LWCF funding as well as the
feasibility of land transactions and the Federal financial assistance
requirements for protective Federal covenants upon lands governed by a
sovereign nation.
Regarding the provision of H.R. 3448 that would expand eligibility
for Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants to include non-profit
organizations, the Department would want to ensure non-profit
recipients can guarantee the same degree of permanent protection that
is required of State and local governments receiving ABPP funding.
H.R. 3448 would also expand the scope of the ABPP's Battlefield
Restoration grants which, currently, are only provided for land that
has been preserved through a Battlefield Land Acquisition grant. The
Department supports the intent of this provision and would note that
the ABPP program is currently working to determine if there is an
administrative path to address the limitation on eligibility. We would
welcome the opportunity to discuss possible conditions that should be
required in conjunction with expanding eligibility.
H.R. 3448 would clarify that ABPP grants are limited to
battlefields listed in the previous reports to Congress, specifically
excluding non-battlefield ``associated historic sites'' listed in those
reports. It would require the Department to submit updated Battlefield
Reports to Congress every 10 years. The Department has no objections to
these provisions.
The Department would appreciate the opportunity to work with the
bill's sponsor and the Committee on amendments to address the points
raised in this statement.
Chairman Tiffany, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Mike Reynolds, Deputy
Director, Congressional and External Relations, National Park Service
Mr. Reynolds did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. America is set to celebrate our 250th anniversary in
three years; in 2026. How is the National Park Service (NPS) is
planning for celebrations? What role could our nation's battlefields
will play in America 250 events?
Question 2. There are over 40 protected battlefield sites
throughout Arkansas, primarily associated with the Civil War. Many of
these sites have been protected through the American Battlefield
Protection Program, which is a great example of the conservation work
that can occur through public-private partnerships. Would this work
have been possible without private partners? Can these partnerships
serve as a model for other NPS programs?
Question 3. This Committee has heard numerous concerns about the
lengthy and cumbersome appraisal process and its effect on acquiring
battlefield lands. How long do these appraisals typically take? Is NPS
evaluating any internal processes that could be streamlined to help
speed up the appraisal process?
Question 4. NPS testified against locating both the Women's
Suffrage National Monument and the Medal of Honor National Monument on
the National Mall in Washington, DC. These are both bipartisan bills,
collectively co-sponsored by at least 29 Republicans and 29 Democrats.
4a) Why does the Biden administration believe monuments to some of
our nation's bravest veterans and the women's suffrage movement are
undeserving of prominent locations in our nation's capital?
4b) If these groups don't rise to the level of garnering support
for a location on the National Mall from the NPS and the
administration, who would?
4c) Last Congress, the National Park Service also testified in
opposition to locating the Global War on Terrorism Memorial on the
National Mall. Thankfully, Congress authorized this location anyway for
the Monument in the National Defense Authorization Act. What message do
you think it sends to our active military service members when the NPS
is telling them that any future conflict they serve in will be
undeserving of a memorial placed on the National Mall?
4d) The NPS has testified that the National Mall is a ``completed
work of civic art.'' Can you please tell us how many women are featured
in this ``completed'' work of art?
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Now I want to
recognize Members for questions.
And first, Mr. Fulcher from Idaho, you have 5 minutes.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was listening to
that commentary and just reflecting. In the last few weeks, not
just on this Committee but the other Committee I serve on, we
have talked about banning ourselves from harvesting minerals so
we can buy from our enemies; we have talked about burning our
forests instead of managing them; we have talked about drag
shows for our fighting force; we have talked about protecting
Ukraine's borders instead of our own; refusing to prosecute sex
and drug traffickers and paying for kids to change their
gender. So, why not add the need to protect Mount Rushmore from
people who want to destroy it? That is what we are dealing with
in the U.S. Congress.
I know there are other topics on the agenda today. But this
one is right up there at the top of taking the cake. If we work
hard enough, we can destroy our history. If we work hard
enough, we can allow stupid things to destroy what is good
about this country.
As my colleague, Congressman Johnson, said, we are far from
perfect. We have a lot of flaws. But there are a lot of good
things going on, too. So, to that end, Mr. Chairman, rather
than ask questions, I am just going to close with a statement.
I support Congressman Johnson's bill. It is a shame that it
has to be brought up, but I thank him for bringing it to the
forefront so that we can just make a statement here to stop
this portion of the lunacy moving forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to now
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Neguse.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to both of
our witnesses for your testimony, for being here today. We are
certainly grateful.
Mr. Reynolds, I want to talk a bit about the Commemorative
Works Act. And I understand the Department's position, in terms
of contextually understanding that the Department has taken a
similar position with respect to amending the CWA and enabling
monuments to be placed in the Reserve since the enactment of
the CWA back in 2003.
While I understand the historical context of the
Department's position, I do struggle to understand the
Department's rationale, particularly in light of the
modifications that were made to the CWA, as you know, last
year, which I supported and many of my colleagues support, and
I think it was the right thing to do to ultimately ensure that
the Global War on Terrorism Memorial was placed in the Reserve.
And myself, my colleague from Utah, I think we made
compelling cases, as do our colleagues who support the
substance of both my bill and Mr. Moore's bill, regarding the
necessity for having these respective memorials within the
Reserve, as well. I think it is important for those who might
be tuning in kind of contextually to better understand, for
particularly those who might not have explored the full breadth
of the Reserve and all the monuments on our National Mall, how
many commemorative works are on the National Mall?
Mr. Reynolds. There are a lot. And there are also the big
ones, like the Lincoln Memorial, but we also have tons of
smaller ones that you bump into, right? So, there are greater
than 50, I would say.
Mr. Neguse. Within the Reserve, by my count, there are 40.
Does that seem accurate?
Mr. Reynolds. That would be about right.
Mr. Neguse. OK, now, of those 40, 22 of them are to a wide
variety of different statesmen and patriots, presidents--
Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, obviously, as you know--but
also many others that perhaps some citizens aren't aware of
necessarily, a variety of generals who have served in our
country's armed forces valiantly, for example.
Are there any commemorative works within the Reserve that
are dedicated to women?
Mr. Reynolds. Not in the Reserve that I am aware of.
Mr. Neguse. To my understanding, there are a variety of
commemorative works dedicated to different parts of American
history, as well. For example, the memorial to aviation
history. You are familiar with that memorial?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. And the memorial essentially to the history of
horses in our country, right? This is the Lockkeeper's House,
which is on the National Reserve.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. Yes. There are, of course, as we have talked
about, a variety of very incredibly important, meaningful,
solemn memorials to our armed forces, veterans, and those who
we have lost in wars during the course of our country's
history.
The point I am getting at is, of those, that volume of
memorials that are on the National Mall, it is our judgment and
the judgment of many others who support this piece of
legislation, including every living former first lady, on a
bipartisan basis, that the women's suffrage monument merits a
place among these other 40 monuments within the Reserve.
And given the acreage within the National Mall that is
available, how much green space is in the National Mall,
currently?
Mr. Reynolds. Of the total acreage, when you look at a map,
there looks like a lot of green space.
Mr. Neguse. Sure.
Mr. Reynolds. We use that, as you would know very well,
Ranking Member, in terms of 9,000 events a year, 1,000 First
Amendment events, I was just thinking about the July Fourth
celebrations that the Chairman was talking about. So, that is
part of the thinking behind the Commemorative Works Act.
Mr. Neguse. No, I understand. How much acreage is on the
National Mall, the Reserve?
Mr. Reynolds. I am drawing a blank on acreage, but I would
say it is----
Mr. Neguse. 699 acres?
Mr. Reynolds. I was going to say about 1,000 acres, and I
would say probably roughly a quarter to half of it is still
green, as it were.
Mr. Neguse. So, 699 acres, right?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. And the acreage that would be needed to build
this National Monument, are you aware of how much acreage would
be necessary?
Mr. Reynolds. No, I haven't seen the final plans for it.
Mr. Neguse. My understanding is it is 1 acre. So, 1 acre of
the 700 acres of green space on the National Mall does not seem
like an unreasonable request. For that reason, I would
certainly encourage my colleagues to be supportive of this
particular bill, as well as Mr. Moore's bill.
With that, I yield back and I thank both of the gentlemen
for their testimony.
Mr. Tiffany. The Ranking Member yields. Next, the
Representative from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, would you like 5
minutes for questioning?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you very much.
Mr. Reynolds, thanks for being here, thanks for working for
our nation. Is there any court case that causes the National
Park Service to be concerned that, I think the wording of my
bill is ``alter, change, destroy, or remove'' would prevent
routine maintenance?
Mr. Reynolds. Congressman, thank you for that question. We
share with you our love of Mount Rushmore, our stewardship of
it. And really, if I could speak in plain language to you, if
we could sit down with the sponsors of this bill, we share the
goals of what is happening with the protection of Mount
Rushmore in perpetuity, but we do management actions there.
To your point, we have fencing. We have, shall I say,
monitoring devices to keep it secure. We have the threats that
you mentioned. There are also terrorism threats, whatever might
come our way. The actions require removing vegetation. And as
you also indicated, workers on the face. We want to make sure
in a very particular way that the language just wouldn't
prevent us from having those management actions done, which I
don't think is the bill's intent, right?
Mr. Johnson. No, that is exactly right.
Mr. Reynolds. That is where I think we could find common
ground, sir, in working out some language there.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, of course the bill is not intended to
keep you from engaging in management actions, nor do I think it
does. I mean, that is why I asked about court interpretations.
We have tens of thousands of court cases that interpret
what ability the Federal agencies have to act under law. I am
just not aware of any that would come even close to prohibiting
the management actions, given the language of the bill. Am I in
error?
Mr. Reynolds. I don't believe so, sir. I think you are
correct. And we can confirm that.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I mean, certainly, let's work together.
If we decide that there is case law that complicates or that
calls into question some weakness of our statutory proposal,
then we are open to change it. I am not a lawyer, thank
goodness, but what I understand about statutory construction is
that when you look at words like ``alter, change, destroy, or
remove,'' it would be pretty hard to interpret that to mean
that people can't engage in routine maintenance or management
activities. But thank you for raising the concern, certainly.
Mr. Reynolds. That would be our hope, as well. Thank you,
sir.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Next, I would like to
recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Kamlager-Dove,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to
thank you both for your testimony.
Assistant Secretary, I am sure you are hoping that we will
pass the NDAA, given your remarks.
Mr. Reynolds, I also want to thank you for your testimony.
And you are right, national monuments and memorials serve as a
way to honor, preserve, and really stimulate the inquiry and
learning of the history of our country. And to Representative
Johnson's point, I strongly believe that means telling the
truth about our history so that we can reflect on our
imperfections and commit to doing better now and in the future.
Mr. Reynolds, you said it is important to honor the
suffragists as it relates to H.R. 1318, and I want to emphasize
that we would honor all of them. And I hope that two of the
monuments being discussed today do not gloss over key
components of our history, including gross injustices,
particularly against Black women and Indigenous communities.
H.R. 1318 aims to place a women's suffrage monument on the
Reserve of the National Mall, and I appreciate that all of the
first ladies are in support of it. I hope that this monument
will portray an accurate depiction of who the 19th Amendment
gave the right to vote in 1920, who was leading the movement to
ensure all of the women did in fact have equal rights, and who
did not.
The 19th Amendment only applied to White women. Indigenous
women did not gain the right to vote until 1924. First-
generation Asian Americans did not gain the right to vote until
1952. Black women did not gain that right until 1965. So, if we
are going to tell American history, let's tell it all. If we
work hard enough, we certainly can destroy the history of our
country, and that comes from not telling all of it.
For instance, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony
are often credited as leading the women's suffrage movement.
And this false and harmful narrative disregards their blatant
racism and work to render nearly invisible the Black women who
labored for the suffragist movement and actually worked to
advance feminist and womanist ideals in our nation. In fact,
Susan B. Anthony said, and I quote, ``I will cut off this right
arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for
the Negro and not the woman.''
So, I agree that women are long overdue a place on this
Mall. I agree that narrative monuments are important. And I
also agree that we have to tell the full spectrum of the
history of the country and how we got here. It is our failures,
it is our shortcomings, it is our imperfections that actually
allow us to learn. And if we are not sharing those, we cannot
learn and use them to stimulate how to be better.
I was thinking about Thomas Jefferson as it relates to the
Rushmore Act and Monticello. How honest are we about the fact
that he raped a colored slave girl and forced her to bear
children, and she was not deemed a human? That is part of the
history of the country. You can judge it, but you can't if you
don't know it.
So, if we are courageous enough to protect monuments, if we
are courageous enough to continue to share our history, if we
are even courageous enough to try to create history, let's not
be afraid of all of the colors in the history, because that is
the thing that is going to make us stronger. So, while you
didn't mention these in your remarks about why you have
concerns about some of these bills, I hope you take this back
because it is as important. What you shared, what
Representative Johnson shared, what Representative Neguse
shared is the importance of words and what they mean. Having
them is as important as excluding them, and that should also be
included in the discussion that we are having about some very
important, and no pun intended, monumental bills.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. And now I would like to
recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Master Chief Slabinski, it is great to be in your presence.
You have given us the opportunity to sit up here and talk, and
hear legislation, whether we agree with one another or not.
Thank you for your service.
And Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my strong support
for H.R. 386, the Mount Rushmore Protection Act, introduced by
my good friend and colleague, Representative Johnson.
Mr. Reynolds, as Mr. Johnson was questioning you, it
reminded me, I leaned over to Representative Fulcher, and I
said, ``We work for the people. You don't work for the Park
Service. You work for the people.'' Mr. Johnson was elected.
His representation in South Dakota wants him to do this.
So, I would just say that, as Mount Rushmore represents the
long journey that this country has been on over the past 250
years, as we look at American history, we need to examine all
of it. Every step forward and back has brought us to where we
are today, a shining city on the Hill, that values individual
liberty and freedom above all else.
Accordingly, I oppose efforts to change monuments like
Mount Rushmore. I oppose efforts to rid ourselves of reminders
of who we are and where we came from. I oppose efforts by woke
mobs to eliminate patriotic symbols of the great American
experiment.
This Administration has time and time again ignored the
intent of the Congress, stretching the law and taking
unilateral action without recognizing the will of the American
people or communities its decisions will impact. And, frankly,
the Department of the Interior has been at the center of these
actions.
Thus, I believe that this legislation is important to
ensure this or a future administration does not cave to
pressure of those who want to rewrite history simply because
they disagree with it. This legislation is important to ensure
our full history is protected, and I stand strong and firm with
my elected representative from South Dakota who is putting this
legislation forward.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would now like to
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and let me thank both
witnesses. And certainly, the information from BLM relative to
the range needs to be shared and incorporated into our
discussions. I appreciate the testimony on that.
Comments have been made about destroying our history of our
nation, comments have been made about rewriting the history of
our nation, I thought the comments by my colleague from
California were sharp, but appropriate in the sense that the
purpose of our history is to also fill in the blanks, the
things that have been left out. And yes, Mount Rushmore and the
protection of that iconic representation of our nation is
important. So, too, is the history of the Sioux Nations and the
Black Hills and the conflict ongoing to this date.
And as we tell the history of the of this nation, one of
the frustrations is how do we fill in the blanks? How do we
tell the full story? It is not a question of embarrassment. It
is not a question of pointing out and demeaning. It is telling
the full story.
And I think, Mr. Reynolds, to continue to insist on filling
in the blanks is not about some agenda on diversity or
anything. This is empirical, this is history. Let's tell it. I
think it makes us stronger and it makes us a better people.
Even right now, the Latino Museum, which people have fought
for, Women's Museum, the appropriations process under the
Majority is nickel-and-diming that museum and not giving any
support to its full establishment. The first time you are going
to have a consequential museum to tell the full history of this
country that receives no support from its government. I think
that is wrong. I really do.
And these discussions about these items are important. I
don't doubt it. I am not here to demean any of the pieces of
legislation. I am just here to say that when we bring up a
point about filling in the blanks, it is not an attack on a
piece of legislation, my friend. It is an acknowledgment that
our part hasn't been told.
And Medal of Honor winners? Ira Hayes putting all that
history, that man couldn't vote in the state of Arizona until
1948. I think that is part of history.
And with America comes our democracy. And with America
comes all the good things that we learned and that we believe
in. But with America also comes some warts, some blemishes that
generations to come and these generations now need to know
about to make us stronger, to make us fuller, and to make us
more appreciative of one another.
I appreciate the conversation today. It is kind of ironic
that, as we talk about the support we need to have for our
military, that we have a Senate holding up appointing the heads
of the Marine Corps and other military units over a political
and value decision about a woman's right to choose that differs
with the policy in the military. How is that consistent with
supporting our military and supporting our men and women in
uniform?
And as we talk about the National Defense Authorization
Act, we might get bogged down on issues that are irrelevant to
the security, the defense, and the men and women serving this
nation. We might get bogged down and not move forward because
of that spite. And I think that if we are going to tell
history, let's tell it all.
But, today, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the agenda, I
appreciate the things you and Mr. Neguse have brought forward,
and I also appreciate very much the comments that were made
that, as we tell our history, let's tell the truth.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to
recognize Mr. Westerman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you
again for the witnesses for being here today. And I appreciate
the discussions that we have had. And I would agree that when
we tell history, we should tell all of the history. We learn
from history. And if we don't learn from history, then we are
very apt to make the same mistakes going forward.
And I am grateful that we have the beautiful National
Museum of African American History and Culture, which is one of
my favorite places to visit on the Mall. It tells the story in
a way that I don't think could be told anyplace else, so I am
grateful that we have that. But I also think we need to tell
the story of women's suffrage, and it is appropriate to put
something on the Reserve to tell that story.
I want to shift gears a little bit and talk about the air
bases. Mr. Chaudhary, it is my understanding that, in addition
to the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona, that the Air Force
also has a separate legislative proposal to expand training
capabilities at the Nevada Test and Training Range at Nellis
Air Force Base. Can you please talk more about this proposal
and the importance of both bases to the Air Force's readiness?
Dr. Chaudhary. Thank you, Congressman, for the question
there. And I can relate this through my experiences as an Air
Force pilot and somebody who has served our country and
executed missions both on the training side, the test side, as
well as the operational side.
What I can say about all of our ranges is that they are a
national gem. They provide the capabilities for our members of
the military to train in realistic conditions, to train in the
way that we fight. So, that naturally relates to the size of
the ranges, the nature of the ranges, the capabilities they
provide, and our ability to train and test new equipment.
In my background, I have had the chance to do all three, so
I will just relate to you an analogy that I would use, one that
the Chairman may appreciate. Back in high school, I used to
play basketball. And in our first game of the season we were
preparing and practicing half-court skills to play a team from
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and getting ready to play them in a
really heated basketball game. So, we went down there, and what
we didn't realize is that we had been training on a half court,
but Eau Claire was training on a full court. In fact, they gave
us a full basketball game of full court press. Naturally, we
didn't win. And I use that analogy to explain to you that we
need the right venues to train to be ready to execute our
mission.
But I will say this. This endeavor is an endeavor in which
we dare not come in second place. We need to make sure that we
have the right ranges, right capabilities so that we can train,
so that if and when our men and women in uniform need to train
and be prepared the minute something comes up, that they have
trained and been ready. So, that is something that I have had
held very close to my heart because I have experienced that,
and I want to make sure that our aircrew are ready to go in the
future.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Assistant Secretary. Also, I know
Ranking Member Grijalva's legislation would expand the range to
include about 2,400 additional acres. It was in the last
Congress that I made a trip out to the Fallon Naval Station,
and we had the same issues there of expanding the size of the
base.
Also, it is not just the land area, it is the airspace that
they were going to work on getting that expanded, as well. So,
I assume those issues are at play with these two bases, as
well?
Dr. Chaudhary. That is correct, Congressman. In fact, you
have to make sure, and I think that addition allows us to train
more effectively, surface to 24,000 feet. As you know, airmen
fight in all three dimensions, to include space. So, we have to
make sure that we train to that standard, as well.
When I flew in C-17s, we needed that additional airspace to
fly steep approaches that allowed us to get into the
battlefield and get men and women and equipment into the
battlefield quickly. So, when you don't have those airspace
blocks, what that does is you need to work with the FAA, with
air traffic control to de-conflict. And that can cause
irritations for the traveling public, as well as disrupt
training that is going on. So, when you reserve that block of
space, you are able to optimize your training and get your work
done more efficiently.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
I will yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
Yes, those guys that play basketball in Eau Claire, they
are pretty good. I know firsthand. And I actually do.
I am going to take 5 minutes to ask some questions here.
Assistant Secretary Chaudhary, in addition to the extension
for the Goldwater Range, Ranking Member Grijalva's legislation
also includes a provision clearing the title for a parcel of
land to be included in an adjacent wildlife refuge. What is the
Air Force's position on this part of the proposal, and does
that dovetail into what Chairman Westerman was asking?
Dr. Chaudhary. I think it does. And what I can say to you
is that it is important for us to work because there are areas
in which we have to work across our agencies to find the right
solutions to solve critical problems.
So, I don't have a specific answer for you on that
particular parcel right now. I can take a note to get back to
you in the future, and share where we are on that discussion.
But that discussion continues, and we are happy to make sure
that we move forward with it with an amicable solution.
Mr. Tiffany. If you would, that would be greatly
appreciated.
Mr. Reynolds, I heard you use the term ``discourage'' in
regards to the monuments here on the Mall. Why do you want to
discourage them from going there?
Mr. Reynolds. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, we do, as was
eloquently said by all of you today, support both endeavors,
and would look forward to stewarding them for the American
people.
It is mostly about the Reserve, under the Commemorative
Works Act of 2003, saying that we would put nothing more in the
Reserve. So, it is really about maintaining what is there per
the law more than we want to discourage any kind of further
growth of the memorials of the nation.
Mr. Tiffany. So, it is just looking back at the law, and
you are saying, as a result of them saying we are not going to
put anything there, that you want to retain the status quo, is
that it?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, in a sense. The Mall, as you know, and
we just talked about, is heavily, heavily used. So, what space
we have, even though it looks blank on a map, is pretty busy.
And that is the management stance that we maintain with the
law.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. I just want to share a few comments
in regards to some of the discussion that has been going on
here.
We can stand here as elected officials and cite being
cheated by the government. We are an imperfect country. I can
give you an example of being cheated by the government. Living
right near Eau Claire, Wisconsin, where milk pricing used to be
decided by, you got paid less with the price support program
that was put in place by the Federal Government in the 1930s,
you got paid less the closer you were to Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
My family's farm was really close to Eau Claire, Wisconsin. I
could continue to be bitter about that. I have chosen not to
because life moves on.
And I would point out to Members on this panel, the first
Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, preserved the union and
he released the slaves. He believed in standing up for those
founding principles that were put in place. We didn't meet them
for 80-plus years until Lincoln did what he did. But he did it,
and it was a Republican, the very first Republican president
that did that.
In the last session of Congress, we had an administration,
which we all know is a Democrat administration, that openly
sought to discriminate. They wrote a law, a provision in the
very first bill, the very first major bill, the American
Recovery Plan, that would have specifically discriminated
agricultural programs based on race. They went so far as to say
we are going to discriminate when issuing the COVID treatments.
Is that what we want to go back to?
I hope none of us want to go back to that. We are
recognizing the history of the United States of America with
some of its imperfections here today. But that is who we are,
an imperfect country. But we do seek to be a better country
year after year, decade after decade. And I think these
proposals that have been put before us today achieve that in
recognizing the history of this great country, the United
States of America.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. That concludes questioning for this panel.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
We would ask for members of the third panel to come up.
While the Clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the
witnesses coming up that under Committee Rules, they must limit
their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement
will appear in the hearing record.
I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing
lights, which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute
statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone.
As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to
testify before Member questioning.
[Pause.]
Mr. Tiffany. It is great to have the witnesses all here,
and you can see the order that we have, everyone. I am going to
deviate a little bit, and I would like to recognize the
gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Stefanik.
I believe you are going to do an introduction of Ms. Hill.
And if you have any comments, the floor is yours.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I am so honored
to be here today, and I am pleased to introduce my constituent
and friend, Beth Hill, the president and CEO of the Fort
Ticonderoga Association, as a witness today.
Under Beth's visionary and exceptional leadership, Fort
Ticonderoga has transformed into a thriving cultural
destination, offering a dynamic, multi-day visitor experience.
Over the years, Beth has tackled significant preservation
projects at Fort Ticonderoga, including the restoration of the
national historic landmark, the 1826 Pavilion, as well as the
restoration of the historic fort.
Additionally, with Beth at the helm, Fort Ticonderoga's
museum holdings have grown significantly, including the
acquisition of the Robert Nittolo Collection, a collection
considered to be the single most important private collection
of 18th century militaria in the world.
Further, under her leadership, Fort Ticonderoga has
developed a thriving learning campus through their Center for
Digital History. Beth has significantly advanced Fort
Ticonderoga's mission, and has played a crucial role in Fort
Ticonderoga's record-breaking attendance and their significant
revenue growth and donor support.
Beth's visionary leadership continues to shape the industry
and create meaningful experiences for audiences of all ages and
backgrounds who visit the fort from across the nation and
globe. Today, Fort Ticonderoga, the site of America's first
victory in the American Revolution, is poised to even more
impactful preservation and educational work during the upcoming
national 250th commemoration because of Beth's leadership.
So, I thank Beth for being here today to be willing to
provide testimony at this hearing, and I look forward to
hearing her remarks and learning from her expertise, and asking
questions.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Hill, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BETH HILL, PRESIDENT, THE FORT TICONDEROGA
ASSOCIATION, TICONDEROGA, NEW YORK
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. Thank you,
Congresswoman Stefanik and esteemed Committee. I am delighted
to be here today.
Fort Ticonderoga was constructed by the French on the
shores of Lake Champlain in 1755, and occupied by the French,
British, and American troops during the 18th century. For a
generation, this remote post nestled between Lake Champlain and
Lake George guarded the narrow waterway highway connecting New
France and Britain's American colonies. Its very name,
Ticonderoga, means land between two waters in Mohawk,
identifying its strategic significance. Whichever nation
controlled Ticonderoga, controlled the continent.
During the French and Indian War, Ticonderoga was the site
of the bloodiest day in North American history until the Civil
War. During the American Revolution, Fort Ticonderoga was the
scene of America's first major victory in its struggle for
independence, and it served as a United States northern
stronghold, protecting New York and New England from British
invasion from Canada.
The Pell family acquired the grounds in 1820, beginning the
legacy of the family's preservation of the site, launching one
of America's earliest private preservation efforts. Museum co-
founders Sarah and Stephen Pell began the fort's restoration in
1908, the earliest of its kind in America. Their new historical
vision, an expression of colonial revival, helped to shape our
nation's cultural identity and remembrance, predating by a
decade or more the establishment of the national parks or
places such as Colonial Williamsburg.
By 1909, the first phase of the restoration of the fort was
sufficiently complete for President William Howard Taft to
preside at a grand opening of the museum. Since then, more than
16 million people have visited this national historic landmark.
The Fort Ticonderoga Association was incorporated in 1931,
and was designated a national historic landmark and one of the
first in America. Today, Fort Ticonderoga is an independent,
non-profit, educational organization, museum, and major
cultural destination. The museum preserves one of North
America's largest 18th century military culture collections,
and includes more than 2,000 acres of historic landscape along
Lake Champlain.
Battlefields across America, like Ticonderoga, hold an
immense historical, cultural, and educational value. Preserving
battlefield sites allows present and future generations to
understand and learn from our past, ensuring that the
sacrifices made and lessons learned during the conflicts are
not forgotten. Non-profit educational organizations such as the
Fort Ticonderoga Association, government agencies, and private
individuals work together to purchase and protect these sites,
often working together in critical public and private
partnerships with vital funding through the American
Battlefield Protection Program. The land can be safeguarded
against development, ensuring its long-term preservation,
collaboration among various stakeholders, and often vital for
the success of battlefield preservation.
I applaud Congresswoman Stefanik for her leadership
supporting important historic preservation programs, including
H.R. 3448. She has been a constant champion of our nation's
history. Congresswoman Stefanik recently assisted Fort
Ticonderoga, ensuring that 250th funding is accessible to non-
profits--and we are very grateful to you for that--in addition
to government-owned sites.
H.R. 3448, the American Battlefield Program Enhancement,
will help strengthen the program for years to come by allowing
non-profits, tribes, and additional government entities to
directly apply to ABPP grants. The American Battlefield Program
Enhancement Act will ensure that the grant program is nimble
and successful, maximizing its potential as a critical means of
battlefield preservation.
As our nation approaches our national 250th commemoration
of the American Revolution, we must take this opportunity to
expand resources, mobilize partnerships, and ensure that our
nation's hallowed grounds are preserved for posterity.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Beth L. Hill, President and CEO, The Fort
Ticonderoga Association
on H.R. 3448
Fort Ticonderoga was constructed by the French on the shores of
Lake Champlain in 1755 and occupied by French, British, and American
troops during the 18th century. For a generation this remote post
nestled between Lake Champlain and Lake George guarded the narrow water
highway connecting New France with Britain's American colonies. Its
very name, Ticonderoga, means ``land between two waters'' in Mohawk,
identifying its strategic significance. Whichever nation controlled
Ticonderoga controlled the continent. During the French & Indian War,
Ticonderoga was the site of the bloodiest day in North American history
until the American Civil War (Battle of Carillon). During the American
Revolution, Fort Ticonderoga was the scene of America's first major
victory in its struggle for independence, and it served as the United
States' northern stronghold, protecting New York and New England from
British invasion from Canada.
The Pell family acquired the grounds in 1820, beginning the legacy
of the Pell family's preservation of the site, and launching one of
America's earliest private preservation efforts. Museum co-founders,
Sarah and Stephen Pell began the fort's restoration in 1908, the
earliest of its kind in America. Their new historical vision, an
expression of the Colonial Revival, helped to shape our nation's
cultural identity and remembrance, pre-dating by a decade or more the
establishment of the National Park Service and Colonial Williamsburg.
By July 1909, the first phase of restoration was sufficiently complete
for President William Howard Taft to preside at the grand opening of
the museum. Since then, more than 16 million people have visited this
National Historic Landmark.
The Fort Ticonderoga Association was incorporated in 1931 and was
designated a National Historic Landmark in 1961, among the first sites
to earn that designation. Today Fort Ticonderoga is an independent,
non-profit educational organization, museum, and major cultural
destination. The museum preserves one of North America's largest
collections of 18th-century military material culture and artillery,
including original maps, manuscripts, military manuals, uniforms and
artwork. The museum's world-renowned collections serve as the
foundation for educational programs and the overall guest experience.
Its historic landscape encompasses 2,000 acres of historic
battlefields, gardens and the largest series of untouched 18th-century
military earthworks surviving in North America, as well as two miles of
shoreline on Lake Champlain.
Battlefields across America, like Ticonderoga, hold immense
historical, cultural, and educational value. Preserving battlefield
sites allows present and future generations to understand and learn
from our past, ensuring that the sacrifices made, and lessons learned
during these conflicts are not forgotten.
Non-profit organizations, such as The Fort Ticonderoga Association,
government agencies, and private individuals work together to purchase
and protect these sites. Often working together in a critical public-
private partnership, with vital funding through the American
Battlefield Protection Program, the land can be safeguarded against
development, ensuring its long-term preservation. Collaboration among
various stakeholders is often vital for successful battlefield
preservation. Collaborative efforts can pool and leverage resources,
expertise, and funding to achieve common preservation goals.
Beyond the land acquisition of historic battlefields, additional
funding made possible through sources such as The American Battlefield
Protection program provides critical support to interpret battlefields.
These programs engage and inspire audiences of all ages. Archaeological
investigations, when appropriate, provide valuable insights into the
tactics, equipment, and lives of those who fought on the hallowed
ground. Conservation and preservation efforts ensure that the artifacts
and structures are properly documented, protected, and made available
to the public for research and educational programs. Additional funding
is critical to help monitor sites, maintain trails and infrastructures,
manage visitor access, and implement sustainable practices to minimize
environmental impact.
I applaud Congresswoman Stefanik for her leadership supporting
important historic preservation programs, including sponsoring HR3448.
She has been a constant champion of our nation's history. Congresswoman
Stefanik recently assisted Fort Ticonderoga ensuring that 250th funding
is accessible to non-profits, in addition to government owned historic
sites.
H. R. 3448, The American Battlefield Program Enhancement Act, will
help strengthen the program for years to come by allowing non-profits
and tribes, in addition to government entities, to directly apply to
ABPP grants. By expanding the eligibility for funding, the entities
will be able to move quickly, often in urgent situations, to preserve
endangered battlefields. This much-needed modification will make this
critical program even more efficient and effective.
The Enhancement Act will allow organizations, such as The Fort
Ticonderoga Association to apply directly to ABPP for grant funding,
leveraging the power of individual donor and foundation support,
matched by federal funding. Public/private partnerships are critical to
historic preservation efforts.
The American Battlefield Program Enhancement Act will ensure that
the grant program is nimble and successful, maximizing its potential as
a critical means of battlefield preservation. As our nation approaches
our national 250th commemoration of the American Revolution, we must
take this opportunity to expand resources, mobilize partnerships, and
ensure that our nation's hallowed grounds are preserved for posterity.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Hill. I now recognize the
gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, to introduce our next
witness.
Mr. Johnson. Senator Helene Duhamel was a journalism legend
before turning to public service. She was a winner of the Tom
Brokaw Broadcast Award. And I, like many South Dakotans, were
touched when, at the age of 29, she was diagnosed with
Hodgkin's, with an infant daughter, and invited the entire
state to go through the journey of her cancer treatment. And
countless people were touched by that incredible journey, and
she broke story after story after story.
But I know her best as a public servant representing the
Black Hills of South Dakota and doing so incredibly well,
having been elected by her colleagues as a majority leader,
serving as Chair of Judiciary. She is just among the most
thoughtful members of the South Dakota Senate. And since we are
talking about Mount Rushmore, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I
would note that this is a leader with the patriotism of George
Washington, the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, the commitment to
liberty of Abraham Lincoln, and the energetic leadership style
of Teddy Roosevelt. And it is an honor to have her with us here
today.
Mr. Tiffany. Senator Duhamel, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HELENE DUHAMEL, SENATOR, SOUTH DAKOTA
SENATE, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA
Ms. Duhamel. Thank you so very much. Thank you to the Chair
and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Chair and Ranking
Member of the Committee, other members of the Committee,
especially South Dakota Representative Dusty Johnson, for the
opportunity to testify this morning.
My name is Helene Duhamel. I am a native of South Dakota. I
currently serve as a State Senator and Majority Whip. My family
goes back five generations in the region, long before South
Dakota was even a State. I join you today in support of H.R.
386, the Mount Rushmore Protection Act, as introduced by
Representative Johnson.
Deep in the heart of the Black Hills National Forest of
South Dakota, rises a colossal sculpture carved from granite
that stands as a tribute to democracy. The Mount Rushmore
sculpture and its subjects, Presidents Washington, Jefferson,
Roosevelt, and Lincoln, represent the first 150 years of our
nation, the struggles of a young America, as well as the
triumphs through determination and ability of its elected
leaders.
As Americans and travelers from around the globe sought new
sites in the 20th century, our state historian at the time
believed that Mount Rushmore would bring new faces to South
Dakota, and it did. During its carving, the sculpture
visitation was approximately 400,000 a year. Today, that is
about 3 million ``Oh wow'' moments.
I will admit that people around the world may not be able
to point where South Dakota is on the map, but when you tell
them that you are from the Mount Rushmore State, they know
immediately.
In 1928, Representative William Williamson told his
congressional colleagues the whole project is symbolic and
allegorical. Washington symbolizes the founding of our country
and the stability of our institutions; Jefferson, our idealism,
expansion and love of liberty; Lincoln, our altruism and sense
of inseparable unity; while Roosevelt typifies the soul of
America, its restless energy, rugged morality, and progressive
spirit. The memorial as a whole will idealize all that is best
in our nation's traditions, principles, and form of government.
It will symbolize maturity, stability, noble purpose, liberty
of thought, and action. That was 1928 and remains today.
The Mount Rushmore Protection Act would prevent Federal
funds from being used to alter or remove a name, face, or any
feature from the memorial. In more than one instance, there
have been discussions, whether serious or joking, about adding
someone's face to Mount Rushmore. In every instance, these
proposals have been rejected. Frankly, there is no more room,
or good rock, for that matter, to add on to Mount Rushmore. It
is a complete work of art displayed for the ages.
A more serious threat Mount Rushmore faces are calls to
remove faces from the sculpture. The men carved on the mountain
were not perfect, and neither is our nation's history. But
these were individuals who wrestled with the great issues of
their time and led America forward. Changing Mount Rushmore
will not change our past.
This bill would also designate the mountains the sculpture
is carved on as Mount Rushmore. This is the name recognized by
the United States Board of Geographic Names since 1930, and it
would ensure that any attempts to change the name by the board
must have congressional approval.
The Mount Rushmore National Memorial commemorates the
history and progress as a nation. In celebration of the first
150 years of America, it also stood as a gateway to a history
that has not yet been written. Mount Rushmore offers
opportunities for education, for enjoyment, for inspiration. It
is my hope, as someone whose family has called South Dakota
home for generations, that these opportunities will still be
there for generations to come. It is a national treasure, and I
would strongly encourage you to consider the Mount Rushmore
Protection Act.
I thank the Committee once again for this opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Duhamel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Helene Duhamel, South Dakota State Senator
on H.R. 386
Thank you to the Chair and Ranking Member of the subcommittee,
Chair and Ranking Member of the full committee, and other members of
the committee for the opportunity to testify this morning. My name is
Helene Duhamel--I am a native of South Dakota, and I currently serve as
a State Senator and the Majority Whip. My family goes back six
generations in the region--long before South Dakota was even a state. I
join you today to speak in support of H.R. 386, the Mount Rushmore
Protection Act, introduced by Representative Dusty Johnson.
Deep in the heart of the Black Hills National Forest of South
Dakota rises a colossal sculpture, carved from granite, that stands as
a tribute to democracy. The Mount Rushmore sculpture and its subjects,
Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln, represent the
first 150 years of our nation--the struggles of a young America, as
well as its triumphs through the determination and ability of its
elected leaders.
As Americans and travelers from around the world sought new sights
in the 20th century, Doane Robinson, the state historian at the time,
believed Mount Rushmore would bring new faces to South Dakota--and it
did. During the carving of the sculpture, visitation was approximately
400,000 people annually. Today, an average year for visitors is
approximately 3 million. I will admit that people around the world may
not be able to point to where South Dakota is on a map, but they'll
know the moment you say you are from the Mount Rushmore state.
In 1928, Representative William Williamson told his congressional
colleagues this: ``the whole project is symbolic and allegorical.
Washington symbolizes the founding of our country and the stability of
our institutions; Jefferson our idealism, expansion, and love of
liberty; Lincoln our altruism and sense of inseparable unity; while
Roosevelt typifies the soul of America--its restless energy, rugged
morality, and progressive spirit. The memorial, as a whole, will
idealize all that is best in our national traditions, principles, and
form of government. It will symbolize maturity, stability, noble
purpose, and liberty of thought and action.''
The Mount Rushmore Protection Act would prevent Federal funds from
being used to alter or remove a name, face, or any other feature from
the Memorial. In more than one instance, there have been discussions,
whether serious or joking, about adding someone's face to Mount
Rushmore. In every instance, these proposals have been rejected.
Frankly, there is no more room, or good rock for that matter, to add on
to Mount Rushmore. It is a complete work of art, displayed for the
ages. A more serious threat Mount Rushmore faces are the calls to
remove faces from the sculpture. The men carved on the mountain were
not perfect, and neither is our nation's history, but these were
individuals who wrestled with the great issues of their time and led
America forward. Changing Mount Rushmore will not change the past.
The bill would also designate the Mountain the sculpture is carved
from as ``Mount Rushmore.'' This is the name recognized by the United
States Board of Geographic Names since 1930, and it would ensure that
any attempts to change the name by the Board must have congressional
approval.
The Mount Rushmore National Memorial commemorates our history and
progress as a nation. In celebration of the first 150 years of America,
it also stood as a gateway to a history that had not yet been written.
Mount Rushmore offers opportunities for education, for enjoyment, and
for inspiration. It is my hope as someone whose family has called South
Dakota their home for generations that these opportunities will still
be there for generations to come. I would strongly encourage
consideration of the Mount Rushmore Protection Act, and I thank the
committee once again for the opportunity to testify.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Senator Duhamel. I would like now
to introduce Mr. David Duncan, the President of the American
Battlefield Trust.
Mr. Duncan, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID DUNCAN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD
TRUST, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. It is an honor to be here before you today. My name
is David Duncan. I have the honor to be the President of the
American Battlefield Trust, and I come before you today to
respectfully request passage by this Committee of the American
Battlefield Protection Program Enhancement Act, H.R. 3448, as
introduced by Representative Stefanik.
We are a national battlefield preservation organization.
Thanks to roughly 300,000 members and supporters all around the
world, we have saved over the years 57,000 acres of American
battlefield, hallowed ground that might have otherwise been
developed, destroyed, and denied to future generations. Those
57,000 acres are spread out over 25 united states in this
country.
But we could not have performed our mission to this level
of success without the support of Congress and the National
Park Service, specifically the American Battlefield Protection
Program, ABPP, which, working with us and other partner
organizations, has helped save more than 35,000 acres of
hallowed ground.
This bipartisan bill would be an accelerant to an already
successful Federal program, making it even more efficient and
effective in the run-up to America's 250th birthday in 2026.
The American Battlefield Protection Program, a dollar-for-
dollar matching grant program to preserve battlefield land
outside of existing National Park Service boundaries, has been
the key tool for nearly a quarter century to ensure that these
hallowed grounds are preserved for generations to come.
ABPP is a program that works. It is one of the best public-
private partnerships in the country. The Trust and our partners
nationwide have put this program to work to preserve America's
battlefields, which are irreplaceable parts of our shared
national legacy. They serve as outdoor classrooms to educate
current and future generations about the defining moments of
our country's history. They are also living memorials not just
to those soldiers who fought and died there, but to all who
have worn our nation's uniform.
This bill would make four minor but critical updates to the
program to make it even better.
First, it would enable non-profits and Native American
tribes to apply directly for land acquisition grants. At
present, non-profits like the Trust must find a government
pass-through to submit the applications. This can often add
months to the process, jeopardizing land transactions with
willing sellers who increasingly wish to sell their properties
quickly. Elimination of this hurdle would save valuable time
and lessen the public staff burden.
As the reports used by the National Park Service to define
battlefield core and study areas were issued back in 1993 and
2007, the second update would allow the National Park Service
to modify those existing battlefield areas to include new or
updated information obtained through new research, advances in
technology, or archeology about the actions that took place at
these sites, making these lands eligible for acquisition,
interpretation, and restoration grants administered by ABPP.
Third and fourth, guarantee that these funds will be used
exclusively for the preservation and restoration of high-
priority battlefield land and modify the relatively new
battlefield restoration grant authorized by Congress in 2019 to
allow funds to be mobilized for all protected battlefields
listed in the two previously mentioned National Park Service
reports.
These small but important modifications to the program will
ensure its readiness to preserve American historic treasures as
we approach the nation's 250th birthday. These lands from the
Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and the Civil War are vital
open spaces and outdoor classrooms that commemorate the
sacrifices of those who fought and died on hallowed fields.
This program has enjoyed widespread support in Congress for
decades, and this bill will strengthen it for many years to
come.
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. I appreciate this opportunity
to testify before the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
Prepared Statement of David N. Duncan, President, American Battlefield
Trust
on H.R. 3448
Introduction
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is David Duncan, and I am the president of the American
Battlefield Trust. I come before you today to respectfully request
passage by this committee of the American Battlefield Protection
Program Enhancement Act (H.R. 3448).
The American Battlefield Trust is a national nonprofit organization
dedicated to preserving America's Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and
Civil War battlefields. Thanks to the generosity of our 300,000 members
and supporters, the Trust has protected more than 57,000 acres of
critically important battlefield land in 25 states. We could not have
performed our mission without the support of Congress and the National
Park Service; and specifically, the American Battlefield Protection
Program.
This legislation before you today, which currently includes a
bipartisan list of more than 40 co-sponsors, would take an already
successful federal program, and make it even more efficient and
effective, ensuring the preservation, restoration and interpretation of
our nation's most hallowed grounds as an enduring legacy of the America
250 observance in 2026.
American Battlefield Protection Program
America's battlefields are irreplaceable parts of our shared
national heritage. When preserved, these battlefields serve as outdoor
classrooms to educate current and future generations about the defining
moments in our country's history. They are living memorials, not just
to the soldiers who fought and died there, but to all who have proudly
worn our nation's uniform. Preserved battlefields are also economic
drivers for communities, generating tourism dollars that are extremely
important to state and local economies. Battlefield visitors, who
typically travel in groups and as part of families, tend to stay longer
and spend more than other types of tourists.
The American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) has been THE key
tool of the past nearly quarter century to ensure these hallowed
grounds are preserved for generations to come. The program traces its
origins to 1990, when Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory
Commission (CWSAC), which produced a report outlining the most
important Civil War battlegrounds, prioritizing them according to
preservation status and historic significance. In addition, the
Commission also recommended that Congress establish a federal matching
grant program to encourage private sector investment in battlefield
preservation. In 2007, a similar report was submitted to Congress by
the National Park Service (NPS), identifying the key battlefields of
the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. To date, ABPP's Battlefield
Land Acquisition Grants have been used to preserve more than 35,000
acres of previously unprotected battlefield land from these three
formative conflicts.
Enhancing a Successful Program
ABPP is a program that works. It is responsible for one of the best
public private preservation partnerships in the country. The Trust and
our partners--from Fort Ticonderoga, New York to Glorieta Pass, New
Mexico; from Princeton, New Jersey to Vicksburg, Mississippi--have put
this program to work to preserve battlefields from the Revolutionary
War, War of 1812 and Civil War. This bill, introduced by
Representatives Elise Stefanik (NY) and Gerry Connolly (VA), would make
an already nimble and effective program even stronger. And with the
nation's 250th anniversary less than three years away, it is imperative
we do everything we can to save the places where America was forged,
including strengthening the tools at our disposal to ensure our
nation's history is preserved and its stories told.
This bill would make four minor but critical updates to the
program. The first modification would enable non-profits and Native
American tribes to apply directly for the land acquisition grants. At
present, the only applicants for these grants are state and local
public entities; nonprofits like the Trust must find a government pass
through to submit the applications, which can often add months to the
application process, jeopardizing land deals with willing sellers who
typically wish to sell their properties quickly. State and local
governments would still be eligible to apply, but the elimination of
this hurdle would save time and lessen the public staff burden.
The second revision to the existing authorization would create a
mechanism for NPS to modify existing core and study battlefield area
boundaries to include new or updated information about the actions that
took place at these sites. Periodical updates to the reports, issued in
1993 and 2007, would ensure that new, authoritative research about the
historic extent of battlefields, obtained through advances in
technology or archaeology since the reports were first published, can
be incorporated by the NPS so that these lands would be eligible for
acquisition, interpretation and restoration grants administered by
ABPP.
The final two elements of this bill would guarantee that these
funds will be used exclusively for the preservation and restoration of
high-priority battlefield land. As written, the current ABPP statute
allows land grants to be used for all sites listed in the 2007 Report
to Congress on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and War
of 1812 Sites in the United States. This report includes not only
battlefields, but non-battlefield associated sites related to these
conflicts--structures, ships and other landmarks in many cases are not
on battlefield land. This modification would amend the statute to limit
Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants to battlefield land, as the
Congress intended when the Revolutionary War and War of 1812
battlefields were added to the program in 2014, and as is currently the
case for Civil War battlefields.
Finally, the bill would modify the relatively new Battlefield
Restoration Grant program, authorized by Congress in 2019, to allow
that program to be utilized for all protected battlefield listed in the
two aforementioned reports. Current statute limits these grants, which
are designed to restore battlefield lands to their wartime appearance
by removing non-historic structures and reclaiming other features such
as road traces and tree lines, to land saved with ABPP Battlefield Land
Acquisition Grants, excluding many previously preserved sites across
the country. The proposed change would allow for sites previously
protected--Picacho Peak in Arizona, Brandywine Battlefield in
Pennsylvania, and Sailors Creek, Virginia, to name a few--to utilize
these funds, ensuring that more battlefield parks can take advantage of
this valuable program to improve the interpretive experience and enable
visitors to connect with American history through the power of place.
Conclusion
These small but important modifications to the American Battlefield
Protection Program will ensure its readiness to preserve American
historic treasures as we approach our nation's 250th birthday. The
Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and the Civil War were defining
moments in our country's history. They are open spaces and outdoor
classrooms that commemorate the sacrifices of those who fought and died
on these hallowed fields.
The American Battlefield Protection Program remains an
irreplaceable tool with widespread support from Congress for the past
quarter century, and this bill will strengthen this program for years
to come.
Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify in support of the bill. I sincerely hope you and
your subcommittee will support the American Battlefield Protection
Program Enhancement Act (H.R. 3448). We look forward to continuing to
work closely with you as we continue our important work to preserve
America's sacred battlefield lands. Thank you for the opportunity to
address the committee.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
Next, I would like to recognize Ms. Anna Laymon, the
Executive Director for the Women's Suffrage National Monument
Foundation.
You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANNA LAYMON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE
NATIONAL MONUMENT FOUNDATION, DAPHNE, ALABAMA
Ms. Laymon. Thank you. Good morning, distinguished members
of the Committee. I am honored to be here with you today to
testify in support of H.R. 1318.
We are so grateful to have bipartisan and bicameral
support, including the support of many of our co-sponsors, many
of whom are here today, and the support of the six living first
ladies who are graciously serving together as honorary Chairs
of the Women's Suffrage National Monument Foundation.
I would also like to thank the members of the Girl Scouts
Capitol Region who are here with us today, sitting behind me to
watch history in the making and be a part of the legislative
process that the suffragists fought so hard to be a part of.
There are two simple yet history-defining questions at the
heart of today's hearing. As we approach the celebration of 250
years of American democracy, is there room for the great women
of American history in the heart of the National Mall?
And does the addition of a monument to the women's suffrage
movement uphold and enhance the integrity of the National Mall?
Our answer to both questions is, unequivocally, yes.
The National Mall, which is the most visited national park
in the United States with 36 million annual visitors, is our
nation's foremost commemorative space. Its significance, both
symbolically in its embodiment of our country's ideals, and
physically as the land that holds our national memory, cannot
be overstated.
But the story told on the National Mall is not yet
complete. Walking the grounds of the Mall today, you will
encounter war memorials and monuments honoring civil rights
heroes and past presidents. You will stand in awe of the giants
who have earned their place in our national story. But you
won't see the great women of American history like suffragist
Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, and Sojourner Truth, whose
bravery shaped our democracy.
Of the 40 commemorative works in the Reserve, 22, that is,
55 percent, are dedicated to singular men. Ten are dedicated to
military veterans and war history, three to foreign nations,
two to private organizations, one to America's postal history,
one to America's canal history, and one to the history of
horses on the National Mall. Zero of the forty commemorative
works in the Reserve are dedicated to American women's history.
Amongst our most iconic monuments and memorials, American
women's stories are missing.
But is there space for a new memorial on the National Mall?
The Reserve measures 1,030 acres. Of those 1,030 acres, 699
acres are green space. To commemorate the role of 51 percent of
the population in building, securing, and expanding our
nation's democracy, we are asking for 1 acre, 1 out of 699.
The National Park Service has testified today that,
although women are important, we are not important enough to
hold space on the National Mall. They have told every woman and
girl in the United States that, although there are 699 acres of
green space in the Reserve, by asking for 1 acre, we are simply
asking for too much. I could let that bother me, or I could
remember the lessons learned from the suffragists and their
fight for the 19th Amendment.
History is made in these halls, and history is written by
the people's branch.
Today is July 13, 2023. And while I am not usually a person
who looks for signs, every once in a while the universe knocks
so loudly you have to sit up and listen. Exactly 175 years ago
on this date in 1848, 5 women--Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia
Mott, Martha Coffin Wright, Mary Ann McClintock, and Jane
Hunt--gathered together on an unusually hot day in upstate New
York for a tea.
With the windows open and nearly a dozen children running
around their skirts, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was just 32
years old that summer, posed two questions to the women
gathered around her that would change the course of American
history: Hadn't the Revolutionary War been fought just 70 years
earlier to win the right to self-governance for every American;
shouldn't it be that, in this new and great nation, one truth
should be held self-evident, that all men and women are created
equal?
The women's suffrage movement began 175 years ago today
around a table in Waterloo, when five young mothers decided
that they would fight for the ideals of freedom, justice, and
equality so central to the founding of our Republic. They did
not know then that their fight would take 72 years. They did
not know then that not one of the women around the table that
day would live to see the ratification of the 19th Amendment,
but they prayed that their children would. And as every parent
knows, that was enough hope to catalyze the longest and largest
political movement in American history.
If the room feels different today, it is surely because our
foremothers are here, standing tall beside us with the
certainty that, because of this Committee's leadership, every
little girl who visits our nation's capital will soon see the
diverse heroes of American women's history, where they have
always belonged: in the monumental core of the National Mall.
So, I return to those two simple yet history-defining
questions at the heart of today's hearing. On the cusp of
America's 250th, will we finally welcome the great women of
American history to the National Mall?
And does the addition of a monument to the women's suffrage
movement uphold and even enhance the integrity of our nation's
foremost commemorative space?
Again, our answer to both questions is, unequivocally, yes.
We thank you sincerely for your consideration of H.R. 1318.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Laymon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anna Laymon, Executive Director, Women's Suffrage
National Monument Foundation
on H.R. 1318
Good morning, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and all the
Members of Congress here today. I am honored to be here with you to
testify in support of H.R. 1318.
We would also like to express our gratitude to the six living First
Ladies, Mrs. Carter, Secretary Clinton, Mrs. Bush, Mrs. Obama, Mrs.
Trump, and Dr. Biden, for serving together as the Honorary Chairs of
the Women's Suffrage National Monument Foundation.
There are two simple yet history-defining questions at the heart of
today's hearing: is there room for the great women of American history
in the heart of the National Mall, in the area known as Reserve; and
does the addition of a monument to the women's suffrage movement uphold
and enhance the integrity of the National Mall? Our answer to both
questions is, unequivocally, yes.
The National Mall, which is the most visited National Park in the
United States with 36 million annual visitors, is our Nation's foremost
commemorative space. Its significance--both symbolically in its
embodiment of our country's ideals and physically as the land that
holds our national memory--cannot be overstated.
But the story told on the National Mall is not yet complete.
Walking the grounds of the Mall today, you will encounter war memorials
and monuments honoring civil rights heroes and past presidents. You
will stand in awe of the giants who have earned their place in our
national story. But you won't see the great women of American history
whose bravery shaped our democracy.
Of the 40 commemorative works in the Reserve, 22 (55%) are
dedicated to singular men. 10 are dedicated to military veterans and
war history, three to foreign relations, two to private organizations,
one to America's postal history, one to America's canal history, and
one to the history of horses on the National Mall. Zero of the 40
commemorative works in the Reserve are dedicated to American women's
history. Amongst our most iconic monuments and memorials, American
women's stories are missing (see Appendix A).
But is there space for a new memorial on the National Mall?
The Reserve measures 1,030 acres. Of those 1,030 acres, 699 acres
are greenspace. To commemorate the role of 51% of the population in
building, securing, and expanding our Nation's democracy, we are asking
for one acre. One acre out of 699 (see Appendix A).
The National Park Service has testified today that although women
are important, we are not important enough to hold space on the
National Mall. They have told every woman and girl in the United States
that although there are 699 acres of green space in the Reserve, by
asking for one acre, we are simply asking for too much.
I could let that bother me. Or, I could remember the lessons
learned from the suffragists and their fight for the 19th Amendment.
History is made in these halls. And history is written by the people's
branch.
Today is July 13, 2023. And while I am not usually a person who
looks for signs, every once in a while, the universe knocks so loudly,
you have to sit up and listen. Exactly 175 years ago on this date in
1848, five women--Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Martha Coffin
Wright, Mary Ann McClintock, and Jane Hunt--gathered together on an
unusually hot day for a quiet tea in Upstate New York. With the windows
open and nearly a dozen children running around their skirts, Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, who was just 32 years old that summer, posed two
questions to the women gathered around her that would change the course
of American history: hadn't the Revolutionary War been fought just 70
years earlier to win the right to self-governance for every American?
Shouldn't it be that in this new and great Nation, one truth should be
self-evident, that all men and women are created equal?
The women's suffrage movement began 175 years ago today, around a
table in Waterloo, when five young mothers decided that they would
fight for the ideals of freedom, justice, and equality so central to
the founding of our Republic. They did not know then that their fight
would take 72 more years. They did not know then that not one of the
women around the table that day would live to see the ratification of
the 19th Amendment. But they prayed that their children would. And as
every parent knows, that was enough hope to catalyze the longest and
largest political movement in American history.
If the room feels different today, it's surely because our
foremothers are here, standing tall beside us, with the certainty that
because of this committee's leadership, every little girl who visits
our Nation's Capital will soon see the heroes of American women's
history where they have always belonged--in the monumental core of the
National Mall.
And so, I return to those two simple yet history-defining questions
at the heart of today's hearing. Is there room for the great women of
American history in the Reserve? And does the addition of a monument to
the women's suffrage movement uphold and even enhance the integrity of
the National Mall? Again, our answer to both questions is,
unequivocally, yes.
We thank you, sincerely, for your consideration of H.R. 1318.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Laymon. I would like to
recognize the gentleman from Utah for an introduction.
Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member
Neguse. It is my honor, my distinct honor today to introduce a
distinguished witness who exemplifies the epitome of bravery
and selflessness: Command Master Chief Britt Kelly Slabinski.
Command Master Chief Slabinski has displayed a commitment
to public service for his entire life. Whether in the Boy
Scouts of America or the U.S. Navy, he has shown all who know
him what it means to put country first. It was during his time
in the Navy that he performed acts of extraordinary valor,
bravery, and courage that led him to being awarded the Medal of
Honor.
I encourage everyone to read and be inspired by his
official Medal of Honor citation. And while not to distract
from his presence today, these citations across the 3,500
individuals, one of the most rare things we award, should be
broadly communicated to our nation. That is partly what we are
here to do today.
Command Master Chief Slabinski continues to serve his
nation as a board member for the Medal of Honor Museum
Foundation, which works today to inspire America to its true
character and leadership potential one hero at a time. It is an
honor to introduce him and hear from him about the important
work we are engaged in to build a monument befitting of him,
others, and the entire Medal of Honor.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Slabinski, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRITT SLABINSKI, MASTER CHIEF, UNITED STATES NAVY,
RETIRED, ARLINGTON, TEXAS
Master Chief Slabinski. Good morning. Thank you to the
Chairman and Ranking Member, as well as all members of this
Committee for your time this morning and for your thoughtful
consideration of H.R. 2717.
I also want to thank Congressmen Moore and Veasey, who are
the bipartisan co-sponsors of this important legislation.
It is a privilege to be here today speaking in support of a
piece of legislation named in honor of an individual I knew
well and admired both for his service in uniform and, more
importantly, for all the ways he continued to serve his nation
as a private citizen.
From the moment we met, Woody Williams and I shared a
special bond. In fact, after he passed and laid in honor right
next door in the Capitol as the last Medal of Honor recipient
from World War II, his family entrusted me with his Medal of
Honor rosette, which I wear today, and am pleased that several
members of Woody's family are here with us today.
Wearing this rosette doesn't just remind me of my good
friend and his service to our country, it is also a testament
to the idea that the Medal of Honor doesn't belong to a person
or even a generation. It is a torch passed through time. The
values represented by the medal transcend time and place,
reaching all the way from its creation by President Lincoln 160
years ago until today.
The Medal of Honor is a reminder for all of us that the
people can accomplish seemingly impossible things. We all have
the potential within us to be extraordinary. It is the same
spirit the monument we are asking you to provide space for on
the National Mall is not a monument to valor, or even to the
3,516 individuals who received the Medal of Honor. It is a
monument to the enduring values which motivate a citizen-
soldier to risk their life for those around them, a teacher to
talk a student with a gun out of committing a horrible act, a
first responder to run into the flames instead of away from
them, or a young person to stand up for a peer being bullied in
the schoolyard.
The Medal of Honor has never been about those who wear it.
In fact, we wear it not for ourselves, but for all those who
served alongside us and, most importantly, wear it for those
who never made it home. The Medal of Honor is a symbol. It is
the embodiment of the ideals that built our nation, it is an
aspiration of our still more forming perfect union. It is a
reminder of the responsibility all Americans have to serve one
another and the greater good.
When President Lincoln created the Medal of Honor in 1861
and awarded the first medals in 1863, he knew the challenge of
keeping our country whole would require incredible sacrifice.
He also knew raising the nation's collective gaze to the
horizon of things which unite us would be of paramount
importance both during the war and after.
There is nothing more uniting than the shared human values
represented by the Medal of Honor: courage and sacrifice;
commitment and integrity; citizenship and patriotism. The
connections between President Lincoln and the Medal of Honor
stretch far between the creation of the medal itself. The work
of preserving and protecting our nation has continued at home
and abroad for over a century-and-a-half since the medal was
created, as every generation of Americans have confronted the
challenge of our time with the same courage and commitment as
Lincoln himself.
The Medal of Honor is the nexus of all of this enduring
work to keep the American experiment alive. It is an undeniable
component of Lincoln's enduring legacy and our American story.
This monument is a way for Lincoln's voice of reason to
continue gently whispering into the future, admonishing us to
focus on the things which unite us and on our shared values.
We have requested this monument be built attached to or
within 1,000 feet of Lincoln Memorial, because it will stand
humbly and respectfully as a guard over his legacy and the
ideals that held our country together. It will also complete an
unfinished work.
The original plans for the Lincoln Memorial extend its
footprint to the edge of the Reflecting Pool with two
additional components. I believe you have each seen a copy of
this, of the century-old plan. For reasons unknown, the final
pieces were never built. With work presently underway to
improve and preserve the Lincoln Memorial, we believe there is
no better time to revisit the original intent and in the most
deferential of ways to create a lasting physical representation
of the bond between Lincoln and the Medal of Honor.
It was 160 years ago this December Lincoln wrote the words,
``Honor to the sailor and soldier everywhere who bravely bears
this country's burden, and honor to the citizen who cares for
his brother in the field and serves as best we can the same
cause.'' Over the course of many years working on this project,
we have often been asked how it is possible nothing like it
ever exists. The only reasonable answer is that America needs
it now more than ever.
We live in seemingly divided times, and I am proud to be
here in front of a Congress which unanimously approved the
National Medal of Honor Monument Act. You have proved to the
nation there are things upon which we can agree. There are
topics which raise to a level of national importance requiring
us to set aside partisan differences and be reminded of our
shared values and common cause.
The Medal of Honor has been awarded in every war and
conflict since the Civil War. There are recipients from every
branch of the military. The medal is awarded regardless of
race, gender, religion, or any other differentiating factor.
And while fewer than 4,000 have earned the privilege of wearing
the medal, the medal is worn for the 40 million citizens who
have served in the United States Armed Forces over 160 years.
More importantly still, the medal is presented and worn to
remind us all of the work of finding common ground, of service
above self, and being a hero to those around us in everyday
life never ends. This monument will be a beacon pointing us all
to a purpose above and beyond any divisions of today and
tomorrow, reminding us not of valor, but of values, courage and
sacrifice, commitment and integrity, citizenship and
patriotism.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Master Chief Slabinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Medal of Honor Recipient, Master Chief Britt
Slabinski
on H.R. 2717
Good morning. Thank you to the Chairman and Ranking Member as well
as all the members of this committee for your time this morning and for
your thoughtful consideration of H.R. 2717.
I also want to thank Congressmen Moore and Veasey who are the
bipartisan co-sponsors of this important legislation.
It is a privilege to be here today speaking in support of a piece
of legislation named for an individual I knew well and admired both for
his service in uniform and, more importantly, for all the ways he
continued to serve as a private citizen.
From the moment we met, Woody Williams and I shared a special bond.
In fact, after he passed and laid in honor right next door in the
Capitol as the last Medal of Honor recipient from World War II, his
family entrusted me with his Medal of Honor rosette which I proudly
wear today.
Wearing this rosette doesn't just remind me of my good friend and
his service to our country, it is also a testament to the idea that the
Medal of Honor doesn't belong to a person or even a generation. It is a
torch passed through time. The values represented by the Medal
transcend time and place. Reaching all the way from its creation by
President Lincoln 160 years ago until today, the Medal of Honor is a
reminder for us all that people can accomplish seemingly impossible
things. We all have the potential within us to be extraordinary.
In this same spirit, the Monument we are asking you to provide
space for on the National Mall is not a monument to valor or even to
the 3,516 individuals who received the Medal of Honor. It is a monument
to the enduring values which motivate a citizen solider to risk their
life for those around them, a teacher to talk a student with a gun out
of committing a horrible act, a first responder to run into flames
instead of away from them, or a young person to stand up for a peer
being bullied in the school yard.
The Medal of Honor has never been about those who wear it. In fact,
we wear it not for ourselves, but for ALL those we served alongside and
most importantly--we wear it for those who never made it home. The
Medal of Honor is a symbol, it is the embodiment of the ideals that
built our nation it is an aspiration of our still forming more perfect
union, and it is a reminder of the responsibility all Americans have to
serve one another and a greater good.
Fellow Medal of Honor recipient and United States President Teddy
Roosevelt once said, ``The lives of truest heroism are those in which
there are no great deeds to look back upon. It is the little things
well done that go to make up a truly successful and good life.''
Woody Williams embodied this. Before Woody created his foundation
to honor Gold Star families, most Americans were unfamiliar with the
term or the tremendous sacrifice it represents. Today, because of
Woody's tireless efforts, there are more than 100 Gold Star Family
Memorials around the United States with 100 more planned. These
memorials raise awareness for what has been given for our country.
I would be remiss, if I didn't acknowledge that we have some of
Woody's family here with us today.
When President Lincoln created the Medal of Honor in 1861 and
awarded the first Medals in 1863, he knew the challenge of keeping our
country whole would require incredible sacrifice. He also knew raising
the nation's collective gaze to the horizon of things which unite us
would be of paramount importance both during the war and after.
There is nothing more uniting than the shared human values
represented by the Medal of Honor: courage and sacrifice, commitment
and integrity, citizenship and patriotism.
The connections between President Lincoln and the Medal of Honor
stretch far beyond the creation of the Medal itself. The work of
preserving and protecting our nation has continued at home and abroad
for over a century and a half, since the Medal was created, as every
generation of Americans have confronted the challenges of our time with
the same courage and commitment as Lincoln himself.
The Medal of Honor is the nexus of all this enduring work to keep
the American experiment alive. It is an undeniable component of
Lincoln's enduring legacy and our American story.
This monument is a way for Lincoln's voice of reason to continue
gently whispering into the future admonishing us to focus on the things
which unite us and on our shared values. We have requested this
Monument be built attached to or within 1,000 feet of the Lincoln
Memorial because it will stand humbly and respectfully as a guard over
his legacy and the ideals that held our country together. It will also
complete an unfinished work.
The original plans for the Lincoln Memorial extended its footprint
to the edge of the reflecting pool with two additional components. I
believe you have each seen a copy of that century-old plan. For reasons
unknown, the final pieces were never built. With work presently
underway to improve and preserve the Lincoln Memorial, we believe there
is no better time to revisit the original intent and in the most
deferential of ways create a lasting physical representation of the
bond between Lincoln and the Medal of Honor.
It was 160 years ago this December Lincoln wrote these words:
``Honor to the Soldier and Sailor everywhere who bravely bears his
country's cause. Honor to the citizen who cares for his brother in the
field, and serves, as best he can, the same cause . . .''
Over the course of many years working on this project, we have
often been asked how it is possible nothing like it already exists. The
only reasonable answer is that America needs it now more than ever.
We live in seemingly divided times. Yet, I am proud to be here in
front of a Congress which in 2021 UNANIMOUSLY approved the National
Medal of Honor Monument Act. You proved to the nation there are things
upon which we can all agree. There are topics which rise to a level of
national importance requiring us to set aside partisan differences and
be reminded of our shared values and common purpose.
The Medal of Honor has been awarded in every war and conflict since
the Civil War. There are recipients from every branch of the military.
The Medal is awarded regardless of race, gender, religion, or any other
differentiating factor. And while fewer than 4,000 have had the
privilege of wearing it, the Medal is worn for the 40 million citizens
who have served in the United States Armed Forces over the past 160
years.
More importantly still, the Medal is presented and worn to remind
us all--the work of finding common ground, of service above self, and
of being a hero to those around us in everyday life never ends.
This monument will be a beacon pointing us all to a purpose above
and beyond any divisions of today or tomorrow--reminding us not of
valor, but of values: courage and sacrifice, commitment and integrity,
citizenship and patriotism.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for comments. Thank you to each of
you for your testimony. We are now going to take time for
questions from our Members.
First, Ms. Stefanik, you have 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and I want to
thank Chairman Westerman for convening today's hearing on this
important legislative package highlighting my bipartisan bill,
the American Battlefield Protection Program Enhancement Act.
As noted in my introduction, my district is home to
numerous important battlefields in American history, including
Fort Ticonderoga, but also Fort Anne and the Bennington
Battlefield, as well. And I am also proud to serve as co-Chair
of the bipartisan Battlefield Caucus.
I like to consider New York's 21st District as the cradle
of the American Revolution. I grew up going to these
battlefields and historic sites across my district, including
the fort, and I am honored to lead this bipartisan legislation
to ensure our many battlefields across the country are
preserved. Protecting these battlefields is essential for
creating rich educational programing for students, and opening
up this experience to tourists.
The American Battlefield Protection Program provides
critical support to our nation's battlefield, and is one of the
most successful land preservation programs managed by the
National Park Service. Since its conception, the American
Battlefield Protection Program has helped protect more than 100
battlefields in 42 states, and protect battlefield lands at 110
battlefield sites in 19 states.
With the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution
approaching, streamlining this program and ensuring that it is
effective and more efficient is more important than ever. This
is why my legislation is so important, to make significant
modifications to strengthen this program for years to come. It
makes four small but critical modifications.
First, it allows non-profits and tribes to apply to the
American Battlefield Protection Program directly, instead of
going through a state or local government.
Secondly, it ensures that the grant funding can be used on
priority battlefields in addition to land that has been
preserved using funding.
Additionally, the bill would clarify eligibility of
Revolutionary War and War of 1812 sites for battlefield land
acquisition grants. That is so important for a district like
mine, and New England in general.
And lastly, this legislation creates a process for the
National Park Service to modify existing core and study
battlefield area boundaries to include new or updated findings.
We are learning more and more history every single day.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan
bill.
And my question is for Ms. Hill and Mr. Duncan. How would
this legislation, and I know you touched on it broadly, but how
would it impact both your work at the Trust, Mr. Duncan, but
also the work you do leading the helm at Fort Ticonderoga, Ms.
Hill?
Beth, you go first.
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Congresswoman Stefanik.
As I mentioned, Fort Ticonderoga is owned and operated by
the Fort Ticonderoga Association, which is a non-profit
educational organization. With this change, Fort Ticonderoga
would be able to apply directly for grant fundings as
properties become available surrounding the site.
Ticonderoga, really, the whole community, is a historic
landscape. So, as land opens up for sale around Fort
Ticonderoga and the potential of the acquisition, this would
streamline the process, enable us to apply for the funding, and
then implement the acquisition to protect the land forever.
Thank you.
Ms. Stefanik. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Representative Stefanik.
For us, the word of the day in battlefield land
preservation is ``urgency.'' We are currently in competition
with some of the best capitalized entities in the world,
corporations, in many cases, with worldwide renown and, quite
candidly, unlimited funds with which to approach landowners to
purchase their property.
So, every day we can shave off of the process so that when
we are dealing with a willing seller, and I want to make that
very clear, we only deal with willing sellers, we pay fair
market value for people's property, but every day we can shave
off of that process makes it more likely we are going to be
able to save that piece of battlefield ground.
If we have to tell a landowner that because of delays in
getting a grant, or just the long process, that we are not
going to be able to buy your property for 6, 9, 12 months, it
is going to be very, very difficult for them to turn away those
offers that are coming at them from these other entities that
are oftentimes offering far above market value.
So, being able to apply directly for us and save, in some
instances, months of that time is huge, hugely important to our
overall mission.
Ms. Stefanik. Well, thank you both for your testimony.
Again, it is an honor to have you here, Beth, as a
constituent and as the leader of Fort Ticonderoga Association.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. Next, Ms. Kamlager-
Dove, you have 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I have a
couple of questions for both Ms. Laymon, and then also for
Senator Duhamel.
Ms. Laymon, you mentioned the convention at Seneca Falls,
which, by the way, no Black women were invited. Your testimony
did state that Lucretia Mott, Martha Coffin Wright, Mary Ann
McClintock, and Jane Hunt are the pioneers of the women's
suffrage movement, but didn't include women like Ida B. Wells,
Dr. Mabel Lee, or Sarah Garnet.
And I would also like to add last night I viewed some
original documents signed by Frederick Douglass on slavery, and
an additional signature on that document at the National
Archives was of Mary Church Terrell, also incredibly important
to this discussion.
And if I might add, since so many of us have been talking
about Lincoln, I viewed Lincoln's letters about slavery, his
concerns about abolishing it, the Emancipation Proclamation and
general order number 3, also known as Juneteenth, which
actually delayed the Emancipation Proclamation's authorization.
I might add that the Juneteenth bill was signed into law by
President Biden, and opposed by a number of my colleagues from
across the aisle, including some on this very Committee. So, as
we talk about Lincoln and history, it is important to say all
of that.
So, to the question, Ms. Laymon, how is the Foundation
planning to include the contributions of non-White women?
Ms. Laymon. Thank you, Congresswoman. That is an excellent
question. An excellent and very important question, and one I
would add that maybe every single one of our stakeholders has
asked me.
Going back to 2020, I was the Executive Director of the
Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission, which was the small
Federal agency that Congress established to help coordinate and
commemorate the 100-year anniversary of the ratification of the
19th Amendment. And in that centennial and the work that we
did, I would say the thing I am most proud of is ensuring that
all of our projects, all of our efforts, all of our
partnerships were committed to telling a full story, a complete
story, and weaving women's stories together in this work that
we did in a way that celebrated what these women achieved, but
didn't ignore the hard histories that are very, very real in
this story of the 19th Amendment and the story of the women's
suffrage movement.
We are very committed to lifting all women out of the
footnotes of history, and very committed to lifting all women
into this shared American story that we tell on the National
Mall.
Our history is an imperfect history. That has been said
today, I think very eloquently, by several Members here on this
Committee. And we take this very seriously. This is an
imperfect movement for change, but it is an important movement
for change. Those leaders that you just mentioned are American
heroes, and their stories deserve to be told and represented on
the National Mall. That is what this monument will do.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. And hopefully, if this is
passed and enacted, there will also be women building it, as
well.
So, State Senator, as someone with generational ties to the
region of Black Hills, South Dakota, I am sure you can
appreciate the Sioux Nation's disapproval of Black Hills being
removed from the Great Sioux Reservation. How is the South
Dakota State Legislature planning to address the concerns of
the Lakota Tribe?
Ms. Duhamel. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is being taken
up in the South Dakota Legislature at this time. We are right
here today talking about the Mount Rushmore Protection Act.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Right. They are also a part of this
discussion because their concerns that the Mount Rushmore
National Memorial serves as a reminder of cultural abuse
enacted on their ancestors.
Ms. Duhamel. The Mount Rushmore National Monument shows men
who are depicted from the past, men who are not perfect, but
neither is our nation's history. And they brought us to a place
for a more perfect union. But this is settled law. The United
States, the highest law of the land, the Supreme Court in 1980,
ruled on this issue. They decided United States versus Sioux
Nation of Indians 1980. They didn't give the land back. They
made an award of $106 million. And that now is in the billions
of dollars, and it is settled law.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. All right, thank you for that, Mr.
Chair. I just want to say that there is irony for me, sitting
here looking up, looking at the makeup of this panel talking
about the telling of the history of our country. Diversity is
certainly important.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I would like to
recognize the Chairman, Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. And, again,
thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Duncan, in your testimony you made me feel a little bit
old because I remember the bicentennial celebration, and now we
are looking at 250 years. I will say I was a small child during
the bicentennial celebration, but definitely old enough to
remember it.
And as America approaches the 250-year celebration in 2026,
can you talk about how the projected increases in battlefield
visitations and how Congresswoman Stefanik's legislation can
help the nation's battlefields as we look forward to these
celebrations?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, absolutely.
We, as an organization, a private, non-profit organization,
have actually established a goal in conjunction with the
National Park Service that, again, with their partnership, and
in conjunction with the American Battlefield Protection
Program, we are seeking to preserve a total of 2,500 acres of
Revolutionary War battlefield land. This is, again, in addition
to the tens of thousands of acres from primarily the Civil War,
but also the War of 1812 that has been preserved over the
years.
I am very much of the mind that this will be one of the
most important periods of commemoration, I think, in all of our
lifetimes. Like you, I was a very young boy in 1976, but I do
remember it well. It is a tremendous opportunity to get people
out onto the sites where this country's history was created and
defined, created during the early conflicts and defined during
the later ones.
There is a historic benefit, there is an education benefit.
There is a tremendous power of place. We have seen that. I have
been in this preservation business now for more than 23 years,
and I have heard that from people all across the country. They
say, well, I read a book, or I saw a movie, and that was nice,
but when I went to the battlefield I felt something. And I
think that is a very real manifestation of that power of place.
So, there is education, there is history.
By the way, this doesn't get talked about nearly as often
as it should, but there is also an economic benefit, as well. I
am sure my colleague, Beth, here from Fort Ticonderoga, can
attest to that. A properly preserved and interpreted
battlefield will attract the highest level of heritage tourists
that there is. They tend to come to these sites, stay longer,
and spend more. So, for a community that has a preserved site
like this, 3 million people going to the Black Hills, people
coming to Washington to see new monuments on the Mall, there is
a tremendous economic benefit as well.
So, we are really looking forward to channeling all of that
into this energy over the next 3 years.
Mr. Westerman. Also in Representative Stefanik's bill she
allows direct participation of tribes and non-profit
organizations in the protection program for the battlefields.
This is something that is a priority of mine, and something we
have worked hard on at this Committee, is to get more tribal
involvement. We have done that through the Good Neighbor
Authority managing our forest. We are working on a program with
Fish and Wildlife Service to have kind of a Good Neighbor
Authority for that. And I would consider this a Good Neighbor
Authority for helping with our battlefields.
But can you please talk about how including tribal and
private partners can help strengthen the level of protection?
Mr. Duncan. Well, I think it is a situation where, again,
the more people we have involved in historic preservation, the
better it is going to be for everyone.
Currently, our areas of focus are, as I say, the three main
conflicts of the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and the Civil
War. There has certainly been some discussion that we might
look to other conflicts either before those conflicts or later,
but we haven't moved very far on that to this point.
Mr. Westerman. And I want to ask Master Chief Slabinski a
question with the remaining time I have.
And as Mr. Moore mentioned, this bill passed on the Floor
unanimously when we first did the Medal of Honor Monument. And
it seems to be the only ones opposed to it right now are the
Park Service. But as a veteran, what kind of message do you
think that sends to you and fellow veterans when the Park
Service takes these stances?
Master Chief Slabinski. Well, the bill was passed
unanimously. It gives me a tremendous sense of hope when we saw
the results come back. And I wanted to thank all of you for
that. And we came back to say, look, the DNA of so many others
is embedded inside this medal, and everyone recognizes that.
And to bring everyone together, it just gave me a sense of
that, hey, we are going to be OK.
I know the Park Service. The Park Service is just doing
what you asked them to do, right? They are following through on
that. If you tell them, hey, we want to change that, they will
follow through on that. They are just doing what you asked them
to do, is the way I look at it. For us, we are just asking you,
hey, let's be on this mission here to try to inspire America a
little bit more with the creation of this monument.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
Representative Stauber, you have 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hill, just to let you know, in the early 1990s I rented
a home on Glen Lake when I was playing professional hockey, so
northern Minnesota and upstate New York have similar features
and great people.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be co-sponsor of the bipartisan
Hershel Woody Williams National Medal of Honor Monument
Location Act, and would like to thank my colleague from Utah,
Mr. Moore, for his leadership in introducing this legislation.
Last Congress, I was proud to support the legislation that
authorized the National Medal of Honor Museum Foundation to
honor our Medal of Honor recipients by establishing a memorial
to them in our nation's capital. And I support that memorial
being built on the National Mall. The National Mall here in
Washington is akin to America's backyard. It belongs to the
American people, and is a way for us to celebrate this great
nation and everything it stands for.
That is why it is fitting to establish a National Medal of
Honor memorial on the National Mall to honor those who have
sacrificed on our behalf, and to honor President Lincoln's
establishment of the National Medal of Honor. It is only
appropriate that such a memorial be sitting in the shadow of
the Lincoln Memorial.
Master Chief Slabinski, I want to thank you for your
service. The men and women like you who wore the uniform of
this country and sacrificed for all of us should be celebrated.
I want to thank you for your advocacy on behalf of your fellow
Medal of Honor recipients today. I am proud to support this
legislation and honor the men and women like you and Woody
Williams. It is vital that we support this memorial to ensure
all Americans can learn about the sacrifices you have all made
on behalf of this great nation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Next, Mrs. Kiggans, you
have 5 minutes.
Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. Thank
you to all of our panelists for being here and taking the time
to talk through these important issues with us.
I am happy to be a co-sponsor of several of my colleagues'
bills being discussed today, and I wanted to take a few minutes
to express my support to the panel. Although I don't have
questions, I really just wanted to speak in support of all of
you.
First, I want to thank my colleague, Representative Neguse,
for introducing this bill to place the monument to women's
suffrage on the National Mall. As a female Member of Congress
who would not be sitting here today without the women voters of
Virginia's 2nd District, I want to emphasize the profound
importance of women's suffrage to our democracy, and to
advocate passionately for the need to commemorate this pivotal
moment in our history.
As a female Navy pilot who was inspired to enter a career
in military aviation in the same year that women were allowed
to fly in combat, I appreciate and recognize the importance of
honoring and remembering milestones that women have achieved
throughout our nation's history. I am a believer of recognizing
and remembering, and then getting to work, and let those
monuments speak for themselves.
But honoring the women's suffrage movement with a monument,
especially one on some of the most revered Federal land in our
country, is a powerful statement. This monument will serve as a
reminder of the struggles endured and the progress achieved.
So, thank you, Ms. Laymon, for being here today and for your
tireless work seeing this project through.
Secondly, I wanted to thank Master Chief Slabinski for
testifying before this Committee, and just for speaking so
eloquently about the reason that we have a Congressional Medal
of Honor, and what it symbolizes to our country, the need for
patriotism today. It is the reason I ran for Congress, so it is
an honor to have you here with us. And you visited my office as
well, so I appreciate that. And when you came to my office you
spoke on behalf of H.R. 2717, which is before the Committee
today.
Since its creation 160 years ago, like you said, over 3,500
individuals have received the Medal of Honor. And every week in
my newsletter that we put out to my constituents, we highlight
a Medal of Honor winner of the week. It is something that I
feel passionately about. I want all of those stories to be
told. So, we all have different things we incorporate on a
weekly basis in our newsletters, but that is mine. It is an
honor to be able to help co-sponsor that bill to honor those
who have fought for this country and inspire future warriors to
continue their legacy.
The Medal of Honor holds an exalted place in American
history, and honoring the extraordinary heroism displayed by
the few service members awarded the Medal of Honor should be a
top priority. I can think of no better place for this monument
than next to that of President Lincoln, who established the
award after 160 years of extraordinary achievement. And it is
finally time to inscribe the names of these heroes in the
National Mall.
As a final tribute to the recipients of the Medal of Honor,
I would like to recount one of the many stories of gallantry
that stood out to me. The first Medal of Honor recipient from
Virginia Beach, my district, is Sergeant James Miller. He was
born into slavery in what was then Princess Anne County in
1829. In 1863, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, and he
participated in the Battle of New Market Heights in 1864 during
the Civil War in modern-day Henrico County, Virginia. During
the battle, Sergeant James was shot in the arm and he had an
emergency amputation. During this time he continued to lead his
troops in battle, loading and discharging his weapons one-
handed, urging his men forward, and refusing to be taken from
the field. He died in 1871 of complications from injuries
sustained in combat.
I went to a dinner with the Congressional Medal of Honor
Society when I first came to Congress, and met so many
recipients. And we had a speaker who was a helicopter pilot in
Vietnam. My dad served in Vietnam as a Green Beret, and we
frequently remember his friends who were lost during that war.
But this particular gentleman, a Medal of Honor winner who
spoke, he said, ``Every day we got up and we flew missions in
Vietnam. And we did the same thing every day. But one day
people paid attention, and I got this medal.''
So, that really made an impression on me, and a statement.
People don't wake up and say, ``I am going to wake up and win
the Congressional Medal of Honor today.'' These are just
ordinary people who wake up, and they make extraordinary
choices that make our country great, and allow us the privilege
just to be here and, for me, the privilege of being able to
serve in Congress, and for us to all live in the greatest
country in the world.
So, thank you to Sergeant James, who I spoke about, to
Master Sergeant Slabinski, and to the many other incredible
service members who have been awarded the Medal of Honor. We
owe them debts that we can never repay, and this memorial is an
important step in recognizing their sacrifices.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlewoman yields, and thank you for your
service.
I think earlier we had a comment from one of our Members in
regards to the makeup of the panel. I would just point out
that, as we go through this hearing, we have no one on the
other side of the aisle that is here at this point, which is
really unfortunate. And the Minority had the ability to be able
to call another witness here. If they wanted someone from the
Lakota Sioux Tribe, they could have brought that person here,
or someone that represented that viewpoint. They could have
been here on this panel, and they chose not to do that.
Next, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Hunt. You have 5 minutes for questions. Mr. Hunt, are you
ready?
Mr. Hunt. I was born ready.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunt. Thank you so much. And I also want to thank you
all for being here. I greatly appreciate it.
Sir, I was able to meet you and many of your colleagues
earlier this year. We listen to your stories, listen to your
sacrifices, and what you have done, and how much we definitely
need the National Medal of Honor Monument. We discussed this in
depth, and it is something that our Committee has control over.
We can help you , sir, and also the brave patriots across this
country and the consummate professionals that wish to educate
all Americans, regardless of age, race, origin, or religion,
about the values of this country and the importance of freedom
that we have here and abroad. And what we are able to provide
for others abroad is critical. That knowledge is critical.
I am not sure if you all know this, but I am also a co-
sponsor for legislation that makes July American Pride Month.
And we take a day every single day in the month of July to talk
about the values of this country, the history of this country,
where we have come from, and where we are, and not necessarily
to lament on the past or the things that we haven't done right,
for every single culture has a checkered and chartered past.
But we, as a country, because of brave men like you, are why we
get to call ourselves the land of the free and the home of the
brave. And monuments like this can serve as a constant reminder
as to why our future is bright because of brave people that are
willing to serve it.
And also, our posterity depends on the fact that we fight
for these values every single day. And there is some kind of
representation to understand that.
I am a West Point grad, and you walk around West Point all
day, every day. There are monuments, and the buildings and the
barracks are named after prominent people like MacArthur and
like Eisenhower. And of course, there is General Patton. And
General Patton's statue is placed in front of the library. And
it is ironic, because apparently he graduated last in his
class, so he never spent a day in the library.
And I also spent time in Robert E. Lee Barracks, the
Confederate general that fought against the rights of people
that looked like me. And I love the name of those barracks
because it represents progress. And we are not defined by names
on buildings; we are defined by our history. And what we can do
is talk about the progress of then, and where we are right now.
So, sir, my question is for you. If you don't mind, would
you mind explaining to the Committee and those that are
watching this hearing why Congress should get this monument
done, and why we should get it done now?
Master Chief Slabinski. Sir, thank you for your service, I
was privileged to serve the country by your side.
We--I say we, as a nation--we have 65 living recipients
left to the Medal. Possibly 66 coming with the President
announcing a new one coming here soon. It is still not a lot,
down considerably from our 400 that we had back from World War
II. So, it is critical now to get those stories out.
I can tell you one story is I was at an event just recently
where another recipient, an Army recipient, was speaking from
Vietnam. And I tell you, his comments, when I was listening to
him, I felt inspired from him, listening to his comments, and I
was like, wow. I mean, those stories, they are not lost on me,
and they are still inspiring me. But soon we won't have those
stories.
Mr. Hunt. Yes.
Master Chief Slabinski. And we will need places where
people can go, just like some of our monuments that you have on
the Mall now.
But this isn't about war, this is about values. This is
about tools to make decisions when decisions are hard to come
by. And we all face them every day. That is what this monument
is about, giving the people that will visit some tools to help
them make decisions so we can further build upon our
experiment. So, we need it now.
Mr. Hunt. As a military guy, every time I am encountered by
gentlemen like you and the Medal that you wear around your
neck, for those that don't understand that, he is rare. He is
wearing the history of this country. It is just a level of
reverence that you have earned, and there is a level of
reverence that we owe you.
And I always talk about why we live in the greatest country
in the world. And by the way, on our worst day, in spite of a
lot of the strife and anguish that we might see, on our worst
day this is the greatest country in the world. If we cannot
have monuments like this as a sort of reminder that, in spite
of all the fighting and the strife and a lot of the
disagreements that happened right here in this room on a
relatively regular basis, if we can't have a rallying cry to
remember that this is exactly who we are, and that is what this
is about, then we have other problems.
If we could spend billions of dollars in other countries, I
can assure you that we can get this done as a reminder to those
in the future just what the foundation of this country is all
about so we could actually have a future as an American.
I am honored by your presence. I am honored by your
service. And thank you all so much for being here today. I
really appreciate it.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields?
Mr. Hunt. I yield. Yes, sir. I yield back the rest of my
time.
Mr. Tiffany. I would like to thank all of you for your
testimony and thank you, Members, for your questions. But thank
you so much for making the trip that you did to come here to
Washington, DC to share your information.
Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for you, and we will ask that you respond to those in
writing.
Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Subcommittee must
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on
Tuesday, July 18, 2023. The hearing record will be held open
for 10 business days for those responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
on H.R. 4377
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the
Record on H.R. 4377, which would amend the Military Lands Withdrawal
Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-65) to extend an existing military withdrawal and
reservation for the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) in southwestern
Arizona until October 5, 2049.
The bill would also expand BMGR by authorizing the Gila Bend
Addition, which would add 2,366 acres of BLM-managed public lands in
Maricopa County, Arizona (referred to as the Gila Bend Addition) to the
range. Lastly, the bill would provide clarifying language for the
status of the remaining Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 lands
along the BMGR perimeter, revoke legacy World War II-era military
withdrawals, and provide for the transfer of a 21-acre parcel managed
by the United States Air Force (USAF) and located within the Cabeza
Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and Cabeza Prieta Wilderness Area to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The Department supports H.R. 4377, as the bill's provisions match
the proposed withdrawal and expansion jointly developed by USAF and the
United States Marine Corps (USMC), with the BLM participating as a
cooperating agency. The Department defers to USAF and USMC regarding
the military interests and assets under their jurisdiction.
Background
The BMGR, located in southwestern Arizona, was first established to
train U.S. pilots during World War II, and continues to serve as a
military training range today. Spanning 1.7 million acres, the BMGR is
comprised of one range jointly managed by USAF and USMC. The BMGR is
the nation's fourth largest land-based military range, and the largest
range at which tactical aviation training is the predominant mission.
The existing land withdrawal and reservation for the BMGR provided by
the Military Land Withdrawal Act of 1999 is due to expire on October 4,
2024.
H.R. 4377
H.R. 4377 provides for the extension of the military withdrawal of
the BMGR until 2049, an expansion of the range through the withdrawal
of the 2,366-acres of BLM-managed lands identified as the Gila Bend
Addition for inclusion in the BMGR, among other provisions.
In addition to extending the withdrawal for the BMGR, the bill
would expand the range by withdrawing approximately 2,366 acres of BLM-
managed land, referred to as the Gila Bend Addition, and add it to the
existing BMGR to enhance the safety and security of flight operations
and allow USAF to control use and access of this area under restricted
airspace. USAF and USMC jointly prepared a Legislative Environmental
Impact Statement (LEIS) for the requested withdrawal extension and
expansion. The BLM notes that the Gila Bend Addition is a remote area
used sporadically for dispersed recreation and contains one active
grazing allotment that has not been grazed since 1989. The BLM
participated in and contributed to the development of the LEIS as a
cooperating agency, and the Department supports this provision.
H.R. 4377 also addresses outdated and redundant land records and
statuses, as recommended by the BLM and accepted by the lead agencies
during the development of the LEIS for the withdrawal extension and
expansion. This includes the revocation of outdated legacy World War
II-era Public Land Orders and Executive Orders that withdrew and
reserved land for the BMGR, but are redundant in light of the existing
withdrawal. The bill also clarifies the withdrawal status of certain
lands along the BMGR perimeter withdrawn by the Military Lands
Withdrawal Act of 1986. The Department supports these provisions, which
provide important clarity regarding land status for all involved
parties.
Additionally, H.R. 4377 directs the transfer of the 20.66-acre
Legal Tender Mine from the Secretary of the Air Force to the Secretary
of the Interior at no cost and in as-is condition for inclusion in the
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. This transfer would ensure the
continued protection of the mine's natural and cultural resources and
advance the National Wildlife Refuge System's conservation mission.
Further, the designation of this property as part of the Cabeza Prieta
Wilderness would facilitate seamless management of the site with the
surrounding refuge lands, 93% of which are Designated Wilderness.
Conclusion
The Department appreciates the importance of military ranges and
the space needed for military training to secure our nation and support
the multiple missions of our Armed Forces. We are proud to coordinate
with the Department of Defense to facilitate responsible use of public
lands to support military readiness, training, and testing. Throughout
the country, the Department has established productive partnerships
with the military to support these goals. The Department supports H.R.
4377 and looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and our
military partners as this legislation progresses through Congress.
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman
Statement for the Record
Lieutenant General Kevin M. Iiams
Commanding General, Training and Education Command
and
Major General David W. Maxwell,
Commanding General, Marine Corps Installations Command
on H.R. 4377
Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and distinguished
members of this subcommittee, we are thankful for the opportunity to
present this statement regarding the continuing provision of withdrawal
of the lands of the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) for use by the
Department of Defense (DOD).
The Marine Corps remains the Nation's force-in-readiness--a naval
expeditionary force ready to deter adversaries, respond to crisis and
conflict, and contribute to Naval and Joint Force operations. Our
identity as Marines centers on being ready to deter, fight, and win. As
individuals, as units, and as a Corps, everything we do is in support
of warfighting advantage and being most ready when the Nation is least
ready. This is our obligation to the American people.
A key element in providing ready forces is the availability of
suitable and sustainable training areas, ranges, airspace, and sea
space. Readiness requires a combination of people, assets, ranges,
training, and experimentation to meet force development objectives in
support of both current and future challenges. Our ongoing readiness to
meet force design initiatives will require critical ranges and training
areas be available for the Marine Corps to conduct live, virtual, and
constructive training. One of the centerpieces for that advanced
training capability for the Marine Corps is the BMGR in Southwest
Arizona. The collective ranges and training areas in California and
Arizona managed by Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma comprise over
1.1 million acres of land area, approximately 7,397 square nautical
miles of airspace, making it the Marine Corps' largest training
complex, and the BMGR West (BMGR-W) falls under its purview.
The Marine Corps portion of BMGR-W, comprised of approximately
693,619 acres and consisting of three subranges that support aviation
training, including Tactical Aircrew Combat Training Systems (TACTS)
High, TACTS Low, and Cactus West, which provide for Air to Air,
simulated Air to Ground, scored Air to Ground, supersonic flight, Low
Altitude Training and Tactics (LATT), Electronic Warfare, Laser
Certified Ranges, Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP), Forward Arming
and Refueling Points (FARP), Assault Landing Zone (ALZ) training,
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Counter UAS and Aerial Delivery (AD)
operations. Additionally, approximately 50 different types of aircraft
(military and government agency) utilize the BMGR-W on an annual basis.
Significant portions of BMGR-W contain multiple live-fire training
areas for individual and crew served weapons training, convoy
operations training, Explosive Ordnance Disposal training, and limited
new systems test, development, and experimentation. The BMGR also
provides necessary ground maneuver area for ground combat elements
operating in support of aviation training, to include the biannual
Marine Corps Weapons and Tactics Instructor (WTI) course, which is
supported by a ground element of more than 1,200 personnel for each
course.
These courses are critical to Marine Corps aviation training and
readiness, which require access to the BMGR--West and East. The
biannual WTI courses facilitate the development of aviation tactics,
techniques, and procedures through tactical experimentation in
realistic combat training scenarios and produces over 300 military
occupational specialty Weapons and Tactics Instructors annually. WTI
qualified instructors return to their home unit and serve as squadron
training officers who use their skills to act as aircraft and weapons
subject matter experts to provide their units with the proper training
and evaluation to ensure exceptional combat readiness. As such, loss of
access to the BMGR would have profoundly negative effects on both
Marine Corps aviation readiness and Force Design (FD) 2030
experimentation and implementation.
The BMGR also provides the venue for USMC readiness and pre-
deployment training, for up to 20 deployable units per year.
Additionally, many other MCAS Yuma tenants, including the Marine
Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1 (VMX-1), Marine Aircraft
Group 13 (MAG-13), Marine Air Control Squadron 1 (MACS-1), Marine
Fighter Training Squadron 401 (VMFT-401), Marine Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle Squadron 1 (VMU-1), and Combat Logistics Company 16 (CLC-16),
utilize BMGR-W year-round to train and maintain operational readiness.
The BMGR also provides critical support to the mission readiness of the
3d Marine Aircraft Wing (3d MAW) units located at MCAS Miramar and MCAS
Camp Pendleton, as well as numerous Navy and Marine Corps units that
deploy to the region for individual, unit level, and large-scale
exercise training.
The BMGR functions as part of a system of ranges in conjunction
with all Marine Corps Installations West's (MCIWEST's) installations,
ranges, and training facilities, as well as multiple Navy Operating
Areas and other DOD installations and airspace within the southwest of
the United States. As an example, the Navy's Southwest Tactical
Training Range and Tactical Combat Training System (TCTS) ranges
includes MCAS Yuma's BMGR-W, in addition to other Navy and Marine Corps
range complexes, providing critical training and readiness support to
the Naval operating forces, aviation training commands, and other
Service units. In addition to BMGR-W range areas, the eastern portion
of the BMGR managed by the U.S. Air Force and Luke Air Force Base
provides surface-to-air threat simulators and training systems that are
integral to Marine Corps aviation training during WTI and for advanced
systems training by Marine Corps and Navy F-35 aircrew.
The criticality of the BMGR-W for training use by the DOD is
evident in the training usage numbers generated on an annual basis. On
average, BMGR-W is utilized for training more than 317 days per year,
supporting over 16,500 aviation flights (sorties) and 335 annual ground
training events. Absent the BMGR-W, the aforementioned training would
have to be absorbed by other training locations, a near impossibility
due to cost, competing timelines, and capacity, all resulting in lost
training and significant negative impact to combat readiness.
The Department of the Navy (DON) and the Marine Corps have made
substantial investment in MCAS Yuma's ranges and training
infrastructure resources, including range instrumentation, target
systems, and simulation technologies within BMGR-W. Over the last ten
years this investment has totaled approximately $193.5M. Annually, the
DON and Marine Corps invests over $10M, plus extensive staff hours and
labor costs, to ensure MCAS Yuma achieves an appropriate balance
between realistic, effective training and training capability resources
including extensive use of the BMGR-W complex. This investment centers
around four cornerstone objectives; Sustain Range and Training System
Capabilities, Maximize Training Capacity, Modernizing Ranges, and
Preserving the Natural Environment and Mitigating Encroachment.
As government stewards of this range, the Marine Corps is
responsible for managing all natural and cultural resources within the
BMGR-W. Thus, the Marine Corps participates in local and regional
partnerships and organizations such as the Barry M. Goldwater Executive
Council (BEG), the Intergovernmental Executive Committee (IEG), and the
Western Regional Partnership (WRP). The goal of these partnerships is
to address issues of mutual concern with states and federal agencies,
including enhancing access with the local and visiting communities for
public recreation activities, as well as the quality of military test
and training ranges. Additionally, in managing the resources of the
BMGR, the Marine Corps also has close working relationships with many
other key local, state, and federal partners including Arizona Game and
Fish Department, Arizona Land and Water Trust, Compatible Lands
Foundation, Mojave Desert Land Trust, the Conservation Fund, and Yuma
County, Arizona.
The range is home to numerous special status species which are
endemic to the region, including the flat-tailed horned lizard (FTHL)
and the endangered Sonoran pronghorn. The Marine Corps manages 114,800
acres of FTHL habitat as part of the Yuma Desert Management Area, which
represents 88% of the protected habitat for this species remaining in
Arizona. MCAS Yuma personnel are actively engaged in the management
decisions regarding the species through representation on both the FTHL
Management Oversite Group (MOG) and the Interagency Coordinating
Committee (ICC). Utilizing the collective expertise of the MOG and ICC,
MCAS Yuma's management efforts across the FTHL's range within BMGR-W
have contributed significantly to precluding federal listing of this
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), thus avoiding
additional regulatory encroachment on military training while ensuring
long-term sustainability for this species. Additionally, BMGR-W
provides substantial habitat for the ESA listed Sonoran Pronghorn. In
2002, severe drought nearly caused eradication of the U.S. population,
leaving just 21 animals remaining. After two decades of interagency
collaboration the Sonoran Pronghorn population in the U.S. has
rebounded to over 500 animals. Further, MCAS Yuma has developed an
Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) and routinely
consults with 13 Native American Tribes and the Arizona State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the projection of cultural
resources and archeological sites. The installation conducts annual
surveys to mitigate impacts to cultural sites. Thus far, approximately
625 sites onboard BMGR-W have been identified and are being protected.
Approximately 75 percent (nearly 500,000 acres) of the BMGR-W is
open to regulated public use by the local and visiting community.
Popular activities include camping, hunting, wildlife photography,
hiking, and off-highway vehicle use on designated roads and trails.
MCAS Yuma annually issues over 12,000 public recreation permits, which
are required for range access. Providing recreational access that does
not conflict with military training allows MCAS Yuma to generate
support from the greater Yuma community for the Marine Corps and its
mission. In addition, MCAS Yuma works collaboratively with other state
and federal partners including Customs and Border Protect (CBP), AGFD,
and Bureau of Reclamation to allow these agencies to pursue their
mission objectives on military lands.
To meet the current and future mission requirements, Marines,
Sailors, and Airmen must be able to ``train as they fight'' through a
robust and sustainable training capability and supporting
infrastructure. The BMGR is extremely critical to addressing these
challenges to ensure Marine Corps and Air Force aviation and ground
training and operational readiness meets required thresholds of today
and in the years to come. The Marine Corps remains committed to
protecting the natural and cultural resources onboard BMGR-W while
achieving the readiness to enable the Marine Corps to prevail in any
future conflict. With the renewal of the BMGR we look forward to a
continuing, productive relationship in our use of public lands which
balances the readiness of our nation's combat forces and the protection
of its natural resources.
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Neguse
Susan Combs
Austin, TX
July 11, 2023
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
I understand the House Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee
on Natural Lands will hold a hearing on H.R. 1318, the Women's Suffrage
National Monument Location Act, on Thursday, July 13. Thank you for
your leadership in prioritizing this important legislation for
consideration.
Most recently, I served as the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management, and Budget of the Department of the Interior. It was an
honor to serve the American people and to be a leader in support of the
Department of the Interior's essential mission to protect and manage
the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage. On behalf of the
Secretary of the Interior, while Assistant Secretary I also served as
the Chair of the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission throughout the
centennial of the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 2020. In that
role, I became increasingly aware of the stark disparities in the
stories that we as a Nation uplift.
History is full of pioneering women, but that's not reflected in
Washington or around the country. Of the 423 National Parks managed by
the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, only 10
commemorate some aspect of American women's history. That's 2.3%. We
can and must do better. But only Congress has the authority to decide
which monuments are placed within the National Mall, and only Congress
can give this foundational American history the prominent place it has
so long been denied. The `Women's Suffrage National Monument Location
Act' will uphold the integrity of the National Mall by finally
including women's stories in the beating heart of the Nation's Capital.
Thank you again for your consideration of this historic project. I
hope you will support H.R. 1318. Your leadership in placing the Women's
Suffrage National Monument on the National Mall--the most visited
National Park in the United States--will expand our Nation's
understanding of American women's leadership in the founding and
shaping of our Republic and make certain that women's contributions to
American democracy continue to inspire for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Susan Combs,
Former Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget
of the Department of the Interior
______
Kate Clarke Lemay
July 10, 2023
Dear Members of the House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands:
Have you ever been to a major exhibition devoted to U.S. women's
history? (``Major'' being more than 80 objects.) Some people have, but
most people haven't. Upon reflection, most people will realize that
U.S. history--as presented in public space--is a men's history. The
notable exceptions were the major exhibitions about women's suffrage,
on view in 2019 at the National Portrait Gallery, the Library of
Congress and the National Archives. Women's history was, for the first
time, visibly valued. Now, you might ask yourself: why did it take
until 2019?
The news website Slate came out with an essay in 2016 asserting
that 70% to 80% of historians are men. Unsurprisingly, men typically
write about men's history. In fact, it was not until 2019, when the
book Votes for Women: A Portrait of Persistence was published, that a
comprehensive book accounted for the long history of women's struggle
for the right to vote. It was the first publication in sixty years to
link U.S. suffrage history from a beginning point, 1832, to an end
point, 1965. (Eleanor Flexner published the previous book to do so,
Century of Struggle: The Women's Rights Movement in the United States,
in 1959).
So, where would people learn that women staged one of the longest
social reform movements in the history of the United States? In 2019,
visitors to Washington, DC, discovered for the first time that the
history of women's suffrage is not a boring history of nagging
spinsters; but that it is an exciting history of revolution staged by
political geniuses. The men and women of the suffrage movement were the
original rule breakers; they are the historical equivalent to the
activists that we esteem and admire today for speaking out for their
rights.
Indeed, the way educators in the United States frame women's
history in general needs attention. In 2017, the National Women's
History Museum revealed that of the 178 individual women named in state
standards for education in middle and high school textbooks, four of
them were non-U.S. women (like Margaret Thatcher) and two were not even
real women (such as Rosie the Riveter).
How are women to be valued in American society when there is not
even a monument to their history on the National Mall? Animating this
undervalued history with the greatest impact is something that only a
well-thought out, beautifully designed monument can do. This letter is
meant to express my full support of building a monument to U.S. women's
suffrage on the National Mall.
Sincerely,
Kate Clarke Lemay, PhD,
Historian, National Portrait Gallery,
Smithsonian Institution
______
Paula J. Giddings
Northampton, MA
July 11, 2023
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
I understand the House Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee
on Natural Lands will hold a hearing on H.R. 1318, the Women's Suffrage
National Monument Location Act, on Thursday, July 13. Thank you for
your leadership in prioritizing this important legislation for
consideration.
As a scholar of Black women's history and the biographer of the
anti-lynching activist and suffragist, Ida B. Wells, I can personally
attest to the importance of representing women, including women of
color, through our nation's national symbols. Just as the Statue of
Liberty has inspired generations of Immigrants coming to our shores, a
centrally placed monument signifying the great achievement of women's
suffrage--won by courage, sacrifice, and a shared belief that all
Americans are equal--will not only preserve an important historical
memory, but will remind us of the sanctity of the vote. ``With no
sacredness of the ballot,'' wrote Ida B. Wells who worked for women's
suffrage to not only exercise women's rights but to stop lynching and
achieve Black equality, ``there can be no sacredness of human life
itself.''
Thank you again for your consideration of this historic project. I
hope you will support H.R. 1318. Your leadership in placing the Women's
Suffrage National Monument on the National Mall--the most visited
National Park in the United States--is so important to our shared
understandings of the importance of women's rights--an understanding
which in turn helps to bind us as a nation.
Sincerely,
Paula J. Giddings,
Elizabeth A. Woodson 1922 Professor (Emerita)
Smith College
______
Ashley Robertson Preston
July 10, 2023
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
I understand the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee
on Federal Lands will hold a hearing on H.R. 1318, the Women's Suffrage
National Monument Location Act, on Thursday, July 13. Thank you for
your leadership in bringing up this important legislation for
consideration.
I am Dr. Ashley Robertson Preston, an Assistant Professor of
History at Howard University and supporter of the monument. As someone
who specializes in Black women's history, I feel that this is one of
the most significant efforts of the century. We have an opportunity to
teach future generations about courageous women who have been largely
overlooked in the American narrative. These women deserve to be on the
National Mall alongside other history makers to assure that they are
never forgotten again.
Thank you again for your consideration of this historic project. I
hope you will support H.R. 1318. Your leadership in placing the Women's
Suffrage National Monument on the National Mall--the most visited
National Park in the United States--will expand our Nation's
understanding of American women's leadership in the founding and
shaping of our Republic and make certain that women's contributions to
American democracy continue to inspire for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Ashley Robertson Preston, Ph.D.,
Assistant Professor of History
at Howard University
______
The Matilda Joslyn Gage Foundation
Fayetteville, New York
July 11, 2023
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
I understand the House Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee
on Natural Lands will hold a hearing on H.R. 1318, the Women's Suffrage
National Monument Location Act, on Thursday, July 13. Thank you for
your leadership in prioritizing this important legislation for
consideration.
Suffragist Matilda Joslyn Gage in 1876 charged that the United
States was not a Republic, based on the consent of the governed, it was
an ``oligarchy of sex'' with women being ruled by their ``brothers,
their fathers, their husbands and even their sons.'' The enactment of
an amendment ensuring votes for women has rightly been labeled the
second American Revolution. The creation of a monument on the National
Mall recognizing this critical moment is essential to establishing a
legacy of historic accuracy celebrating the history of American's
democracy.
Thank you again for your consideration of this historic project. I
hope you will support H.R. 1318. Your leadership in placing the Women's
Suffrage National Monument on the National Mall--the most visited
National Park in the United States--will expand our Nation's
understanding of American women's leadership in the founding and
shaping of our Republic and make certain that women's contributions to
American democracy continue to inspire for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Sally Roesch Wagner, Ph.D.,
Executive Director
______
Brad Meltzer
July 11, 2023
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
I understand the House Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee
on Natural Lands will hold a hearing on H.R. 1318, the Women's Suffrage
National Monument Location Act, on Thursday, July 13. Thank you for
your leadership in prioritizing this important legislation for
consideration.
I have written dozens of books that share America's histories and
uplift American heroes, and I have learned that too often, women's
stories are undervalued, undertold, and considered footnotes and
sidebars to the larger story. It is a mistake that we as a country
cannot afford to continue to make. It is long past time that the great
women of American history be permanently recognized for their
contributions to America's democracy in our Nation's most important
commemorative corridor, and with your leadership, I look forward to the
day when I can stand with my daughter on the National Mall and proudly
show her that her country values who she is and who she will be. I hope
we can count on your support of H.R. 1318.
Sincerely,
Brad Meltzer,
Author & Historian
______
Michelle Duster
July 11, 2023
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
I understand the House Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee
on Natural Lands will hold a hearing on H.R. 1318, the Women's Suffrage
National Monument Location Act, on Thursday, July 13. Thank you for
your leadership in prioritizing this important legislation for
consideration.
Over the last 30 years, my work as an author and public historian
has been dedicated to uplifting stories of courage and histories of
resilience that capture important aspects of our country's complex
history. And there is one simple notion I return to repeatedly in my
work: the contributions to our democracy by the pioneering women of
American history, like my great-grandmother, Ida B. Wells, are too
often overlooked, undertaught, and underappreciated. This is why I am
proud to support H.R. 1318. By locating the Women's Suffrage National
Monument on the National Mall, we address important omissions and make
visible the role of our foremothers in building, securing, and
expanding our democracy and celebrate the great women leaders of
American history who dedicated their lives to the pursuit of a more
equitable and inclusive union.
Thank you again for your consideration of this historic project. I
urge your support of H.R. 1318. History is counting on you.
Sincerely,
Michelle Duster,
Author & Public Historian
Great-Granddaughter of Pioneering Journalist and Suffragist Ida B.
Wells
______
National Sculpture Society
New York, New York
July 10, 2023
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Hearing scheduled on Thursday, July 13, 2023
Specifically: H.R. 1318, to authorize the location of a monument on the
National Mall to commemorate and honor the women's suffrage
movement and the passage of the 19th Amendment to the
Constitution, and for other purposes.
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
I am writing to ask for your support of the site location on the
National Mall for a monument in recognition of the women's suffrage
movement and the resulting passage of the 19th Amendment to the
Constitution. That momentous event in our nation's history should be
commemorated on a prominent site in our nation's capital.
It astonishes me to think that my grandmother and great-aunts were
born in a country-this country--where women did not have a political
voice. As you know, the women's suffrage movement began 176 years ago
when a group of people gathered in Seneca Falls, New York. Over the
next seven decades, the extraordinary efforts of a diverse group of
(mostly) women from across the country, single and married, wealthy and
poor, of all colors and backgrounds, led the effort to secure the right
of women to vote. Many who devoted the good part of their lives to
realizing this basic right did not live to know the results of their
efforts. Just 102 years ago, Congress passed the 19th Amendment to the
Constitution.
This proposed monument will be a tribute to the bold women and men
that championed equality in this country, through imprisonment, hunger
strikes, steadfast organizing and educating.
I respectfully request that we, as a nation, celebrate the great
work and achievement of the women's suffrage movement with a monument
on the National Mall. On the proposed site, countless citizens of our
nation and visitors to our capital will see it and be reminded that all
Americans play an important role in our society.
Sincerely yours,
Gwen Pier,
Executive Director
______
Johns Hopkins University
Museum Studies Program
June 15, 2023
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
I understand the House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee
on Federal Lands will hold a hearing on H.R. 1318, the Women's Suffrage
National Monument Location Act, on Thursday, July 13. Thank you for
your leadership in bringing up this important legislation for
consideration.
I have spent nearly thirty years leading museums in the United
States, and the lack of representation of women artists and women's
stories has been a constant challenge. Increasing the visibility of
women's history--specifically women's fight for the vote and the
pioneers of the early American movement for women's equality--is
crucial if we are going to change this narrative for generations to
come. Great women in American history deserve to be shown on the
National Mall alongside the great men, for both helped to shape who we
are as a nation as well as our shared destiny to form a more perfect
Union.
Thank you again for your consideration of this historic project. I
hope you will support H.R. 1318. Your leadership in placing the Women's
Suffrage National Monument on the National Mall--the most visited
National Park in the United States--will expand our Nation's
understanding of American women's leadership in the founding and
shaping of our Republic and make certain that women's contributions to
American democracy continue to inspire for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Nik Apostolides,
Lecturer
______
Senator Barbara Mikulski (Ret.)
July 11, 2023
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
I understand the House Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee
on Natural Lands will hold a hearing on H.R. 1318, the Women's Suffrage
National Monument Location Act, on Thursday, July 13. Thank you for
your leadership in prioritizing this important legislation for
consideration.
Without a monument to the great women of American history who paved
the way for us to fully participate in and shape our democracy, the
telling of the American story on our National Mall is not yet complete.
It will be a proud day for our country when every girl who visits the
National Mall is able to see herself represented amongst the giants of
our national story and understand the role of her foremothers in
building, securing, and expanding our democracy.
Your leadership in placing the Women's Suffrage National Monument
on the National Mall--the most visited National Park in the United
States--will expand our Nation's understanding of American women's
leadership in the founding and shaping of our Republic and make certain
that women's contributions to American democracy continue to inspire
for generations to come.
As the longest serving woman in congressional history, I proudly
stand on the shoulders of the suffragists who fought bravely and boldly
for generations to secure women's political equality and urge your
support of H.R. 1318.
Sincerely,
Senator Barbara Mikulski (Ret.)