[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.)