[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 131 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7494-H7495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLUSHING REMONSTRANCE STUDY ACT
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 3222) to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with
the 1657 signing of the Flushing Remonstrance in Queens, New York, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3222
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Flushing Remonstrance Study
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Dutch involvement in North America started with Henry
Hudson's 1609 voyage on the ship, Half Moon, employed by the
Dutch East India Company.
(2) After 1640, New Netherland gradually began to transform
from a chain of trading posts into a settlement colony.
(3) As Dutch and English settlers moved closer to one
another, they began to assimilate in what would later become
Queens County.
(4) The Dutch and English settlements had not been without
conflict. Although the Dutch Republic was well known for its
toleration of other faiths, Director General Peter Stuyvesant
and his council thought that liberty of worship should not be
granted to Quakers.
(5) When Quakers began to arrive in Flushing, the colonial
government issued an ordinance that formally banned the
practice of all religions outside of the Dutch Reformed
Church.
(6) On December 27, 1657, 30 Flushing residents signed what
was later called the Flushing Remonstrance, objecting to this
order. None of the remonstrance's authors were Quakers.
(7) Dutch colonial authorities proceeded to arrest the
signers of the Flushing Remonstrance. In 1662, John Bowne
defied the ban and allowed Quakers to hold services in his
house. Bowne was fined and banished to the Dutch Republic for
showing contempt for secular authority.
(8) Bowne was later exonerated after appealing to the
guarantees of religious liberty before the Dutch West India
Company and returned to Flushing in 1664. The colony later
fell to British control on September 24, 1664.
(9) The Flushing Remonstrance is now considered by many to
be instrumental in the development of religious liberty in
the United States and a precursor to the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
(10) In 1957, the United States Postal Service released a
3-cent postage stamp commemorating the 300th Anniversary of
the signing of the Flushing Remonstrance which read,
``Religious Freedom in America''.
(11) Queens remained rural and agricultural through the
18th and 19th Centuries. Although its Dutch identity
diminished, the tolerance of diversity that has harbored
Quakers and other religious sects in the Dutch Colonial
period continues to this day. Queens is the most ethnically
diverse urban area in the world, with a population of over
2,200,000 representing over 100 different nations and
speaking over 138 different languages.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(2) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the John
Bowne House located at 3701 Bowne Street, Queens, New York,
the Friends Meeting House located at 137-17 Northern
Boulevard, Queens, New York, and other resources in the
vicinity of Flushing related to the history of religious
freedom during the era of the signing of the Flushing
Remonstrance.
SEC. 4. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.
(a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a special resource
study of the study area.
(b) Contents.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall--
(1) evaluate the national significance of the study area's
resources based on their relationship to the history of
religious freedom associated with the signing of the Flushing
Remonstrance;
(2) determine the suitability and feasibility of
designating resources within the study area as a unit of the
National Park System;
(3) consider other alternatives for preservation,
protection, and interpretation of the study area by Federal,
State, or local governmental entities, or private and
nonprofit organizations;
(4) identify properties related to the John Bowne House
that could potentially meet criteria for designation as a
National Historic Landmark;
(5) consult with interested Federal, State, or local
governmental entities, private and nonprofit organizations,
or any other interested individuals;
(6) evaluate the impact of the proposed action on the flow
of commerce and commercial activity, job opportunities, and
any adverse economic effects that could not be avoided if the
proposal is implemented;
(7) identify cost estimates for any Federal acquisition,
development, interpretation, operation, and maintenance
associated with the alternatives;
(8) analyze the effect of the designation of the study area
as a unit of the National Park System on--
(A) existing recreational activities, and on the
authorization, construction, operation, maintenance, or
improvement of energy production and transmission
infrastructure; and
(B) the authority of State and local governments to manage
those activities; and
(9) identify any authorities, including condemnation, that
will compel or permit the Secretary to influence or
participate in local land use decisions (such as zoning) or
place restrictions on non-Federal lands if the study area is
designated a unit of the National Park System.
(c) Notification of Private Property Owners.--Upon the
commencement of the study, owners of private property in or
adjacent to the study area shall be notified of the study's
commencement and scope.
(d) Applicable Law.--The study required under subsection
(a) shall be conducted in accordance with section 8(c)) of
the National Park System General Authorities Act (16 U.S.C.
1a-5(c)).
(e) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which
funds are first made available for the study under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report
containing the results of the study and any conclusions and
recommendations of the Secretary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3222 authorizes a special resource study to
determine the suitability and feasibility of creating a
[[Page H7495]]
National Park unit in Queens, New York, from those resources associated
with the history of religious freedom and the signing of the Flushing
Remonstrance.
The Flushing Remonstrance was a 1657 petition to the director general
of New Netherland in which several citizens requested an exemption to
his ban on Quaker worship. It was recognized as a forerunner to the
First Amendment to the Constitution and one of the earliest demands for
freedom of religion in what became the United States.
The study would evaluate and provide different Federal, local, and
nongovernmental management proposals. The study is informational.
Congress would still have to act on separate legislation to create such
a designation.
I urge passage, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Let me associate myself with Chairman Hastings' comments and
introduction and support for H.R. 3222. This legislation would
acknowledge and begin the process of studying and protecting a valuable
resource and a historic resource for this country, and I appreciate his
comments.
I reserve the balance my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me at this point yield as much time as
she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), the
sponsor and author of the legislation.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my legislation, the
Flushing Remonstrance Study Act, H.R. 3222. This bill directs the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the
Flushing Remonstrance and significant local resources.
The Flushing Remonstrance is not only an important part of my local
history, but also a significant event in our Nation's history. The
Flushing Remonstrance is recognized as a precursor to the First
Amendment and our Nation's commitment to the freedom of religion.
During these troubling times in which religious freedom is not a
globally recognized right, it is especially important to remember the
history of our great Nation and the heroic actions taken by those
before us to ensure individual liberty.
In the mid-17th century, the Quakers residing in New Netherland, an
area including parts of what is now New York State, were not allowed to
observe their religious traditions and practices. In response to this
injustice, a group of local non-Quaker activists wrote the Flushing
Remonstrance as a declaration against religious persecution in an
attempt to allow the free practice of one's religion. It was met with
great opposition from the local government, and an effective ban on
specific practices was enforced.
John Bowne arrived in New Netherland during this time and proceeded
to hold Quaker meetings in his home despite the political
repercussions. He was eventually arrested, fined, and deported. He made
his way to Holland and appealed to the Dutch West India Company for the
religious liberty granted to New Netherland in its charter. John's
appeal was accepted, and the company demanded that religious
persecution end in the colony.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Flushing Remonstrance is historically
significant and will benefit from further study and that its associated
location, such as the John Bowne home and the Quaker Meeting House,
deserve more national recognition. If signed into law, the Park Service
would work with all stakeholders to find the best path forward to
include these important locations in the National Park system.
The story of the Flushing Remonstrance is not for New Yorkers alone.
It was an early struggle to establish the fundamental right to practice
one's religion, but each demand for tolerance ultimately paved the way
for the First Amendment, which protects our religious freedom today.
I stand today in strong support of my bill, the Flushing Remonstrance
Study Act, and hope it will help us all remember the courage of John
Bowne and the passion for religious freedom held by the authors of the
Flushing Remonstrance.
I would also like to thank Chairman Hastings for his leadership and
guidance, Ranking Member DeFazio and Congressmember Grijalva for their
support, Congressman Rush Holt for cosponsoring the bill, and all the
staff on their work and support of this bill.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3222, the
Flushing Remonstrance Study Act introduced by Representative Grace Meng
from New York, representing the borough of Queens.
H.R. 3222 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study to determine the feasibility of including sites
associated with the signing of the Flushing Remonstrance in 1657 as
units of the National Park Service.
These sites include the John Bowne House and the Old Quaker
Meetinghouse in Flushing, Queens which are associated with the history
of religious freedom in America and the signing of the Flushing
Remonstrance.
The Flushing Remonstrance was a 1657 petition to Director-General of
New Netherland, in which several citizens requested an exemption to the
Director-General's ban on Quaker worship.
While the signers of the Flushing Remonstrance didn't know it at the
time, this petition is today recognized as a precursor of the First
Amendment of the Constitution and one of the earliest demands for
freedom of religion in what became the United States.
The Quaker's who chose to practice their religion as well as those
who volunteered their homes for Quaker meetings, such as John Bowne,
were jailed. Bowne, whose home had been the place where the Flushing
Remonstrance was signed, was actually banished from the colony.
On his trip back to Europe, Bowne carried with him an account of the
case which he eventually presented before the Dutch West India Company.
The reply established religious liberty in the colony and stated that
``The consciences of men at least ought ever to remain free and
unshackled.''
Located a few blocks away from the Old Quaker Meetinghouse, the Bowne
house has changed little since 1680. However, the concepts of freedom
of religion and freedom of speech that were established in the Flushing
Remonstrance have continued to evolve as our country and our influence
around the world has grown.
I think it is vital that citizens and politicians alike recognize the
importance of freedom of speech and political activism in our country.
I hope that the continued preservation of these historic places will
serve as a reminder to all Americans of the fights that resulted in the
rights we enjoy in this country today, as well as those around the
world that continue to fight for their own right to speak freely and
practice their religion without fear of persecution or consequence.
I applaud Rep. Meng for her advocacy and urge support for H.R. 3222.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3222, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________