Legislative hearing on the following bills: • H.R. 309 (Rep. Nehls), “National Law Enforcement Officers Remembrance, Support and Community Outreach Act” • H.R. 2196 (Rep. Hudson), To provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs. • H.R. 4284 (Rep. Leger Fernandez), “Small Cemetery Conveyance Act” • H.R. 4386 (Rep. Walberg), To amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to clarify entrance privileges for vehicles with respect to the America the Beautiful interagency pass. • H.R. 4467 (Rep. Thompson of MS), “Vicksburg National Military Park Boundary Modification Act” • H.R. 5131 (Rep. Begich), “Public Lands Military Readiness Act of 2025”.
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Morning, mister chairman. Before I begin, I do have a unanimous consent request. So yesterday, mister chairman, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a very important report that I want to bring to the attention of the committee. It is entitled the effects of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions on US climate, health, and welfare. The part of the report, it's a long report, but the part of it I especially wanna enter into the record is the robust reaffirmation by the best scientists in The United States of the 2009 EPA endangerment finding, which this administration is actively unraveling.
The science is clear. They are telling us in every way we're on a disastrous path. I'd like to enter that in the record. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, good morning. Thanks, everyone. I am encouraged that the bills before the committee today are all common sense, bipartisan priorities, and my democratic colleagues and I are ready and willing to work across the aisle to advance them. You know, a conversation, a hearing on bills like this would give the appearance, the trappings of normalcy. But there's nothing normal about this moment that we find ourselves in.
We need to bring up this related issue affecting our parks and public lands that, for some wild and unthinkable reason, seems to have become partisan. Right now, the Trump administration is trying to censor the history told in our national parks and historic sites. This has been happening since March, when the president first ordered the interior department to whitewash our parks of anything that might, quote, unquote, inappropriately disparage Americans. And, of course, now we find ourselves deeper into this cancel culture dystopia. Officials have been applying that standard that he set broadly to historic information about racism, sexism, slavery, gay rights, and the persecution of indigenous people.
And I have called this out. I've asked for the information, to report back to us about the negative consequences of what they have set in motion. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle throughout this conversation just look the other way, and are completely silent. I would argue completely complicit in what is happening right now. Last month, I also asked you folks to justify this ludicrousness, but there has been no response.
And in the meantime, the administration is barreling forward with its efforts to undermine how our parks tell the story of the American experience. This is not okay. We've got enough to fight about, enough to disagree on in terms of policy. We cannot allow truth to become a partisan fight where one side is trying to literally erase the truth from the national discourse. Just this week, Trump ordered the Park Service to remove signs and exhibits relating to slavery, including this iconic photograph, which shows the atrocious violence committed against slaves.
This photo was widely distributed during the civil war. It opened people's eyes to the true devastation of chattel slavery. What the hell is going on here? That someone in this administration directed this photo to be removed from a display, and we know it's been reported on good information that actually happened. Now the interior department seems to be backpedaling.
They realize that there's a backlash to this. And so they're gonna have to try to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one. So they are backpedaling, but make no mistake, this happened. This directive did go out relative to this photo and other materials. This administration is no stranger to lying in order to clean up their horrible decisions.
And Trump's imperial edict about this, that set it in motion, is just horrible and unthinkable. The National Park Service is responsible for preserving our history in its entirety, the good, the bad, and the ugly. And that directive flies in the face of that mission, targeting exhibits on things like slavery, Native American imprisonment at sites like Castillo De San Marcos National Monument, and the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War Two. Removing these exhibits from places that teach and interpret our history is not patriotic. It is pure propaganda.
It's un American. Our national parks are not monuments to a single sanitized version of American greatness. They're places for all of us to confront and learn from the full complexity of our past. True patriotism means acknowledging our nation's history in its entirety, including our mistakes, so that we can learn and grow from it. An honest reckoning with the past is the only way to build a more perfect union.
We should all be ashamed that this administration is doing this stuff on our watch, and you folks have been complicit for too long. I yield back. Gentlemen, yields, we're gonna.
Speaker 1
Move on to our first panel, which consists of members who are sponsoring today's legislation. I will now recognize representative Leisure Fernandez for five minutes on H.R. 4284.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. Thank you, ranking member Huffman and ranking member Ngoose, for hearing my legislation today, HR 4284, the Small Cemetery Conveyance Act. For generations, families and communities in New Mexico and across the country buried their loved ones on lands they have lived on for centuries and generations, lands that they cherished long before those lands became part of our national forest or even part of the United States. These rural communities, often nestled in their beloved forest, face unique challenges from crumbling infrastructure to extreme weather to potholes. What they shouldn't have to struggle with is caring for the cemeteries where they will bury their loved ones as they pass, and where their ancestors lie in repose.
We will hear today of the centuries-old land grants that received property rights from the king of Spain or Mexico centuries ago. And we will hear how they buried and chose cemetery plots next to their villages, in places they thought were beautiful, in places they thought were appropriate to honor, respect, and pray for their dead. We will then hear how the land grant rights, the property rights, which were supposed to be protected under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, were not. Can you imagine a cemetery that is clearly a place held by a community? But instead of granting that property right to the community, to the land grant that had used it to bury and pray for their dead, it was taken into the United States Forest Service, to the BLM, to other places, and lost to the people who hold it dear, who know better than anyone how to pray and revere those who are buried there.
And so right now, what it is like is that if there is a cemetery and a place like Trampas, this place, it's beautiful. Right? But in order to take the care that you see here, these communities must go and ask permission from the forest service. They must get permission to do anything to protect the road. They must get permission to do anything to improve this area, move a fence.
Think of all the things that must be done to protect a cemetery. And so we have the chance here to fix that. Under the Small Tract Act of 1983, the Forest Service is authorized to salary exchange up to 40 acres of land in the public interest, including parcels used as cemeteries. But this means that communities must purchase the land that once was theirs at market rate or exchange land of equal value, and there are a lot of costs associated with this. As you can imagine, many of the communities who have chosen to stay in these rural areas do not have a lot of money or resources.
And we know, because we have heard so often, how complex and expensive these conveyances can be. So my bill, the Small Cemetery Conveyance Act, would amend the Small Tract Act to allow the Forest Service to convey small parcels of land that contain historic cemeteries directly to state, local government, federally recognized tribes, and, importantly, grant Mercedes. Now in New Mexico, land grant Mercedes are public entities. They are recognized as public entities by the state of New Mexico. You'd be able to convey them without requiring purchase or exchange of land, and the forest service, upon a review, could also waive the associated costs such as surveys, appraisals if the community can demonstrate that is appropriate.
So we've worked very closely with the Forward Service. And I don't wanna say that the Forward Service has been awful about allowing. It's just you don't have a choice. Right? You're supposed to follow your laws.
And so what we can do here is change the law. Now I have personally visited many of these cemeteries. I've seen the prayers, but I've also traveled across the country, and I'm now paying attention. It's like, oh my God. Look.
Here's another cemetery in a forest that isn't with land grants. So this is not something new. This is something that, while we see it a lot in the Southwest in New Mexico, I do recognize that it is an issue that can be faced across the country. So I look forward to gaining bipartisan support for this legislation. I'm very grateful to the committee for including it in today's hearing.
And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you, representative Leisure Fernandez. Now I recognize Representative Nells for five minutes on H.R. 309.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be appropriate at this time to just do a quick moment of silence for the three officers that were brutally murdered yesterday in Pennsylvania. So ordered. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tiffany Ranke, member Nagus, distinguished members of the committee.
Thank you for having me here today. I come before you to speak in support of my bill, H.R. 309, the National Law Enforcement Officers Remembrance Support and Community Outreach Act, which has been referred to this committee. And to the 13 members of the committee who have cosponsored the legislation, I thank you. Thank you for your support. Congress created both the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and the National Law Enforcement Museum to honor and support the law enforcement community, and educate the public about the vital importance of law enforcement in a democratic society.
The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund is the only national law enforcement organization created by Congress, created by us, and both the memorial and the museum were built with private dollars. Unlike other museums created by Congress, the National Law Enforcement Museum received 0 federal dollars for its programming. The lifesaving and educational programs of the National Law Enforcement Museum are just as crucial to the nation as other museums that receive federal support from the Department of the Interior. My bill would provide the support that support by establishing a formal program within the Department of Interior to support and enhance the community outreach, public education, and officer safety and wellness programs of the National Law Enforcement Museum through grants to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. These programs will memorialize and honor law enforcement.
We have too many of them. We have too many of them that we need to memorialize. It's got to stop. The violence has to stop. It's gonna compile data on law enforcement fatalities and injuries, increase public understanding of and support for law enforcement, enhance law enforcement officer safety and wellness, and bring law enforcement closer to the communities they serve.
Mister Trevor, I truly look forward to working with the committee on a path forward on this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1
Thank you, representative Nells. And I will now recognize Representative Begich for five minutes on H.R. 5131 if you're prepared, sir.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in support of my bill H.R. 5131, the Alaska Military Lands Withdraw Extension Act. This legislation is simple, but it is essential. It ensures that our military maintains access to over 850,000 acres of critical training lands at Fort Wainwright and Fort Greeley, two of the most strategically important installations in the Arctic. These lands have been withdrawn for military use since 2001, and the withdrawal is set to expire in 2026.
If we do not act, the army's ability to train in Alaska's unique high-latitude conditions will be disrupted at a time when arctic competition is increasing, and readiness has never been more important. Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely are home to the eleventh Airborne Division, the only Arctic designated division in the US Army. These soldiers need realistic large-scale training environments to prepare for combat in cold, remote, and mountainous terrain. And there is simply no substitute for the training conditions that these lands provide. This bill extends the current withdrawal for another 20 years.
It does not expand the army's footprint, does not reduce public access, and it does not circumvent environmental review. In fact, the army has worked closely with Alaskans, tribes, local governments, hunters, and conservation groups through an extensive legislative environmental impact statement process. We're hearing today from military leaders and Department of Interior officials alike. This extension is necessary, appropriate, and well-supported. In short, HR 51 31 helps our armed forces remain ready.
It respects Alaska's public lands, and it reflects strong community input. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I thank you, witnesses, for your thoughtful testimony today. And with that, I yield back. Excuse me.
Speaker 1
Thank you, representative. Now we are going to move on to our second panel. Let me remind our witnesses that under committee rules, you must limit your oral statement to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the on button of the microphone. We use timing lights.
When you begin, the light will turn green. At the end of five minutes, the light will turn red, and I'll ask you to please complete your statement. Mister Wahlberg, are you prepared to give your testimony in regard to your bill?
Speaker 1
Yeah. If you two gentlemen will bear with us, I'm going to recognize mister Wahlberg for his testimony on what number of bill are you, mister Wahlberg? 4386. Number 4386. You have five minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of my bill. Forty-three eighty-six, the America, the Beautiful Motorcycle Fairness Act. As a lifelong motorcycle rider and enthusiast, and, in fact, co-chairman of the congressional motorcycle caucus. It's a privilege to be here today and speak in support of my legislation, which would ensure fair access to our nation's national parks and public lands for motorcyclists.
My wife and I have had the privilege of getting on some amazing bikes and riding through many of our nation's great parks, including Glacier and Yellowstone, Shenandoah, Blue Ridge Parkway, all of the rest. And there are amazing places and have been incredible experiences that we'll never forget. And that's something that many of my fellow riders share a similar experience in and could tell you about, their favorite ride of their favorite park they have had a chance to visit on two wheels. Like many fellow bikers, I have appreciated the opportunity to buy an annual pass and gain access to our parks. Historically, the America the Beautiful pass has permitted entry for one noncommercial passenger vehicle with multiple passengers, two motorcycles, or a group of bicyclists accompanying one pass holder.
However, in 2024, the Biden administration changed this policy, I believe, to unfairly restrict access for motorcyclists to just one bike per pass instead of two. By returning to the prior policy, we can encourage motorcycle tourism and help the millions visit our great parks without unnecessary financial burdens. This also supports President Trump's executive order celebrating America's 250th birthday. By encouraging visitors to our nation's most magnificent places and ensuring American citizens have affordable access to our parks, by ensuring parity for motorcycle riders, we can expand recreational access, strengthen tourism, economics, and all of that depends on visitors, and we need those. And it'll also allow our fellow Americans to connect with our historic landmarks and places of unique significance in the American story.
I thank the committee for considering this legislation, and urge my colleagues to support it. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman from Michigan yields, and we are going to move on to our second panel. First, I'm going to introduce Mister David J. Zinn, Brigadier General in the United States Army and director of training at the G-357 training directorate. Brigadier General Zin, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. Ranking member Nagus, and distinguished members of this subcommittee. My name is Brigadier General Dave Zin, and I serve as the director of training on the Army staff. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today regarding a matter of significant importance to our nation's security. This subcommittee is considering legislation to extend land withdrawals at three key locations, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Irwin, California.
These land withdrawals provide the army with 1,600,000 acres of training land, which is critical to maintain the readiness of army forces both today and in the future. Let me briefly elaborate on the specific importance of each location. The army's land withdrawal in Alaska includes approximately 870000 acres of vital training space located in the vicinity of Fort Wainwright and Fort Greeley. This area provides an austere training environment, live-fire ranges, and restricted airspace necessary to conduct realistic training in extreme cold weather conditions. This land is the only location where the army can conduct large-scale training in arctic conditions.
If this land withdrawal is not extended, the army's ability to prepare soldiers and units for Arctic and airborne operations will be severely degraded. McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, Texas, consists of approximately 600,000 acres of critical training area. It includes live-fire ranges and training facilities necessary to maintain the readiness of armored and mechanized units, helicopter units, and artillery in the first armored division. It is the only location in the United States in the Continental United States where the army and our coalition partners can conduct live fire exercises with the Patriot missile system. Additionally, Fort Bliss serves as a major mobilization site for National Guard and Reserve units, which require training areas throughout the McGregor Range.
If this land withdrawal is not extended, the army's ability to maintain a ready mechanized division, support large-scale reserve component mobilization, and conduct air and missile defense training will be significantly degraded. The National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, in the Mojave Desert is the army's premier training site for armored and mechanized forces. The approximately 117,000 acres of withdrawn land provides vitally important extended operating distances for training soldiers and units. Losing access to this land prevents the army from practicing logistics, resupply, communications, and integrating helicopters at extended distances, degrading the challenging, realistic training environment that our soldiers need at the National Training Center. In conclusion, the lands currently withdrawn for army use at Fort Wainwright, Fort Bliss, and Fort Irwin are indispensable to army training and readiness.
Each location provides unique training capabilities in challenging environments that cannot be replicated elsewhere. Failure to extend these land withdrawals would harm the army's ability to prepare soldiers to operate and fight effectively in all conditions, jeopardizing our readiness, and eroding critical advantages over our adversaries. I look forward to working with this subcommittee to ensure the Army continues to have access to these critical training lands. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Brigadier General Zin. I'll now recognize Mr. Mike Caldwell, associate director at the National Park Service in the US Department of the Interior. Mister Caldwell, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 8
Chairman Tiffany, ranking member Nagus, ranking member Hoffman, 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. HR 309 would require the department to award a grant to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund for expenses associated with operating and enhancing the community outreach, public education, and officers' safety and wellness programs of the National Law Enforcement Museum. The grant would be awarded for each of the seven fiscal years following enactment. In addition, the bill authorizes appropriations of $6,000,000 each year, and establishes a reporting requirement for the department to document expenditures and progress in delivering outreach through the memorial fund.
If less than 6,000,000 is provided in a fiscal year, the secretary can transfer other National Park Service funds as necessary. The department recognizes the important work of the National Law Enforcement Museum and appreciates the value of its community outreach and public education efforts. We defer to Congress on the creation of a grant program to support these efforts. HR 2196 extends the legislative authority of the National Emergency Medical Services, EMS, Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs until 11/03/2032. The department supports this legislation.
The foundation received its initial seven-year authority from Congress to establish a commemorative work that honors the commitment and sacrifice of EMS professionals in 2018. Since then, the foundation has made significant progress navigating the complex site selection process and advancing preliminary design concepts. However, additional time is needed to bring this worthwhile national tribute to completion. EMS professionals serve on the frontlines of emergencies, often at great personal risk, providing lifesaving care in times of crisis. Extending this legislative authority will give the foundation the certainty it needs to complete its mission, and ensure that our nation properly recognizes the dedication and sacrifice of these public servants.
HR 4386 would amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to specify that an interagency annual pass will cover the entrance fee and standard amenity recreation fee for the pass holder and the occupants of up to two motorcycles. The department supports this legislation. In 2023, the interagency pass program updated its policy to create uniform rules for pass usage among the participating agencies, which took effect in 2024. This change was part of the department's ongoing efforts to develop a digital version of the pass. While the standardization was important, it unintentionally reduced the number of motorcycle riders covered by a single pass from two to one, as each pass is now linked to one per vehicle.
HR 4386 aims to restore the previous motorcycle policy, requiring the secretary of the interior to apply this policy to All America the Beautiful Pass options, including the annual pass. Reversing to the old policy would help lower cost for visitors while maintaining consistency within the pass program. HR 4467 would convey approximately 10 acres from the Vicksburg National Military Park to the state of Mississippi to be used for a welcome center, interpretive center, museum, or other public use. The department supports the goals of this legislation and the intent to enhance visitor orientation and interpretation. However, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the bill sponsor and the subcommittee on amendments that would ensure the bill's purposes are achieved in a manner that protects the long-term integrity of Vicksburg National Military Park. Specifically, we recommend the use of the two most recent legislative maps dated September 2024, which provide a precise description of the acreage.
We further recommend clarifying that any development on the conveyed land be consistent with the interpretive mission of the park. This will ensure that the visitor experience is enhanced and that the land remains in the service of the park's commemorative and educational purposes. Mister chairman, this concludes my statement. I'm happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Caldwell. We're now going to take members' questions for the panelists. Mister Begich, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question, general Zen. There's a growing concern about strategic competition in the Arctic, especially among adversaries as they increase their military presence in that region. Fort Greeley and Fort Wainwright offer unique operational advantages for our national defense posture. Could you elaborate on how continued access to these lands contributes to our broader Arctic strategy and our ability to deter aggression from adversaries in high-latitude environments?
Speaker 7
Congressman, thank you for the question. I agree completely with your statement on the importance of these training areas to regional security. These training areas are absolutely critical to the training and readiness of the army. In fact, we validate the readiness of airborne infantry brigade combat teams in the withdrawn land. A brigade combat team is 3,000-plus soldiers.
A large number of soldiers requires a large amount of land. And then the soldiers in that brigade move out into the Asia Pacific region and participate in a series of exercises. And so that contributes to the security above and beyond just the readiness of army forces, which is absolutely critical, but it enhances the security of the region. The capability to train in arctic conditions and build that capability in the army also contributes to regional security and deterrence. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Follow-up question. In your testimony, you mentioned that the army has maintained close coordination with local communities and public stakeholders throughout the environmental review process. Obviously, that's important in Alaska, where residents often rely on public lands for hunting and recreation and subsistence use. Could you speak to how the army has incorporated community input, particularly from Alaskans, into the development of the EIS and the withdrawal extension process?
Speaker 7
Congressman, the primary means that we received input from the public was through our NEPA analysis. And we conducted a NEPA analysis in the withdrawn lands in Alaska, then we received feedback from the public. And I think that was very important, and part of our request for an extension. I would also add that the army works very diligently to make training lands available to the public for recreational use when we're not using those lands for training and when it's safe to do so. Every installation is different, but in most cases, it's hunting and fishing.
Speaker 5
That's great. Thank you for that. Mister Caldwell, the department noted a minor naming discrepancy in the bill regarding the Fort Greely and Fort Wainwright training ranges. Can you clarify whether this issue would in any way affect the army's operational use of the lands or the department's administrative role, or is it simply a matter of updating nomenclature for consistency purposes?
Speaker 8
Thank you for the question. It's my understanding it's a nomenclature issue, but we'd be happy to follow up with.
Speaker 5
The lands at issue in this bill, especially in Alaska, are dual purpose. When not in active military use, they're available for recreation, research, and other public use. How does the department coordinate with the Department of Defense to manage these lands in a way that represents public access, that respects environmental stewardship, while still fulfilling national defense priorities?
Speaker 8
I think that was directed to me. To you. Yes. Certainly, in my conversations with the general beforehand, he's a great user of National Park lands as well, which I appreciate. Department of the Interior, all of our lands under the administration of the department, certainly from the National Park Service perspective.
We work very collaboratively with the Department of Defense, whether it's providing recreation opportunities for current or previous servicemen and women, but also ensuring that any use that occurs on those lands is not contradictory to the mission of that land. And so we're confident in our ability to continue to do that with the Department of the Defense.
Speaker 5
Outstanding. And I so appreciate the long standing partnership, that exists between the National Park Service and our Department of Defense. And, we've seen that in Alaska for many years, and we expect to see that in the years to come. Thank you for your testimony. And with that, I yield back.
Gentleman yields.
Speaker 1
I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Hoffman, for his question.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Associate director Caldwell mentioned in my opening statement my concerns about the secretarial order that went out from secretary Bergham directing the screening of historical content, including signage and exhibits, to make sure that it is, quote, uplifting and doesn't, quote, inappropriately disparage Americans past or living, or another, quote, fail to emphasize the beauty, grandeur, and abundance of the landscape. All of this stems, of course, from president Trump's imperial edict number 14253, which is entitled, absurdly, Restoring Truth Insanity to American History. And if that title doesn't give you some chills, you might be in a cult. But, associate director, I wanna ask you about this process that is now underway of screening and removing, censoring history.
I have great admiration for your agency and for the dedicated folks, yourself included, who have spent so many years telling the American story to millions of people. It's an incredibly important thing. And, of course, the historians, curators, and other professionals who've dedicated their careers to the accurate retelling of our nation's history do incredibly important work. But, I'm concerned that their professionalism may not matter anymore. We have it on good information from park service personnel that at Fort Pulaski National Monument, this iconic photo of the reality, the cruelty of slavery was ordered removed.
And I suspect that if it happened at that national monument, it has happened elsewhere. So I guess I wanna start, Mister Caldwell, by asking you why someone at the park service would direct the removal of a photo like this.
Speaker 8
Thank you for your question. First, I would just emphasize that the implementation of the secretary's order is still underway, as you recall. And the important element of that secretarial order is public input and public participation. And so signage is available, that have visitors let us know about what they see, what might be. So is that what led to this? Did the visitor ask that it come there?
Terms of specifics, in terms of what's being asked or what has been turned in, I think what I would recommend is a follow-up with specific questions related to specific.
Speaker 8
I have not been involved in issuing any secretarial orders related to this one. Think our committee can certainly get back, or we can get back.
Speaker 8
The removal of this call? Than just in general what I have read, both in the media as well as in the How do you feel about?
Speaker 2
Is it as a career park service person? Should a photo like this ever be censored and removed from American history?
Speaker 8
Well, I'm certainly proud of my 30 years in the National Park Service. So, how
Speaker 8
Having served in many sites across the country. We're implementing the secretarial order. I can answer the question. The department, to my knowledge, has not ordered or instructed anyone to remove content about slavery.
Speaker 2
Yeah. You're wrong about that, because this really did happen. So I urge you to look into it. But let me ask you about the process. Who is making this determination of which exhibits, which photographs, which documents, you know, somehow fail to uplift America in a way that makes Steven Miller and Donald Trump happy?
Who is the park service?
Speaker 8
There's a separate process involved and a separate team that's working throughout the National Park Service. And I think our team there could get back to the committee and your staff in terms of any specific request you have on that process.
Speaker 2
Welcome that. Are there guidelines about how they are making this inherently subjective determination?
Speaker 8
The only deadlines that I have seen might be related to the secretarial order. But once again, I'm not involved in the implementation of the secretarial order. So if those have changed, I'm unaware, but we can get back to you.
Speaker 2
On that. And you will give us the standards and guidelines that whoever is doing this scrub of history is using? We, I mean, that seems like something that Congress should know about.
Speaker 8
I certainly can relay your concerns to the folks that are implementing the secretarial order, and we will get back to you and your staff.
Speaker 2
I would hope so. And, of course, it's gonna take some resources to do all of this sanitizing of American history. So, where is that funding coming from?
Speaker 8
I think this, while certainly not a budget hearing, we follow the administration's priorities on our budget. We trust the judgment and the job that our field staff are doing, and we adjust those priorities.
Speaker 2
Is this coming from other programs and mission critical activities that we fund?
Speaker 1
that you may answer that question. The gentleman's time has expired, but go ahead and answer the question.
Speaker 8
Okay. I'm not aware of any programmatic shifts of money to specifically address this secretarial order. But once again, we can get back to you with specifics.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, Niels. I'll recognize myself for five minutes for questioning. First of all, I'll start by asking for unanimous consent. From the hill, interior says it has not been asked to remove scourged back photo. Enter that without objection.
I would just add, I would be careful on the other side in regards to talking about erasing history after watching the four years of the Biden administration, and with statues and monuments that could be deemed controversial that were removed. But that is history. As the ranking member said, it is controversial at times, and we should not whitewash it. But what we saw in the previous four years of the Trump administration was an erasing of history. And second thing I would add, the party that I belong to and the president belongs to was formed in 1854 to end slavery.
It was the original single-issue party that was put in place to end slavery. And we accomplished that in the United States of America, and we still stand by that as Republicans believing that we should be a colorblind society. I know it is one of the fundamental tenets that I believe.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, does that include the voter. That includes President Trump suggesting retroactively that Lincoln should've cut a deal? I mean, mister Zin, your party now is not the party of 1854.
Speaker 9
Mister chairman. Is that part of your test, your statement, or is this a UC request? That's why I just wanna make sure the clock is this your time.
Speaker 1
Happy you gave up. And without objection, in regards to the unanimous consent, we will enter that into the record. Mister Zin. Yeah. Here.
Mister Zin, you said you had to conduct a NEPA analysis that you referenced. I believe it was under questioning or in your testimony?
Speaker 7
Yes, sir. We conducted a NEPA analysis at each of the three locations as part of our request for an extension of the land withdrawals.
Speaker 7
Chairman, it took roughly 2 years to finish that NEPA analysis at three separate locations. It did occur during COVID, so there were some delays from COVID.
Speaker 1
Mister Caldwell, so in regards to the Vicksburg National Military Park boundary modification bill, it seems like a really good example of an innovative approach for a public private partnership. Can this help, can this model that you're using at Vicksburg, first of all, if you want to talk a little bit more in detail about how this is being done in Vicksburg, you're welcome to. But could this be the model for future partnerships?
Speaker 8
I think thank you for the question. First, I think Vicksburg, the key to its success, which I understand you'll be hearing from the friends group after, is to have a good collaborative relationship with the key partner there. And in that place, at Vicksburg, we have partnerships with the state, with our nonprofit friends, and that's critical to any park being successful. And so I think in terms of models for other park service units, I think this could serve as a model for how we collaborate, we ensure access to the communities, we work with communities to really achieve shared missions and the preservation of these important places, whether they're cultural resources, historical resources, or natural resources. So this is the type of partnership that certainly, when I was a superintendent, I would look forward to executing and using as a model to really get things done and to rely on the strengths of each of the partners to deliver for the public.
Speaker 1
Yes. We reauthorize go through the reauthorization process for the Great American Outdoors Act. Are there other places that you think this could be used? I don't know if there's anything specifically that you want to mention. You don't have to do that if you want to.
But are there other projects that could use this model?
Speaker 8
First, certainly, we appreciate congress' role in the authorization of the Great America Outdoors Act. It is making fundamental, generation-changing investments in the assets that are needed to preserve these special places and provide for public enjoyment. I think, certainly, we have made reference to America in February, in this hearing, and, certainly, it comes up a lot. I think the type of partnerships that you see at Vicksburg could be emulated, and are emulated to some varying degrees at different historic sites across the country. I know certainly some of our larger Western sites have great partnerships with state, local governments, visitor bureaus, all types of groups that really combine together and make for more memorable experiences for the public.
So I think not only just the way the partnership's coming together, but the collaborative spirit that you see at Vicksburg, I think, is something that could be emulated across the system. Well, as a veteran of.
Speaker 1
The park service, I hope you and other people in leadership will follow through on that because I know there are people that have significant wealth that they've generated, living in the greatest country in the history of mankind, and they would really like to give back to America before they leave this earth. And I think there's great opportunities to improve some of these outdated sites, visitor centers, things like that. And I think there are people that would do that with no strings attached. And I hope that all of you at the Park Service will take a look at that model and help us achieve that, to make our national parks the updated crown jewels that they are here in The United States Of America.
Speaker 1
I will yield and now recognize the ranking member of the federal lands subcommittee, mister Ngoose, for five minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to both the witnesses for being here. Thank you for your testimony, and thank you for your service. Assistant director Caldwell, I'm going to circle back here with respect to the comments that were made by the ranking member of the full committee, because I share his outrage, and I think this committee and the country deserves an honest answer from the National Park Service. You are the assistant director.
You have served for over 30 years in a variety of different capacities. Are you telling us that this photo was not taken at Fort Pulaski? Because I've seen nothing from your department that says that the photo was not taken down. I've read the article that Mister Tiffany just offered into the record, which purports to say that NPS or rather administrative individuals at NPS did not ask park staff to take it down, doesn't say that it wasn't taken down. And there are anonymous sources, individuals, at least there's some reporting that suggests from NPS Park staff that they were told to take it down, and that it was taken down.
So we deserve an answer.
Speaker 8
I'm not aware of those anonymous sources or any instructions that have been provided to Fort Pulaski or anywhere else.
Speaker 9
I'm not asking you about orders that were given. I'm asking, do you know? Eventually, this is just important for, I think, all the administration witnesses. The email communications that you all are having within the agencies, elsewhere, eventually, those will become public. So if you know this photo was taken down, whether intentionally or by mistake, then you have an obligation to tell the committee.
Do you know if the photo was taken down, or are you saying that it was not?
Speaker 8
I understand that there have been no instructions for any removal of, any, as the chairman said.
Speaker 9
Not an answer to a very simple question. It sounds like you're saying either you know that it was taken down, but you don't want to say that publicly, or you don't know that it was taken down. And if you don't know, then you can say you don't know.
Speaker 8
I'm not involved in the implementation of this secretarial order. I understand. I am certainly, will reference your questions to those that are, and I think your answers can come back certainly to your staff.
Speaker 9
The community. So it sounds like you're saying you do not know whether it was taken down.
Speaker 9
I mean, very evasive. And, again, I am trying to understand why you wouldn't just say on the record if you don't know if the photo was taken down. I don't understand. You keep answering the question the exact same way. I'm not involved in the implementation of this order.
I understand you're not involved in the implementation of the order. So it should be pretty easy to say, I don't know if the photo was taken down or not. And I don't I'm not understanding the evasiveness. I help me understand this.
Speaker 8
I am unaware of the status of that photo as it pertains to any exhibits within the national park system.
Speaker 9
Okay. So what I would suggest, and this goes, you know, to the chairman's remarks previously. You know, the chairman made much of the article that he entered into the record regarding the interior department claiming now, in response after the outrage justifiably regarding this photo, that the department now claims it never issued that order. So I would ask the chairman, and I'm happy to yield to him, does he agree that this photo should not be taken down? You spent a great deal of time talking about reconstruction and the Republican Party and its role during the Civil War, and so on and so forth.
So it should be pretty easy for all of us to say photos like these should not be taken down. It's offensive what the Department of the Interior is doing right now. I find it deeply offensive. Your answer, sir, mister assistant director, previously in response to the ranking members' questions that somehow public feedback will be used essentially as the barometer as to whether or not photos like these should be taken down, I think is ridiculous. Where will we land?
What is the logical extension of that? Someone writes in and says there should be no photos regarding slavery. There should be no photos like this of a former enslaved man who escaped from slavery and enlisted in the Union army. I think it's deeply offensive, and I have, we've heard a lot, you know, from a lot of witnesses in the last eight months from the Trump administration. But it should be pretty easy to just say, you know, what?
This has gone too far. Yeah. Well, I didn't sign up for this kind of rewriting of history. I certainly didn't. And I don't think the people in the National Park Service did either.
I yield back.
Speaker 2
Mister chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a September 15 article from the Washington Post, stating that following President Trump's order, interior department officials began implementing this, began scrubbing signage, and that, specifically, and this is a quote from the article separately, park service officials have ordered the removal of a photograph illustrating violence against slaves known as the scourged back at 1 National Park. The article goes on to talk about 30 signs being flagged for removal at Harpers Ferry. And, mister chairman, it's important that this go into the record because, during your unanimous consent request, you spoke about the origins of your party, the grand old party.
And I'm glad there's still some pride in the antislavery origin story of the Republican Party. But you are led today by a man that is ordering things like this, a man who said Lincoln should have cut a deal. And I think the record needs to be fair, accurate, and truthful, just like the signage at our national park should be.
Speaker 1
The unanimous consent request is from a Washington Post article. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. Without objection.
And I'll recognize representative Malloy for her questioning.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to both the witnesses for being here. One of you is getting a lot more questions than the other, and I apologize for that. I am Mr. Caldwell, I'm looking at the mission statement of the National Park Service. And according to Google, the mission statement is to preserve the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System, ensuring that they are available for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of current and future generations.
Is the park service following this mission statement?
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields, we are going to move on to our third panel. Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. And while the clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the witnesses that under committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. I'd also like to remind our witnesses of the timing lights, which will turn red at the end of your five-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.
Okay. First, I will recognize Mr. James Robinson, chief of the Thompson Valley EMS. Chief Robinson, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mister Chairman, Chairman Tiffany, and ranking members Naguse and Huffman, and esteemed members of the subcommittee on federal lands. I'm humbled to be here before you today to ask you in person for your support of House Resolution 2196. We thank representatives Hudson and Lynch for introducing the resolution in the House and for this opportunity. My name is James Robinson. I'm an EMS guy from Colorado.
I've spent my entire adult life in public service as a paramedic and EMS leader. In addition to my current role as the chief of Thompson Valley EMS, I'm also a board member of the National EMS Memorial Foundation and have been since 2011. In my EMS career, I've found that we, the helpers, are not very good at being on the opposite end of that relationship. We don't like to ask for help, but that's exactly why I'm here today, to ask for your help on behalf of the helpers, the men and women of EMS. I'm here to ask you to support this resolution to extend the foundation's authorization to build a permanent memorial to honor their commitment, service, and sacrifice.
Founded in 2007, our volunteer board comprises past and current EMS providers and family members of EMS providers who have our own stories of loss, of the honor of serving others, and of the miracles of life. The spark of our foundation was ignited by somber reflections on loss, not unlike those we all experienced last week as we remembered those we lost 24 years ago during nine eleven. Every year, the EMS community holds a weekend of remembrance events hosted in different locations, honoring EMS providers who pay the ultimate sacrifice in the service of others. While beautiful, these events are held for one weekend a year, and it was our somber reflections from these events that sparked our recognition of an undeniable truth, that what is missing, what was missing and still is missing, is a permanent place for hosting these events, for private reflections not just for one weekend but throughout the year, and a place for the nation to recognize publicly and proudly the con the commitment, service, and sacrifice of those in EMS. We respond to calls for help without hesitation 24/7, 365 in all weather, all conditions, and at risk of our own personal safety.
Our rewards are intrinsic, foremost among them being upholding the trust our communities put in us to care for them in their times of need. This was evident throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. We showed up, and we kept showing up despite losing many of our own. Let me share another example of this sacred trust with you. We respond to calls for help in the middle of the night and are often met by people in sleepwear and bathrobes who hurry us, complete strangers, into their homes.
They don't know us. They never ask us if we are certified, if we're confident, or if we've undergone criminal background checks. They hand us their babies. They answer highly personal questions that they wouldn't answer for their own family members or closest confidants. And they allow us to expose and examine their bodies.
And they do all these things because they trust that we are going to help them. We never underestimate the significance of this trust. It is mother child kind of trust. It's why we're committed, why we serve, why we sacrifice, and why our work isn't simply a job. It's a calling.
As director Caldwell mentioned, our initial authorization came through public law 115-275 that was passed unanimously in both chambers in the 117th congress and was signed into law during president Trump's first term on 11/03/2018. A commemorative works act authorization lasts seven years and, in our case, is due to expire on November 3. Like many other recent memorials and commemorative works, we require more time to complete the project. To that end, HR 2196 and the companion Senate bills, Senate bill 2546, to extend our authorization are necessary for us to continue our efforts. We presented to the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission regarding HR 2196 in May, gaining unanimous support from the commissioners.
And as you heard, the National Park Service also supports extending our authorization. We have broad support in the EMS community and among our partners in public safety. We've narrowed the sites from 312 to three, and are awaiting final approval for our preferred location, which is very close to here at 3rd and Independent Southwest. And one of the reasons for that site was a thematic connection. We're poised to enter the next phase with this reauthorization, and appreciate your support.
Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Thank you for your testimony, Chief Robinson. Next, I wanna introduce Mister William Alexander, chief executive officer at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Mister Alexander, you have 5 minutes.
Speaker 13
Good morning, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Ngoose, and members of this distinguished committee. My name is William Alexander. I'm the chief executive officer of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. I would like to thank you this morning for the opportunity to present this statement in support of HR 309, the National Law Enforcement Officers Remembrance, Support, and Community Outreach Act. This bill establishes within the US Department of the Interior a formal program whereby the Secretary of the Interior would provide $6,000,000 a year to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund to support and enhance the memorial fund's community outreach, public education, and officer safety and wellness programs.
As brief background, the memorial fund was established by an act of Congress in 1984 when Congress authorized the fund to raise private money to build the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial. The memorial fund is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization which represents all major law enforcement organizations in the country, including federal, state, and local agencies, management, rank and file personnel, and survivor support and research organizations. Our mission is to honor the fallen, tell the story of American law enforcement, and make it safer for those who serve. In 1991, the memorial fund successfully raised private funds to complete the construction of that memorial and dedicated the memorial. And, again, in 1991, it is located in Washington, DC, Judiciary Square.
It is our nation's monument to all the law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our communities and our country. Engraved on the memorial walls are the names of 24,412 heroic men and women who, throughout our nation's history, risked their lives for the safety and protection of others. Unlike many other memorials here in our nation's capital, our monument is not static. Each May, during National Police Week, we have the somber responsibility of adding more names of fallen heroes to our memorial. This past May, we added the names of 345 officers who have died in the line of duty in calendar year 2024 and years prior.
While the US Department of the Interior, through the National Park Service, was initially responsible for maintaining the memorial in its grounds, in 2006, the secretary of the interior entered into a cooperative agreement with the memorial fund under which the memorial fund largely took over the cost and responsibility of maintaining the memorial and memorial grounds, saving US taxpayers millions of dollars. In 2018, also using private funds, the National Law Enforcement Museum, whose construction was also authorized by an act of Congress, was dedicated and opened. The mission of the museum is to tell the rich and fascinating story of law enforcement in America and its role in our free, and democratic society. Both the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and Museum represent the only national law enforcement memorial and museum honoring all of American law enforcement. The museum has become the portal through which we deliver our programs, focusing on our three pillars: honoring and remembering the fallen, educating the public about American law enforcement, and advancing officer safety and wellness.
These programs are as vital as those of any national memorial or museum, which already receive federal support. With federal funding, we will be able to open the museum free to the public. Free access will expand public knowledge of law enforcement's history, increase awareness of officer sacrifices, and help bring officers and the communities they serve closer together. That is the motivation behind HR 309 and part of the reason that the bill has garnered such strong bipartisan support. To date, the bill has 114 cosponsors, including ranking member Ngoose and three other members of the subcommittee, representatives Amaday, Hunt, and Stauber, as well as 10 additional members of the full committee.
We are incredibly proud of the support this bill has garnered and believe strongly that it will enable the memorial fund, really for the first time, to have a truly national impact in both saving police lives nationwide and fostering closer ties between law enforcement and the communities they serve. I'm convinced that this bill would significantly advance our ability to facilitate lifesaving training programs and best practices. It would further enable us to significantly expand educating the public, especially young people, about law enforcement, and hopefully inspiring them to consider a career in the law enforcement field. It is not hyperbole to say that the programs of the memorial fund are as important and impactful as the programs of any national memorial museum or federal landmark currently receiving federal support. I'd like to thank you again for your time and consideration.
And while, of course, I've submitted much more in my written testimony, I'm very humbly, Sam, ready to answer any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Alexander. I now recognize Miss Leisure Fernandez for an introduction.
Speaker 3
Thank you so much. It is wonderful to be able to introduce a fellow Nuevo Mexicano. And Mr. Archuleta is the newest attorney at the land grant council. The New Mexico land grant council was established by the New Mexico state legislature to look at all the issues with regards to the many land grants we have in New Mexico, and we are pleased that he is here to testify on the cemetery bill that we'll be hearing shortly. Thank you very much.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mister Chairman, Ranking Member Ngoose, and members of this committee. Again, my name is Condido Arturorchleta. I am with the New Mexico Land Grant Council here today to testify in support of House Resolution 4284, the Small Cemetery's Conveyance Act. The council is tasked with providing support and assistance to Land Grant members in the state of New Mexico. Land Grant Mercedes are local governments established through grants of land from the Spanish crown and the Mexican government between 1693 and 1854 for the purpose of recognizing and encouraging community settlements in what is now the United States Southwest.
These lands included both private lands for use for establishing homes, as well as local businesses within the community, as well as common lands that were held in common by all and used by all members of the community for beneficial use, of supporting those communities. These uses included personal uses such as hunting and fishing, grazing and watering of livestock, gathering of fuelwood to heat homes, as well as building materials for home construction. In addition to this, the common lands were also utilized for public purposes such as placement of community buildings and infrastructure, establishment of towns, plazas or town squares, as well as for use in placing community cemeteries. In 1848, at the close of the Mexican American War with the signing of the treaty Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States had an obligation to recognize the titles that had been deeded under the prior sovereigns, and that instituted a land confirmation adjudication process that lasted about fifty years. That process was long, it was cumbersome, and it was also wrought with corruption as land speculators took advantage of the process to try and defraud communities of their common lands.
As a result of the adjudication process, millions of acres of those former common lands are now under the management of the federal government in New Mexico. As a byproduct of that process, today, there are at least 20 known community cemeteries that are located on federal lands in New Mexico. The majority of these are on Forest Service system lands, and a handful are on public lands managed by the BLM. There are three ways that these cemeteries came into control of the federal government. The first is that these former common lands that were not properly adjudicated automatically became part of the public domain at the close of the adjudication process, or during that process.
The second is that the federal government acquired these federal lands with these cemeteries, subsequent to the adjudication, oftentimes from land speculators or as a result of the communities losing those lands to back taxes, when these land rich but cash poor communities were assessed taxes by the state of New Mexico. Cemeteries in these first two categories were established decades, if not centuries, before they came into the ownership of the federal government. The third way community cemeteries ended up in the federal government is that local communities, local land grant communities that were surrounded by federal lands because of the loss of the commons, petitioned the forest service for a special use permit for a cemetery in the 1940s and 1950s. There's only a couple of those instances, and this was as a result of their local original cemeteries becoming full and not having adequate land for those. This bill provides a mechanism for returning those cemeteries currently under the management and control of the Forest Service to the ownership and management of the local communities via transfer to a qualifying government entity.
We see this is a good thing because who better to manage and protect these sacred places than those communities that have a vested spiritual interest in their protection. As you know, the bill defines qualifying government entities as states, Indian tribes, and local governments, which include land grant mercedes. The state of New Mexico currently recognizes 28 land grants as political subdivisions of the state, meaning they are local governments, and we have a legislative process for doing that. One last important aspect of the bill is that it provides the secretary of the Department of Agriculture with the discretion and authority to waive any cost typically associated with the conveyance of federal lands to another government entity. This is important because there's something unsettling about charging for the return of sacred community cemeteries that, in most cases, were inadvertently or unintentionally placed under the control of the US Forest Service.
In conclusion, the council will ask for support of this committee in moving this bill forward. And with that, mister chairman, I'll yield and stand ready for questions.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Archileta. I will now recognize Miss Bess Mitchell Averett, executive director at the Friends of Vicksburg National Military Park and Campaign. Miss Averett, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 15
Chairman Tiffany, ranking member Ngoose, and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to present today. My name is Beth Averett. I serve as the executive director of the Friends of Vicksburg National Military Park and Campaign. I'm here in strong support of HR 4467, the Vicksburg National Military Park boundary modification act.
The Friends of Vicksburg National Military Park and Campaign is the official nonprofit, philanthropic partner of the park. We're a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and enhancing the Vicksburg National Military Park while ensuring that its stories are shared with future generations. Our members, supporters, and partners are united in the belief that this place is a cornerstone of America's story and a vital educational, cultural, and economic resource for Mississippi and for the nation. This legislation is crucial to a project centered around the construction of a new visitor center for the Vicksburg National Military Park. The existing visitor center built in the nineteen sixties was designed for a different era.
While it has served faithfully, it now is far too small, outdated, and inadequate to meet the needs of the nearly 500,000 visitors who come each year to Vicksburg. The current center situated on core battlefield land not only disrupts historic landscapes, but also poses an ongoing maintenance burden for the National Park Service. Our visitors deserve more than what the current facility can provide. They deserve a gateway to fully understand the Vicksburg campaign and its enduring significance. The new partner visitor center will be a state-of-the-art facility telling a more complete story of the Civil War from prewar era through Reconstruction.
It will provide immersive museum experiences, highlight unique art and unique artifacts, and connect visitors to the larger region of the Vicksburg campaign, while also offering classroom and event space, archival and research facilities, and an event lawn designed for living history programs. For Mississippi's most visited cultural site, this project is not just a want, it's a necessity. The Friends organization is proud to be a part of this unique public-private partnership leading this effort alongside the state of Mississippi and the National Park Service. The funding for this project is being provided primarily by the state of Mississippi and private donations, thereby relieving the National Park Service of significant operational burdens and enabling the agency to allocate its resources more effectively toward the stewardship of this important park. Together, we are working to ensure that the new facility will both honor the past and serve as the cultural and economic engine for the future.
The Vicksburg National Military Park includes approximately 2,500 acres. HR 4467 makes two practical boundary modifications affecting approximately 10 acres in two parcels that are essential to the success of this project. This legislation is truly about access. The first track provides a vital connector road and pedestrian bridge across a ravine linking the new visitor center directly to the park tour road. Importantly, the state of Mississippi and this project have committed to assume all expenses for the construction and long-term maintenance of the road and bridge, ensuring that the operational burden does not fall to the National Park Service.
The second modification addresses the existing Mississippi Welcome Center, which sits on the bluff overlooking the Mississippi River, adjacent to park property and to Interstate 20. A portion of that existing facility currently lies within the park boundaries. This legislation clarifies ownership by transferring the track to the state, thereby ensuring that Mississippi will assume all maintenance responsibilities for the building and the bluff on which it sits. This legislation has broad bipartisan support with the full Mississippi congressional delegation, the state of Mississippi, local leadership, and private partners, including our organization and the American Battlefield Trust, united in their commitment for its passage. Battlefields are a living classroom and vital to local economics.
In Vicksburg, heritage tourism is a major economic driver, and the new visitor center will only strengthen that role. It will attract visitors who stay longer, explore more, and invest in local businesses. In conclusion, HR 4467 is a critical step toward making this vision a reality. It will allow the necessary land adjustments for the new visitor center and strengthen the long term preservation interpretation of the Vicksburg National Military Park. On behalf of the Friends of Vicksburg National Military Park and Campaign, I urge you to support this legislation, and together we can ensure that the story of Vicksburg is told with the depth, dignity, and national importance it deserves.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and for your commitment to protecting America's historic treasures.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Miss Everett. I will now recognize Mister Tom Umphras, board member at the American Motorcycle Association. Mister Umphras, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Nagus, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today in support of HR 4386 and on behalf of motorcyclists across the United States. My name is Tom Humphrey, and I serve as vice chair of the board of directors for the American Motorcycles Association, where I also chair the rights and advocacy committee. And I am proud to represent over 215,000 AMA members nationwide. In addition, I serve as a government relations officer for the Amateur Riders Motorcycle Association, AMA District 23 in Minnesota.
Founded in 1924, the AMA is the largest national organization representing motorcyclists in North America. The AMA is dedicated to protecting motorcyclists' rights, promoting the motorcycle lifestyle, and supporting responsible use of public lands. Our members have a proud history of volunteer work, trail maintenance, and stewardship of the national parks and other public recreation areas. Today, there are nearly 9,000,000 motorcyclists on the road in America, double the number of riders from 20 years ago. Motorcycling is a fundamental part of our culture, symbolizing independence, self-reliance, and the spirit of American freedom.
Motorcycling is a major contributor to local and regional economies. The motorcycle and power sports industry generates an estimated 50,900,000,000 in economic impact. Rider tourism supports small businesses throughout road trips, competitive racing, and participation in national events. Gatherings such as Sturgis in South Dakota, the Northwoods rally in Wisconsin, and the Four Corners rally in Colorado attract tens of thousands of riders each year and generate hundreds of millions for the local communities. These events and other scenic motorcycle routes, like the backcountry discovery routes, bring motorcyclists through rural towns and public lands.
National parks and other federal public lands are some of the most desirable destinations for riders. These areas provide the backdrop for unmatched scenic riding and, many times, once-in-a-lifetime trips. Congress and federal agencies should encourage access to these areas and provide a uniform standard for admittance. Unfortunately, a recent policy change has created confusion and frustration amongst the motorcycle community. In 2000 or in 2024, the Department of Interior announced that the America the Beautiful annual pass will move to a single signature line, eliminating the options for two motorcyclists to share a pass.
While the pass will still allow admission for a driver and up to three passengers in a car, four bicyclists, and four pedestrians, it now only admits one motorcycle with up to two riders. This change penalizes motorcyclists traveling together on separate motorcycles, requiring each to purchase an annual pass. This disparity places an unnecessary burden on motorcyclists who travel together and support our public lands. Further, this discourages riders who travel responsibly from visiting, and fails to provide parity amongst visitors based on mode of transportation. Beyond restoring parity, this bill also supports the broader goals of modernizing and improving access to America's public lands.
Motorcycles are fuel-efficient, space-saving, and environmentally friendly vehicles that align well with the stewardship goals of federal land managers. They also provide a unique way to experience the federal lands. Unlike a passenger car, a motorcycle allows riders to be immersed in the environment with better views on obstructive sites, and more direct connection to the landscape, sounds, and experiences that make our federal lands so special. In this way, motorcycling is not only efficient, but also one of the best ways to see and enjoy the amazing federal lands and recreation areas. As our nation approaches its 250th anniversary in 2026, we should ensure that the America of the Beautiful Past lives up to its name by truly welcoming all forms of travel that allow citizens to enjoy our parks, forests, and recreation areas.
This bill helps us celebrate that milestone by expanding opportunity and impartiality for the millions of Americans who choose to experience the outdoors from the seat of a motorcycle. HR 4386 will address this issue by restoring responsible access for motorcyclists, reasonable, sorry, access for motorcyclists without overturning the policy change enacted by the Department of Interior. This legislation provides a simple solution by updating guidance from the secretary to parks and local staff to allow two motorcycles per pass, by explicitly allowing one additional motorcycle, including its passenger, to enter with a pass holder. HR 4386 restores a vehicle access parity for motorcyclists. It recognizes that two riders, one motorcycle, should have the same access as a couple in a car or a small group of bicyclists.
The benefits of this legislation extend beyond recreation to local towns and communities, promoting sustainable outdoor recreation and responsible stewardship. As we look ahead to the America 250 celebration, we should work together to expand opportunities for motorcyclists and highlight our nation's beautiful landscapes. Motorcycling is a vital part of American culture, an important contributor to tourism and recreation. By passing HR 4386, Congress can ensure that motorcycles continue to have reasonable and responsible on- and off-highway access. Thanks for the opportunity to testify, and I appreciate your time.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Mr. Humphries. We will now go to members' questions, and we're gonna first recognize my good colleague and friend, Ledger Fernandes, for five minutes.
Speaker 3
Thank you, chairman. I have always appreciated our conversations and our debates. Chief Robinson, I just want to thank you for your words. The expressions of the tender care and trust of the people that you and your officers in the EMS serve are very moving, and I look forward to seeing the manner of honoring that trust and the people who display it here in Washington, DC. Mister Alexander, the heart breaks realizing that we had to include so many names, 345 officers last year alone, and we must honor those who protect us.
I often say that service is an act of love. The people who work for both of the entities that you are here representing, law enforcement, first responders, emergency responders, are engaging in an act of love when they serve and protect us. So thank you very much. I wanna now turn to Mr. Archuleta. You know, the love that a community has for those who have passed on, I think is, there's nothing controversial about that.
It is universal. And so the bill that we are speaking in favor of today does exactly that. One of the comments you made kinda struck me, which is that for some of these cemeteries, there is no more room. Right? So that if somebody dies in that community, they would have to leave and be buried somewhere far away if they're away from, you know, families often want to have their whole families buried next to each other so that they can go visit them.
And that is a real problem. Is this something that how we the bill would allow an additional acre to be added, and I think that addresses part of that concern. Can you talk a little bit about that heartache that happens?
Speaker 14
Mister Chairman, ranking member, and congresswoman Leonard Fernandez, that's correct. These cemeteries provide a place for a final resting place for our loved ones. And New Mexico was land-based communities. Everything we do is tied culturally and significantly to the land. It's what helps our communities survive.
Our communities still live off those lands and sustain themselves throughout life, and then in death, they are laid to rest in those lands. And so having the opportunity to be buried with generations of ancestors who have lived in those communities for centuries is definitely significant, both culturally and spiritually, to our communities. And that is a potential problem when our community cemeteries for these communities that are centuries old run out of space and there's not adequate lands for them to be buried. This bill provides that opportunity for that transfer, not only of those lands for local management, for uses, but also for continued use. Some of the cemeteries that I mentioned earlier are historic cemeteries and under the current management regime of the federal land management, particularly the Forest Service.
You know, those cemeteries can be respected as a place, but they're not allowed for active use. Being able to transfer those would provide an opportunity for community members to, again, be able to be buried with their ancestors in those communities. And so that aspect of the bill is very important for us.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. And then the other piece that I think is really important is the cost. The ability to waive the cost. Now many of these communities, they live in some of the poorest counties. And because they've chosen to stay on the land, and we want our rural communities to stay on the land that they have tended and cared for, and live off of.
But it would be cost-prohibitive, some of these. Like, how much would it cost to try to get these lands transferred? Just the conveyance costs alone.
Speaker 14
Mister chairman, ranking member, and Congresswoman Ledger Fernandez, that's a good question. You know, every time that the federal government conveys lands, they have to do an analysis, and it goes at fair market value. We don't know the exact inputs that go into how those valuations are determined, but we know that it can be cost prohibitive, and it releases a burden on these communities that are really just trying to honor their loved ones and be able to utilize these sacred places. And so it's something that's a little bit unsettling for communities that think that they'd have to purchase back where their loved ones are buried.
Speaker 1
Gentle ladies, time has expired, and I now recognize a gentleman from Minnesota for his question.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much. It's great to hear you all being great advocates for what you believe in. To mister Alexander and chief Robinson, for you first, as a former, registered nationally registered paramedic, I will say this phrase, and you will understand it. Shock. Everybody shock, little shock, big shock.
Right? Cardiac arrest algorithm, way back when. You had shared a, you know, a story of what you go through, and what you see. I will say police officers, firefighters, EMS, and social workers. They see the very darkness of our society and have to deal with it. I think recognizing EMS is critically important, and I am looking forward to supporting this.
And I wanna thank you and all the other workers that save lives and have to go through the grief. It's not easy. Taking a baby from a mother. Right? Car crash.
You know they passed. You did what you can. Mister Alexander, I spent 23 years in the police uniform, and, unfortunately, we're gonna add three more because of an incident yesterday. It's tragic. Right?
Just tragic. That the police work for me, and there's only a few of us that have worn the local uniform in law enforcement. That police week for me is a week of sadness, grieving, and in some respects, anger because it was a criminal that took the life of one of my brothers or sisters forever. We have to honor them. We must never forget them.
You know, many say it's not how they died, it's how they lived, who they were. They were partners, companions, moms, dads, brothers, sisters, uncles, and aunts. I was lucky when I was shot off-duty. I survived. Some of these didn't.
It is personal. It's real. And I wanna thank you for standing up for the men and women in law enforcement and requesting this. I wanna thank representative Nils, another law enforcement officer who brings this forward to honor the men and women who put their life on the line just like those officers did yesterday serving the warrant. When they served that warrant, they had no idea that was the last search warrant they were going on.
Having been on our tactical team for nine years and on the entry team, I've been there. I know what it feels like. It's not a good feeling, but somebody has to do it. And it's the men and women in law enforcement that do that every day across this great nation. That's why this member of Congress and so many other members of Congress were furious during the defund the police movement.
I mean, furious. That affected our profession in a negative and profound way. We lost good men and women because of that. So what you're advocating for, and I can't wait to support it, is to honor these men and women who gave their lives in defense of us and our safety. We measure our community by how safe it is.
If our communities aren't safe, there's no activity. There's gonna be no economic activity. Schools are gonna close. Hospitals are gonna close. Safety in the community is the number one priority.
And the men and women in the blue and brown in this great nation give us that opportunity. That money is going to be well spent. Because I know law enforcement, when you give them the opportunity to invest, they do it wisely, and they do it well, and they do it with brother and sisterhood, just like the EMS community. And I wanna close these last 30 seconds. I think mental health is so important for us.
I want us all to look and recognize that we need it in a profession. Police, firefighters, EMS, and our social workers who see the dark side of society. They're valued, and you are all valued in our in the communities that you serve. And I'm so glad you came to testify, and I look forward to supporting these legislations, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields. I now recognize the ranking member, Mister Ngoose, for his questions.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony, for being here in Washington. In particular, I wanna thank Chief Robinson. Welcome to Washington. Although I no longer represent the town of Loveland, the city of Loveland in the 2nd Congressional District, I was proud to represent Loveland and, of course, still represent much of Larimer County.
And very grateful to you for the work that you do each and every day. Grateful for the folks that you lead. And I certainly concur with so many of my colleagues who I think have expressed their gratitude to the folks on the front lines whom, you know, I often describe as kind of our forgotten first responders. And I think this memorial will be a fitting tribute to them. And grateful that you've put that on our radar, our, meaning my office, and grateful that you're here in Washington to make the case to the broader body.
And wonder if you might just talked a little bit about this, of course, about the reasons why the memorial is so important, and I couldn't agree with you more. But I perhaps you can expound a bit on what the proposed design of the memorial will be and what that will mean to the EMS community.
Speaker 12
Thank you very much, ranking member Nigus. It's a privilege to be here in front of you and the committee, Mr. Chairman. Then we've worked a lot through the 24-step process of the Commemorative Works Act. And the answer to your question, the short answer is we don't know. We do have some designs.
We've been fortunate enough to have all the architectural design work donated to us by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Urban Risk Lab. And so we do have some conceptual designs that we presented, but it depends on the final location of the site. Our site selection, as I mentioned in my comments, our preferred site is the plaza of the Humphrey Building, at 3rd and Independence Southwest, and that, we do have a design for that. That is a it it's sort of a not quite circular design, but sort of an oblong circular design that allows people to walk in and out of the area with a central green space and some places for private reflection around the inside and outside of the memorial.
Speaker 9
Having been through that process under the Commemorative Works Act, I could certainly attest. We have had a bill, for many years that was ultimately signed into law to create the first suffrage monument on the National Mall, and have worked really hard over the last couple of years to help make that a reality. And so it's a very complicated process, as you know, but I have no doubt that once we get this bill across the finish line, that that's a process that you all will be able to, you know, finish in good order. So in any event, I'll stop there. Again, thank you for being here.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields on. I'll recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for his questioning.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel. And coming after my colleague from Minnesota's comments, mister Stober's poignant comments about reality. It almost causes me to reserve commenting on my legislation. But I recognize the fact that we have security in our country, the individual willing to step up to the plate. Those of us who enjoy motorcycles and motorcycling in the great national parks have greater freedom and opportunity.
So, thank you. Mr Empress, it's good to see you. I have a fellow AMA member as a life member myself in the AMA, working for rider's rights and safety, education, and all of that. I think, allowing cyclists in a common sense way to use their motorcycles with friends and family in national park settings, which, you know, some of the greatest pictures in my mind come from times up on top of 10,000 foot, 11,000 foot peaks, Glacier Park, Yellowstone, other places that I've enjoyed. And your background is impressive as well since your service includes leadership in the Amateur Riders Motorcycle Association and where you're educating, helping train new riders for on-road and off-road usage, and your work is on recreational trail issues.
Question I would have, how has the disparity caused by the change to the America, the beautiful pass, and its change, went away from what it was, which was working? How is that change implemented during the previous administration negatively impacting motorcyclists and their enjoyment?
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mister Chair and Congressman. The change is, I think, one that is limiting the use and the access to our public lands. You know, this is something that we heard from our members. It was brought to our attention that this change had come to place from our membership. And, basically, what they're saying is they do not participate or are not using because they just feel they're not treated the same anymore, and they'll choose to go elsewhere.
And I think, as we talked about earlier, you know, on mental health, that getting out on a motorcycle and enjoying these lands is a good way to help improve your mental health. So we just wanna make sure that we have this access so that we can continue to.
Speaker 6
Is there any negative impact on our national parks through motorcyclists using them?
Speaker 16
I do not think so. I think it's actually a better use. It helps simply with just parking, because they're smaller. So when you do need to have parking, they take up less space. I think they're more fuel-efficient.
They allow people to get out and enjoy these spaces, so I do not see a negative.
Speaker 6
Yeah. Having ridden 250 miles last Saturday through Utah Mountains, I can attest to enjoyment. Yep. And it's better gas mileage usage as well. How much of an economic driver are recreational biking and motorcyclist tourism, especially for communities around our rural areas and public lands?
Speaker 16
Thank you. It is millions of dollars that are put into the local economies through motorcycling activities. And some of the events we talked about earlier, the industry itself is about 50,900,000,000, but the recreational activities in local areas are millions. We have an event in Minnesota, part of a race. The local newspaper there has done economic impact, and they figured just that one weekend event, I think it was about 2 and a half million dollars of local economic impact through restaurants, hotels, local services, and stuff like that.
So by having motorcycling in these communities, it provides a great economic impact.
Speaker 6
Yeah. And that's not discounting cycling events like Sturgis, Mount Rushmore area, and all the rest, and the impact that's there. I appreciate your response. Mister chairman, thank you for allowing this common sense solution to be brought up, and I believe it is common sense. It worked before.
I don't know why it was taken away. To allow cars, motorcycles, bikes to have access to our glorious national parks ought to be encouraged, and this will be a simple change, and I hope there will be support. I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields. I'll now recognize myself for the question. Yes. You see a lot of people there. Therapist is their Harley.
Right? And, I thought it should have been called a Harley bill, but, you know, I come from the state of Wisconsin. So, Mister Umphras, was the AMA noticed or given an opportunity to comment when this change was made?
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not aware of any comment period when the change was made. I believe in our letter and the response we received back is that there was not a public comment period required. We did write a letter after it was brought to our attention that this had happened, and we did hear back from the administration on that. I believe that referenced that there was not a public comment period needed.
Speaker 1
And when did that happen? That will. When was it changed, ma'am? I think in.
Speaker 16
2020 or in February that we referenced them or reached out to the secretary of interior and received that response, but the change was made in January 2024. Early twenty twenty-four is when.
Speaker 1
The change was made. Yep. Okay. Thank you very much for that. Miss Abbott, you represent one of the finest national military parks in the United States.
My wife and I, when we were there twenty years ago, could have spent two days there, and it was just terrific. And I wanna thank you for your work that you do and all the others down in Vicksburg, because it really does tell a great story about the Civil War and part of American history. And if there's anything that you miss in your testimony or something you wanna emphasize in regards to the land conveyance and how important it is, go ahead and share your thoughts in regards to that, of how this is going to benefit the visitor experience at Vicksburg.
Speaker 15
Sure. Thank you, and thank you for your comments. I'm partial, but I agree. The park in Vicksburg is such a significant piece of American history. And the park boundaries itself, prior to 2019, really were just the siege lines at Vicksburg.
In 2019, legislation passed that allowed us to tell a broader story of the campaign that extends to 2 adjacent counties. And we the state of Mississippi actually donated a little over 850 acres to help build out this park and kind of increase the story of the Vicksburg campaign. And that helped prompt our decision to enter in this unique partnership visitor center so we can have a better space, to tell this more inclusive story that really broadens the scope of the campaign to other areas in Mississippi. So this boundary legislation is critical. It's a small parcel of land.
It's I joke and call it the ditch in Mississippi, but it really is just a small parcel of land. But what it does is it allows this access road and this connector to what will be this new state-of-the-art facility, to connect this public-private venture to the tour road of the national park. And it's just critical to the success of the project. And kinda to circle back to one of your comments from earlier, from Mister Caldwell. We are proud of this partnership.
It is exciting to see people at the state and local level understand the significance of this national park, also the private sector. I mean, this is America's story, and we're really proud to see this level of support and investment into this important site.
Speaker 1
Yes. Certainly, on the part of this subcommittee of federal lands, but I hope it is also the case with the full committee of natural resources. This is a priority of ours to try to where people want to participate and put money into these sites like this, national parks and parts of what are the national park service, that we encourage that at this point because we have so much improvement that we can make to make the visitors experience better. But just do the simple maintenance that is so needed in many of these locations around The United States of America and the territory. So, I just wanna thank you again for all the work that you've done.
I wanna thank all the witnesses for the time you've taken to come here before this committee. And members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for you, and we'll ask that you respond to those in writing, please. Under committee rule three, members of the subcommittee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5 PM on Tuesday, 09/23/2025. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for your responses. If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee on federal lands stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.