★ 59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–95 

JOURNEY THROUGH HALLOWED GROUND NATIONAL 

HERITAGE AREA ACT 

APRIL 17, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. RAHALL, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING AND 

ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 319] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 319) to establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground 

National Heritage Area, and for other purposes, having considered 

the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Journey Through Hallowed 

Ground National Heritage Area Act’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definitions. 

Sec. 3. Purposes. 

Sec. 4. Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area. 

Sec. 5. Authorities and duties of management entity. 

Sec. 6. Approval or disapproval of management plan. 

Sec. 7. Provision of financial and technical assistance. 

Sec. 8. Duties of other Federal entities. 

Sec. 9. Sunset for grants and other assistance. 

Sec. 10. Private property and regulatory protections. 

Sec. 11. Use of Federal funds from other sources. 

Sec. 12. Authorization of appropriations. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

2 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) HERITAGE AREA.—The term ‘‘Heritage Area’’ means the Journey Through 

Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area. 

(2) MANAGEMENT ENTITY.—The term ‘‘management entity’’ means The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, a Virginia nonprofit corporation referred to in section 4(c), or its successor entity. 

(3) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘management plan’’ means the management plan for the Heritage Area. 

(4) PARTNER.—The term ‘‘partner’’ means— (A) a Federal, State, or local governmental entity; and 

(B) an organization, private industry, or individual involved in promoting 

the conservation and preservation of the historical, cultural, and recreational resources of the Heritage Area. 

(5) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior. 

SEC. 3. PURPOSES. 

The purposes of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area 

include—

(1) to preserve, support, conserve, and interpret the legacy of the American 

history created along the Heritage Area; 

(2) to promote heritage, cultural and recreational tourism and to develop educational and cultural programs for visitors and the general public; 

(3) to recognize and interpret important events and geographic locations representing key developments in the creation of America, including Native American, Colonial American, European American, and African American heritage; 

(4) to recognize and interpret the effect of the Civil War on the civilian population of the Heritage Area during the war and post-war reconstruction period; 

(5) to enhance a cooperative management framework to assist the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

the State of West Virginia, and their units of local government, the private sector, and citizens residing in the Heritage Area in conserving, supporting, enhancing, and interpreting the significant historic, cultural and recreational sites 

in the Heritage Area; and 

(6) to provide appropriate linkages among units of the National Park System 

within and surrounding the Heritage Area, to protect, enhance, and interpret 

resources outside of park boundaries. 

SEC. 4. JOURNEY THROUGH HALLOWED GROUND NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is hereby established the Journey Through Hallowed 

Ground National Heritage Area. 

(b) BOUNDARIES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Heritage Area shall consist of the 175-mile region generally following the Route 15 corridor and surrounding areas from Adams County, Pennsylvania, through Frederick County, Maryland, including the Heart of 

the Civil War Maryland State Heritage Area, looping through Brunswick, Maryland, to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, back through Loudoun County, Virginia, 

to the Route 15 corridor and surrounding areas encompassing portions of 

Loudoun and Prince William Counties, Virginia, then Fauquier County, Virginia, portions of Spotsylvania and Madison Counties, Virginia, and Culpepper, 

Rappahannock, Orange, and Albemarle Counties, Virginia. The boundaries of 

the Heritage Area shall include all of those lands and interests as generally depicted on the map titled ‘‘Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage 

Area’’, numbered P90/80,000, and dated October 2006. 

(2) MAP.—The map referred to in paragraph (1) shall be on file in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service. 

(c) MANAGEMENT ENTITY.—The management entity for the Heritage Area shall be 

The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, a Virginia nonprofit corporation. 

(d) BOARD OF TRUSTEES.—The board of trustees of the management entity shall 

include representatives from a broad cross-section of the individuals, agencies, organizations, States, and governments that—

(1) are partners of the management entity; and 

(2) will oversee the development and implementation of the management 

plan. 

SEC. 5. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY. 

(a) AUTHORITIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.—

(1) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT FUNDS.—The management entity may accept funds 

from any Federal source and from States and their political subdivisions, primstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

3 

vate organizations, nonprofit organizations, or any other person to carry out its 

authorities and duties under this Act. 

(2) USE OF FUNDS.—The management entity may use funds made available 

under this Act for purposes of preparing, updating, and implementing the management plan. Such purposes may include the following: 

(A) Making grants to, and entering into cooperative agreements with, 

States and their political subdivisions, private organizations, non-profit organizations or any other person. 

(B) Hiring and compensating staff. 

(C) Entering into contracts for goods, services, and leases for office space. 

(D) Undertaking any other initiatives that advance the purposes of the 

Heritage Area. 

(b) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The management entity shall develop a management 

plan for the Heritage Area that— (1) presents comprehensive strategies and recommendations for conservation, 

funding, management, and development of the Heritage Area; 

(2) takes into consideration existing State, county, and local plans and involves residents, public agencies, and private organizations working in the Heritage Area; 

(3) includes a description of actions that units of government and private organizations and individuals have decided to undertake in furtherance of the 

purposes of this Act; 

(4) specifies the existing and potential sources of funding to protect, support, 

manage, and develop the Heritage Area; 

(5) includes an inventory of the natural, historical, cultural, architectural, scenic, and recreational resources in the Heritage Area that wish to be preserved, 

restored, supported, managed, developed, or maintained, because of the national 

historic significance of the resources; 

(6) includes an analysis of ways in which local, State, and Federal programs 

may coordinate to promote the purposes of this Act; including recommendations 

from the Commonwealth of Virginia, the States of Maryland and West Virginia, 

and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (and political subdivisions thereof) for 

the management, protection, support, and interpretation of the natural, cultural, and historical resources of the Heritage Area; 

(7) identifies appropriate partners and partnerships among Federal, State, 

and local governments, regional entities, and the private sector in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act; 

(8) includes locations for visitor contact and major interpretive facilities; 

(9) includes provisions for appropriate living history demonstrations and battlefield reenactments; 

(10) includes provisions for implementing a continuing program of interpretation for resident, student, and visitor education concerning the resources and 

values of the Heritage Area; 

(11) includes provisions for a uniform historical marker and wayside exhibit 

program in the Heritage Area, including a provision for marking, with the consent of the owner, historic structures and properties that are contained within 

the historic core areas and contribute to the understanding of the Heritage 

Area; 

(12) includes provisions for the protection and interpretation of the natural, 

cultural, and historic resources of the Heritage Area consistent with this Act; 

and 

(13) includes provisions for the development of educational outreach programs 

for students of all ages to further the understanding of the vast resources within the Heritage Area. 

(c) DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION; PREREQUISITES.—

(1) DEADLINE.—The management entity shall submit the management plan to 

the Secretary not later than the end of the three-year period beginning on the 

date on which funds are first made available for this Act. 

(2) PREREQUISITES.—Before submitting the management plan to the Secretary, the management entity shall ensure that—

(A) the Commonwealth of Virginia, the States of Maryland and West Virginia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and any political subdivision 

thereof that would be affected by the management plan, receives a copy of 

the management plan; 

(B) adequate notice of availability of the management plan is provided 

through publication in appropriate local newspapers in the area of the Heritage Area; 

(C) at least one public hearing is conducted by the management entity 

at a location within the Heritage Area in each congressional district inmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

4 

cluded in whole or in part in the Heritage Area to review and receive comments on the management plan; and 

(D) a committee made up of elected officials of local governments within 

the boundaries of the Heritage Area, including mayors, town and county 

council chairs, and members of borough commissions and boards of supervisors, has had an opportunity to review, comment on, and approve (by majority vote) the management plan. 

(d) TERMINATION OF FUNDING.—If a management plan is not submitted to the Secretary in accordance with subsection (c), the Secretary shall not, after the end of 

the period specified in such subsection, provide any grant or other assistance under 

this Act with respect to the Heritage Area until a management plan for the Heritage Area is submitted to the Secretary. 

(e) DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.—The management entity shall—

(1) give priority to implementing actions set forth in the management plan; 

(2) assist units of government, regional planning organizations, and nonprofit 

organizations in—

(A) establishing and maintaining interpretive materials and exhibits in 

the Heritage Area; 

(B) developing historical and cultural resources and educational programs 

in the Heritage Area; 

(C) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the natural, historical, cultural, architectural, scenic, and recreational resources and sites 

in the Heritage Area; 

(D) the restoration of any historic building relating to the themes of the 

Heritage Area; 

(E) ensuring that clear signs identifying access points and sites of interest are put in place throughout the Heritage Area; and 

(F) carrying out other actions that the management entity determines to 

be advisable to fulfill the purposes of this Act; 

(3) encourage by appropriate means economic viability in the Heritage Area 

consistent with the purposes of this Act; 

(4) consider the interests of diverse governmental, business, nonprofit groups, 

and individuals within the Heritage Area; and 

(5) for any year in which Federal funds have been provided to implement the 

management plan—

(A) conduct public meetings at least annually regarding the implementation of the management plan; 

(B) submit an annual report to the Secretary setting forth accomplishments, expenses and income, and each person to which any grant was made 

by the management entity in the year for which the report is made; and 

(C) require, for all agreements entered into by the management entity authorizing expenditure of Federal funds by any other person, that the person 

making the expenditure make available to the management entity for audit 

all records pertaining to the expenditure of such funds. 

(f) PROHIBITION ON THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY.—The management entity may not use Federal funds received under this Act to acquire real property or 

any interest in real property. No State or local subdivision of a State shall use any 

Federal funds received pursuant to this Act to acquire any interest in real property 

by condemnation or otherwise. 

SEC. 6. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT PLAN. 

(a) TIME FOR CONSIDERATION; CRITERIA.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

Governors of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the States of Maryland and West Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, shall approve or disapprove a management plan submitted under section 5 not later than 180 days after receiving the 

plan. In considering the plan, the Secretary shall take into consideration the following criteria: 

(1) The extent to which the management plan, when implemented, would adequately preserve, support and protect the significant historical, cultural and recreational resources of the Heritage Area. 

(2) The level of public participation in the development of the management 

plan. 

(3) The extent to which the board of trustees of the management entity is representative of the local governments affected and a wide range of interested organizations and citizens. 

(b) ACTION FOLLOWING DISAPPROVAL.—If the Secretary disapproves a management plan, the Secretary shall advise the management entity in writing of the reasons for the disapproval and shall make recommendations for revisions in the manmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

5 

agement plan. The Secretary shall approve or disapprove a proposed revision within 

180 days after the date it is submitted. 

(c) APPROVING CHANGES.—The Secretary shall review and approve or disapprove 

any amendment to the management plan that would make a substantial change to 

the management plan, as determined by the Secretary. The review and approval or 

disapproval of an amendment shall be conducted in the manner provided under subsections (a) and (b). Funds appropriated under this Act may not be expended to implement the changes made by such an amendment unless and until the Secretary 

approves the amendment. 

(d) AVAILABILITY OF ANNUAL REPORTS.—The management entity shall post each 

annual report prepared under section 5(e)(5)(B) on a website maintained by the 

management entity. 

SEC. 7. PROVISION OF FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. 

(a) OVERALL ASSISTANCE.—Upon the request of the management entity and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary may provide technical and 

financial assistance to the management entity to carry out its duties under this Act, 

including updating and implementing the management plan and, prior to approval 

of the management plan, providing assistance for initiatives. 

(b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—If the Secretary has the resources available to provide technical assistance to the management entity to carry out its duties under this 

Act, including updating and implementing the management plan and, prior to approval of the management plan, providing assistance for initiatives, the Secretary 

shall provide such assistance upon the request of the management entity. Technical 

assistance provided under this subsection shall be provided on a reimbursable basis, 

except that this subsection does not preclude the Secretary from providing nonreimbursable assistance under subsection (a). 

(c) PRIORITY.—In assisting the management entity, the Secretary shall give priority to actions that assist in—

(1) the implementation of the management plan; 

(2) the provision of educational assistance and advice regarding management 

of the significant historic resources of the region; 

(3) the development and application of techniques promoting the preservation 

of cultural, recreational and historic properties; 

(4) the preservation, restoration, and reuse of publicly and privately owned 

historic buildings; 

(5) the design and fabrication of a wide range of interpretive materials based 

on the management plan, including, among other things, guide brochures, visitor displays, audio-visual, books, interpretive dialogues, interactive exhibits, 

and educational curriculum materials for public education; and 

(6) the implementation of initiatives prior to approval of the management 

plan. 

(d) MATCHING FUNDS.—As a condition of providing financial assistance under this 

section to the management entity, the Secretary shall require the recipient to provide matching funds in an amount equal to the amount of the financial assistance 

provided by the Secretary. Recipient matching funds—

(1) shall be derived from non-Federal sources; and 

(2) may be made in the form of in-kind contributions of goods and services 

fairly valued. 

SEC. 8. DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL ENTITIES. 

Any Federal entity conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the Heritage Area shall—

(1) consult with the Secretary and the management entity with respect to 

such activities; 

(2) cooperate with the Secretary and the management entity in carrying out 

their duties under this Act and, to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate 

such activities with the carrying out of such duties; and 

(3) to the maximum extent practicable, conduct or support such activities in 

a manner that the management entity determines shall not have an adverse effect on the Heritage Area. 

SEC. 9. SUNSET FOR GRANTS AND OTHER ASSISTANCE. 

The Secretary may not make any grant or provide any other financial assistance 

under this Act after the expiration of the 15-year period beginning on the date that 

funds are first made available for this Act. 

SEC. 10. PRIVATE PROPERTY AND REGULATORY PROTECTIONS. 

Nothing in this Act—

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

6 

(1) abridges the rights of any property owner (whether public or private), including the right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or 

activity conducted within the National Heritage Area; 

(2) requires any property owner to permit public access (including access by 

Federal, State, or local agencies) to the property of the property owner, or to 

modify public access or use of property of the property owner under any other 

Federal, State, or local law; 

(3) alters any duly adopted land use regulation, approved land use plan, or 

other regulatory authority of any Federal, State, or local agency, including but 

not limited to the authority of Federal, State, or local governments to make 

safety improvements or increase the capacity of existing roads or to construct 

new roads, or conveys any land use or other regulatory authority to any local 

coordinating entity; 

(4) authorizes or implies the reservation or appropriation of water or water 

rights; 

(5) diminishes the authority of the State to manage fish and wildlife, including the regulation of fishing and hunting within the National Heritage Area; 

or 

(6) creates any liability, or affects any liability under any other law, of any 

private property owner with respect to any person injured on the private property. 

SEC. 11. USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FROM OTHER SOURCES. 

Nothing in this Act shall preclude the management entity from using Federal 

funds available under Acts other than this Act for the purposes for which those 

funds were authorized. 

SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Subject to subsection (b), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act not more than $1,000,000 for any 

fiscal year. Funds so appropriated shall remain available until expended. 

(b) LIMITATION ON TOTAL AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED.—Not more than $10,000,000 

may be appropriated to carry out this Act. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 319 is to establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania, Maryland, 

Virginia and West Virginia. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

National Heritage Areas are locally-driven projects which conserve and interpret historic and cultural resources through coordinated efforts by federal, state and local governmental entities as 

well as private parties. The Department of the Interior, acting 

through the National Park Service, provides limited matching 

funds and technical assistance to a designated local entity responsible for coordinating management of the area. Heritage areas require Congressional authorization and must have completed a 

study, acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior, supporting designation. To date, Congress has approved 37 national heritage 

areas. 

H.R. 319 would establish a new national heritage area spanning 

parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia. Specifically, the new area would include 175 miles of ‘‘historic transportation routes’’ beginning at Gettysburg National Military Park 

and generally following Route 15 through Pennsylvania and Maryland and Route 20 through Virginia. The heritage area would also 

loop into West Virginia to include Harper’s Ferry. 

According to the study commissioned by the proposed management entity, the heritage area would encompass eight homes of 

former U.S. Presidents, the largest concentration of Civil War batmstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

7 

tlefields in the country, 13 National Historic Landmarks and 2 

World Heritage Sites, among other resources. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 319 was introduced January 5, 2007, by Representative 

Frank Wolf (R–VA). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. On March 7, 2007, the Committee met to consider 

the bill. National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee 

Chairman Rau ́l Grijalva (D–AZ) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to conform sections in the bill as introduced regarding property rights to legislation approved by the Senate. 

Representative Jeff Flake (R–AZ) offered two amendments to the 

Grijalva amendment. An amendment identified as ‘‘Flake A’’ prohibiting the use of federal funds received by the heritage area for 

lobbying was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 to 22 as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

8 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here HR95.001
9 

An amendment identified as ‘‘Flake B’’ prohibiting any federal 

funds for implementation of this act was offered and withdrawn. 

Representative Stevan Pearce (R–NM) also offered an amendment to the Grijalva amendment. An amendment identified as 

‘‘Pearce .021’’ requring individualized notice to all private property 

owners within the heritage area was not agreed to by a vote of 15 

to 22 as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

10 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here HR95.002
11 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Subcommittee Chairman Grijalva was then agreed to by voice vote. 

The bill as amended was then ordered favorably reported to the 

House of Representatives by voice vote. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title; table of contents 

Section 1 entitles the bill the ‘‘Journey Through Hallowed 

Ground National Heritage Area Act’’ and includes a table of contents. 

Section 2. Definitions 

Section 2 defines the terms used in this Act. 

Section 3. Purposes 

Section 3 establishes the purposes of the heritage area. These 

purposes include preservation and promotion of historic resources 

as well as enhanced cooperation between states, units of local government and private entities. 

Section 4. Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage 

Area 

Section 4(a) establishes the heritage area and section 4(b) defines 

its boundaries. Section 4(c) identifies the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership as the area’s management entity. Section 4(d) includes requirements for membership on the board of 

trustees of the management entity. 

Section 5. Authorities and duties of the management entity 

Section 5 outlines the authorities and duties of the management 

entity including the authority to accept funds from specified 

sources and use funds for specified purposes. Section 5 also details 

requirements for development and approval of the area’s management plan. Section 5(f) specifically prohibits the management entity from using federal funds to acquire real property. 

Section 6. Approval or disapproval of the management plan 

Section 6 establishes a procedure for approval of the area’s management plan, including a process to amend the plan should it be 

disapproved by the Secretary. 

Section 7. Provision of technical and financial assistance 

Section 7 authorizes the Secretary to provide technical and financial assistance to the management entity, contingent on provision 

of an equal amount of matching funds from the management entity. 

Section 8. Duties of other federal entities 

Section 8 requires any federal agency conducting or supporting 

activities which directly affect the heritage area to consult with the 

management entity and to cooperate with the Secretary to avoid 

adverse effects to the area, to the maximum extent practicable. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

12 

Section 9. Sunset for grants and other assistance 

The authority to make grants or to provide other financial assistance under this Act expires 15 years after the date funds are first 

made available for this Act. 

Section 10. Private property and regulatory protections 

Section 10 specifies that nothing in this act abridges the rights 

of any property owner within the area or requires any owner to 

permit public access to private property. Section 10 also establishes 

that H.R. 319 does not alter any duly adopted land use regulation 

or other regulatory authority of any federal, state or local agency 

or imply or authorize the reservation or appropriation of any water 

rights. Finally, Section 10 makes clear that nothing in this Act diminishes State authority over fish and wildlife nor creates any liability under any other law of any private property owner with respect to any person injured on private property. 

Section 11. Use of Federal funds from other sources 

Section 11 specifically allows the management entity to use federal funds made available under other acts. 

Section 12. Authorization of appropriations 

Section 12 authorizes not more than $1 million for any fiscal 

year, not to exceed $10 million total, to carry out this Act. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact this bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that Rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not 

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground 

National Heritage Area. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

13 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 319—Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage 

Area Act 

Summary: H.R. 319 would establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area (NHA) along the corridor 

from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to Charlottesville, Virginia. The 

bill would designate the Journey Through Hallowed Ground partnership as the local coordinating entity for the proposed NHA. The 

partnership would be responsible for developing and implementing 

a management plan to develop, restore, and maintain the NHA. 

The legislation would authorize the appropriation of $10 million, 

not to exceed $1 million annually, for financial assistance to the 

partnership over the next 15 years. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 319 would cost $5 million over the 2008–2012 period, 

with additional amounts spent after 2012. Enacting H.R. 319 would 

have no effect on revenues or direct spending. 

H.R. 319 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................................................ 1 1 1 1 1 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 1 

Basis of Estimate: Assuming appropriation of the authorized 

amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 319 would cost 

$5 million over the 2008–2012 period and $10 million over the following five to 10 years. Such amounts would be used to cover a 

portion of the costs of planning, establishing, operating, and interpreting the heritage area. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 319 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Tyler Kruzich; Impact on 

State, local, and tribal governments: Marjorie Miller; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Tyler Kruzich. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

14 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 865 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(15) 

DISSENTING VIEWS ON H.R. 319 

We oppose H.R. 319 in its current form. Moreover, we are dismayed at the cavalier and partisan manner the Majority used to 

report it from Committee during our first mark-up of the 110th 

Congress. Hopefully, this is not a harbinger of how the Committee 

will operate during the next two years. 

H.R. 319’s predecessor, H.R. 5195, was introduced late in the 

109th Congress by Mr. Wolf. The Subcommittee on National Parks’

September 28, 2006 legislative hearing was unusually contentious 

with very divergent testimony from sponsor Mr. Wolf and Mr. Bartlett whose district contains a significant portion of the proposed 

heritage area. The principal disagreement concerned property 

rights which Mr. Bartlett felt needed stronger protections in the 

legislation. 

These strong differences persisted into the 110th Congress. Mr. 

Wolf introduced H.R. 319, which is essentially identical to his previous bill. Mr. Bartlett introduced his own version of the Journey 

Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area, H.R. 1270, which is 

vastly different from the Wolf bill and has a stronger emphasis on 

protecting property rights, more diverse board representation on 

the management entity and deleted all references to federal funding. Mr. Bartlett wrote Chairman Rahall and other Committee 

Members requesting a hearing on his legislation. Normally, such a 

reasonable and customary Member request is honored but not in 

this case. This is very surprising since the Chairman told Committee Members during the February 7, 2007 Natural Resources 

Committee organizational meeting that he intended to follow ‘‘regular order’’ during the 110th Congress which historically means 

holding subcommittee hearings and mark-ups on legislation. Moving this bill which is opposed by Mr. Bartlett, and whose district 

is affected, is a dangerous precedent that we hope will not be repeated. 

Unfortunately, the very reasonable and modest private property 

rights protections contained in H.R. 319, and included in the authoring legislation of the last twelve national heritage areas, were 

emasculated by the Grijalva Substitute. 

However, Committee Republicans offered two amendments to the 

Grijalva Substitute to make it friendlier to private landowners and 

advocates of local control. Unfortunately, both were defeated on 

party line votes of 15–22. 

Mr. Flake offered an amendment merely restating current federal law (18 USC, 1819), that bans lobbying by those receiving federal funds. The amendment is appropriate and warranted because 

we have seen examples of federal agencies and non-profit groups 

using federal funds to lobby. It seeks to prevent the National Park 

Service and heritage area management entities from influencing 

local zoning and land use controls on private property. The Flake 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

16 

amendment would have reinforced this committee’s commitment to 

transparency, responsibility, and accountability of those who come 

to this body for significant financial authorizations. 

The second amendment, offered by Mr. Pearce required written 

notification of private property owners located within the boundaries of the heritage area before the management plan could be 

submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval. This 

amendment was quickly dismissed by the majority as an unreasonable request. Additionally, the Chairman of the National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands Committee, Mr. Grijalva rejected the 

amendment because, as he stated, ‘‘the ability for the public to opt 

in or opt out of the heritage area is already present in the underlying substitute.’’ Unfortunately, there is no ‘‘opt in’’ language in 

the substitute offered by Congressman Grijalva, and his amendment struck the ‘‘opt out’’ language. 

Previous to this Congress, the work of this committee had ensured that private property owners within a heritage area could remove their land from the boundary of the designation and prohibited the management entity from preserving, conserving, or promoting one’s property without the written consent of the owner. 

Those safeguards were deleted by the Grijalva Substitute purportedly because they could create problems for the management entity. Property rights should never be dismissed merely because they 

could be an inconvenience. With the elimination of these protections from the bill as introduced, the notification amendment would 

have provided property owners the right, at a minimum, to know 

what the federal government will place over them. 

Although we oppose H.R. 319 in its current form, we are hopeful 

there will be a free and open debate on the House Floor with opportunities to consider again the Flake and Pearce Amendments. 

ROB BISHOP. 

STEVAN PEARCE. 

DOUG LAMBORN. 

DEAN HELLER. 

BILL SALI. 

JOHN DUNCAN. 

BOBBY JINDAL. 

ELTON GALLEGLY. 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS. 

HENRY BROWN. 

BILL SHUSTER. 

JEFF FLAKE. 

RICK RENZI. 

CHRIS CANNON. 

KEN CALVERT. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

(17) 

ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS 

All National Heritage Areas deserve scrutiny by the members of 

the House Natural Resources Committee. Since 1984, when the 

first National Heritage Area (the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Area) was passed by Congress, the practice of designating National Heritage Areas has grown exponentially. More 

than twenty years later, 37 National Heritage Areas exist. In the 

last Congress, nearly 50 bills were introduced to designate or study 

designating new National Heritage Areas. The new majority has 

approved, within the first markup of the Natural Resources Committee, two more National Heritage Areas. Eleven National Heritage Area bills have already been introduced in the House within 

the first three months of the new Congress. 

There are many reasons to be skeptical of National Heritage 

Areas. First, and foremost, is the question of federal spending. According to the Congressional Research Service, National Heritage 

Areas are ‘‘intended to promote local economic development as well 

as to protect natural and cultural heritage resources and values.’’

Protecting natural and cultural heritage aside (which state, local 

and private entities can already do), the federal government does 

not have a responsibility to promote the local economy of any district. 

In addition, once a federal line is drawn around property for a 

heritage area, the door for annual federal earmarks and grants is 

opened. 24 of these heritage areas were listed in the FY 2007 Interior Appropriations bill as line items, each receiving hundreds of 

thousands of taxpayer dollars. In addition, a new White House federal grant initiative entitled ‘‘Preserve America’’ doled out nine federal grants to projects in National Heritage Areas. I am sure these 

grants will only continue and expand to all 37 existing heritage 

areas. 

I challenge any member of the committee to ask themselves if $700,000 for the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area 

sounds like a rationale expenditure of federal tax dollars when we 

have a huge deficit and vast maintenance backlogs in our parks 

and forests, not to mention ongoing conflicts abroad to fund. 

In addition, the management entity designated to manage the 

Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area received $1 million in federal funding in the form of an earmark in 

the transportation bill in 2005 before the organization was officially 

registered as a non-profit and before the heritage area was created. 

The entity, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, 

has raised significant private funds. It does not need scarce federal 

dollars to accomplish its stated goals. 

As the record will show, I offered an amendment to H.R. 319 that 

would have restricted the federal funds received by the organization so that those funds could not be used for federal, state or local 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING

18 

lobbying. Disappointingly, the amendment was rejected on a partyline vote. 

Another important point is the effect these designations have on 

private property rights. When the federal government draws a federal line around private property, negative impacts on the private 

property owner will always result. Injecting the federal government 

into the lives of property owners in Virginia and Maryland in the 

form of a heritage area designation is just wrong. At a minimum, 

the committee should have included language in the bill guaranteeing private property owners protection from the National Park 

Service, or a proxy management entity, in local zoning and land 

use decisions. 

JEFF FLAKE. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with HEARING