U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86-339 PS 2003

H.R. 272, H.R. 437 and H.R. 1113

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

Serial No. 108-14

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada,

Vice Chairman

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Tom Cole, Oklahoma

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Rob Bishop, Utah

Devin Nunes, California

VACANCY

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Dennis A. Cardoza, California

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas

Joe Baca, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,

AND PUBLIC LANDS

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Rob Bishop, Utah

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

An ́ıbal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Dennis A. Cardoza, California

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio

(V)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on April 8, 2003 ................................................................................ 1

Statement of Members:

Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the Virgin

Islands ............................................................................................................ 2

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement on H.R. 272 ............................................................. 5

Kingston, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Georgia ........................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement on H.R. 1113 ........................................................... 10

Larson, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Connecticut .................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement on H.R. 437 ............................................................. 8

Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement on H.R. 272, H.R. 437 and H.R. 1113 ................. 2

Rahall, Hon. Nick J. II, a Representative in Congress from the State

of West Virginia, Prepared statement on H.R. 437 .................................. 3

Statement of Witnesses:

Anderson, Bob, Acting Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty and

Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department

of the Interior, Washington, D.C. ............................................................... 18

Prepared statement on H.R. 272 ............................................................. 19

Kohn, Robert, Chief Operating Officer, Colt Gateway LLC, Hartford,

Connecticut .................................................................................................... 31

Prepared statement on H.R. 437 ............................................................. 32

Manning, Gloria, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. .................... 11

Prepared statement on H.R. 272 ............................................................. 12

Mattingly, Hon. Mack, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia, Retired,

St. Simons, Georgia ...................................................................................... 29

Prepared statement on H.R. 1113 ........................................................... 30

Taylor, Jeffrey, Assistant Director, Legislative and Congressional Affairs,

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,

D.C. ................................................................................................................ 13

Prepared statement on H.R. 437 ............................................................. 16

Prepared statement on H.R. 1113 ........................................................... 17

Additional materials supplied:

Kingston Town Board, Letter submitted for the record by The Honorable

Jim Gibbons ................................................................................................... 28

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 272, TO

DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

TO CONVEY CERTAIN LAND TO LANDER

COUNTY, NEVADA, AND THE SECRETARY OF

THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN LAND

TO EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA, FOR CONTINUED USE AS CEMETERIES; H.R. 437, TO

DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF COLTSVILLE IN

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT FOR POTENTIAL INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL PARK

SYSTEM; AND H.R. 1113, TO AUTHORIZE AN

EXCHANGE OF LAND AT FORT FREDERICA

NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES.

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George P.

Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Radanovich, Gibbons, Christensen, and

Bordallo

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. Good afternoon. I apologize for the late start

of this. We had something else going on in another Committee

room that I was finally able to break away from. I appreciate your

patience.

And with that, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation,

and Public Lands will receive testimony on three bills: H.R. 272,

H.R. 437, and H.R. 1113.

2

Our first bill is H.R. 272, introduced by our Subcommittee colleague Mr. Gibbons, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey

certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the

Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use as cemeteries.

Our second bill, which is H.R. 437, is introduced by Congressman Larson of Connecticut, to direct the Secretary of the Interior

to conduct a study of Coltsville in the State of Connecticut for potential inclusion into the National Park System.

And our last bill, H.R. 1113, introduced by Congressman Kingston of Georgia, authorizes an exchange of land at the Fort Frederica National Monument.

Before turning time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Larson and Mr. Kingston would be permitted to sit on the dais following the statements. There being no

objection, so ordered.

And I now turn my time over to the Ranking Member, Mrs.

Donna Christensen, for any opening statement you may have.

Donna?

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman, Subcommittee

on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, on H.R. 272, H.R. 437,

and H.R. 1113

Good afternoon. The hearing will come to order.

This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public

Lands will receive testimony on three bills—H.R. 272, H.R. 437 and H.R. 1113.

Our first bill, H.R. 272, introduced by our Subcommittee colleague Mr. Gibbons,

would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land to Lander County,

Nevada, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County,

Nevada, for continued use as cemeteries.

Our second bill, H.R. 437, introduced by Congressman Larson of Connecticut, directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of Coltsville in the State of

Connecticut for potential inclusion in the National Park System.

Our last bill, H.R. 1113, introduced by Congressman Kingston of Georgia, authorizes an exchange of land at Fort Frederica National Monument.

Before turning the time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would ask unanimous consent

that Mr. Larson and Mr. Kingston be permitted to sit on the dais following their

statements. Without objection, so ordered.

I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen for any opening statement

she may have.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, would like to welcome our colleagues and the other witnesses to our hearing today. And we are receiving testimony on

three unrelated measures.

Our first bill, H.R. 272, requires the Secretary of Agriculture to

convey to Lander County, Nevada, approximately 10 acres of Forest

Service land free of charge. Further, the Secretary would be required to grant the county an easement over adjacent national forest lands for the purpose of allowing access to the parcel to be conveyed.

Currently, the land in question is used as a cemetery under a

special use permit, and the legislation contains a reverter clause

3

that would be triggered should the parcel ever be converted to another use.

Section 2 of the legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior

to make a similar conveyance of BLM land to Eureka County, Nevada. This 10-acre parcel is also being used as a cemetery, and the

conveyance would require a similar easement and contains a similar reverter clause.

While this measure is generally noncontroversial, it is our understanding that the BLM and Forest Service raised several technical

issues during the Senate consideration of this legislation during

the previous Congress. And so, we look forward to hearing from our

witnesses today regarding whether these issues have been resolved.

Our second bill, H.R. 437, introduced by our colleague Representative John Larson, would authorize the study of the

Coltsville historic site in Connecticut. The site, which is associated

with the historically significant Colt Manufacturing Company, contains a number of historic resources. The legislation has the support of the entire Connecticut delegation, and a similar legislation

has passed the Senate twice.

Resources Committee Ranking Member Rahall is a strong supporter of H.R. 437, and on his behalf, I would ask that his statement of support for the bill be included in the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Nick Rahall, Ranking Democrat,

Committee on Resources, on H.R. 437

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong support for H.R. 437, the Coltsville

Study Act. My good friend and colleague John Larson has done yeomen’s work on

this legislative initiative. Rep. Larson has assembled the bipartisan cosponsorship

of the Connecticut Congressional delegation and has the support of both the local

community and the National Park Service for this study.

The Coltsville site is closely associated with the Colt Manufacturing Company,

made famous by the Colt six-shooter. But the history of the area is more than just

one gun. During the Industrial Revolution the company was at the forefront of innovation and technology. The self-contained Coltsville community boasted many amenities. We are fortunate that a significant number of historic resources survive, including the landmark blue onion dome.

I want to commend my colleague Rep. Larson for working to preserve this piece

of American history. I look forward to working with him to see this historic resource

study brought to fruition.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. The last bill, H.R. 1113, which authorizes a

land exchange at Fort Frederica National Monument, raises a

number of issues. Evidently, appraisals and archeological surveys

of the sites to be exchanged have not been completed. Further, the

noncontiguous parcel that the Park Service would acquire through

the exchange will likely increase the administrative and operational costs of the national monument.

Finally, we understand that there may be additional modifications to the lands proposed to be exchanged, and these modifications may create further issues. The National Park Service testimony on how H.R. 1113 echoes these concerns but provides little

guidance on how they should be addressed. As a general rule, any

land exchange we authorize should enhance the national monument.

We have to be careful about altering the boundaries of the National Park System units. Former Resources Committee Chairman

4

Hansen spoke many times about the National Park Service acquiring an historic site, Charles Pickney National Historic Site, that

didn’t contain the historic resources that were claimed. We

shouldn’t make the same mistake here.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the presence of our witnesses here

today and look forward to their insights on the legislation before

us. And I am sure it was just an oversight, but I am sure our colleague John Larson will be welcome to sit up on the dais.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Oh, absolutely. I think we included that in

our—

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If not, yes.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. All right. Thanks.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You are welcome to join us as well. With that,

we are going to begin hearing testimony from our distinctive panel,

including Mr. Jim Gibbons from the State of Nevada. Jim, if you

would like to begin. Welcome to your Subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the full statement I have be submitted for the record.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity also to

discuss an issue that is of utmost importance to the constituents

that I represent in rural Nevada.

As many of you know, Nevada has the highest percentage of public lands in all the States of the Union, with close to 90 percent of

our State being managed by the Federal Government. This poses

many problems for my constituents, including one which we will

discuss here today—the burial of our loved ones and the preservation of grave sites for our ancestors.

I introduced H.R. 272 to authorize a conveyance of two cemeteries, both in existence since the late 1800’s, back to the local control of Lander and Eureka Counties.

Mr. Chairman, on March 2, 1970, nearly 33 years ago, the Kingston Cemetery in Lander County was officially created with a 10-

acre special use permit from the Forest Service. The intent of this

permit was to protect the existing graves dating back to 1891, decades before the Forest Service ever existed. Again, in 1979, the

Forest Service issued another 10-acre permit as the management

of the cemetery was transferred to the Town of Kingston, Nevada.

In February 1990, after 20 years of permitting burials, the Forest

Service informed the Town of Kingston that the cemetery was in

trespass of public lands. Furthermore, the town was told that the

present Forest Service policy was to not authorize new cemetery

permits as this was deemed a permanent use of the land.

To resolve this problem, the Town of Kingston offered 2.58 acres

of land to the Forest Service in exchange for the 10 acres of cemetery land. The town thought this was a very reasonable offer, especially considering that the Forest Service had already accidentally

built a campground on their parcel of ground. But the Forest Service refused this proposal.

In 1998, under the Freedom of Information Act, Kingston began

to request documents and to research history in an effort to start

5

negotiations for a deed to the Kingston Cemetery project. After 7

months of correspondence, the Forest Service said that this action

could take anywhere from 2 to 7 years. As a last resort, the Kingston town board asked for my assistance.

It is my intention to ensure that these honest, diligent people

have some certainty and closure on this issue, which they have

been burdened with for nearly three decades. Unfortunately, the

Forest Service will testify today that they can meet the objectives

of this bill under its current statutory authority by conveying lands

to the county for comparable lands or at fair market value in cash.

Now I am very troubled, if not outraged, that this agency is forcing the people of Lander County and those that are buried there

to buy or exchange land for the graves of their parents. The county

does not have the financial ability to purchase these lands and are

understandably reluctant to exchange them with what extremely

limited private land they may have and limited resources they do

have.

I call on the Forest Service to live up to its motto of caring for

the land and serving people. The Forest Service should serve the

people of Lander County by giving them their ancestral graveyard

instead of trying to extort the highest price possible for the land.

Mr. Chairman, while I am dismayed and disappointed by the

greediness of the Forest Service, I applaud the BLM, which understands the sensitivity of transferring control of ancestral graveyards to local communities. The BLM understands that these sites

are sacred and should be in the possession of local governments.

Consequently, they are not seeking ‘‘fair market value’’ in the

second transfer authorized in H.R. 272—the transfer of the Maiden’s Grave Cemetery in Eureka County. What a breath of fresh air

that is.

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that each member of this Committee will see the importance of this legislation, the simple fairness of transferring these historic graveyards back to the communities that have buried their loved ones there since the 1800’s.

After all, the role of the Federal Government is not to play real

estate agent. The role of the Federal Government is to serve the

people. H.R. 272 serves the people of Eureka and Lander Counties,

Nevada, fairly, and this legislation should be fairly and expeditiously passed by this Committee and by Congress and serve the

people of Nevada.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 31 seconds I have remaining.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Nevada, on H.R. 272

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss an issue that is of utmost

importance to my constituents in rural Nevada.

As you may know, Nevada has the highest percentage of public lands of all the

States in the Union’’ close to 90 percent of our state is managed by the Federal Government.

This poses many problems for my constituents, including one which we discuss

here today—the burial of our loved ones and the preservation of the grave sites of

our ancestors.

6

I introduced H.R. 272 to authorize the conveyance of two cemeteries—both in existence since the late 1800s—back to the respective local control of Lander and Eureka counties.

Mr. Chairman, on March 2, 1970, the Kingston Cemetery in Lander County was

officially created with a 10-acre Special Use Permit from the Forest Service.

The intent of this permit was to protect the existing graves dating back to 1891’’

decades before the Forest Service ever existed.

Again, in 1979 the Forest Service issued another 10-acre permit as the management of the cemetery was transferred to the Town of Kingston.

In February of 1990, after 20 years of permitting burials, the Forest Service informed the Town of Kingston that the Cemetery was in trespass of public lands.

Furthermore, the town was told that the present Forest Service policy was to not

authorize new cemetery permits as this was deemed a Permanent Use of the Land!

To resolve this problem, the Town of Kingston offered 2.58 acres of land to the

Forest Service in exchange for the 10 acres of cemetery land.

The town thought this was a very reasonable offer, especially considering that the

Forest Service had already accidently built a campground on this parcel.

But, the Forest Service refused this proposal.

In 1998, under the Freedom of Information Act, Kingston began to request documents and to research history in an effort to start negotiations for a deed to the

Kingston Cemetery property.

After 7 months of correspondence, the Forest Service said that this action could

take anywhere from 2 to 7 years.

As a last resort, the Kingston Town Board asked for my assistance.

It is my intention to ensure that these honest, diligent people have some certainty

and closure on this issue which they have been burdened with for decades.

Unfortunately, the Forest Service will testify today that they can meet the objectives of this bill under its current statutory authorities by conveying lands to the

county for comparable land or for fair market value in cash.

I am disgusted and outraged that this agency is forcing the people of Lander

County to buy or exchange land for the graves of their parents.

The County does not have the financial ability to purchase these lands and are

understandably reluctant to exchange what EXTREMELY limited private land they

do have.

I call on the U.S. Forest Service to live up to its motto: ‘‘Caring for the Land and

Serving People.’’

The Forest Service should serve the people of Lander County by giving them their

ancestral grave yard, instead of trying to extort the highest price possible for the

land.

Mr. Chairman, while I am dismayed and disappointed by the greediness of the

Forest Service, I applaud the BLM which understands the sensitivity of transferring

control of ancestral grave yards to the local communities.

The BLM understands that these sites are sacred and should be in the possession

of local governments.

Consequently, they are not seeking ‘‘fair market value’’ in the second transfer authorized in H.R. 272—the transfer of the Maiden’s Grave Cemetery in Eureka

County.

What a breath of fresh air.

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that each member of this Committee will see the

importance of this legislation and the simple fairness of transferring these historic

grave yards back to the communities that have buried their loved ones there since

the 1800s.

After all, the role of the Federal Government is not to play real estate agent. The

role of the Federal Government is to serve the people.

H.R. 272 serves the people of Eureka and Lander Counties, Nevada fairly and

should be expeditiously passed by this Committee and Congress.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons. Wonderful

testimony.

Next we will move on to the Honorable John Larson to speak on

bill number H.R. 437. Mr. Larson, welcome to the Committee, and

please begin your testimony.

7

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN LARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member

Christensen.

I have a written statement that I ask unanimous consent of the

Committee to be inserted for the record, as well as several other

extraneous news articles and information about Coltsville, with the

Committee’s permission. Is that OK?

Mr. RADANOVICH. That would be just fine.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, sir.

I want to thank from the outset Chairman Pombo and Ranking

Member Rahall for helping expedite the process, and certainly the

Chair and the Ranking Member here today.

I also want to congratulate members of our delegation. As was

pointed out by Mrs. Christensen, it has the unanimous support of

the Connecticut delegation as well as our Governor, John Rowland;

the mayor of the City of Hartford, Eddie Perez; various members

of the Connecticut General Assembly; and most notably, the community, especially Mr. William Gordon and Carol Coburn, who is

the executive director for the Coalition To Strengthen the Sheldon/

Charter Oak Neighborhood, commonly referred to as CSSCON.

Later, you will hear from the Park Service in testimony and also

from Mr. Kohn, who heads up the Colt Gateway, Inc., that is responsible for commercially developing that property as well.

I want to underscore the importance of this and specifically point

out that the Coltsville Study Act would direct the National Park

Service to study the site commonly known as Coltsville and its surrounding area within the City of Hartford.

In doing so, now this would provide an opportunity for Connecticut to evaluate the national significance, suitability, and feasibility for designation as a unit of the National Park System. It also

asks the National Park Service to evaluate the importance of the

area to the history of precision manufacturing.

We are very proud in the State of Connecticut, and I am very

proud to hail from the Hartford area. We have long been known as

the Constitution State because we established the oldest continuous constitutional democracy in the world on the banks of the

Connecticut River back in 1638.

We have also been known as the arsenal for democracy, since our

revolution, as being a provider State and having been the inventors

of gunpowder. We also, from that same region, hail the oldest continuous museum, public museum in the Country, as well as the

oldest continuous newspaper in the Country, the Hartford Current.

Samuel Colt is known to many Americans, and especially the

Colt .45, which was generally referred to as ‘‘the gun that won the

West.’’ But what is not known to most people across the Country

is that it was Elizabeth Colt, his wife, who—when Samuel Colt

died at a rather young age—was the person who took over and

manned the company and actually brought it to its heyday.

It is quite a history of Mrs. Colt, who was way ahead of her time,

and before she had the right to vote was probably one of the—if

they had a Fortune 500, she would be part of the Fortune Top 10

of the Country at that time. An extraordinary woman, who, at the

time of the industrial revolution, drove one of the Nation’s leading

8

manufacturers to the kind of success that Colt firearms enjoys even

to this day.

But to look at this area just simply as a manufacturer of firearms would be doing a disservice to Samuel and Elizabeth Colt. To

understand their significance is to understand what was happening

throughout the Connecticut River Valley in terms of the industrial

revolution and precision manufacturing as well.

The Colts were the first American company to establish a factory

overseas, and they were also first to focus on the needs of the workplace and their workforce. And whether they be safety or fire concerns that plagued the Country during the time of the industrial

revolution, whether it be providing housing and church services

and public parks areas for people, the Colts clearly were ahead of

their time.

You are going to hear further testimony from both the Park Service and from Mr. Kohn in that specific area. But the most heartening thing for me, representing the area, is to see how the community has come together to embrace this.

Not only has it been spearheaded by the neighborhood and the

developer himself and the various historical societies and also the

State’s paper of record, the Hartford Current, virtually the whole

State and its delegation have come together around this very historic and significant study that we think is so necessary for our future.

I want to thank the Committee. I see that my time has expired.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to present this legislation,

which, as Representative Christensen pointed out, passed the Senate twice unanimously.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]

Statement of The Honorable John B. Larson, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Connecticut, on H.R. 437

As the sponsor of the House version of the Coltsville Study Act, H.R. 437, I would

like to thank the Committee for allowing me to speak this afternoon on an issue

of importance to my constituents and to the historic preservation of an important

American landmark of achievement. I would also like to thank the rest of my delegation colleagues here in the House, Representatives DeLauro, Johnson, Shays, and

Simmons, for their support of this proposal, as well as Senator Dodd and Senator

Lieberman, for their support and leadership on this issue in the Senate.

Specifically, the Coltsville Study Act would direct the National Park Service to

study the site commonly known as ‘‘Coltsville,’’ and its surrounding area within the

City of Hartford, Connecticut to evaluate its national significance, suitability, and

feasibility for designation as a unit of the National Park System. It also asks the

National Park Service to evaluate the importance of the area to the history of precision manufacturing.

Last June the National Park Service testified before the Senate Energy and National Resouces Subcommittee on National Parks in support of the Senate version

of the legislation authorizing this study. Later today you will be hearing from a representative from the National Park Service about the version of the Coltsville Study

Act before you today.

The Coltsville region of Hartford Connecticut is comprised of approximately 260

acres of land. The region is anchored by the 17–Acre Coltsville Heritage Park, which

houses 10 historic buildings. Bordered by Interstate–91, The Connecticut River, the

central business district of Hartford, the Museum of Connecticut State History, as

well as the State Capitol, Coltsville represents a region rich in culture and history.

The history of Coltsville is a unique regional & international landmark characterized by its many industrial achievements during the industrial revolution. Beginning with Samuel and Elizabeth Colt, founders of Colt Manufacturing Company,

known for the production of firearms, the Colt’s inspired the entire community to

flourish during the industrial revolution. Coltsville is noted for its Victorian

9

mansions, an open green area, botanical gardens, and even a deer park. The residence of Samuel and Elizabeth Colt in Hartford, CT, know as ‘‘Armsmear’’, is a national historic landmark, and the distinctive Colt manufacturing factory’s blue dome

is a prominent feature in the Hartford, Connecticut skyline.

When you look deeper at the county one begins to see the unique and holistic community that developed in the area and attracted early industrial leaders such as

Col. Albert Pope of Pope Manufacturing who produced the nations most prominent

bicycles and automobiles, which ultimately bloomed into what we now know as

Pratt and Whitney located in East Hartford. Henry Ford, was drawn to the community because of his interest in learning about the innovative manufacturing techniques and equipment being invented and developed in Coltsville.

It is important to emphasize that the Colt legacy is not just about firerearms, but

also about industrial innovation and the development of technology that would

change the way of life in the United States. Mr. Colt worked with Samuel Morse

in the development of the telegraph, and Colt manufacturing contributed to the development of technology in many ways, inspiring the jet engine pioneers Francis

Pratt and Amos Whitney, who served as apprentices at Colt manufacturing. The influence of the community was extended overseas when Samuel Colt became the first

individual in the United States to open a manufacturing plant overseas.

It is also the story of Elizabeth Colt and of women entrepreneurs of the early industrial age, as she successfully and profitably guided Colt Industries for more than

40 years after Samuel Colt’s death in 1862.

Coltsville set the standard for excellence during the Industrial Revolution and

continues to prove significant as a place in which people of the United States can

learn about that important period in history and its association with the Mark

Twain House, Trinity College, Old North Cemetery, and many historic homesteads

and architecturally renowned buildings.

This legislation and its overwhelming local support and excitement signifies that

we are starting on the road to developing and cultivating Coltsville’s history and its

importance to Hartford and the State of Connecticut. The Senate version of this legislation, S. 233, was approved by unanimous consent on March 4, 2003. Along with

other members of the delegation and the community, I am committed to preserving

the area’s immeasurable historical value. Coltsville is a unique regional and international landmark. I look forward to seeing the immense potential that the property

holds fully utilized.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Larson. Appreciate

your testimony.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And we will hear from our next witness, and

then if you would please join us on the dais for the rest of the hearing?

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. That would be terrific. All right.

Next up is the Honorable Jack Kingston from Georgia, speaking

on H.R. 1113, which would authorize the exchange of land at Fort

Frederica National Monument for other purposes.

Jack, welcome to the Committee. Please begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACK KINGSTON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

GEORGIA

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is great to be with you all. And a question, Mr. Chairman, I

have also former U.S. Senator Mack Mattingly here to testify.

Should I yield him my time, or is that—

Mr. RADANOVICH. Welcome, Senator. And, no, you go ahead. And

what we will do is invite you onto the dais, move to the next panel.

Senator Mattingly is on one of the next panels.

Mr. KINGSTON. OK. Well, let me be brief in my general description of this.

10

If you think about it, we just have three points of a triangle. A

historic church—historic land, a historic church where John Wesley

actually at one time preached and who, of course, was the founder

of Methodism. And then we have an historic piece of land where

General James Oglethorpe, one of the founders of Georgia, actually

lived at one point. And then we have some raw land that is owned

by Sea Island Company.

And basically, it is just a swap of the three, but it is not directly

like that. It is more the church swaps with Sea Island and then

obtains land that the National Park Service wants, and the National Park Service wants to do the trade with the church from

that point on.

And to my knowledge, and we have vetted this now for about 2

years. There were some kinks in this 2 years ago, but everybody

wants this. There is no apparent opposition. The Park Service has

looked at it fairly closely, and we think it is a good piece of legislation to move forward on.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kingston follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jack Kingston, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Georgia, on H.R. 1113

Since 1995, Christ Church, Frederica has been working with the NPS to broker

a land exchange that would benefit all parties involved. Christ Church, Frederica,

in an effort to expand their current facilities, would like to acquire 6 acres of NPS

land, adjacent to the church, in exchange for 8.69 acres of land currently owned by

the Sea Island Company. The Sea Island Company has brokered a deal with the

Church to exchange this land for other land currently owned by the Church.

On May 1, 2000, the NPS declined to participate in a land exchange with Christ

Church for a variety of legal and policy reasons that were in enumerated in a

memorandum signed by then acting Regional Director Dan Brown. Under that proposal, Fort Frederica would have received 7 acres of land on its northern boundary

from the Christ Church rectory property in exchange for 6 acres of National Monument land adjacent to the historic church property. Neither of the parcels involved

in this proposed agreement contained any historic resources; as such, Director

Brown found that there was no demonstrable benefit to the United States in acquiring the land.

The agreement proposed in H.R. 1113 is different from the proposal of 2000. It

involves an exchange of an 8.69 acre parcel of property containing the archeological

ruins believed to be the former homestead of General James G. Oglethorpe, the

founder of the State of Georgia. The NPS has conveyed to me that they are interested in obtaining the land with the Oglethorpe Ruins and they likewise assisted

in the drafting of this legislation. There is an error in the current legislation that

identifies the land to be given to Christ Church as approximately 4.8 acres rather

than the actual amount, which is 6 acres. I plan to amend the bill to reflect this

change in acreage. A land amount of approximately 4.8 acres had been proposed

during prior negotiations. However, that parcel contained a building that belonged

to the NPS, which they wish to retain. As such, the NPS and Christ Church have

agreed that the 6 acre tract, which adjoins Christ Church, Fort Frederica, and is

appropriate because it does not contain the building or any historic resources.

When Director Brown rejected this opportunity in 2000, he cited the NPS policy

that prohibits land exchanges where there is no demonstrable benefit to the United

States. I wholly believe that this proposed exchange would benefit the United

States, as we have an interest in protecting and conserving the significant cultural

resources such as the Oglethorpe Ruins. This property contains historical and archaeological resources that are non-renewable and should be protected and preserved by the NPS so that future generations will have the opportunity to visit this

site of historical significance.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Kingston.

Are there any questions of the panel members? And if there are

not, by any other members, then I want to thank you for your

11

testimony and ask you to join us on the dais, and we will get right

to the substance of the matters.

Panel two—if I could call up panel two, please—consists of Mr.

Bob Anderson, who is the acting assistant director for minerals,

realty, and resource protection, from BLM in Washington, D.C.;

also Ms. Gloria Manning is the Associate Deputy Chief of the

National Forest System, Washington, D.C.; also Mr. Jeff Taylor,

Assistant Director of legislative and congressional affairs for the

National Park Service.

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Subcommittee. If you would

begin, Ms. Manning, welcome back to the Subcommittee. I know

you visited us before, and we appreciate what you bring. And if you

would like to go ahead and begin your testimony?

If you would, please keep to the 5-minute clock. Otherwise, you

will hear from me. But please take the time to let us know your

feelings on the appropriate bills.

Ms. MANNING. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF GLORIA MANNING, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY

CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Ms. MANNING. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I am Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief for National Forest

System. I am here to provide you the Department’s view on

H.R. 272, a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands to Lander County, Nevada.

In summary, Section 1 of H.R. 272 requires the Secretary,

through the Chief of the Forest Service, to convey to Lander County, Nevada, for no consideration, all right, title, and interest of the

United States in and to the 10 acres of National Forest System

land known as Kingston Cemetery.

In accordance with Public Law 85-569, the Townsite Act, we

have already conveyed 1.25 acres of land (on which the cemetery

is located) to the Town of Kingston for $500 on August 1, 2000. At

the time of the conveyance, the Town of Kingston indicated the

1.25 acres encompassed all known marked and unmarked grave

sites.

The Town of Kingston also indicated that the 1.25 acres was adequate to accommodate their future expansion needs. Specifically,

all of the grave sites were accounted for within a half-acre fenced

area that the 1.25 acres encompassed. The additional .75 acres

were intended for parking and anticipated expansion of the current

cemetery.

If new unmarked grave sites have been discovered or the needs

of the Kingston Cemetery have changed and are in the public interest, we would be supportive of making additional Federal lands

available to the county or city for fair market value and granting

the county an easement to maintain the access road to the cemetery as a county road.

If Lander County is not willing to pay fair market value to purchase this land, we would be willing to consider authorizing its current and future use of this land under a special use permit authorization.

12

The Department does not object to making additional Federal

lands available to Lander County, but the Department believes

that the Forest Service can meet the objectives of Section 1 of this

legislation under its current statutory authorities that would allow

it to convey National Forest System lands to Lander County for

land or fair market value in cash.

For example, under the Townsite Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may convey, for fair market value, up to 640 acres of land

to established communities located adjacent to national forests in

Alaska or the contiguous western States. Within certain limits, the

Sisk Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands

with States, counties, or municipal governments or public school

districts for lands or money.

These laws require the Secretary of Agriculture to obtain fair

market value for exchange or sales of national forest lands. Indeed,

the Federal policy in recent decades has moved toward obtaining

a fair return to the public for the value of lands conveyed out of

Federal ownership.

This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer

any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Manning follows:]

Statement of Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest

System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 272

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today. I am Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief for National Forest System, USDA Forest Service. I am here today to provide the Department’s views on H.R. 272, a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands to Lander County, Nevada.

H.R. 272 Convey certain land to Lander County, Nevada for continued use as a

cemetery

In summary, Section 1 of H.R. 272 requires the Secretary through the Chief of

the Forest Service to convey to Lander County, Nevada, for no consideration, all

right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 10 acres of National

Forest System land known as Kingston Cemetery.

In accordance with Public Law 85–569, the Townsite Act, we have already conveyed 1.25 acres of land (on which the cemetery is located) to the Town of Kingston

for $500 on August 1, 2000. At the time of the conveyance, the Town of Kingston

indicated the 1.25 acres encompassed all known marked and unmarked gravesites.

The Town of Kingston also indicated that the 1.25 acres was adequate to accommodate their future expansion needs. Specifically, all of the gravesites were accounted

for within a half acre fenced area that the 1.25 acres encompassed. The additional

.75 acres were intended for parking and anticipated expansion of the current cemetery.

If new unmarked gravesites have been discovered or the needs of the Kingston

Cemetery have changed and are in the public interest, we would be supportive of

making additional Federal lands available to the county or city for fair market value

and granting the county an easement to maintain the access road to the cemetery

as a county road.

If Lander County is not willing to pay fair market value to purchase this land,

we would be willing to consider authorizing its current and future use of this land

under a special-use permit authorization.

The Department does not object to making additional Federal lands available to

Lander County, Nevada in H.R. 272, but the Department believes that the Forest

Service can meet the objectives of Section 1 of this legislation under its current statutory authorities that would allow it to convey National Forest System lands to

Lander County for land or fair-market value in cash.

For example, under the Townsite Act, the Secretary of Agriculture may convey,

for fair market value, up to 640 acres of land to established communities located

adjacent to National Forests in Alaska or the contiguous western states. Within certain limits, the Sisk Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands

13

with states, counties, or municipal governments or public school districts for lands

or money.

Moreover, under the General Exchange Act, the Secretary of Agriculture can exchange National Forest System lands with State and local governments. These laws

require the Secretary of Agriculture to obtain fair market value for exchanges or

sales of National Forest lands. Indeed, the Federal policy, in recent decades has

moved toward obtaining a fair return to the public for the value of lands conveyed

out of Federal ownership.

Conclusion:

This concludes my statement; I would be happy to answer your questions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Ms. Manning. We are going to hear

from the entire panel before we open up the entire panel for questions. So thank you for delivering your testimony.

Next up is Mr. Jeff Taylor, who is the Assistant Director with the

National Park Service. Jeff, welcome to the Subcommittee, and

please begin your testimony. Again, if you could stick to 5 minutes,

that would be great.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY TAYLOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

LEGISLATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member

Christensen, for inviting me to testify today.

I have been asked to testify on two specific bills, H.R. 437 and

H.R. 1113. And I would just ask that I would be able to submit my

full testimony for the record.

Mr. RADANOVICH. There being no objection, so ordered.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

The first one, H.R. 437, this is a bill that directs the Secretary

of the Interior to conduct a study of Coltsville in Hartford, Connecticut, for potential inclusion in the National Park System.

The Department supports H.R. 437. The Coltsville study area includes nationally significant buildings, including Armsmear, a national historic landmark, and structures that are a part of the Colt

Industrial National Register District.

The history of this site complements that of the Springfield Armory National Historic Site, also a unit of the National Park Service. Together, they show how innovations in the firearms industry

laid the foundation for the American system of manufacturing.

Only through further investigation will it be possible to determine if some part of the study area is feasible and suitable for inclusion in the park system and what role, if any, the National Park

Service should play at this site. The study should cost approximately $300,000 to complete.

The bill directs the service to study the site commonly known as

Coltsville and its surrounding area within the City of Hartford to

evaluate its national significance, suitability, and feasibility for

designation as a unit of the National Park System. It also directs

the park system to evaluate the importance of the site to the history of precision manufacturing.

This is approximately a 260-acre site, and in the middle of it is

a 17-acre Coltsville Heritage Park. This was recently acquired by

a private developer from a nonprofit subsidiary of the Goodrich

Corporation, and it contains 10 historic buildings, some of which

14

are occupied by commercial, residential, and office tenants; a number of artists who also live there and work in the complex.

Also within the study area, but in separate ownership, are examples of former Colt worker housing and other buildings associated

with Colt history.

The Colt revolver was a revolutionary weapon that changed military tactics and eventually made the sword obsolete in combat. It

was first produced in 1847, and it maintained its reputation

through the Civil War despite competition from other manufacturers.

Colt’s salesmanship was legendary, and the company grew due

to his marketing, advertising, and public relations skills. He began

construction of his first factory in Hartford in 1847. At the 1851

Crystal Palace Exhibition in London, Colt revolvers were displayed

and their interchangeability demonstrated a highlight of the American system of manufacturing.

Colt would continue to supply sidearms to the United States

military until 1985. Colt weapons were carried not only by the

American soldier on the frontier but were the personal weapon of

choice of cowboys, both famous and infamous.

Colt history complements that of Springfield Armory National

Historic Site, which is managed by the Park Service in Springfield,

Massachusetts, 25 miles north of Hartford. Originally, Springfield

Armory produced shoulder arms, while Colt made handguns. Later,

they worked together to bring the rapid-fire gun and, later, the machine gun into the inventories of the U.S. military.

In our 1998 Connecticut River Valley Special Resource Reconnaissance Study, we said, ‘‘Innovations stimulated by firearms

manufacture, notably mass production and the concept of interchangeable parts, had far-reaching consequences throughout American industry.’’ As the skills developed in firearms manufacture

were given broader application, the corridor between New Haven,

Connecticut, and Windsor, Vermont, became known as the ‘‘Precision Valley.’’

Developments in arms making translated to other metal-working

industries, such as sewing machines, typewriters, bicycles, railway

equipment, and clocks.

The study would be undertaken with the full involvement of representatives of the State of Connecticut, the City of Hartford, property owners in the study area, and other interested organizations

and individuals in the region.

Secondly, I would like to speak on H.R. 1113. This is a bill that

would authorize an exchange of land at Fort Frederica National

Monument in Georgia.

The Department also supports this bill, this land exchange, as

outlined in H.R. 1113. Although appraisals have not been done for

the two parcels, we expect that the value of the land received by

the Park Service will be more than the value of the land given up,

so there would be no need for land acquisition funding.

The Park Service would incur increased operational costs associated with the exchange because of the archeological value to the

park of the acquired lands. However, the amount of those costs

cannot be determined at this time until the significance of the resources present on the site is established by the Park Service. We

15

would also suggest a technical amendment to provide the identification information required for the map referenced in the bill.

H.R. 1113 would authorize the Secretary to convey to Christ

Church of St. Simons Island approximately 4.8 acres of land within

the boundary of Fort Frederica National Monument in exchange for

approximately 8.7 acres of land near Fort Frederica that will be acquired by Christ Church. Upon completion of the exchange, the

Secretary shall revise the boundary of the monument and

administer the land acquired through the exchange as part of the

monument.

Fort Frederica is located 12 miles northeast of Brunswick on St.

Simons Island. The monument’s authorized boundary contains 250

acres and preserves the remains of a fortified town established and

laid out by Governor James Oglethorpe in 1736 to defend against

invasion from Spanish colonies in Florida.

Fort Frederica was one of the earliest English settlements in

what ultimately became the State of Georgia, and it was established and planned by Oglethorpe. Fort Frederica was a prosperous

community of substantial homes whose residents were tradesmen

and farmers and supplied the garrison stationed there much the

same way communities provide goods and services to our current

military installations.

In 1739, Britain and Spain entered a war that eventually involved the fort. And after the 1748 treaty, Frederica’s military garrison was withdrawn, and the Town of Fort Frederica fell into decline. In 1758, a fire destroyed most of the existing structures.

The 8.7-acre site that Christ Church proposes to exchange for the

land at Fort Frederica contains archeological remains that have

been established to be from the colonial period. And in addition,

tradition indicates that the land includes General Oglethorpe’s

home. However, we are not aware currently of any archeological

survey that has been completed on this tract to positively determine if that is the case.

The main town site within the national monument contains several well-preserved and partially reconstructed colonial ruins.

There may be additional administrative and operational costs associated with protecting a small archeological site detached from the

main park unit, and it has not been determined if that cost is commensurate with the limited additional interpretive value of the site

if it only contains additional Frederica era resources but does not

include Oglethorpe’s home.

We understand that Representative Kingston may amend

H.R. 1113 to adjust the acreage figures of the land subject to the

exchange. We have prepared a land exchange map based on the

language currently in the bill and the existing surveys of the two

properties proposed for exchange.

We would be happy to prepare a new map, and we just would

like to work with Mr. Kingston closely to assure that the artifact

storage facility currently on Fort Frederica remains in the current

boundary.

That concludes my testimony. I would stand ready to answer any

questions that the Committee may have.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Taylor follow:]

16

Statement of Jeffrey Taylor, Assistant Director, Legislative and

Congressional Affairs, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior, on H.R. 437

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Committee

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 437. This bill would

direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a study of Coltsville, a site in Hartford, Connecticut, for potential inclusion in the National Park System.

The Department supports H.R. 437. The Coltsville study area includes nationallysignificant buildings including Armsmear, a National Historic Landmark, and structures that are part of the Colt Industrial National Register District. The history of

this site complements that of the Springfield Armory National Historic Site, a unit

of the National Park Service. Together they could show how innovations in the firearms industry laid the foundation for the American system of manufacturing. Only

through further investigation will it be possible to determine if some part of the

study area is feasible and suitable for inclusion in the National Park System, and

what role, if any, the National Park Service should play at this site. The study

should cost approximately $300,000 to complete.

The National Park Service is in various stages of progress with 40 studies previously authorized by Congress. At least 17 of those studies are scheduled to be completed in Fiscal Year 2003. Seven additional studies are expected to be completed

early in Fiscal Year 2004. Our highest priority is to complete the studies previously

authorized by Congress, but we expect to begin work on newly authorized studies

as soon as funds are available.

The bill directs the National Park Service to study the site commonly known as

‘‘Coltsville,’’ and its surrounding area within the City of Hartford, to evaluate its

national significance, suitability, and feasibility for designation as a unit of the National Park System. The bill also directs NPS to evaluate the importance of the site

to the history of precision manufacturing.

At the core of the Coltsville area, which is estimated at some 260-acres, is the

17-acre Coltsville Heritage Park. Recently acquired by a private developer from a

non-profit subsidiary of the Goodrich Corporation, this site contains ten historic

buildings, some of which are occupied by commercial, residential, and office tenants;

a number of artists also live and work in the complex. Also within the study area,

but in separate ownership, are examples of former Colt worker housing and other

buildings associated with Colt history. The potential study area borders Interstate

91, which parallels the Connecticut River, and is close to the central business district where the State Capitol and Museum of Connecticut State History are located.

The State Museum is a major repository of Colt-related artifacts and archives, as

is the Wadsworth Atheneum, a renowned museum also in the city center.

Samuel Colt was born in Hartford in 1814 and died there in 1862. He obtained

his first patent in 1836 and went on to found a company that is still in operation

today, although it moved from the historic armory to West Hartford, Connecticut

and is no longer owned by the Colt family. The Colt name is known throughout the

world. Colt firearms and other products have been used in every major conflict from

the U.S.–Mexican War to the present.

The Colt revolver was a revolutionary weapon that changed military tactics and

eventually made the sword obsolete in combat. First produced in 1847, it maintained its reputation through the Civil War despite competition from other manufacturers. Colt’s salesmanship was legendary, and the company grew due to his marketing, advertising, and public relations skills. He began construction of his first factory in Hartford in 1847. At the 1851 Crystal Palace Exhibition in London, Colt revolvers were displayed and their interchangeability demonstrated as a highlight of

the ‘‘American System of Manufacturing.’’ Colt was so impressed with his reception

in England that he would build a factory there, becoming the first American to set

up a manufacturing plant overseas.

The Hartford facility expanded in the mid–19th century. The armory’s distinctive

blue onion dome, a Hartford landmark visible from I–91, was built in 1855. In order

to attract laborers, Colt built a self-contained community surrounding the factory

at Coltsville that included housing, gardens, beer halls, and a band. A library and

school were established for the children of the workers, as well as a church and social hall. Many of these structures are still extant and are part of the Colt Industrial National Register District that was listed in 1976. The Colt family home,

Armsmear, a National Historic Landmark, and its surrounding grounds are situated

in Colt Park, abutting the armory site. The original factory burned in 1864, but was

rebuilt soon after.

17

Colt would continue to supply sidearms to the United States military until 1985.

Colt weapons were carried not only by the American soldier on the frontier, but

were the personal weapon of choice of cowboys, both famous and infamous.

Colt history complements that of Springfield Armory National Historic Site, which

is managed by the National Park Service in Springfield, Massachusetts, 25-miles

north of Hartford along the Connecticut River. Originally Springfield Armory produced shoulder arms while Colt made handguns. Later they worked together to

bring the rapid-fire gun and later the machine-gun into the inventories of the U.S.

military. But in 1961 Colt challenged Springfield Armory’s M14 rifle while promoting its competing AR–15, now known as the M16 rifle. This ultimately resulted

in the demise of Springfield Armory in 1968.

The Colt story is also the story of Elizabeth Colt, who took over the factory after

her husband’s death in 1862, and ran it successfully for another 39 years. The history of this remarkable woman is not well-known and should be included as part

of the study.

In our 1998 Connecticut River Valley Special Resource Reconnaissance Study, we

said, ‘‘innovations stimulated by firearms manufacture, notably mass production

and the concept of interchangeable parts, had far-reaching consequences throughout

American industry.’’ As the skills developed in firearms manufacture were given

broader application, the corridor between New Haven, Connecticut and Windsor,

Vermont became known as the ‘‘Precision Valley.’’ Developments in arms making

translated to other metal working industries, such as sewing machines, typewriters,

bicycles, railway equipment, and clocks.

The study would be undertaken with the full involvement of representatives of the

State of Connecticut, the City of Hartford, property owners in the study area, and

other interested organizations and individuals in the region.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This concludes my prepared remarks.

I would be glad to answer any questions that you or the members of the Committee

may have.

Statement of Jeffrey Taylor, Assistant Director, Legislative and

Congressional Affairs, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior, on H.R. 1113

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to present the Department’s views on H.R. 1113. This bill would authorize an exchange of land at Fort Frederica National Monument.

The Department supports an exchange of land between Christ Church Frederica

and Fort Frederica National Monument, as outlined in H.R. 1113, in accordance

with this testimony. Although appraisals have not been completed for the two parcels, we expect that the value of the land received by the National Park Service

(NPS) will be more than the value of the land given up so there will be no need

for land acquisition funding. The NPS would incur increased operational costs associated with the exchange because of the archeological value to the park of the acquired lands. However, the amount of those costs cannot be determined until the

significance of the resources present on the site NPS acquires is established. We

also suggest a technical amendment to provide the identification information required for the map referenced in the bill.

H.R. 1113 would authorize the Secretary to convey to Christ Church of St. Simons Island, Georgia approximately 4.8 acres of land within the boundary of Fort

Frederica National Monument in exchange for approximately 8.7 acres of land near

Fort Frederica that will be acquired by Christ Church. Upon completion of the exchange, the Secretary shall revise the boundary of Fort Frederica National Monument and administer the land acquired through the exchange as part of the monument.

Fort Frederica National Monument is located 12 miles northeast of Brunswick on

St. Simons Island, Georgia. The monument’s authorized boundary contains 250

acres and preserves the remains of a fortified town established and laid out by Governor James Oglethorpe in 1736 to defend against invasion from Spanish colonies

in Florida.

Fort Frederica was one of the earliest English settlements in what ultimately became the State of Georgia, preceded by Fort King George (1721), located near

Darien, Georgia, and the Cities of Savannah (1733) and Augusta (1735), also established and planned by Oglethorpe. Fort Frederica was a prosperous community of

substantial homes whose residents were tradesmen and farmers supplying the garrison stationed there much the same way communities provide goods and services

to military installations today. In 1739, Britain and Spain entered a war that

18

eventually involved Fort Frederica. After the 1748 treaty, Frederica’s military garrison was withdrawn and the Town of Fort Frederica fell into decline. In 1758, a fire

destroyed most of the existing structures.

Fort Frederica National Monument was established on May 26, 1936. Subsequent

legislation increased the authorized boundary to 250 acres and directed the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the Battle of Bloody Marsh memorial site on St.

Simons Island. Subject to the 250-acre limitation, the Secretary was also authorized

to acquire additional marshland acreage west of the Frederica River, across from

the National Monument, for additional protection of the historic scene.

On June 29, 1993, following a lengthy campaign involving the efforts and support

of the Trust for Public Land and many private citizens of St. Simons Island, Fort

Frederica acquired 28 acres of land, including river frontage on the south side of

the town site, that had been planned for a major marina development. This acquisition preserved the historic view of the river approach to Fort Frederica. The 4.8-

acre parcel that H.R. 1113 directs the Secretary to give to Christ Church is within

this 28-acre acquisition.

The 8.7-acre site that Christ Church proposes to exchange for the land at Fort

Frederica contains archeological remains that have been established to be from the

colonial period. Tradition indicates that the land includes General Oglethorpe’s

home, however we are unaware of any archeological survey work that has been completed on this tract to positively determine if this is the case.

The main town site within the National Monument contains several well-preserved and partially reconstructed colonial ruins. There may be additional administrative and operational costs associated with protecting a small archeological site

detached from the main park unit and it has not been determined if that cost is

commensurate with the limited additional interpretive value of the site if it only

contains additional Frederica era resources but does not include Oglethorpe’s home.

We understand that Representative Kingston may amend H.R. 1113 to adjust the

acreage figures of the land subject to the exchange. We have prepared a land exchange map based on the language currently in the bill and the existing surveys

of the two properties proposed for exchange. We would be happy to prepare a new

map, but want to work closely with Mr. Kingston in order to assure that the National Monument’s artifact storage facility and other buildings remain within the

current boundary of Fort Frederica and that the historic scene is protected. It also

would be important to ensure that the value of the lands exchanged does not require

land acquisition funding.

Our technical amendment to provide the map number, title, and date is attached

to this testimony.

That completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that you

or any members of the Subcommittee may have.

Proposed Amendment; H.R. 1113

On page 1, line 9, strike out everything starting with ‘‘Church and’’ through the

end of subsection (a) and replace it with the following:

‘‘Church and depicted as ‘‘NPS Lands for Exchange’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Fort

Frederica National Monument 2003 Boundary Revision’’, numbered 369/80016, and

dated March 2003, in exchange for the approximately 8.7 acres of land to be acquired by Christ Church, which is depicted as ‘‘Private Lands for Addition’’ on the

same map.’’

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I appreciate your testimony.

Next up is Mr. Bob Anderson from BLM, here to speak on

H.R. 272. Mr. Anderson, welcome to the Committee, and please

begin your testimony. And again, please try to keep to the 5-minute

clock.

STATEMENT OF BOB ANDERSON, ACTING ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR FOR MINERALS, REALTY, AND RESOURCE

PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here

today. The Forest Service has already addressed Section 1 of

H.R. 272, and I will now address Section 2.

19

The Bureau of Land Management supports Section 2 of

H.R. 272, which provides for the conveyance of the Maiden’s Grave

Cemetery near Beowawe, Nevada, to Eureka County. Approximately 10 acres would be conveyed to the county, which would

maintain the area as a cemetery. In addition, the Bureau of Land

Management would be required to grant access to the cemetery

across adjacent public land.

The Maiden’s Grave is the final resting place of Lucinda Duncan,

who, on August 15, 1863, died on her way to the gold and silver

fields of Nevada. Today, the site continues to receive occasional

burials. Therefore, it is considered a modern cemetery and does not

qualify for the National Register of Historic Places.

The BLM, through its planning process, has identified the cemetery as suitable for disposal, and the county has indicated a strong

interest in taking responsibility for this parcel.

We appreciate this opportunity to work with local interests to the

betterment of the community. We would like the opportunity to

work with Congressman Gibbons and the Subcommittee to address

technical issues, including modifications to the reversionary clause,

clarification of timing on the transfer of the lands, specificity on the

access route, and to assure that the mineral estate is conveyed

along with the land.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

Statement of Bob Anderson, Acting Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty

and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, on H.R. 272,

Eureka County, Nevada Land Conveyance

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. H.R. 272 provides for the

conveyance of two cemeteries in Nevada to Lander and Eureka counties. I will confine my comments to section two of the bill and defer to the Forest Service on section one. The BLM supports section two of H.R. 272 which provides for the conveyance of the ‘‘Maiden’s Grave Cemetery’’ near Beowawe, Nevada (Bay-o-wah’-wee) to

Eureka County, Nevada. Approximately 10 acres would be conveyed to the county

which would maintain the area as a cemetery. In addition, the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) would be required to grant access to the cemetery across adjacent public land.

‘‘The Maiden’s Grave’’ is the final resting place of Lucinda Duncan who on

August 15, 1863, died on her way to the gold and silver fields of Nevada. Mrs. Duncan at 71 was ‘‘the mother of the wagon train’’ which consisted largely of her seven

surviving children, their spouses and a multitude of grandchildren. Following her

death, the wagon train held a ceremony and their leaving was memorialized by a

member of the party:

‘‘...we paid our last debt & respect to the remains of the departed mother.

There upon that wild & lonely spot, we left her, until Gabriel shall sound

his trumpet in the last day. The scene was truly a sad one to leave a

beloved mother on the wild and desolate plains. A board with the name of

the deceased was put up at the head & boulder was laid over the grave to

keep wolves from scratching in it. After this the train moved on.’’

Today, the site continues to receive occasional burials. Therefore, it is considered

a ‘‘modern cemetery’’ and does not qualify for the National Register of Historic

Places. The BLM, through its planning process, has identified the cemetery as suitable for disposal and the county has indicated a strong interest in taking responsibility for this parcel.

While we would typically expect to receive market value for such a transfer, we

understand the unique circumstances in this case, and the unique needs of Eureka

County. Under other circumstances, we might have considered a Recreation and

Public Purposes (R&PP) Act conveyance to lower the cost to the county, but the

need for permanency in this transfer prevents this from being a viable option, thus

the need for legislative intervention.

20

We appreciate this opportunity to work cooperatively with local interests to the

betterment of the community. We would like the opportunity to work with Congressman Gibbons and the Subcommittee to address technical issues including: modifications to the reversionary clause, clarification of timing on the transfer of the lands,

specificity on the access route, and to assure that the mineral estate is conveyed

along with the land.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Appreciate your testimony.

I will now begin to open up for questions for the members, and

each one will have 5 minutes to ask questions. I am going to defer

to Mr. Gibbons. Jim, if you want to go ahead and start, you have

my 5 minutes.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your generosity. And I would like to ask Ms. Manning, first

of all, when did you come to the Forest Service?

Ms. MANNING. In 1979.

Mr. GIBBONS. And you were with the Forest Service in the year

2000?

Ms. MANNING. Yes.

Mr. GIBBONS. And what was your job title in 2000?

Ms. MANNING. I was associate deputy chief for business operations, I think.

Mr. GIBBONS. All right.

Ms. MANNING. I think that is what I was.

Mr. GIBBONS. Ms. Manning, let me bring you up to date. Because

you were obviously in the Forest Service during this period of time

but may not have had the direct contact during this 2000 timeframe that you mentioned in your testimony with regard to this

parcel of land in Kingston, Nevada.

In your testimony, you suggested that since 2000 or at 2000, the

Town of Kingston changed its mind regarding the need for more

than 1.25 acres, and I would suggest to you that that is not true.

1970, the township and the Forestry Department agreed that 10

acres was the adequate size of the parcel of land for this.

Having talked to the representatives of the Town of Kingston

just last week, they have not revised their need for 10 acres, and

they have not revised it down to 1.25 from the 10 acres that they

had originally had. But rather, it was the United States Forest

Service that decided that the town did not require the 10 acres,

and the town respectfully disagrees with you on that issue.

The Town of Kingston did not believe that the 1.25 acres was

adequate, as the Forest Service and your testimony claims, but

rather that that 1.25 acres was the maximum acreage that the

United States Forest Service was willing to sell the town. And it

was the Forest Service that judged that the 1.25 acres was adequate, not the Town of Kingston.

The Forest Service has been willing to allow the Town of Kingston to hold the 10 acres for nearly 30 years. And despite recently

revising the permit to reduce the site to 1.25 acres, the United

States Forest Service has already agreed that it would be willing

to sell the 8.75 remaining acres to the Town of Kingston, but only

at fair market value or trade for appropriate land.

Now we are back to where your testimony was. Let me ask you

a question. Do you agree or on the basis of the United States

21

Forest Service that the 8.75 acres which is the subject of this bill

is needed or not needed for proper management of the United

States Forest Service lands in that area? Is it on the disposal list

is what I am asking?

Ms. MANNING. As far as I know, it is not on the disposal list.

Mr. GIBBONS. Is it needed as part of the adequate management

of the Toiyabe National Forest in that area?

Ms. MANNING. I would have to confer with the district ranger

there and find out if it is actually needed.

Mr. GIBBONS. But you are saying that you are willing to sell it?

Ms. MANNING. What we strive to do in the Forest Service, if the

county indicates that there is a need for this land for its cemetery,

then we will entertain that because of the need being a greater

public need.

Mr. GIBBONS. So here it is, the City of Kingston, Nevada, has indicated that it needed 10 acres, and it has needed 10 acres since

1970. You agreed in 1970 that 10 acres was the adequate size because you put it under a special use permit for them as a cemetery.

Today, you are saying they only need 1.25. They say they still

need the 10 acres. Adequate parking, growth of a cemetery, which

is the inevitability of all of us on this earth. And you are disagreeing that they only need 1.25 versus 10 acres. Is that what you

are saying today?

Ms. MANNING. No, what I am saying is they have not come to

us since that time asking for additional usage. And we do have a

letter from them saying that is all they needed. And since that

time—Mr. GIBBONS. What is the date of the letter, and would you submit it for the testimony in the record, please?

Ms. MANNING. Yes, I will. It is October 1, 1999.

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. So that was the reason why it came back. But

you stated also that you only permitted 1.25 acres to be the maximum that you would sell them. And they said they could get along

with that for $500.

Ms. MANNING. That I am not sure of. I will have to check the

records to see that we said that.

Mr. GIBBONS. I would like to see a copy of that letter as well.

One thing I want to ask for is what is the fair market value, Ms.

Manning, of a cemetery?

Ms. MANNING. I don’t know that. We would have to have it appraised. But we think it is approximately $6,000, based on what we

know, but we haven’t had it appraised.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, my time is up.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You are on a roll. You don’t want to continue,

or you need another couple of minutes, Jim? We can go around,

and everybody can have their 5 minutes and come back.

Mr. GIBBONS. Why don’t I let others ask the questions, and I will

come back and fill in?

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Great. I yield to Mrs. Christensen for 5

minutes.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I would be willing to allow my colleague, Mr. Larson, to go

ahead of me if he had a few questions, and I reserve my time,

though.

22

Mr. LARSON. I just have a point.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.

I just simply want to thank the National Park Service for coming

forward and testifying so eloquently with regard to this need, and

I would yield back. And again, thank both you and the Chairman

for the courtesies that you have shown us today.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK? OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I would start with Ms. Manning. Just one question. On

the Forest Service parcel, Section 1D requires that the Secretary

grant an easement over a specific forest development road, and it

says, ‘‘Notwithstanding any future closing of the road for other

use.’’

Are you comfortable with that language, and doesn’t this effectively mean that the Forest Service would never be able to close

that road?

Ms. MANNING. Well, we don’t interpret it as never because we

usually work with the county for safety and health reasons if there

is a need to close it. But we would confer with the county on things

like that. And with that understanding, we are comfortable with it.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Even though the legislation said ‘‘notwithstanding any future closing of the road for other use’’? I mean, that

is how it is written.

Ms. MANNING. We would— Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. It seems pretty clear. Would you be uncomfortable leaving that road open? I mean, not having the complete

authority to close that road because the legislation says that it cannot be closed?

Ms. MANNING. Well, we always like to work with the community

to modify so that if there are safety reasons or health reasons— Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Right.

Ms. MANNING. And usually, in the past, when we have worked

with the counties, they will agree to allow us to close it under those

conditions.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Thanks.

I guess I would go to Mr. Anderson next. In your testimony, you

said that BLM might have considered accomplishing the conveyance in H.R. 272 under Recreation and Public Purposes Act, but

that the need for permanency prevented that from being a viable

option.

If it had been conveyed under RPPA, the Federal Government

would have received compensation, which is not the case under the

legislation before us. Could you expand on why the RPPA was not

a viable alternative to legislating this transfer?

Mr. ANDERSON. It would be a viable alternative, actually, if the

county were willing to pay 50 percent of the fair market value.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Does the permanency relate to that in

any way?

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, under the R&PP Act, there is a reverter

clause always. And under H.R. 272, I know there is, you have built

in a reverter.

To be real candid, I am not sure that a reverter is necessary

here. And if there is a reverter, we would want it to be discretionary because before we take something back in ownership, we

23

would want to make sure that the land is clear of encumbrances

or hazardous materials.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. So you answered a part of my next question.

So the other technical issues that you mentioned beside the reverter clause is a clarification of timing on the transfer of lands,

the specificity on the access route, and the issue—the last one, I

think, was regarding conveyance of the mineral estate.

Could you just expand on each of those for me, please? The timing, the specificity on the access route, the conveyance of mineral.

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, on the timing, since there is no deadline in

H.R. 272 in terms of granting the parcel to the county, BLM would

do a National Environmental Policy Act, a NEPA document, probably an environmental assessment. We would also have cultural

surveys in there, as well as threatened and endangered species inventories. And that takes time.

Although I don’t think it would take much time, that is why we

would have to work with our field office to see what timeframe we

would be talking about on that one.

In terms of the access, the county road is adjacent to the 10-acre

parcel. And if you were to look at a map, there doesn’t appear to

be access off the county road. And if the county would desire, we

would grant an easement. I am not sure it is necessary. But if they

would like that insurance, we could accommodate that.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK.

Mr. ANDERSON. In terms of the mineral interests, actually it is

just a reiteration that the mineral estate would go with the conveyance. It wouldn’t be practical, I don’t think, to reserve the minerals

here. We don’t think it has potential for mineral development, and

of course, we wouldn’t want to be interfering with the purposes for

the cemetery either.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Let me see if I can get a question in for

Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor, in your testimony, you said that if the parcel the

NPS is to acquire didn’t contain General Oglethorpe’s home, it

would have limited interpretive value. Doesn’t it make sense to do

the archeological survey to establish whether this is the Oglethorpe

site before we acquire it?

Mr. TAYLOR. It is my understanding there have been some limited archeological studies done already that does indicate there are

some resources from the Fort Frederica area. So it does already include some valuable resource areas.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Would it be—

Mr. TAYLOR. It would be advantageous to have an archeological

appraisal done to see if, in fact, this is the site that the Governor

had his home located on. That is what—

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But if it was not the home, would the site

have equal interpretive value? Would it make the exchange—

Mr. TAYLOR. It would probably have less interpretive value, but

it still does have interpretive value at this—from what we know

about the site already.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So if that was not there and you were asked

to do the exchange, you would still support the exchange?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is correct.

24

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. My time is up.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Donna.

Jack, did you want to be recognized? I recognize Mr. Kingston for

5 minutes.

Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to say Mr. Taylor had mentioned that we need to

amend the bill because of the acreage point, and we are certainly

all in agreement with any kind of technical amendment to that nature, and we are all on the same page.

Also, Mr. Chairman, if I might use some time. Unfortunately, I

have a 3 leadership meeting at the Capitol that I am going to have

to leave. So I am not going to be able to introduce Senator Mattingly, but I trust that he is going to be in good hands with this

distinguished bipartisan Committee. If not, I know I am going to

hear from him on it.

[Laughter.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. We will take good care of him,

Jack. Don’t worry.

Ms. Bordallo, would you like to address? No questions?

Ms. BORDALLO. No questions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Thank you. Then I recognize Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to a line of questioning that Mrs. Christensen

started off with, which is the closure of the road from Kingston to

the cemetery. Do you know how far it is from the town site of Kingston to the cemetery?

Ms. MANNING. I don’t know the exact mileage.

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you have a guesstimate?

Ms. MANNING. No, I don’t.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, I can tell you I have a map sitting in front

of me, a survey map that shows the 1.25 acres within the 10-acre

boundary limitation that they have asked for, or the original permit. And that shows right at about 249.18 feet.

Now, if you want to close a road for a certain reason, would you

close a road that is 249.18 feet from the city limits to their cemetery?

Ms. MANNING. As I stated earlier, only if it is for safety and, you

know, or health reasons, and we don’t—

Mr. GIBBONS. Can you imagine, in the comfort of your chair

while you sit there, a safety reason that would indicate that you

would close a road for that length of time?

Ms. MANNING. At the moment, no. But if there is some outbreak

of something and—

Mr. GIBBONS. OK.

Ms. MANNING. But normally, no. And if we did, we wouldn’t do

it without conferring with the county.

Mr. GIBBONS. Now, you have indicated that the Forest Service is

willing to sell the City of Kingston this property at fair market

value, which you have established ball park figure of around

$6,000, somewhere in there?

Ms. MANNING. But that is just a guess.

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. That suggests to this Committee that you are

willing to part with this property because it is not needed for the

25

real management of the Toiyabe Humboldt National Forest

System.

How large would you tell this Committee is the Toiyabe Humboldt forest system? How big? How many acres?

Ms. MANNING. I don’t know.

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you have a guess?

Ms. MANNING. No, I don’t. I would rather not. But— Mr. GIBBONS. Is it more than 6 million acres?

Ms. MANNING. No, it isn’t.

Mr. GIBBONS. Is it less than 6 million?

Ms. MANNING. Yes, it is.

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. So you know its approximate size?

Ms. MANNING. I don’t know. I would rather not go on record as

saying how big it is because— Mr. GIBBONS. OK. Is it bigger than 1,000 acres?

Ms. MANNING. Yes, it is.

Mr. GIBBONS. Is it bigger than 100,000 acres?

Ms. MANNING. If you are going to make me guess, I would think

it is less than a million acres.

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. So we are talking about 1/10,000 of a percent

of the land which would be conveyed. So, obviously, you have got

a large Forest Service area out there, and we are talking 10 acres

right next to this town site that has been used for a cemetery.

When would the Forest Service ever issue a special use permit

for a permanent use?

Ms. MANNING. Well, normally, we issue special use for 20 years,

and I think that is about the max. But it can be renewed. And so,

in essence, it ends up being permanent. But it is reissued, taking

into consideration the public needs at that particular time.

Mr. GIBBONS. A cemetery would definitely be a public permanent

use?

Ms. MANNING. Right. And likely we would issue a special use

permit for what they needed for as long as they needed.

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. And that is fine. And I just want you to know

that, you know, I am not here to put you in a trap. I am not here

to get the Forest Service to commit to something they haven’t already done, which they have done.

What would you do if, at the end of those 20 years, the City of

Kingston said to the Forest Service, ‘‘We no longer want the cemetery. We want you to go out there and maintain those grave sites.

We want you to maintain that road. And we want you to be responsible for all of those grave sites.’’ What would you do at that point

in time?

Ms. MANNING. It would revert back, and we would, within the

fiscal ability we had, we would take care of it.

Mr. GIBBONS. So you are saying that if you don’t want to do this,

they can’t buy it, the Forest Service would be willing to maintain

that cemetery in perpetuity?

Ms. MANNING. We would have no choice if it reverted back to us.

But what we are saying is on the authorities that we have, we can

convey it. But it is only on that authority which is for fair market

value.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, this bill mandates that you bypass that

authority because that authority was granted by Congress or

26

mandated by Congress, and we can grant that authority to bypass

that, can we not?

Ms. MANNING. Yes, you can.

Mr. GIBBONS. And that is what this bill does.

Ms. MANNING. If the bill is passed, sir, we would— Mr. GIBBONS. So the Forest Service merely wants $6,000 out of

a very small community that probably doesn’t have the financial

means at this point in time to pay for the 10 acres for its cemetery?

Ms. MANNING. It is a matter of our implementing the acts as

they are. And at the moment, the only authority that we have exists within the Townsite Act.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, Mr. Chairman, one final question for Ms.

Manning, and then I will let her go because I know she has got

a lot of other things to deal with.

Is your only complaint with this bill that it requires you to convey that 8.75 acres at zero cost to you, at no cost to you, versus

the fair market value? Is that your only complaint with Section 1?

Ms. MANNING. It is that complaint and the fact that, and within

our records, we have documentation that the town no longer needs

that acreage.

Mr. GIBBONS. All right. If I can get you a statement from the

township, from the leadership of Kingston Township that they actually wanted the 10 acres and have always wanted the 10 acres,

your only complaint then would be that they are asking for it free?

Ms. MANNING. And the precedent that that would set.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I could stay here and issue these

comments until we actually got the land out of them by forcing

them to sit here. But I won’t do that to this Committee.

Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.

Mrs. Christensen for 5 minutes?

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. And I hope I won’t take that

long.

I had a few more questions for Mr. Taylor. The site in H.R. 1113

is a small, detached site. What are the other uses surrounding that

site, and what are the costs that you associate with administering

a detached site like that?

Mr. TAYLOR. I am sorry. The first part was what other— Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. What is surrounding— Mr. TAYLOR. My understanding is that one portion of the land,

or it is included in a larger portion that is currently owned by Sea

Island Plantation that is an undeveloped site. And I am not sure

of the actual acreage of that particular site.

And then on the other side that is actually contiguous with Fort

Frederica, it is a small residential neighborhood.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. What are the costs that would be associated with administering a small site that is detached from the

other—

Mr. TAYLOR. There could certainly— Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Because I think in your testimony, you also

say that you weren’t sure that the cost to administer would be justified if the Oglethorpe house was not on that property.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, it actually seems that the costs for oversight

of that particular land will actually increase if it turns out that

27

that is where Governor Oglethorpe had his home, simply because

there will be more resources that will need to be protected. So

there may be some fencing needs that would need to be taken— Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But then the interpretive value if the home

was, indeed, there would be worth— Mr. TAYLOR. It would justify a higher cost.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And if it were not there, the cost to administer would be justified with the lesser interpretive value?

Mr. TAYLOR. I am not exactly sure what costs are going to be incurred. But there would certainly be, you know, a ranger is going

to need to go by and check on the site on a regular basis. There

may need to be some fencing even if Oglethorpe’s home does not

show up on that property.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. I just have one other short question.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, ma’am?

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. You also said that you had some concern

about the proposed alterations to the exchange. Is there some question that those changes could include the service facilities, National

Park Service facilities?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think there was actually some confusion on our

part as our understanding is that the parcel that the Christ

Church wants does not include the curator’s facility— Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Right.

Mr. TAYLOR. —or any of the other maintenance facilities that we

have in that corner of Fort Frederica. And as long as it doesn’t,

then we are totally supportive of the exchange.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. But you are not clear what the alterations might— Mr. TAYLOR. It seemed that there seemed to be some confusion,

frankly, between Congressman Kingston’s office and ours as to

what the land looked like. But our understanding was that the 4.7

acres did not include and does not include any of our supporting

facilities.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And would not include.

Mr. TAYLOR. And would not include. That is correct.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Any other questions for the panel?

[No response.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. If not, thank you very much for coming. And

with that, we will call up our third panel. Thank you.

Next is the Honorable Mack Mattingly, former U.S. senator from

the State of Georgia, from St. Simons, Georgia, and also Mr. Robert

Kohn, chief operating officer from the Colt Gateway LLC in Hartford, Connecticut.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question—

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes.

Mr. GIBBONS. —to the Chairman? Assuming that I get this letter

of statement of fact from the City of Kingston with regard to the

need for 10 acres versus the 1.25 acres, would it be appropriate to

submit that to the Committee for inclusion into the record— Mr. RADANOVICH. Absolutely.

Mr. GIBBONS. —when that arrives. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. No objection at all.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you.

28

[The letter from the Kingston Town Board submitted for the

record follows:]

29

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Welcome to the Subcommittee. Senator Mattingly, welcome. And on behalf of Jack Kingston, too, I

want to welcome you and assure you that we will take very good

care of you.

And if you would like to begin your testimony on the Fort Frederica issue, please begin to do so.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MACK MATTINGLY, FORMER U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Senator MATTINGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking

Member Christensen.

Having sat on both sides, this is the first time I have ever testified. But I was a Subcommittee Chairman for 6 years on Appropriations, and some Committee meetings are painless and some are

painful. So sometimes I know how you feel.

But it is my pleasure to be here today in order to testify before

you in regards to H.R. 1113. As a Vestry member of Christ

Church, Frederica, it has been my task to try to assist our church

in trying to obtain a land exchange between Fort Frederica and the

church that would benefit both parties.

I sincerely believe that we have accomplished this with the legislation now before you. This effort was started several years ago.

But with the assistance of Congressman Kingston that he and I

started in actually March of 2002, we have arrived at a solution

with H.R. 1113, when the acreage stated is amended to read 6.0

acres and not 4.8 acres.

Christ Church has agreed with the Sea Island Company to exchange approximately 23.124 acres of Christ Church land for 8.69

acres of land that the Sea Island Company owns that is noted, and

has been for years, as the Oglethorpe site.

And we now want to exchange the Oglethorpe site of 8.69 acres

designated by the Shupe Surveying Company, dated September

19th in the year 2000, for 6.0 acres of land as designated by the

Shupe Surveying Company, dated December 20, 1999.

The land that we exchange to Sea Island will be usable to them,

whereas the land that we obtain from Sea Island would not be usable by them because of its historical value. Anybody that has been

involved in land and properties and exchanges of historical value

knows that you cannot build on something that has historical

value.

And Christ Church itself has doubled in size in the last 9 years,

and the additional land is really needed for its expansion. That 6.0

acres that is adjacent to Christ Church owned by Fort Frederica

National Monument does not detract from the national monument

and is a perfect site for the church. But in addition, the 8.69 acres

that Fort Frederica National Monument will acquire is not only

larger, but it is a historical site that is contiguous to the monument

and is no doubt of great value.

James Oglethorpe, as many have stated, briefly occupied this

8.69 acres as his homestead. Now, preservation of such sites, as

they are really nonrenewable resources, should be protected by the

Park Service from damage and destruction and also preserved for

future scientists and the public.

30

The Oglethorpe site was on around 300 acres with probably only

about 50 acres of high ground, and the balance of that was marsh.

And this site really has a really great scientific value and potential,

and it deserves to be protected and nominated for inclusion in the

National Record of Historic Places. I believe that public access and

damage to this site can be reduced by deeding it to the Federal

Government.

And I think, as Mr. Taylor testified, that it does have value even

if Oglethorpe hadn’t been there because it is an historical site. And

in the larger issue, the National Park Service gets a greater land

area in this exchange, and it is contiguous with the Park Service.

And as far as the change from 4.7 to 6.0 acres, the original 4.7

acres had in it a government building, and it was really the National Park Service that came to the assistance of the church to say

that to make this a 6-acre site and cut that building out of that

site. So as a former 1985 Georgia conservation of the year, which

few people acquire that title in the State of Georgia as a representative, I ask consideration by this Committee to approve this legislation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Mattingly follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Mack Mattingly, a U.S. Senator from the State

of Georgia, Retired, St. Simons, Georgia, on H.R. 1113

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here today in order to testify before you regards to H.R. 1113. As a Vestry member of Christ Church, Federica, it has been

my task to assist our church in trying to obtain a land exchange between Fort

Federica and the church that would benefit both parties. I sincerely believe we have

accomplished this with the legislation now before you. This effort was started some

several years ago, but with the assistance of Congressman Kingston that he and I

started in March of 2002 we have arrived at a solution with H.R. 1113 when the

acreage states is amended to read 6.0 acres not 4.8 acres.

Christ Church has agreed with Sea Island Company of Sea Island, Georgia to exchange approximately 23.124 acres of land that belong to Christ Church for 8.69

acres of land Sea Island owns, that is noted as the Oglethorpe site. We now want

to exchange the General Oglethorpe site of 8.69 acres designated by Shupe Surveying Co., PPC dated 9/19/00 for 6.0 acres of land Ft. Federica, as designated by

Shupe Surveying Co. dated 12/20/99. The land we exchange to Sea Island will be

useable for them, whereas the land we receive from Sea Island would not be because

of its historical value.

Christ Church has doubled in size in the last 9 years and the additional land is

needed for its expansion. The 6.0 acres that is adjacent to Christ Church owned by

Ft. Federica National Monument does not detract from the National Monument, and

is a perfect site of the church, but in addition the 8.69 acres that Fort Federica National Monument will acquire is not only larger, but is a historical site that is contiguous to the monument and is no doubt of great value.

James Oglethorpe as many have stated, briefly occupied this 8.69 acre area as his

homestead. Preservation of such sites, as they are non-renewable resources, should

be protected by the Park Service from damage and destruction and also preserved

for future scientists and the public. The Oglethorpe site was on the around 300

acres with probably on 50 acres of high ground and the balance of the marsh. This

site has great scientific potential and deserves to be protected and nominated for

inclusion in the National Record of Historic Places. Deeding it to the Federal Government should reduce public access and damage to the site.

Thank you for your time and attention to this testimony Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Senator.

Next up will be Mr. Robert Kohn, who is the Colt Gateway

Chairman of the LLC. Mr. Kohn, welcome to the Committee, and

we will look forward to your testimony.

31

STATEMENT OF ROBERT KOHN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,

COLT GATEWAY LLC

Mr. KOHN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee.

It is an honor to be here today and to share with you some of

the many attributes of both Samuel and Elizabeth Colt and the legacy that they left behind for all of us to share.

I have a written statement that I would ask unanimous consent

from the Committee to have inserted in the record and would ask

your permission to briefly summarize the highlights of that document for your convenience.

Mr. RADANOVICH. There being no objection, so ordered.

Mr. KOHN. Thank you. My name is Robert Kohn. I am the chief

operating officer for the parent company, Homes For America Holdings, Inc., that owns this incredible 17-acre site known as Coltsville

in Hartford, Connecticut.

I would like to highlight some of the many salient points that

make Coltsville a truly unique candidate for National Park Service

status.

Samuel Colt, born in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814, was a man

of extraordinary drive and vision. At the age of 22, he received his

first patent and founded a company that helped lead America into

the industrial revolution.

At the age of 33, he started the construction of the Coltsville factory, crowning it with its nationally recognized blue onion dome in

1855. Sam Colt created an entire village around the factory, including gardens, schools, housing, a library, social halls, and a church

in order to attract skilled labor to his factory.

Sam Colt died in 1862. And 2 years later, the factory burned to

the ground. By all rights, this should have been the end of the

story. But, in fact, it is the beginning of another fascinating story,

the mostly untold story that matches any of the lessons we have

studied in American history about the great industrialists of our

Nation.

It was 10 years after Sam Colt’s death that the gun that won the

West, the Colt .45 Peacemaker, was developed and produced. It

was the latter part of the 19th century, well after Sam Colt’s death,

that saw Coltsville’s greatest prosperity.

So with the death of Samuel Colt and destruction by fire of his

plant shortly thereafter, who was responsible for the rebirth of

Coltsville? And who was responsible for the most famous of the

Colt handguns being produced?

Who guided Coltsville for 40 years after Sam’s death into a period of tremendous financial success? And finally, who kept the factory on the cutting edge of technology all of this time? One

person—his wife, Elizabeth Colt, perhaps America’s first and foremost national and international industrialist.

The story of Sam and Elizabeth Colt needs to be told. The impact

of the manufacturing techniques used at Colt needs to be shown.

Henry Ford visited Coltsville to learn more about combining quality and quantity in production. Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts became known as Precision Valley, based on exacting

quality in manufacturing. Bicycles, sewing machines, cars, jet

32

engines, clocks, and typewriters have been built using manufacturing skills learned at Coltsville.

Sam and Elizabeth Colt were gun manufacturers, first and foremost. Colt firearms have served this Country well through countless battles and in lands near and far. But the legacy that the Colt

family has left us to preserve is not just their firearms, but the

proof that in America, with hard work, dedication, and drive, man

or woman alike can achieve greatness and bring about significant

change and improvements to a business, an industry, and to the

overall quality of life for all.

Elizabeth Colt did all that against all odds and at a time when

a woman in the workplace was a rarity. I hope you all agree that

Coltsville has a multifaceted story to be told, replete with a hero

and heroine.

Creation of a national park of any size is an ongoing formidable

financial commitment by the government. We at Coltsville know

and understand this, and we are committed to help. Here are a few

of the possibilities.

The proposed park could encompass the entire 17-acre site of

Coltsville with both public and private space, gardens, museums,

visitor center, and a tour of the dome. All of the buildings of

Coltsville are being renovated and/or restored to national landmark

specifications currently.

Space for the visitors center containing original steam-driven pistons for the factory, access to the blue onion dome, as well as museum space in one or two of the oldest buildings on the site—those

being the foundry and/or polishing buildings—could be available to

the public. The owners of Coltsville are spending in excess of $100 million

to restore Coltsville, thereby minimizing the need for National

Park Service’s capital outlays. We hope that this Subcommittee will

recommend to the Secretary of the Interior that a formal study of

this site be conducted for inclusion of Coltsville as part of the National Park System.

With what Coltsville represents historically to this Country, along with the stories of Samuel and Elizabeth Colt, with $100 million investment we are making privately, and with its proximity to

the Springfield Armory and the Lowell, Massachusetts, park, I am

sure this would be an invaluable addition to the National Park

System and a site that would be visited by many people across the

United States and afar for years to come.

Thank you all for your time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kohn follows:]

Statement of Robert M. Kohn, Chief Operating Officer,

Colt Gateway LLC, Hartford, Connecticut

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Committee to present the

views of Colt Gateway LLC and Homes For America Holdings, Inc. on H.R. 437.

This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the site

commonly known as ‘‘Coltsville’’ in the State of Connecticut for potential inclusion

in the National Park System.

An Introduction

As the Chief Operating Officer of Colt Gateway LLC, a subsidiary of Homes For

America Holdings, Inc., I strongly support a study to include Coltsville in the National Park System. Coltsville’s national significance, suitability and feasibility for

designation as well as the importance of the site to the historic preservation of an

33

American legacy make this site an ideal candidate for inclusion in the National

Park System. In my opinion, there are few more deserving locations for the National

Park designation than Coltsville. Coltville’s fascinating history, its impact on innovation and American history, its positioning as the home of Elizabeth Colt as one

of the first female industrialists, the site’s compatibility with other nearby National

Parks and the momentum, planning and financing currently in place to make this

Park a reality’’ all are persuasive grounds for supporting this study.

The Coltsville Study Area

Coltsville is a 17-acre community in Hartford, Connecticut built around Samuel

and Elizabeth Colt’s firearms factory during the Industrial Revolution of the 19th

century. Currently owned and operated by Colt Gateway LLC, the site itself contains ten historic buildings, portions of which are occupied by both commercial and

residential tenants, including a large number of artists who live and work in the

complex. Colt Gateway LLC is currently conducting a substantial $102 million historic rehabilitation and preservation of the site, in full accordance with national historic standards. The East Armory building within the site, with its landmark red

brick building and distinctive blue onion dome, would serve as the ideal center for

the Park

Easily accessible from Interstates 91 and 84, Coltsville runs parallel to the nearby

Connecticut River and is within walking distance of the Hartford central business

district. Within the immediate area are former buildings that housed Colt workers

as well as splendid Victorian homes such as Armsmear, which served as the home

of Samuel and Elizabeth Colt and is now a National Historic Landmark. Other attractions in the immediate area help to make Coltsville even more of a destination,

including the houses of Mark Twain and Harriet Beecher Stowe, the Museum of

American Political Life, the Colt Memorial and of course the riverfront. Other significant nearby attractions include the State Capitol, the Museum of Connecticut

State History and the Wadsworth Atheneum museum, which stores vast collections

of Colt-related artifacts and archives.

A Brief History of Coltsville

Samuel Colt, born in Hartford in 1814, lived the life of a legend. With his first

patent in 1836, he founded a company that played a leading role in the Industrial

Revolution. Construction of the Coltsville factory began in 1847 and expanded

throughout the mid–19th century, including the construction in 1855 of the armory’s distinctive blue onion dome, a Hartford landmark visible from I–91. In order to attract laborers, Colt built a self-contained community surrounding the factory that

included housing, gardens, and entertainment halls as well as a library, school,

church and social hall. Many of the structures still exist today and are part of the

Colt Industrial National Register District that was listed in 1976.

Samuel Colt died in 1862, and two years later the factory burned to the ground.

In a fascinating example of one of this country’s first female industrialists, Elizabeth Colt took over the factory and ran it successfully for another 40 years. In fact,

Samuel Colt’s most recognized accomplishment, the Colt 45 Peacemaker, was not actually developed or manufactured until ten years after his death. Elizabeth presided

over the company during its most prosperous years, in a period when men dominated the industrial world. Her significant contributions to American industrialism

make Coltsville distinct from other historical sites and establish a broader base than

the history of munitions manufacture. This is a place where a dynamic woman

seized the helm of her husband’s company, steering it to ongoing success through

the manufacture of innovations that changed the face of American history. Elizabeth

Colt gives the site a central story, broad utility, a greater audience and a compelling

reason to visit.

Coltsville Innovation & Impact on American History

Coltsville is most known as the birthplace of a concept that transformed the firearm from a single shot device into a multiple shot device and changed the course

of American economic and military history. The Colt revolver was a revolutionary

weapon that changed military tactics and eventually made all weapons that came

before it obsolete in combat.

Coltsville’s unique and considerable impact on Connecticut and New England is

clear. The skills developed in firearms manufacture were given broader application

here. Developments in arms-making influenced other metalworking industries, such

as sewing machines, typewriters, bicycles, automobiles, railway equipment, jet

engines and clocks. Early industrial leaders like Henry Ford came to Coltsville to

learn the innovative manufacturing techniques and equipment being developed in

the area. The corridor between New Haven, Connecticut and Windsor, Vermont became known as ‘‘Precision Valley.’’

34

In addition to the impact on Connecticut and New England, Coltsville’s impact in

America and abroad cannot be understated. As the first American to set up a foreign manufacturing plant, Samuel Colt’s influence was extended overseas. Ambitious entrepreneurs with big ideas, Elizabeth and Samuel were willing to take risks

and work hard to shape the future and to reap the rewards. In doing so they have

powered American capitalism. The Colt legacy is not just about firearms, but also

about industrial innovation and the development of technology and a system of

manufacturing that would change the way of life in the United States. That same

spirit of innovation today powers all of American industry and can be seen in such

sectors as information technology, medical research, biotechnology, defense technology, public relations and many others.

Today, the Colt name is known throughout the world. Colt firearms and other

products have been used in every major conflict—from the U.S.–Mexican War to the

present. As such they have been an integral factor in the security, confidence and

self-reliance of this country. The impact on Coltsville in this arena confirms our conviction that Coltsville should be designated a National Park.

The National Park: A Preliminary Plan

A national park at Coltsville would ideally encompass all seventeen acres of the

Coltsville site and would include both public and private space. The centerpiece

would be a visitor center within the armory, including original steam-driven pistons

and the accessible blue onion dome that provides 360 views of Hartford, the Connecticut River and surrounding areas. Coincidentally, this armory already houses a

business that manufactures replica Colt firearms, which would only enhance the

proposed museum. The interactive museum could be housed in Building 8 and/or 10,

which are two of the oldest buildings on the site and originally served as the factory’s foundry and polishing rooms. The museum and visitors’ center would be dedicated as public space for the Park. The remaining commercial and residential space

would be left private.

It is important to note that because Colt Gateway LLC is already in the process

of privately restoring this national treasure, the cost of designating Coltsville would

be minimal. A comprehensive $102 million historic preservation in accordance national historic standards is currently underway. As the developer, Colt Gateway

LLC would prepare virtually all the space required, giving the National Park Service the rare opportunity to add a spectacular park to the system with an investment

and operating costs at a fraction (less than 10%) of the value of the site. It is our

opinion that, please forgive the pun, Coltsville gives the National Parks System a

real bang for the buck.

The tourist interest sparked by the Coltsville Park would work in tandem with

other endeavors stimulating business growth, such as the adjacent Adriaen’s Landing project, to contribute to the continuing economic revival of Connecticut’s capital

city. Lowell, Massachusetts is a good example of what a national park can do for

a city. The textile mills and canals at Lowell have been described as must-see attractions in tourist guidebooks. I believe that if Coltsville is designated a national

park, the same will be said about the Colt armory and its surroundings. Moreover,

the history of Colt complements that of the Springfield Armory National Historic

Site just 25 miles north in Massachusetts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is my opinion that it is not only feasible and suitable to include

Coltsville in the National Park System, but that Coltsville is the ideal candidate for

that inclusion. We are committed to preserving Coltsville’s immeasurable historical

value, and we certainly appreciate the Committee’s consideration of this proposal.

We are eager to work with the National Park Service in any way we can to continue

this process.

While we acknowledge the budgetary and scheduling obstacles of our request, we

believe that the overwhelming bipartisan support for designation is a sign that we

are well on our way to preserving Coltsville’s legacy. Support from public officials

such as Connecticut Governor John Rowland and Mayor of Hartford Eddie Perez as

well as from important civic groups in Connecticut and elsewhere has been considerable. I would also like to commend Representatives Larson, DeLauro, Shays and

Simmons as well as Senators Dodd and Lieberman for their leadership and integral

role in supporting Coltsville.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. We will do all we can to assist

you, Mr. Chairman, and all the members of the Committee, to make this a reality.

This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be glad to answer any questions that

you or the members of the Committee may have.

35

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Kohn.

With that, I will go ahead and open up the Committee to questions.

Senator Mattingly, can you tell me should the church obtain the

National Park Service land in exchange, what would the church

plan on doing with the land? Do you have any idea?

Senator MATTINGLY. Well, first off, the current church would stay

there since it is the oldest church, Anglican Church built in 1736.

So on the new site, there would be a new church. And that is what

it would be used for.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Kohn, should the site become a unit of the National Park

Service, is the Colt Gateway LLC prepared to donate the land to

the Park Service should that occur, or have you given any consideration to that at all?

Mr. KOHN. Well, we are prepared to donate the areas that would

be necessary for public use, such as the visitors center, and to

make rental space available to entities such as national historic societies that have expressed an interest in operating museums space

for their ability to do so.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Would it be the expectation of the Park Service

then to purchase the remaining land that was not donated, or

would it be the intention of the LLC to keep the land?

Mr. KOHN. We would keep the land but make it available to the

National Park Service toward and for its presentation to the public.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Christensen?

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I have one question, and I have seen the old

Colt site when I had an opportunity to travel to Hartford with my

colleague here, as well as visit some other places in Connecticut.

But my question would be to Senator Mattingly. The 23 or so— Senator MATTINGLY. Twenty-three acres. Right. Excuse me.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Oh, 23 acres that belongs to the church that

is going to be transferred to Sea Island, is that in the same

vicinity?

Senator MATTINGLY. Yes.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK.

Senator MATTINGLY. But not— Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. It would be adjoining the park?

Senator MATTINGLY. Oh, no. It does not adjoin the park.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Or the monument?

Senator MATTINGLY. No.

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you.

Senator MATTINGLY. OK.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Ms. Bordallo?

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am just curious. I did come late and didn’t hear panel one. But

is the Administration’s position still unknown on this particular

piece of legislation?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am not sure which one you are referring to.

Would it be the Colt?

Ms. BORDALLO. The 1113.

Mr. RADANOVICH. H.R. 1113?

Ms. BORDALLO. Mm-hmm.

36

Mr. RADANOVICH. They were in support of it. Yes, I think they

are in support of it.

Ms. BORDALLO. Pardon?

Mr. RADANOVICH. They are in support of the—yes.

Ms. BORDALLO. Because the paper we have here states their

position as unknown.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Oh, I see. They have explained, I think, during

the hearing that they are in support of the transfer.

Ms. BORDALLO. I see. Thank you very much for the clarification.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Uh-huh. Mr. Larson?

Mr. LARSON. Yes, I thank you again, Mr. Chairman and the

Ranking Member Christensen, for the courtesies you have extended

us.

I want to thank Mr. Kohn personally for coming to testify and

also for the, like so many projects that are important in urban

areas, to see the kind of private commitment that has been made

here and the synergistic relationship between community, government, developer, and the private sector is very heartening.

And again, I want to thank him for his testimony and the

Committee for allowing us the opportunity to be here.

Mr. RADANOVICH. My pleasure. Any other questions of the panel?

[No response.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. If not, Senator, Mr. Kohn, thank you very

much for being here. We really appreciate it.

That concludes this hearing. And thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ