89–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–1031 

TO REDESIGNATE GRAVELLY POINT PARK, LOCATED ALONG THE GEORGE 

WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY IN ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, 

AS THE NANCY REAGAN MEMORIAL PARK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2018.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 553] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 553) to redesignate Gravelly Point Park, located along 

the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Arlington County, 

Virginia, as the Nancy Reagan Memorial Park, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 553 is to redesignate Gravelly Point Park, 

located along the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Arlington County, Virginia, as the Nancy Reagan Memorial Park. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 553 would redesignate Gravelly Point Park as the Nancy 

Reagan Memorial Park to celebrate the life and work of the former 

First Lady. 

Gravelly Point Park is a favorite location of hikers, bikers and 

walkers along the Potomac River and a beloved location of airplane-spotters. The park sits directly next to the Ronald Reagan 

Washington National Airport and near the Lady Bird Johnson 

Park along the George Washington Memorial Parkway in ArlingVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:42 Nov 18, 2018 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR1031.XXX HR1031
2 

1https://www.virginia.org/listings/OutdoorsAndSports/GravellyPoint/. 

2https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/republicans-want-to-rename-gravelly-point-heres-whywe-shouldnt-let-them/2018/02/05/7c184fdc-0762-11e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html?utm_term=. 

6bbc90ced2ba. 3https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/sreference/biography-of-nancy-reagan. 

4http://governors.library.ca.gov/firstladies/31-Reagan.html. 

5https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/06/nancy-reagan-biography-facts/ 

81404968/. 6http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=41. 

ton, Virginia.1 Gravelly Point was a site of dredging and resource 

extraction in the late 19th century due to the presence of sand and 

gravel deposits, giving rise to its current name.2

Nancy Reagan was born Anne Frances Robbins on July 6, 1921, 

in Queens, New York and grew up in Chicago, Illinois. Reagan 

graduated from Smith College in Massachusetts, where she majored in theatre. During her career as a professional actress she 

landed a role on Broadway and performed in Hollywood films. After 

marrying Ronald Reagan, in 1952, the couple had two children together.3 At the election of her husband to governor of California, 

Reagan became the first lady of California from 1967 to 1975.4

Mrs. Reagan became First Lady of the United States in January 

1981 after President Reagan’s election. During her time as First 

Lady, Mrs. Reagan was passionate about many causes, including 

her ‘‘Just Say No’’ anti-drug campaign, promoting foster grandparents and advocating for the arts.5

After leaving the White House, Mrs. Reagan retired to their family home in California but continued to be a proponent for causes 

she was passionate about, including Alzheimer’s disease. Mrs. 

Reagan passed away on March 6, 2016, and is buried next to her 

husband at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.6

Nancy Reagan Memorial Park would recognize First Lady Nancy 

Reagan for her dedication and support of important causes 

throughout her life. The redesignation would act as a tribute to the 

First Lady’s legacy while maintaining the current status and uses 

of the park. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 553 was introduced on January 13, 2017, by Congressman 

Jody B. Hice (R–GA). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

on Federal Lands. On January 17, 2018, the Natural Resources 

Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments were offered, and 

the bill was initially not ordered favorably reported to the House 

of Representatives by a roll call vote of 15 ayes to 17 noes, as follows: 

3 


Insert offset folio 4 here HR1031.001

Date: 01.17.!8 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

!15th Congress 

Recorded Vote#: 1 

Meeting on I Amendment on: FC Mark Up on Favorably Reporting H.R. 553 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS 

=bop, UT, Chairman X Mr.Cook,CA 

alva, AZ, Ranking Member X Mr. Soto,FL 

Mr. Young, AK, Chairman Emeritus Mr. Westerman, AR 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. McEachin, VA 

Mr. Gohmert, TX, Vice Chairman X Mr. Graves, LA 

Ms. Bordallo, Guam X Mr. Brown, MD 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr.Hice,GA 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Clay,MO 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mrs. Radewagen, AS 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI X Mr. Gomez, CA 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Webster, FL 

Ms. Tsongas, MA X Mr. Ber~:man, MI 

Mr. Pearce, NM Ms. Cheney, WY 

Mr. Huffman, CA X Mr. Johnson, LA 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, PR 

Mr. Lowenthal, CA X Mr. Gianforte, MT 

Mr. Gosar, AZ 

Mr. Beyer, VA X 

Mr. Labrador, ID X 

Mrs. Torres, CA X 

Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Mr. Gallego, AZ X 

Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

!Ms. Hanabusa, HI 

Mr. Denham, CA 

Ms. Barragan, CA X TOTAL: 

Yes No Pres 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

+= 

15 17 
4 

Later in the markup, Chairman Rob Bishop (R–UT) moved to reconsider the vote by which H.R. 553 was not ordered favorably reported; the motion was adopted by a roll call vote of 18 ayes to 16 

noes. Immediately after this vote, the bill was adopted and ordered 

favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call 

vote of 18 ayes to 16 noes, as follows: 

5 


Insert offset folio 6 here HR1031.002

Date: 01.17.18 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

!15th Congress 

Recorded Vote #:3 

Meeting on I Amendment on: FC Mark Up on Favorably Reporting H.R. 553 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS 

Mr. Bishop, UT, Chairman X Mr.Cook,CA 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ, Ranking Member X Mr. Soto, FL 

Mr. Young, AK, Chairman Emeritus Mr. Westerman, AR 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. McEachin, VA 

Mr. Gohmert, TX, Vice Chairman X Mr. Graves, LA 

Ms. Bordal/o, Guam X Mr. Brown, MD 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr.Hice,GA 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Clay, MO 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mrs. Radewagen, AS 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI X Mr. Gomez, CA 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Webster, FL 

M,. Tsongas, MA X Mr. Bergman, MI 

Mr. Pearce, NM Ms. Cheney, WY 

Mr. Huffman, CA X Mr. Johnson, LA 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, PR 

Mr. Lowenthal, CA X Mr. Gianforte, MT 

Mr. Gosar, AZ 

Mr. Beyer, VA X 

Mr. Labrador, ID X 

Mrs. Torres, CA 

Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Mr. Gallego, AZ X 

Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Ms. Hanabusa, HI 

Mr. Denham, CA X 

Ms. Barragan, CA X TOTAL: 

Yes No Pres 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

18 16 
6 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

ACT

1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and sections 308(a) and 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 

received the following estimate for the bill from the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, January 26, 2018. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed H.R. 553, a bill to redesignate Gravelly Point Park, located 

along the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Arlington 

County, Virginia, as the Nancy Reagan Memorial Park, and for 

other purposes, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 

Natural Resources on January 17, 2018. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 553 would have no significant 

effect on the federal budget and would not affect direct spending 

or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO 

estimates that enacting H.R. 553 would not increase net direct 

spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10- 

year periods beginning in 2028. 

H.R. 553 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Janani Shankaran. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

Director. 

2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

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

of this bill is to redesignate Gravelly Point Park, located along the 

George Washington Memorial Parkway in Arlington County, Virginia, as the Nancy Reagan Memorial Park. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

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

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

7 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any directed 

rule makings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

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

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

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

(8) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose the bill to rename Gravelly Point after former First 

Lady Nancy Reagan. Our reasons for this opposition are many: It 

is the pet project of a special interest, involved no public input, 

does not have the support of the local community, lacked congressional courtesy, and raises technical concerns. 

Gravelly Point Park is not a national tourist attraction—its 

where local families go to have a picnic, throw a ball around, put 

a blanket down and watch the planes coming in and out of the airport. There is no connection to Nancy Reagan, and the only reason 

this proposal is before Congress is because it is the pet project of 

Americans for Tax Reform, an influential conservative interest 

group and the political funding arm of anti-tax advocate Grover 

Norquist. 

Residents of Arlington and Alexandria, the communities closet to 

Gravelly Point, have not had their input taken into consideration. 

Local officials have raised concerns about the renaming and reaction by the local community upon hearing about the bill has been 

overwhelmingly negative. 

Exactly 20 years ago, Grover Norquist led a similar charge in 

Virginia’s eighth Congressional district to rename Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan. At the time, the bill flouted 

typical naming procedure and was passing over strong Congressional opposition, opposition by the local community, local elected 

officials, the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority, and air 

traffic controllers, recalling Reagan’s firing of 11,000 controllers 

during a 1981 strike. It was unpaid for, at a cost $400,000, which 

given the lack of Congressional appropriation had to be absorbed 

into Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s budget. For 

the original dissenting views, please see 105th Congress, H.R. 

2625, House Report 105–408. As former Congressman Jim Moran 

then said, ‘‘[Ronald Reagan] stood against the abuse of federal 

power and the waste of taxpayers’ money, and this is both.’’ 

We are concerned about allowing one powerful fundraiser to 

again ignore procedure and dictate names, this time about a federal park. Special interests should not be able to determine the 

name of land that belongs to all Americans. This bill does not take 

any input from the American people into consideration, particularly 

the very people that are users of the Park. If a renaming is to be 

considered, the American public, especially the Park users, should 

have a say in the name. 

To that end, it should be noted that the sponsor’s office did not 

notify or work with the office of Congressman Don Beyer, where 

Gravelly Point Park is located, and that outreach by Congressman 

Beyer’s office after learning about the bill went unheeded. 

Furthermore, there is a potential technical impediment to the bill 

that needs further consideration. Memorials, monuments and other 

9 

commemorative works in Washington DC and its environs are governed by the Commemorative Works Act (CWA), which lays out a 

series of guidelines for the establishment of memorials and requires consultation with the National Capital Memorial Advisory 

Commission. 

The Commission reviewed H.R. 5457—the identical bill introduced in the 114th Congress—and determined that the proposal 

potentially violates several guidelines established by the CWA. 

Congressional authorization for memorials to individuals is not 

supposed to occur until the 25th anniversary of the death of the individual. Since space is limited and memorials should not be established without careful consideration, this provides time for reflection on the individual’s contributions. Since Mrs. Reagan passed 

away less than two years ago, the designation of a memorial park 

in her name fails to comply with that provision of the CWA. 

The CWA also requires a comprehensive evaluation of site locations to determine suitability. The commission noted that this 

hasn’t happened for this proposal and that the designation of this 

site after the Former First Lady could prevent the establishment 

of other memorials in the area, since CWA states that no new memorial shall encroach upon an existing memorial. In addition, there 

has been no assessment on how much it would cost to rename the 

Park. 

Our responsibilities as Members of the committee with jurisdiction over federal land require us to evaluate proposals on their 

merits. We cannot blindly accept any proposal that is made regardless of our respect for the individuals or entities to be honored. By 

these standards, the proposal to rename Gravelly Point must be rejected. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member. 

DONALD S. BEYER JR.