On the recordMarch 26, 2014
I claim opposition to the misguided amendment to the well-proportioned bill that is under there. I appreciate what the gentlelady from Massachusetts is trying to do. I am an old history teacher, so these sites are important to me. But as well-intended as this amendment may indeed be, it still undermines the intent of the legislation, which is to make sure that any designation that is at large has public transparency, and you allow the local people to do it, whether it is a military site or not. This would create a very large loophole that is unnecessary because the provisions of the bill provide for that. If something is smaller than 5,000 and in immediate jeopardy, it can be handled. If it is larger than that and goes through the NEPA process, it is handled. There is no problem that could develop from this particular piece of legislation. I might also add that, in the Antiquities Act, any harm to anything that is an antiquity of element on a public property already is subject to fine and imprisonment. This amendment was attempted in committee--I appreciate the sentiment--but it was also defeated in committee by a vote of 24-13. It is the same amendment here. I would urge my colleagues to also defeat it, simply because it undermines the very purpose of this bill, and it does not lead to the public process. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
