Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Bipartisan reauthorization of American Battlefield Protection Program draws praise; questions on cost share and studies
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers, preservation groups and the National Park Service generally supported reauthorizing the American Battlefield Protection Program, but NPS objected to increasing the federal cost share and to some proposed study requirements; advocates said lowering non‑federal match will help smaller local organizations participate.
Members of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee heard bipartisan support for HR 7618, which would reauthorize and amend the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) to extend authorization, consolidate two small grant programs into a single $2 million program, and direct studies of earlier conflicts such as the French and Indian War and the Mexican‑American War.
A lawmaker representing Virginia’s 2nd District described HR 7618 as bipartisan and argued it would help protect battlefield lands and expand interpretation. David Duncan, president and CEO of the American Battlefield Trust, told the committee the program is a highly effective public‑private partnership that has helped preserve more than 61,500 acres at more than 160 battlefields. "This program has now protected more than 61,500 acres of critically important land at more than 160 battlefields in 25 states," he said.
Department of the Interior witness Charles Cuvelier said the department supports extending ABPP’s authorization and the objectives of battlefield protection but opposed raising the federal cost share from 50% to 75% and objected to proposed new studies in section 3 of the bill, saying NPS resources are focused on addressing deferred maintenance priorities.
Members asked about staffing and whether recent administration decisions have affected the Park Service workforce; witnesses said they would provide staffing figures in writing. Supporters argued lowering non‑federal matching requirements and consolidating grants into a single program would make grants more accessible to smaller local groups.
What’s next: The committee requested follow‑up information and held the record open; no vote was taken at the hearing.
