HR-1033-113
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 398.
What it does
This bill would reauthorize the Battlefield Acquisition Grant Program through fiscal year 2018 and expand it to cover Revolutionary War and War of 1812 sites, in addition to the Civil War sites already covered. It would also allow grants to fund the outright purchase of eligible battlefield land, not just partial interests in that land. All land purchases would be required to come from willing sellers only, and the program would be required to submit activity reports to Congress.
Who benefits
State and local governments, land trusts, and nonprofit preservation organizations that seek funding to acquire battlefield land. Historians, educators, and researchers who study the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. Tourism-dependent businesses and communities near newly eligible battlefield sites. Future generations who would have access to preserved historical land. Property owners near protected sites who may see increased property values from preserved open space.
Who is hurt
Private landowners who may face increased acquisition interest from grant-funded buyers, even though sales remain voluntary. Real estate developers and investors who might otherwise purchase or develop land near newly eligible battlefield sites. Local governments that rely on property tax revenue could lose income if land is acquired and taken off tax rolls. Competing federal programs or grant applicants whose funding priority may be reduced if battlefield preservation draws from a shared pool.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields are irreplaceable historical resources that face ongoing development pressure, and that the existing program's exclusion of these sites left significant gaps in the nation's preservation efforts. They contend that expanding the program to allow full land purchases — not just partial interests — gives preservation organizations a more effective tool to protect sites before they are lost permanently. Because all acquisitions must come from willing sellers, supporters argue there is no coercive taking of private property. They also point to the economic benefits of heritage tourism, which generates local jobs and tax revenue in communities near preserved sites.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expanding the program adds to federal spending obligations at a time of fiscal constraint, and that reauthorizing it through 2018 locks in funding commitments without sufficient evidence that prior grants produced measurable preservation outcomes. They contend that allowing outright land purchases — rather than just partial interests — increases the federal government's footprint in land management and removes more private property from local tax rolls, shifting costs onto surrounding communities. Critics may also argue that battlefield preservation is primarily a state and local responsibility, and that federal grants displace private philanthropy and state funding that would otherwise fill this role.
Constitutional context
The bill rests primarily on Congress's Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3) authority over federal lands and its spending power. The willing-seller requirement directly addresses Fifth Amendment Takings Clause concerns, as compelled acquisition without just compensation would be constitutionally prohibited. Because the program operates through voluntary grants to non-federal entities, Commerce Clause questions are less central here than in direct regulatory schemes. The post-Loper Bright (2024) environment means any agency discretion in defining "eligible sites" or administering grants would be subject to independent judicial review rather than deference, though this bill's scope is narrow enough that major questions doctrine (WV v. EPA, 2022) is unlikely to be triggered.
Checks and balances
The bill modestly expands executive branch (National Park Service/Interior Department) authority to administer a broader grant program and acquire a wider category of land. Congress retains oversight through the mandatory reporting requirement and through the annual appropriations process, which controls actual funding levels. The prohibition on using program funds to lobby Congress preserves legislative independence. No significant shift in judicial authority is implicated.
Historical precedent
The original Battlefield Acquisition Grant Program (Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009) and earlier Civil War battlefield preservation legislation, including the Civil War Sites Study Act of 1990, provide direct precedent for this type of targeted federal land preservation grant program.