How People Voted
23% For, 77% Against
181 votes cast
Take Action
![]() |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
![]() |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Organize | |
![]() |
Start A Petition |
| Save & Share | |
| del.icio.us | |
| Digg | |
| Yahoo! | |
P.L. 111-11, The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
- This item is from the 111th Congress (2009-2010) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Comparing revision saved on January 14, 2009, 19:31:35 (webmaster), with revision saved on February 13, 2009, 07:33:13 (webmaster):
H.R. 146 would amend the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 to establish a battlefield acquisition grant program for the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.
== Detailed Summary ==
<summary>
Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act - Amends the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 to direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the American Battlefield Protection Program, to establish an acquisition grant program for battlefields and associated sites identified in the Report to Congress on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites in the United States (battlefield report).
Authorizes the Secretary to provide grants to states or local governments (eligible entities) to pay the federal share of the cost of acquiring fee-simple or lesser interests from willing sellers in such sites. Permits eligible entities to acquire an interest in eligible sites using such grants in partnership with nonprofit organizations.
Requires the non-federal share of the cost of acquisition of eligible sites to be not less than 50 percent of the total.
Subjects acquired property to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act's prohibition against conversion to other than public outdoor recreation uses without the Secretary's approval.
Requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a report on activities carried out under this Act and an update of the battlefield report.
</summary>
<!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Status of the Legislation ==
<status>
Latest Major Action: 1/6/2009:2/4/2009: Referred to House committee.subcommittee. Status: Referred to the House CommitteeSubcommittee on Natural Resources.National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.
</status>
<!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. -->
== Points in Favor ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
== Points Against ==
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
<!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! -->
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)


Visitor Comments
kimosabe
March 16, 2009, 2:42pm (report abuse)I personally think we should do away with war shrines. Period. Lets stand up for peace and clean energy, but not war shrines.
.
March 17, 2009, 12:26am (report abuse)And not honor those those who fought and died for your right to say that? That seems a bit self centered if I do say so myself.
my only issue with this would be with the monetary cost. Expensive restoration projects in the current economy can take a back seat, considering how much the government is already putting forward already.
cam
March 17, 2009, 7:01pm (report abuse)Kimosabe, you cant possibly have those feelings and be American...very sad to forget the past and let it fade for your liberal agenda...dork...
Ryland
March 17, 2009, 7:39pm (report abuse)Haha.. cmon you guys.. if this passes.. imagine how much PUBLIC LAND will be closed! I personlly think it is BULLSH*T. it will close 2.1 MILLION ACRES!! It is STUPID!
Tundrabob
March 22, 2009, 1:12am (report abuse)These people won't stop tell it;s all off limits. It's a lot more than battle field preservation. Ryland is right. It's an excuse bar us from more public land. Close it for the sake of our grand children. I wander what excuse they'll give our grand children.
Big Ranch Dude
March 25, 2009, 1:55pm (report abuse)Hate to tell you but it will remain closed to your children and great grand children. Off limits. It will also be used to tear out dams, tear out roads for access, deny energy exploration (love all that oil from the Middle East), and more parks and recreation areas (the NPS can\'t fund what they have let alone anything else). This is all part of the WildLands Project. Google it. If you live outside a big city, you are their target. Good luck.
Old Redlegger
March 30, 2009, 5:09pm (report abuse)I'm concerned that sections of this law, including the liability section related to the transfer of land for the WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST, UTAH, (sec. 3307) of HR 164, holds the Federal government harmless regarding the environmental condition of the land transferred -- that means it lets the Fed Gov off the hook to pay for contamination of a shooting range or worse involving munitions and explosives of concern. It is explicit US EPA policy NOT to allow the Fed Gov off the hook in such cases. You think the DOD isn\'t going to use this? I bet they will ...
Destroyedby2012
April 1, 2009, 9:09pm (report abuse)This is the beginning of the plan to move all US citizens into the cities so they can completely enslave us. The NWO is taking over the US, even worse...they want to eliminate 90% of us common folk. Google fema camps, illuminati, NWO, Agenda 21, Georgia Guidestones. We didn't wake up and now we are directly on the road to ruin, get right with the primary creator God, he's the only one that can save us.
PissedinNM
(logged-in user) May 5, 2009, 4:54am (report abuse)Oh great, more federal laws and what's up with adding research for Christopher Reeves' condition? What the heck is it doing in a land bill?
Let private industry fund and research that. Horses have no depth perception anyway, he was a fool to jump his horse. He took that risk, why should we pay for that?