D.C. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4984, which is bipartisan legislation that I am cosponsoring to allow development of the RFK Memorial Stadium campus in the heart of Washington, D.C.
As a former football player at the University of Arkansas, I know the powerful ways that sports can bring communities and even States together.
The current RFK Memorial Stadium, located just down the road from the Capitol, has had a long and complex history but is now decrepit and falling apart. The legislation before us today will allow D.C. to mark the end of decades of legal limbo and the start of an age of economic revitalization.
Under the bill, the National Park Service will no longer have to maintain and operate the campus, freeing up finite resources to focus on their deferred maintenance backlog. In turn, D.C. will be able to revitalize this area and create thousands of jobs with new commercial, residential, and recreational facilities. This can serve as a model going forward for other communities, particularly those with large footprints of Federal land, and represents a win-win for both the Federal Government and D.C.
I would take a moment to clarify the intent of Congress with respect to this legislation and the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.
Over the course of several months of bipartisan negotiations that involved the Natural Resources Committee, the Oversight and Accountability Committee, as well as the city of D.C., and the National Park Service, several improvements were made to the bill. During these negotiations, we reached a bipartisan consensus that after this bill passes, the National Park Service will conduct a NEPA analysis on the transfer of administrative jurisdiction itself. After the transfer, NEPA will no longer apply to D.C.'s development and use of the site because those activities will not be considered major Federal actions.
This follows decades of precedent with previous administrative jurisdiction transfers, as well as technical assistance and advice provided by the Department of the Interior. The National Park Service also provided several examples of instances in which the agency transferred administrative jurisdiction of land to D.C., including as recently as 2022. In none of these instances did NEPA apply after the transfer of administrative jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, the examples below were provided by the National Park Service (NPS) to the House Committee on Natural Resources during the consideration of amendments to H.R. 4984 of instances in which NPS transferred administrative jurisdiction of NPS lands within the District of Columbia. According to NPS, ``in executing each transfer, the NPS complied with all applicable laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act. After transfer of administrative jurisdiction under this authority, the District of Columbia assumed the management and legal responsibilities for the properties.'' 1. 2010 transfer of approximately 15 acres in the northern section of Fort Dupont Park
Prior to the transfer, NPS issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), which stated: ``After the transfer of jurisdiction, the property will be the responsibility of the District since it will no longer be managed by NPS and will no longer be a part of Fort Dupont Park, and District environmental standards will apply.'' 2. 2014 transfer of a portion (Reservation 520) of Fort Lincoln
Prior to the transfer, NPS issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), which stated: ``After the land transfer, the property would no longer be owned by the NPS and would be the responsibility of the District. Consequently, the District's environmental standards would apply.''
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm? parkID=198& project ID=44032& documentID=100579 3. 2022 transfer of another portion (Reservation 405) of Fort Dupont Park
Prior to the transfer, NPS issued a decision form finding that the transfer was categorically excluded from further analysis under NEPA.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, because there was a clear consensus and prior historical evidence demonstrating that NEPA would not apply to the development of the campus after the administrative jurisdiction transfer, the legislative text did not include superfluous savings clauses regarding NEPA's applicability.
In addition to this, it is my hope that both D.C. and the Department of the Interior will abide by Congress' 6-month timeframe provided in the legislation to reach all necessary agreements and complete the transfer.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the hard work and collaboration of Chairman Comer, Delegate Holmes Norton, and the entire staff of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
I would also thank Ranking Member Grijalva and his team, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their assistance in getting this legislation to the floor today.
Finally, I would recognize several people without whom this legislation would not be possible: Beverly Perry, Tara Hupman, Jerry Couri, and Lisa Pittman. From the House Natural Resources Committee staff, I thank Aniela Butler, Brandon Miller, Colen Morrow, and Taylor Wiseman.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source