Earlier this week, I joined six fellow members of Congress, representatives from the Civil War Trust, and Princeton University Professor James McPherson on a tour of Gettysburg National Military Park to promote our American battlefield protection legislation. Professor McPherson, a preeminent Civil War historian, guided us through the hallowed grounds of the battle.

We visit these battlefields and study our history in order to honor, to learn from, and to gain from the sacrifices of generations of Americans.  Unfortunately, urbanization, sprawl, and development are constantly encroaching on many significant historic sites.

I introduced the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act of 2011 to protect American battlefields that are in danger of being lost forever. The bill would allow federal officials to collaborate with state and local governments, non-profit organizations, and concerned individuals to preserve and protect endangered historical sites, and it would provide up to 50 percent of the costs of purchasing battlefield land threatened by sprawl.

My bill was recently approved by the House Committee on Natural Resources and is awaiting consideration by the full House. As the centennial of the War of 1812 approaches and as we continue to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, now is an opportune moment to recommit ourselves to the protection of our nation's hallowed grounds.

Saturday: Town Halls in Cranbury and Ewing

On Saturday, I’ll host town halls in Cranbury and Ewing to hear directly from you about issues affecting you and our community, such as job creation, health care, college affordability, and any other issues that you may wish to raise.  I hope you will come to share your thoughts, ideas, and concerns.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

10:00 a.m.
Cranbury Town Hall
23-A North Main Street
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512

1:00 p.m.
Ewing Township Municipal Building
2 Jake Garzio Drive
Ewing, New Jersey 08628

How Will Kicking 100,000 Kids Out of Head Start Help Our Economy?

How will kicking 100,000 kids out of Head Start help our economy?  How will firing researchers at the National Institutes of Health create jobs?  How will eliminating nutrition assistance to 700,000 children and mothers help to make our nation fairer?

According to the acting director of the Office of Management & Budget, these are representative of the cuts that would be required next year if domestic programs are slashed by 8 percent, as called for in the deal that Republicans demanded last year to avert a government shutdown.

It would be difficult under the best of circumstances for federal programs to absorb an 8 percent cut.  But the language of last year’s deal is particularly onerous and foolish.  It requires that the same percentage must be slashed from every “program, project, and account,” meaning that federal agencies cannot shield urgent or crucial priorities by focusing cuts on less-important programs.  A recent Center for American Progress analysis found that, due in part to these restrictive terms, cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration could result in the closure of as many as 106 U.S. airports.

Last week, I led more than 70 of my colleagues in writing a letter to House and Senate leaders demanding that crucial domestic programs not bear the unjust burden of spending cuts.

Sincerely,

Rush Holt
Member of Congress