The Bear River Massacre and the Making of History

9. POLITICS

9 POLITICS CRAIG (1998) So, after years of a highly unusual acceleration through procedures, the proposal to establish a National Historic Site on the Bear River Massacre field has crawled to a stop, stalled since February 1996 in the office of Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho). As of July 1998, Senator Craig’s office seems to be sending mixed signals, with the landowners feeling, as Kathy Griffin noted, that the proposal has been “put on a back burner” and unlikely to succeed “in our lifetimes”; while Allie Hansen’s Monument Committee has the impression that things are moving slowly, but still moving. Who can propose the legislation to establish a National Historic Site on the field of the Bear River Massacre? Holly Bundock, of the National Park Service, reports that any member of Congress may do so. However, she continues, “whether such legislation gets heard before the House committee if it’s not sponsored by the representative of the district is another question.” Precedent has it that there is a “will” of the House Authorizing Committee, she says, “to not address any legislation on land management that the local congressperson does not support.” In effect, then, the legislation must be sponsored by Idaho’s congressional delegation. A conversation on June 29, 1998, with Greg Rice, Senator Craig’s Pocatello-area regional director, revealed that although the senator has had, since early 1996, the Franklin County commissioners’ recommendation to commence the process of declaring the area a historic 235 site, legislation is still not being written. Craig toured the site, as both Griffin and Hansen report, in January 1998. Now, Rice adds, “the senator is planning a hearing for public input, late this summer or early this fall.” Following the hearing, “we would put something together .” Asked why the senator feels the need to repeat the National Park Service’s hearings, Rice says, “We need to gather our own information and base the legislation on that.” CRAIG (2002) As we go to press, local community members report that no hearings have been held by Senator Craig. Will Hart, spokesman for Senator Craig, confirms in November 2002 that no hearings are in the immediate offing. “It’s in the hands of the stakeholders,” Hart says, “who can’t agree on what the designation should be. There has to be an agreement on the ground before we can proceed with legislation. Senator Craig believes in the collaborative process,” he adds, “but also believes Congress should not mandate legislation in the face of no agreement.” These stakeholders among whom the senator would have to find consensus include the National Park Service, the local community, the local church, the local group which originally requested that a historic site be established, and the state. Asked if the senator would have to have 100% agreement from all parties, Hart replies, “We would seek the best compromise. This means we need people sitting down and working things out. That progress has been stilted.” The agenda for the 108th Congress has not yet been established, he says, but “we will look at it again. We would look to see if we can facilitate the sides coming together for an agreement.” CRAPO (2002) Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) could also introduce the legislation, but he too seems unlikely to do so. Communications Director Susan Wheeler released this statement from Senator Crapo’s office on November 18, 2002: “Regarding the Bear River Massacre and Senator Crapo’s plans, at this point we don’t have any. There was no agreement 236 The Making of History from county, state, federal, or tribal folks on what to do, so no decision was ever made. As long as local disagreement exists as to how best to proceed with the area, Senator Crapo believes that Congress should not mandate to local communities how to commemorate the site.” SMITH (1998) Is there vast disagreement among the “stakeholders” that are “on the ground”? In July 1998, Franklin County Commissioner Brad Smith reports that he is “very supportive” of some plan that would fall, he says, “about halfway between Alternatives 3 and 4.” Regarding Senator Craig’s apparent caution, he says that he “can’t think that this issue would do anything but be a strong boost” to Craig politically , and doesn’t think supporting the project would entail much of a political risk. Smith concedes that the issue does ignite controversy among some Idaho citizens...