    [House Hearing, 105 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      HEARING ON H.R. 1522, TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE NATIONAL
               HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                        OCTOBER 21, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 105-66

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     46-552 CC                   WASHINGTON : 1998
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
     Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       GEORGE MILLER, California
    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California        ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland             Samoa
    KEN CALVERT, California              NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    LINDA SMITH, Washington              CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
    WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas   ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona                SAM FARR, California
    JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon              ADAM SMITH, Washington
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
    RICK HILL, Montana                       Islands
    BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               RON KIND, Wisconsin
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

                         Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
                       Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
                  Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
                    John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

                Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands

                        JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
    ELTON, GALLEGLY, California          ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee           Samoa
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho               DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    LINDA SMITH, Washington              FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona             ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada               PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon              WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    RICK HILL, Montana                   DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                      Islands
                                         RON KIND, Wisconsin
                                         LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
                            Allen Freemyer, Counsel
                      P. Daniel Smith, Professional Staff
                        Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held October 21, 1997....................................     1

    Statements of Members:
        Christian-Green, Hon. Donna M., a Representative in Congress
          from the Virgin Islands....................................     6
        Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Representative in Congress
          from American Samoa........................................     3
        Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah..............................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
            Letter from the Architect of the Capitol to Mr. Hansen...   102
        Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Colorado..........................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5

    Statements of witnesses:
        Barrett, Brenda, Director, Pennsylvania Bureau of Historic
          Preservation...............................................    23
            Prepared statement of....................................    77
        Fowler, John M., Executive Director, Advisory Council on
          Historic Preservation......................................    11
        Hertfelder, Eric, Executive Director, National Conference of
          State Historic Preservation Officers.......................    20
        Keck, John T., State Historic Preservation Officer, Wyoming
          State Historic Preservation Office.........................    22
            Prepared statement of....................................    68
        Nettler, Richard, Chairman of the Board, Preservation Action.    29
            Prepared statement of....................................    79
        Norton, Edward M., Vice President--Law and Public Policy,
          National Trust for Historic Preservation...................    33
            Prepared statement of....................................    82
        Peck, Robert A., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service,
          General Services Administration............................     9
            Prepared statement of....................................    47
        Stanton, Robert G., Director, National Park Service,
          accompanied by Kate Stevenson, Associate Director for
          Cultural Resources.........................................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................    43
        Williams, Jack, AIA, President-Elect, National Alliance of
          Preservation Commissions...................................    34
            Prepared statement of....................................    95
        Wise, H. Alexander, Jr., State Historic Preservation Officer
          and Director, Virginia Department of Historical Resources..    20
            Prepared statement of....................................    53

    Additional material supplied:
        Text of H.R. 1522............................................    39
        Slater, Cathryn Buford, Chairman, Advisory Council on
          Historic Preservation......................................    50

      HEARING ON H.R. 1522, TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE NATIONAL
               HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1997

            House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
                Parks and Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
                Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V.
    Hansen [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Hansen. The Committee will come to order. Good morning.
    The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will come
    to order.
        This morning the Subcommittee will hear testimony of H.R.
    1522, a bill to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation
    Fund and for other purposes, which would amend the National
    Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The bill was
    introduced by our distinguished colleague, Joel Hefley, a
    Subcommittee Member and a very knowledgeable and dedicated
    supporter of historic preservation in Colorado and the Nation.
    We look forward to your opening remarks on the bill H.R. 1522.
        [The information may be found at end of hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. The hearing today is very timely. The National
    Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1976, 1980,
    and most recently in 1992, has worked well for over 30 years.
    The major reason for H.R. 1522 is to provide congressional
    authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund, which expires
    on September 30, 1997, until September 30, 2002. However,
    Congress has reviewed and amended the original Act on occasion,
    and Mr. Hefley's H.R. 1522 offers a unique opportunity to see
    if the interaction of historic preservation at the national,
    State and local levels is in need of new direction. The
    distinguished panelists we will receive testimony from today
    will provide professional insight into many aspects of this
    important historic preservation program.
        I am especially interested in this hearing today because of
    the action that the House of Representatives took on October 7,
    1997, in passing H.R. 1127, the National Monument Fairness Act
    of 1997, which I introduced to amend the Antiquities Act of
    1906. Congress again reviewed historic preservation
    authorities. As most of the panelists are aware, the 1906
    Antiquities Act was the original Historic Preservation Act of
    this Nation. It is the forerunner of the 1916 Organic Act that
    created the National Park Service, the 1935 Historic Sites Act
    and the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act we are
    considering today.
        I made statements on the House floor to inform my
    colleagues about the tremendous advantage of historic
    preservation, land protection, and environmental law that
    Congress has passed in the 90 years since Congress provided the
    President with the intended authority of the 1906 Antiquities
    Act. We continue that process today. I look forward to the
    discussion of H.R. 1522.
        I recognize my distinguished colleague, Mr. Faleomavaega of
    America Samoa, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for his
    opening remarks, and following his remarks I will recognize Mr.
    Hefley, the sponsor of the bill we are considering today, and
    any other Subcommittee members that come in, and then we will
    go to our panel.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

     Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
                               the State of Utah

        Good Morning. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
    Lands will come to order.
        This morning the Subcommittee will hear testimony on H.R.
    1522, a bill to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation
    Fund and for other purposes, which would amend the National
    Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
        This bill was introduced by our distinguished colleague,
    Joel Hefley, a Subcommittee member, and a very knowledgeable
    and dedicated supporter of historic preservation in Colorado
    and the Nation. We look forward to your opening remarks on your
    bill, H.R. 1522.
        The hearing today is very timely. The National Historic
    Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1976, 1980, and most
    recently in 1992, has worked well for over 30 years. The major
    reason for H.R. 1522 is to provide Congressional authorization
    for the Historic Preservation Fund, which expired on September
    30, 1997, until September 30, 2002. However, Congress has
    reviewed and amended the original Act on occasion, and Mr.
    Hefley's H.R. 1522 offers a unique opportunity to see if the
    interaction of historic preservation at the National, State,
    and local levels is in need of new direction. The distinguished
    panelists we will receive testimony from today will provide
    professional insight into many aspects of this important
    historic preservation program.
        I am especially interested in this hearing today because of
    the action that the House of Representatives took on October 7,
    1997. In passing H.R. 1127, the National Monument Fairness Act
    of 1997 which I introduced to amend the Antiquities Act of
    1906, Congress again reviewed historic preservation
    authorities. As most of the panelists are aware, the 1906
    Antiquities Act was the original historic preservation Act of
    this Nation. It is the forerunner of the 1916 Organic Act that
    created the National Park Service, the 1935 Historic Sites Act,
    and the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act we are
    considering today. I made statements on the House floor to
    inform my colleagues about the tremendous advance of historic
    preservation, land protection, and environmental law that
    Congress has passed in the 90 years since the Congress provided
    the President with the intended authority of the 1906
    Antiquities Act. We continue that process today. I look forward
    to the discussion on H.R. 1522.
        I recognize my distinguished colleague, Mr. Faleomaveaga,
    of American Samoa, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, for
    his opening remarks.
        Following any other opening remarks, I recognize Mr. Hefley
    to elaborate on the details of H.R. 1522 for the benefit of the
    Subcommittee and all present today.
        The Subcommittee welcomes the distinguished witnesses that
    will appear today. On our first panel, we are pleased to have
    Mr. Bob Stanton, recently confirmed Director of the National
    Park Service. This will be his first official testimony as
    Director before this Subcommittee, and we look forward to many
    more visits in the future. The Subcommittee is also pleased to
    have Mr. Bob Peck, Commissioner of the Public Buildings
    Service, of the U.S. General Services Administration, and Mr.
    John Fowler, recently selected as the Executive Director of the
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, after serving in an
    acting capacity for many months.
        The second panel consists of representatives of the
    National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. I
    welcome Mr. Eric Herfelder, Executive Director of the
    Conference; Mr. Alexander Wise, Jr. the State Historic
    Preservation Officer for the Commonwealth of Virginia; Mr. John
    Keck the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer; and Ms
    Brenda Barrett, Director, Bureau of Historic Preservation for
    the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
        The third panel consists of historic preservation experts
    and advocates representing the local, State, and National
    levels. We welcome Mr. Richard Nettler, Chairman of the Board
    of Preservation Action; Mr. Edward Norton, Vice President-Law
    and Public Policy for the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation. Mr. Norton it is good to see you again. The last
    time you appeared before us we were discussing the Arches
    National Park Expansion bill. And Mr. Jack Williams, President-
    Elect for the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions.

        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Faleomavaega.

     STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                      CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before
    proceeding and offering my statement for the Subcommittee, I
    certainly would like to offer my personal welcome to our
    Director of the Nation Park Service, who is with us this
    morning, and look forward to his statement, and I certainly
    want to thank my good friend and colleague from Colorado for
    having introduced this piece of legislation, and I look forward
    to working with him to see what the problems underlying the
    National Historic Preservation Act are.
        Mr. Chairman, this morning we are here to receive testimony
    to H.R. 1522, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Hefley, to
    reauthorize the funding for the National Historic Preservation
    Fund and make several changes to the National Historic
    Preservation Act. I commend the gentlemen for all his hard work
    in this area and for initiating this piece of legislation.
        The Historic Preservation Act enacted in 1966, established
    a comprehensive program through which the Federal, the State,
    tribal and local historic resources have been protected. The
    National Register of Historic Places now has over 62,000 sites
    listed. The Governor of each State and territory appoints a
    State historic preservation officer to administer the Historic
    Preservation Program within its boundaries. Several Indian
    tribes have now taken over the historic preservation programs
    on their respective reservations, and the Advisory Council on
    Historic Preservation advises the President and Congress and
    makes recommendations to help coordinate preservation
    activities. This successful program shows what can be done when
    government at each level is willing to work together or for a
    common cause, and that is the protection and the preservation
    of our culture and our history.
        The bill before us today would extend the authorization of
    the National Historic Preservation Fund through the year 2002.
    I wholeheartedly support the extension of the fund's
    authorization and would even support a 10-year reauthorization.
        The bill then goes on to make several other changes to the
    current program, which I am not yet convinced needs to be made.
    Several provisions would transfer authority away from the
    Secretary of the Interior and places it with the Advisory
    Council on Historic Preservation. I am not aware of specific
    problems which exist to warrant such a change and wonder if
    these actions could alter the original purpose of the Council.
    Perhaps after hearing from our expert witnesses today, we will
    be in a better position to understand a little more of the
    proposed changes, and like I said, I look forward to working
    with the gentleman from Colorado for this proposed bill. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Colorado.

      STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, it seems to me one of the fundamental roles
    of government is the preservation of its cultural values. To
    paraphrase one historian, we are unlikely to deal well with our
    future if we do not understand our past. Since 1966, the
    Historic Preservation Fund has been part of the way this Nation
    seeks to accomplish that.
        The program has been successful, and what this bill is
    designed to do is to make it work even better. And I think all
    of us are in agreement on the goals, and it is the matter of
    how do we get from here to there. And I hope that we think in
    terms of H.R. 1522 as being a starting point, maybe not the end
    destination. And I would agree with my friend from American
    Samoa that I think we have an outstanding group of panelists
    here today and of experts, and we will take their input, and
    then we will try to put together the ideas that seem to work
    best.
        The National Register of Historic Places includes over
    800,000 building sites and objects. The National Trust for
    Historic Preservation appears ready to stand on its own without
    government funding. Most importantly today, it would be
    unthinkable to raze landmarks like New York's Penn Station
    without major public debate, but that hasn't always been the
    case.
        H.R. 1522 attempts to reflect what is happening in the
    States. It makes no changes to a funding formula which through
    State innovation has resulted in a significant degree of
    private involvement in these programs. It also gives States the
    flexibility to design their own preservation offices. It leaves
    them the final arbitrator of the in-State eligibility disputes.
        H.R. 1522 reserves the biggest changes for the Federal
    Government's role. The bill shifts the bulk of government
    administrative support from the National Park Service to the
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Council has
    demonstrated its ability as a lean, competent arbitrator of
    problems and disputes in the preservation arena. I believe it
    is time to see whether the Council can apply these skills in a
    broader role.
        The bill codifies Executive Order 13006 on locating Federal
    facilities on historical properties in our Nation's central
    cities. Until recently, the Postal Service built new post
    offices every 10 years, moving further and further out of the
    central cities. Too often the Park Service opts for a new
    visitors' center, overusing historic buildings, these often
    connected with the very sites they seek to interpret.
        I think Executive Order 13006 is a good idea, but the
    administration seems to feel it needs more time. Today I hope
    to find out why.
        Finally, we will examine the place of preservation in our
    Nation's capital. The White House, the Capitol and the Supreme
    Court are exempt from historic preservation laws. Security
    concerns are blamed, but somehow DOD manages to do a pretty
    good job of complying, even though there are security aspects
    there. Why not for these three sites?
        I realize historic preservation still makes some people
    nervous. How many sites are on the National Register is worthy
    of a hearing of its own, but I prefer to thinks this program
    reflects what we have attempted to do in the past two
    Congresses. It has devolved on its own over the past 30 years
    while helping communities retain a sense of their own
    uniqueness. I hope H.R. 1522 continues that effort, and with
    that I will close and look forward to hearing today's
    witnesses.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Joel Hefley, a Representative in Congress from the
                               State of Colorado

        Mr. Chairman, it seems to me a fundamental role of
    government is the preservation of cultural values. To
    paraphrase one historian, we are unlikely to deal well with our
    future if we do not understand our past. Since 1966, the
    Historic Preservation Fund has been a major element in how this
    nation seeks to accomplish that end.
        While some may argue as to degree, I don't think anyone
    believes this program hasn't been a success. The National
    Register of Historic Places now includes over 800,000
    buildings, sites and objects. Preservation is now a big enough
    industry that we can ask the National Trust to stand on its
    own. More importantly, it's now unthinkable to raze a landmark
    building--such as Penn Station in New York--without public
    debate. That wasn't always the case.
        But even successful laws must reflect the reality of the
    outside world. H.R. 1522 attempts to reflect these changes. The
    bill reflects the success states have had at leveraging private
    sector involvement and in defining their own programs. It
    codifies the agreement to privatize the National Trust. It
    leaves the states as the final judge of eligibility disputes.
        H.R. 1522 reserves its biggest changes for those areas
    involving the Federal Government. My bill shifts the bulk of
    government support for historic preservation from the National
    Park Service to the Advisory Counsel on Historic Preservation.
    Over the years, the Council has proven itself to be a lean,
    competent arbiter of problems and disputes which have arisen in
    preservation. I believe it is time to see whether they can
    bring these same attributes to a broader role.
        Second, H.R. 1522 codifies Executive Order 13006, on
    locating Federal facilities on historic properties in our
    nation's central cities. Until recently, it has been the policy
    of the U.S. Postal Service to build new post offices every 10
    years, leaving the old ones behind and moving further and
    further out from the cities' centers. There are Park Service
    units where visitors' centers have been built in sight of
    historic properties directly associated with the site these
    centers interpret. What is the logic of this? But while
    Executive Order 13006 is a good idea that will help communities
    and probably save us some money, the administration's reaction
    to H.R. 1522 has been, ``We need more time?'' We hope to
    examine this lack of confidence.
        Finally, we will examine the place of historic preservation
    here in our nation's capital. Three of the nation's landmarks--
    the Capitol, the White House and the Supreme Court building--
    are exempted from the nation's preservation laws. Why is this
    so? Security concerns are mentioned yet defense facilities
    grudgingly manage to comply. I hope we'll find out why these
    sites feel they should be exempt.
        I realize historic preservation makes some people nervous.
    How sites are listed on the National Register is worth a
    hearing of its own. But I prefer to think this program reflects
    all that we have attempted to do in the past two Congresses. It
    has devolved on its own over the past 30 years while helping
    communities retain a sense of their own uniqueness. I hope H.R.
    1522 continues that effort. With that I'll close and I look
    forward to hearing from today's witnesses.

        Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.

    STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTIAN-GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

        Ms. Christian-Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
    me to make these brief opening remarks, and I want to use my
    time to welcome the new Director of the National Park Service
    as he makes his debut appearance before the Subcommittee today.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, Director Stanton comes to the
    position of head of the National Park Service with a career in
    service which spans over 34 years, beginning as a seasonal park
    ranger at the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming to regional
    director of the National Capital Region in Washington, DC. But
    of all the positions he has held with the Park Service, my
    constituents and I, especially those on the island of St. John,
    are especially proud of the 3 years he spent with us as the
    Superintendent of the Virgin Islands National Park. He came to
    that position at a time when there were a number of tensions
    between the Park Service and the local community, and the very
    small island of St. John, which is over two-thirds the national
    park. Seeking to instill more community input into the park's
    management decisions, Mr. Stanton established various NPS
    community councils, which served to resolve most of the local
    disputes at the time.
        So as you can see, Mr. Chairman, people of the Virgin
    Islands and I are very proud of Mr. Stanton's appointment as
    National Park Service Director and look forward to him doing
    great things during his tenure in office.
        And with respect to the legislation before us today, Mr.
    Chairman, I am reminded of the old axiom, if it ain't broken,
    don't fix it. And while the reauthorization of any major piece
    of legislation like the National Historic Preservation Fund is
    generally something we are all in favor of, it is unclear what
    problems may exist that warrant the changes that are being
    proposed. I am confident, however, that the issues, as I
    listened to the opening statement of my Ranking Member and Mr.
    Hefley, that the issues in dispute will be resolved, and I look
    forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Nevada.
        Mr. Gibbons. No comments.
        Mr. Hansen. And the gentlemen from Michigan City has no
    opening remarks.
        The Subcommittee welcomes our guests today. We are pleased
    to have Mr. Bob Stanton, recently confirmed as Director of the
    National Park Service. It is a pleasure to have you with us. We
    hope we have many occasions to have you here in a congenial and
    amicable, get-along attitude, which we know you portray.
        We are also grateful Kate Stevenson is accompanying
    Director Stanton. We are happy to have you with us at this
    time. I guess this is your first testimony before this
    Committee; is that right, Director?
        Mr. Stanton. That is right.
        Mr. Hansen. We appreciate having you here.
        We are also pleased to have Mr. Bob Peck, Commissioner of
    the Public Building Service of the U.S. General Service
    Administration; Mr. John Fowler, recently selected as Executive
    Director of the Ad-

    visory Council on Historic Preservation, after serving in his
    acting capacity for many months.
        The second panel will consist of representatives of the
    National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. I
    welcome Mr. Eric Hertfelder, Executive Director of the
    Conference; Mr. Alexander Wise, Jr., the State Historic
    Preservation Officer for the Commonwealth of Virginia; Mr. John
    Keck, the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer; and Ms.
    Brenda Barrett, Director of the Bureau of Historic Preservation
    of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
        The third panel consists of historic preservation experts
    and advocates, representing the local, State and national
    levels. We welcome Mr. Richard Nettler, Chairman of the Board
    of Preservation Action; Mr. Edward Norton, Vice President of
    Public Policy of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
    It is good to see Mr. Norton again. I think you were here the
    last time. You appeared before us discussing the Arches
    expansion; And Mr. Jack Williams, President-elect of the
    National Alliance of Preservation Commission.
        We will ask the first panel to come forward at this time,
    and that again is Mr. Bob Stanton, and Mr. Bob Peck and Mr.
    John Fowler. Now, gentlemen and lady, let me say that we are
    always under a time constraint around this place. Whistles are
    going off, bells are ringing, and lights are flashing, and,
    therefore, we would really urge you to stay within your 5
    minutes if you could. We will have a gentle reminder there in
    front of you, and it is three lights. It is just like a traffic
    light: Green, go wild; yellow, be careful you don't run it; and
    red, I bang this gavel and yell at you. No, honestly, I won't
    do that. If you have a burning desire to take a couple more
    minutes, and considering the gravity and seriousness of this
    situation, by all means take it, but I would appreciate it if
    you could stay within the 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hansen. Director Stanton, we will start with you, sir.

        STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. STANTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
    SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY KATE STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
                           CULTURAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this
    Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you,
    and certainly I am pleased to be joined by Associate Director
    for Cultural Resources, Ms. Kate Stevenson.
        Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for this opportunity to
    offer the views of the Department of Interior on H.R. 1522, a
    bill to extend authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund
    and for other purposes. We strongly support the reauthorization
    of the Historic Preservation Fund; however, we have some
    opposition to the amendments to the Historic Preservation Act
    enumerated in bill H.R. 1522.
        The Historic Preservation Fund established by section 108
    of the Historic Preservation Act is the authority on which
    Congress appropriated matching funds to State tribes, local
    governments and the National Trust for Historic Preservation to
    carry out activities under the National Historic Preservation
    Program. The Historic Preservation Grant Program supports the
    identification and the protection by citizens of the Nation's
    irreplaceable historical and archeological resources for this
    and for future generations.
        Reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund has no
    direct budgetary impact in that outlays occur solely through
    the appropriation process. The annual cost of the Historic
    Preservation Fund Grant Program to each American citizen is
    roughly 12 cents a year. We believe this is a good value for
    all of us.
        With regard to other elements of the bill, when taken
    together, amendments 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12 remove the Office of
    the Secretary of the Interior from its role as the Nation's
    leader and coordinator of historic preservation policy for
    Federal agencies. The Department, acting through the National
    Park Service, as the Nation's principal conservation agency,
    has unique authority and expertise in fostering sound use of
    our land and the preservation of our Nation's resources. The
    National Park Service is the most outstanding agency within the
    Federal Government to work closely with all organizations in
    carrying out the preservation of our culture and historical
    resources and to assist other agencies in their respective
    programs. This, in our judgment, should not be changed, and we
    recommend that the amendments be deleted.
        Amendment 13 of H.R. 1522 gives the Advisory Council of
    Historic Preservation authority to take appropriate action to
    resolve historic preservation disagreements and thereby changes
    the Council's advisory role from a mediator to an arbitrator
    with final authority over every Federal undertaking affecting
    historic and archeological resources. As then Assistant
    Secretary for Fish and Wildlife Service George Frampton pointed
    out in his May 1996 letter to Congress, such a change in the
    Advisory Council authority has the potential to interfere with
    the primary mission of Federal agencies, and, according to a
    Department of Justice statement, would violate the appointments
    clause of the Constitution. The Department of Interior remains
    opposed to this provision and recommends that it be deleted.
        Amendment 15 changes the definition of ``undertaking'' from
    ``a project, activity or program funded in whole or in part
    under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency''
    to ``a project, activity, or program with potential to affect
    historic properties funded in whole or in part under the direct
    or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency.'' The impact of
    this definition change is unclear, but it has, in our judgment,
    the potential to be interpreted to eliminate protection of a
    wide range of historic and archeologic resources. We therefore
    are opposed to it and recommend its deletion.
        Amendment 2 of the bill restricts the Department of
    Interior's authority, acting through the Keeper of the National
    Register, to assess a property's historic significance by
    eliminating a determination of eligibility of National
    Register-nominated properties that cannot be listed because of
    owner objection. The Secretary, in our view, should not be
    precluded from making an unbiased professional determination of
    fact about the historical significance of such properties.
    Therefore, we recommend that amendment 2 be deleted from the
    bill.
        State Historic Preservation Offices have previously
    overwhelmingly objected to the idea, proposed in amendment 5 to
    the bill, to remove the Secretary's authority to set
    professional standards for State Historic Preservation Office
    staff. When offered the opportunity in late 1996 as part of a
    Federal Register review and comment process, no State Historic
    Preservation Office objected to the regulatory provision
    regarding professional staff H.R. 1522 seeks to erase. We
    oppose this amendment as well and recommend it be deleted.
        Lastly, amendment 1 of the bill for National Historic
    Landmark districts, without officially established boundaries
    as of the year 2007, would automatically delist the district
    from the National Register and presumably redesignate the
    National Historic Landmark as well. This proposal potentially
    creates legal exposure for the government and property owners.
    In some of these districts, regardless of the final decision,
    both the process and result of settling boundary issues will be
    controversial and will entangle the government in legal
    challenges over notification issues and prior benefits derived
    from the National Historic Landmark and National Register
    status. Also, where tribal properties are concerned, it may be
    difficult to determine exact boundaries. Delisting these
    properties from the National Register, in our view, would
    conflict with the government's trust responsibilities for
    Indian tribes, and we therefore recommend the deletion of this
    amendment.
        In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the distinguished
    Committee, it is the Department of Interior's position that the
    Historic Preservation Fund be reauthorized through the year
    2002, but that no substantive change be made at this time to
    the National Historic Preservation Act.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Ms. Stevenson and
    I would be more than happy to respond to any question or
    comments you and members of the Committee may have.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stanton may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Peck.

      STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. PECK, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
                SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Peck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Faleomavaega,
    members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here on behalf
    of the General Services Administration; also happy to report to
    you that the President has recently announced his intention to
    designate our Administrator Dave Barram as a member of the
    advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a seat which we have
    held for many years.
        I have a statement I would like to submit for the record,
    and I will summarize it.
        We have a very large inventory of historic buildings in the
    General Services Administration. Of the 1,800 and some
    government-owned buildings which we operate, 200 are on the
    National Register and another 200 are eligible for listing; 12
    are individual historic landmarks. We are proud of those
    buildings and work very hard to maintain them and keep them up.
        I should tell you, although it is not your jurisdiction,
    that we have a very large backlog of rehabilitation needs. I
    know you hear this from the Park Service all the time. We have
    the same situa-

    tion with our inventory as well. We are working very hard to
    try to find the funds for rehabilitation, both within our
    resources, which come in the form of rents from Federal
    agencies who are our tenants, as well as through appropriations
    and other creative financing means. One such means I will refer
    to in a few moments is the authority the National Historic
    Preservation Act gives us to help rehab our own buildings.
        I grew up in Washington. I am very proud of the buildings
    we have here. I should tell you, the GSA was not always, in my
    opinion, the best steward of its properties. Years ago when I
    became active in what was called ``Don't Tear It Down,''
    subsequently the DC Preservation League, which I was proud to
    serve as volunteer president for 6 years, we had to go to court
    to keep GSA from tearing down some old buildings. That is no
    longer the case.
        All over the country GSA has rehabbed buildings. In
    conjunction with a very large courthouse construction program
    which we have under way, we are renovating a great number of
    the 19th and early, mid-20th century courthouses which we
    inherited. I hope you will have an opportunity to see some of
    them. The recent renovation of the U.S. Court of Appeals
    building in San Francisco is truly a landmark renovation
    project; similarly in Denver, the Byron White Courthouse is a
    gorgeous building.
        I would also note that we have a number of authorities
    aside from the National Historic Preservation Act which give us
    the opportunity to work with historic buildings. One is the
    Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act enacted in 1976, which
    allows mixed uses in Federal buildings and also orders the
    Administrator of General Services, where possible, in acquiring
    or leasing Federal building space for Federal agencies to make
    use of historic buildings not in the government inventory. We
    have under way at the moment a study to find out where in our
    various rules and regulations we may have self-inflicted some
    wounds on our ability to lease space in historic buildings
    around the country.
        We are putting exhibits in our buildings to interpret them
    as well, so that the public is made aware of the magnificent
    history that Congress and Presidents have bestowed upon us.
        I just wanted to note the one provision we strongly support
    in the Act is section 111, only enacted, I believe, in 1992,
    which gives Federal agencies the authority, when they no longer
    have a governmental need for a historic building, to lease it
    to the private sector. We are using this authority in GSA for
    the first time to solicit offers for redevelopment, including
    historic preservation for the General Post Office Building in
    Washington at 7th and F Street, this building was designed
    originally in the 1840s by Robert Mills as the general post
    office for the city, and was subsequently known as the Tariff
    Commission Building. It is a national historic landmark.
        Of course, one of the reasons you have me here this morning
    is to discuss Executive Order 13006, which President Clinton
    issued last year, and which piggybacked on Executive Order
    12072, issued by President Carter. 12072 directs Federal
    agencies, not just GSA, but all Federal agencies, to locate
    their facilities in the central business areas of cities. We
    obviously have a large responsibility in carrying out that
    order, and 13006 extended that by saying that in addition to
    downtown locations, we should particularly look for buildings
    in historic districts and individual landmark buildings.
        We do not believe it is necessary to codify Executive Order
    13006, in part because we feel we are having success with the
    Executive Order as it stands. Moreover, Executive Order 12072
    consistently has been construed, and there have been court
    cases on it, as a Presidential directive that to us has the
    force and effect of law, one that we cannot ignore in our
    procedures. We obviously regard Executive Order 13006 the same
    way.
        I should note that I am concerned section 1 of H.R. 1522
    establishes a priority for historic properties, without taking
    into consideration requirements of the Rural Development Act,
    which we are required by law to follow in making location
    decisions, and the location policy in Executive Order 12072.
    The language in the bill does not quite track with the language
    in Executive Order 13006. Moreover, in Executive Order 13006,
    we have the necessary flexibility and discretion we must have
    in locating Federal facilities in historic properties. Both
    mission needs and, particularly these days, security needs
    sometimes preclude our finding space in historic buildings. We
    know that many times I should hasten to say, those security and
    operational needs can be accommodated, but we think the
    language in particular that notes in the executive order that
    we find space in historic properties, ``where operationally
    appropriate and economically prudent,'' is very important
    language.
        Finally, I will just note in this regard, legislation and
    executive orders can order us to do things. Real estate is a
    business, which, as we say in the business, everything is
    location, location, location, and each decision is unique, and
    we need a little bit of flexibility there in making those
    decisions. Having said that, I want you to know I personally,
    our Administrator personally, because of his background and his
    values, and our agency as an agency, are very enthusiastic
    about locating our facilities in historic properties, and in
    making the very hard decisions, and doing the tough work that
    is necessary to make them work for modern government office
    space.
        Mr. Chairman and members, I am happy to answer any
    questions you have.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Peck.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Peck may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Fowler, I will return to you, sir.

       STATEMENT OF JOHN M. FOWLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY
                    COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

        Mr. Fowler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset I would
    like to take this opportunity to express the appreciation of
    our Chairman Cathryn Buford Slater for the opportunity to
    convey the Council's strong support for reauthorization of
    deposits in the Historic Preservation Fund. Ms. Slater serves
    as the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer. She was
    not able to be here today, but her statement has been included
    for the record.
        [The statement of Ms. Slater may be found at end of
    hearing.]
        Mr. Fowler. The Council, as you know, is an independent
    Federal agency charged by the National Historic Preservation
    Act of 1966 with advising the President and Congress on matters
    of historic preservation, and coordinating the activities of
    Federal agencies as they relate to historic properties and
    historic preservation issues. We do this under a number of
    authorities under the Historic Preservation Act, but most
    important of these is section 106 that requires Federal
    agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings
    on historic properties and then afford the Council a reasonable
    opportunity to comment.
        In the section 106 process that has been developed by the
    Council over the past three decades, we rely very heavily upon
    the SHPOs, State Historic Preservation Officers, to consult
    with and assist Federal agencies in meeting their legal
    obligations. In amendments we are now proposing to the section
    106 regulations, we will bring tribal Historic Preservation
    Officers, authorized by the 1992 amendments to the Historic
    Preservation Act, into the partnership, in a similar way to
    State Historic Preservation Officers, to work with Federal
    agencies.
        You can see from this that SHPOs and tribal Historic
    Preservation Officers are really essential to the section 106
    process. Without them, serious burdens would be placed on
    Federal agencies and all of those who seek assistance from
    Federal agencies or permits required by Federal law.
    Continuation of Federal support for State and tribal historic
    preservation programs is essential. This comes from the annual
    appropriation that is authorized under the Historic
    Preservation Fund. Accordingly, the Council strongly supports
    reauthorization of deposits into the Historic Preservation Fund
    through the year 2002, and hopefully beyond.
        But the importance of the Historic Preservation Fund
    supports for SHPO and THPO programs is such that we are
    concerned that some of the amendments in H.R. 1522 may cause
    controversy or delay in getting the essential authorization
    through. I think you have heard that and will hear that from
    witnesses this morning. Therefore, the action that the Council
    has taken is to support a simple reauthorization of the
    Historic Preservation Fund.
        At the same time, we would hope that the Committee would
    take this opportunity to deal with some technical amendments of
    a minor nature that would help us, the Council, better do our
    job as a partner in the Historic Preservation Program. Since
    1995, we have gone through an almost 20 percent downsizing in
    our operations, and there are provisions in the law that, if we
    could adjust them, would make it easier for us to deal with our
    constrained circumstances and carry out our fundamental
    mission. An example of this would be to put our
    reauthorization, which was recently done by this Committee
    through the year 2000, on the same cycle as the HFP. We would
    not have to put the resources out that we do as a small agency
    to get a bill through quite as soon as we would otherwise have
    to do it, and I think we could save time for the Committee by
    putting these two authorizations together.
        We have some provisions and obligations in our laws, such
    as the requirement to submit an annual report to the Congress,
    that requires a commitment of staff resources. While it is a
    very useful report and a very useful exercise, with the
    evolution of technology for information dissemination and so
    on, it may be something that has outlived its usefulness. We
    would prefer to have the discretion to go forward with an
    annual report as needed.
        We would like to deal with our employees, who over the
    years have been hired under our excepted authority. We now have
    long-term Council employees that do not have the full benefit
    of career status under the General Schedule. Instead of going
    through individual conversions, we would like to work with the
    Committee to do a conversion of our staff to full GS status.
        H.R. 1522 conveys some very useful and interesting ideas in
    it, but as our preservation partners will note today, in some
    cases the needs they seek to address have changed, such as the
    concern about the Interior Department issuing section 110
    guidelines. We are pleased to say we worked closely with the
    Department, and these guidelines are near final issuance.
        Other ideas, such as reinforcing the Council's dispute
    resolution authority, are certainly interesting, but as Mr.
    Stanton noted, need to be done in a manner consistent with the
    authorities of the Council and the relationships of the
    partners.
        In closing, I would just like to note the Historic
    Preservation Act has evolved over 30 years. It is an excellent
    law. It can certainly be made better. We would like to work
    with the Committee to do this, but we are really concerned at
    the moment about getting the Historic Preservation Fund
    reauthorized. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        I will now recognize the members of the Committee for 5
    minutes each to question the panel.
        The gentleman from America Samoa, the Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of
    questions to the members of the panel, if you could share with
    us, gentlemen and Ms. Stevenson, your sense of experience, if
    there has been in the past a backlog or a sense of disinterest
    or noncommitment on the part of the Secretary of the Interior--
    not this one, but even, you know, for the past several years--
    concerning historic preservation. Have there been any problems
    with the current law affecting the responsibilities given to
    the Secretary of the Interior, because I sense there is
    disagreement from all three of you gentlemen concerning the
    proposed bill. And I respect my good friend from Colorado; I
    was thinking perhaps this whole matter of historic preservation
    should be given to the States to run, rather than giving it to
    ``Big Brother'' here and have him be the final arbitrator.
        Can you comment on that?
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you. Mr. Faleomavaega, with respect to
    the backlog, obviously, as we consider the large number of
    existing as well as potential properties that could be added to
    national register historic places, there is a great deal of
    work that needs to be done at local, State and Federal levels.
    Clearly, in terms of our relationship with the national council
    of historic preservation, other Federal agencies, such as the
    General Services Administration and certainly working with the
    States and the trust territories, we are addressing the
    backlog.
        There is a question of financial resources that are
    available to meet those needs, and what we have attempted to do
    is to come up with some alternative approaches with respect to
    the private sector, as well as services from public agencies
    towards the preservation effort. But we believe that the
    framework, as embodied in the Historic Preservation Act and the
    Historic Preservation Fund, allows us to maximize the services
    and resources available at all levels of the government. But
    the extent to which we would be able to diminish the backlog
    within the next decade is difficult to speculate on at this
    time.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Peck and Mr. Fowler?
        Mr. Peck. Thank you. It is probably more for the Interior
    Department and Advisory Council to comment on this process. I
    will just note that the historic preservation program, as it
    runs now, is a partnership. We get involved mostly when there
    are projects affecting our historic buildings or where we are
    looking at historic buildings in privately owned hands for
    possible use by the government. We find it is a very effective
    partnership at the moment between the Federal Government and
    the States, which have a very large role to play.
        State historic preservation officers, in more instances
    than not, if you looked at the project objectively, call the
    shots. We have to rely on their resources to identify
    properties, give us most of the hard advice on what features of
    a building need to be preserved and where national historic
    landmark nominations are made. They obviously have a very
    strong role in making recommendations on these recommendations
    to the Federal Government.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Fowler?
        Mr. Fowler. I would like to emphasize what Mr. Peck said
    about the notion of a partnership. We work very closely, not
    just with the Interior Department and the National Park Service
    on carrying out the historic preservation program, but really
    closely with the States and, most recently, with tribes; and I
    think that really is a hallmark of this program, and it is
    something that the Congress, in its wisdom, has strengthened
    periodically. And I think that is the reason we are all here
    today, to support the continuation of the Historic Preservation
    Fund.
        H.R. 1522 proposes some readjustments in the Federal
    dimension of that partnership, and I think that I should note
    for the record that our council membership, which includes the
    Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of GSA, has not
    taken a formal position on these specific amendments. I would
    note from my experience in dealing with the Interior
    Department, we work very closely on implementing section 110;
    we have jointly drafted, for example, the section 110
    guidelines that are referred to in the legislation, and we are
    pleased to see this come to fruition. What needs to be
    emphasized, we think, is the notion of consultation regardless
    of who has the responsibility under the law to ensure that this
    partnership continues the way it has.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So your best opinion is that the
    partnership is working very well, despite the backlog, the
    problems that you have, as it is, with limited resources?
        My time is up, I guess, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado.
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much. I appreciate very much the
    input that each of you had, and I have great respect for your
    input and I will certainly take your suggestions into
    consideration; and any additional suggestions you might have
    between now and the time we get to the markup phase of this
    bill, we would appreciate having those.
        It seemed to me, in listening to your testimony, the major
    stickler, although there are a number of suggestions, is the
    role of the Advisory Council, and the reason for the changes we
    suggested in the bill is to strengthen the Advisory Council's
    hand as an arbitrator, simply because they don't have a dog in
    the fight. In a way, the park department does, the Department
    of Interior does and so forth, GAO does, but they don't; and
    they have proved, even under the present circumstances, at
    times, they can be an amazingly powerful arbitrator; and we
    thought that might be necessary. And I give one example in
    Victor, a mining district in my district, where they were
    opening up an old mine area and they found an Indian circle or
    something, and we had every agency known to man descending on
    the place; and several million dollars later the mine went on
    and began to operate. The Cheyenne Arapahoe tribe blessed it
    and all this kind of thing, we got through the whole thing. But
    it seemed to me we went through an enormous amount of rigmarole
    we wouldn't have had to do if we had had a powerful arbitrator
    who said, this makes a difference and that doesn't and so
    forth. But maybe that isn't the way to go. I'm not sure.
        Would you, Mr. Stanton, describe the National Park
    Service's relationship with the Advisory Council as you see it,
    and then I would like Mr. Fowler to kind of talk from his
    standpoint as well.
        Mr. Stanton. With respect to our relationship, I think it
    is excellent, but as in all relationships, there are
    opportunities to enhance, there are always some questions of
    adequacy of communication and coordination. But in terms of a
    major undertaking on the part of the National Park Service with
    respect to properties under our direct jurisdiction, as well as
    our consultation with State historic preservation officers and
    others with respect to properties in private ownership or in
    ownership of States or their political subdivisions, the
    relationship with the Advisory Council, I think, has been
    excellent.
        What we attempt to do is to seek their advice with respect
    to maybe general management plans or the undertaking of the
    restoration of the Washington Monument as an example, and
    certainly with the siting of the new memorials here in the
    Nation's Capital.
        The question has come up as to how effective have we been
    in analyzing what the requirements of a preservation project
    may be, and I might just add, Mr. Hefley, with respect to our
    own in-house capability, we try to assure that our projects are
    reviewed by historical architects, archeologists and
    historians, so the historic integrity of an undertaking is
    fully analyzed by my people before we even submit a proposal to
    the National Advisory Council, so it is a good relationship, it
    is a good give-and-take.
        Mr. Hefley. Well, I know that your policy--in the case of
    the Victor example I gave, it was one person, I think, within
    the park department, who created the enormous difficulty that
    was created there; and it was just because of their own
    personal bias out there in the field, and this was not under
    your reign.
        So Mr. Fowler----
        Mr. Fowler. I certainly echo the Director's
    characterization of the relationship. We deal with the Park
    Service in two somewhat distinct ways. One is, as a partner in
    carrying out the historic preservation program, the Department,
    acting through the National Park Service, has certain
    responsibilities relating to the status preservation programs,
    tribal programs, professional standards, et cetera. Likewise,
    the council has responsibilities when it comes to administering
    the project review process, and I think again the example of
    the cooperation that we both exhibited in developing the
    section 110 guidelines is exemplary of that partnership.
        We also deal with the Park Service the way we deal with any
    other Federal agency that has actions that affect historic
    properties, and sometimes--we are not always in agreement as to
    what the outcome should be, but we deal with each other
    professionally.
        You made some reference to the dispute resolution
    provision, and that, as you noted earlier, was a point of
    contention. We do attempt, through the section 106 process, to
    resolve disputes or prevent disputes from emerging by having
    good, early planning and early consideration of historic
    properties. We are currently charged by this Committee to come
    back with a report to you next spring on other ways, alternate
    ways we can implement the section 106 requirements; and I think
    the development of this report might provide a good opportunity
    to examine whether some additional authority, consistent with
    the council's basic legal authorities might be suitable to have
    to assist us in carrying--in doing a better job in dispute
    resolution or dispute prevention.
        Mr. Hefley. My time is up. Let me ask one quick question.
        Would you agree with Mr. Stanton, Mr. Fowler, that now is
    not the time to make the changes that are suggested in terms of
    your role?
        Mr. Fowler. I think they need to be made in--I hate to say
    now is not the time to consider them because the time to
    consider them is when you are looking at this Act and there may
    be some positive things that can be done.
        I think it needs to be very carefully done, and it should
    not--as I noted in my opening statement, it should not be done
    to the delay of getting the primary reauthorization through.
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Stanton, maybe you can help me understand this a
    little bit better than in your testimony I have here before me.
    You indicated that changing the Advisory Council's authority
    has the potential to interfere with the primary mission of the
    Federal agencies, and according to a Department of Justice
    statement, would violate the appointment clause of the
    Constitution.
        Can you explain that to me so that I can understand what
    you are getting at?
        Mr. Stanton. I would only attempt to explain it in a
    layman's way, sir. I appreciate the question.
        Again, based on advice from the Justice Department, is that
    the statute establishing the Advisory Council clearly gives
    authority to be advisory to the executive departments that have
    the ultimate re-

    sponsibility of carrying out programs, activities affecting its
    responsibilities. Clearly, the Secretary of the Interior,
    clearly the Director of the National Park Service, as an
    example, have responsibilities of managing resources, and the
    final decision would rest with us in terms of the delegated
    authorities.
        If I understand correctly the counsel from the Justice
    Department, it would, in essence, remove that kind of a line
    authority from the Department of the Interior, vested in the
    Secretary of the Interior and bureaus responsible to him; and
    therefore, a decision--ultimate decision affecting properties
    under our jurisdiction would reside then with the Advisory
    Council on Historic Preservation.
        Mr. Gibbons. Are you saying this jurisdiction is removed
    over existing property that is listed in the national historic
    records or over proposed property that would be listed, because
    we are talking about an advisory decision or a council here?
        Mr. Stanton. If I understand the question correctly, it
    would remove, in some circumstances, the responsibility and
    indeed the authority from the Department of Interior to make
    the final decision on existing, as well as potential,
    properties that would be affected.
        Mr. Gibbons. Amendment 2, that you also disagree with here,
    deletes the Department of Interior's decision or authority to
    override property owners' consent, if you will, to having their
    property listed. That is what I believe you are stating in a
    paragraph on page 3, second paragraph, of your testimony, is
    that not correct, your interpretation that says that Amendment
    2 deletes the Secretary of the Interior's ability to override
    objections of private property owners?
        Mr. Stanton. The view that has been expressed in the
    testimony, as you describe, sir, is that we believe that the
    spirit of the historic preservation program for the Federal
    Government, vested in the Department of Interior and certainly
    with the advice of the national council of historic
    preservation should not preclude the Nation identifying its
    cultural resources or historic resources, irrespective of
    ownership. Obviously, the ultimate treatment of those resources
    will still be vested in the owner of that property, but to
    identify it as having historical significance to our Nation or
    to a State still should be in the public interest; but
    therefore, it does not, by listing these properties on a
    national register, remove any of the rights that run to the
    ownership of those properties.
        Mr. Gibbons. Help me out. Once a property is listed on a
    register, is it restricted in any form to the private owner's
    ability of development changes, that that owner may have or may
    wish to take with regard to the improvement or changes of that
    property?
        Mr. Stanton. Actually, it does not, unless there is Federal
    money involved, or funding involved, but it does not in any way
    diminish the property owners' rights to exercise their
    treatment, development, rehabilitation, or removal of the
    property, as they see fit.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. How does the cost compare between a remodeling,
    retrofitting and new construction? How does the cost compare
    when you put bids out, you talk to builders?
        Mr. Peck. Mr. Chairman, since we do that, I can respond;
    and as always, it depends. It depends on the level of
    restoration work you are doing in a building. And, in fact, we
    have a number of cases going now in which there are arguments
    on all sides about whether in one particular instance it is
    more expensive to rehab an existing building we do not
    currently own, or to build a brand new court house.
        Here are the kinds of factors that come into play. The
    question is, in an existing building, will the floor-to-ceiling
    heights in the building take the heights we require in
    courtrooms, because we have a standard given to us by the
    courts that requires that the ceiling height be a certain
    level. Therefore, we might have to do some structural things to
    the old building.
        On the other hand, as a general rule, you save a lot of
    money when you don't have to build a new foundation, put up
    structural steel or concrete framework; and you wind up--
    interestingly, in rehab projects, you wind up spending more of
    your money on labor and less on materials than you do on a new
    construction project.
        But I can show you numbers that go both ways on what is
    more expensive. It depends on the quality of the new building
    you are talking about, too. But I would say, flush all that out
    and you wind up saying it is often a wash.
        Mr. Hansen. I guess that is kind of a retail question,
    isn't it, predicated on the building you are looking at,
    basically, what have you got? But if you look at some of these
    old buildings, you say, where could we find anybody who could
    figure out how to do that?
        I know, as an old land developer, you look at some of the
    things and you say, that was wonderful, some real craftsman,
    some very skilled person did this particular thing; how can we
    find somebody in this day and age? But apparently somebody
    always seems to surface if we have enough money to pay them to
    do it.
        Mr. Peck. Mr. Chairman, interestingly, since I got involved
    in preservation some 25 years ago, there are a lot more
    ornamental plasterers than there used to be because there is
    now a demand for them. More people now work in metal and wood
    to restore old buildings than at one time. When we rehabbed
    Union Station, we were pretty sure we had just about every
    ornamental plasterer on the East Coast working on the project.
    I think there are a lot more than that now.
        Mr. Hansen. I was just curious how that worked out. As I
    look at old buildings, especially religious buildings and
    historic buildings, I have just been amazed that people can
    restore them.
        Any more questions for this panel?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Mr.
    Fowler, it has been my experience in working with the Majority,
    that once the train starts moving, you are either on board, or
    you are not going to catch up with them.
        And I just wanted to ask, Mr. Fowler, you indicated there
    is some report you are going to be preparing--submitting
    sometime in the spring. Is there some way we can expedite that,
    because I think central to this proposed bill is exactly the
    situation with the Council on Historic Preservation and your
    activities--what it takes to have the historic preservation.
    You mentioned earlier in your testimony that you were preparing
    some kind of report, and I would like to ask if you can
    expedite that report and submit it to the Subcommittee sooner.
    Perhaps it will be helpful to the Subcommittee as we prepare
    for the markup.
        Mr. Fowler. In all honesty, sir, when we were directed to
    provide that report, we were given no resources, no additional
    resources to do it. We programmed it so we can deliver it in
    May, and I am not sure that we are going to be able to move
    that schedule up. But we would certainly be happy to share with
    the Committee what we are finding in the development of that
    report, if that is necessary, in order to meet your time
    schedule.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Certainly I think it will be helpful to
    know exactly where you stand.
        Mr. Hefley. If the gentleman will yield, I agree it would
    be helpful.
        I also agree with panel members, I would hesitate to do
    anything that would slow this up. I think we need to go ahead
    with the reauthorization here; and maybe if you come in with a
    report that says some things that do mean additional changes,
    Mr. Chairman, we could take that up in the Committee with a
    separate bill and work on that next year. But I would hate to
    wait until next year to move forward with this.
        Mr. Fowler. I believe that is the way we were looking at
    the report, that hopefully it would be the beginning of a
    discussion about further ways to improve the National Historic
    Preservation Act.
        Mr. Stanton. We certainly concur in that approach.
        Mr. Fowler. I should note, we are currently finalizing
    changes to our section 106 regulations to implement the 1992
    amendments. We started that process in 1993. It usually takes--
    because of public comment and discussion among agencies and
    stakeholders and so on, it takes anywhere from 4 to 5 years to
    finalize major regulatory changes, so anything that we are
    looking at in substantial changes, in implementation of the 106
    process, we are looking at the next round of legislative
    oversight discussion and regulatory implementation.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        We want to thank the panel for their presentation.
        And our next panel will be Mr. Eric Hertfelder, Executive
    Director of the National Conference of State Historic
    Preservation Officers; Alexander Wise, Virginia Department of
    Historical Resources; John Keck, Wyoming State Historic
    Preservation Office; and Ms. Brenda Barrett, Director of
    Historic Preservation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
        If they would please come forward, everybody in the right
    place. You all heard the suggestion of staying in your time, if
    you could. If you want to go over a little bit, we understand.
        I ask unanimous consent that the letter addressed to me on
    October 15, 1997, from the Architect of the Capital be included
    in the record. Is there objection?
        Hearing none, so ordered.
        [The information may be found at end of hearing.]

      STATEMENT OF ERIC HERTFELDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
           CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS

        Mr. Hansen. We will start with you, Mr. Hertfelder.
        Mr. Hertfelder. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
    thank you for having this panel today of SHPOs, the State
    Historic Preservation Officers.
        The National Historic Preservation Act is the organic Act
    which defines governmental roles in historic preservation and
    creates the intergovernmental partnership, the Federal
    Government cooperating with State, local and tribal
    governments, which actually carry out the Federal Government's
    historic preservation program. The Historic Preservation Fund
    funding is absolutely critical to maintaining this partnership,
    and we are very grateful to Mr. Hefley for introducing
    legislation to continue the deposits to the fund.
        At this point I am going to turn to the three officers who
    are here. First, Alexander Wise, who is the State Historic
    Preservation director in Virginia, appointed in 1994, and he is
    the director of the Division of Historic Resources in Virginia;
    and then John Peck, State Historic Preservation Officer
    appointed in 1992, of the SHPO office in Wyoming, which is
    located in the Department of Commerce; and then Brenda Barrett,
    Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer from Pennsylvania,
    appointed in 1980, who is director of the Bureau of Historic
    Preservation, a part of the Independent Pennsylvania Historical
    and Museums Commission.
        So I will turn it over to Alex Wise.

          STATEMENT OF H. ALEXANDER WISE, JR., STATE HISTORIC
       PRESERVATION OFFICER AND DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
                          HISTORICAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Wise. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Subcommittee Members,
    I am here today as Virginia's State Historic Preservation
    Officer to urge you to reauthorize deposits into the Historic
    Preservation Fund through year 2007.
        Virginia is a State rich in history, but it is one thing to
    have history; it is another to put it to work for the benefit
    of our citizens, our communities, and our country. So much of
    our history has to do with the perceived liberty and shaping of
    our Nation in Virginia that, in a sense, we hold our history in
    trust for all Americans. The National Historic Preservation
    Fund plays a vital role in the development of this priceless
    asset for all of us.
        Each year we receive approximately $650,000 from the
    Historic Preservation Fund, a modest amount, but let me tell
    you what it does. It funds our National Register Program
    through which significant buildings, archeological sites,
    structures and districts are identified, documented and
    publicly recognized with the consent of property owners. These
    places and their settings give our communities their identity
    and our Commonwealth its character. Communities, like
    individuals, need identity and roots. Without a sense of past,
    there can be no sense of future.
        In the past 30 years, nearly 2,000 individual Virginia
    properties and districts have been placed on the Register. Let
    me mention just one example. Aberdeen Gardens in the city of
    Hampton was a 1930s resettlement administration project
    designed and built by and for African Americans. Former
    Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary grew up there. By the early
    1990s, it was becoming run-down, but an extraordinary woman
    named Evelyn Chandler undertook registration of Aberdeen
    Gardens as a community project to build pride and begin the
    revitalization process. Working closely with my office, she
    succeeded in having Aberdeen's 160 buildings registered as an
    historic district, with the full support of the property
    owners. The community has leveraged its newfound pride and
    cohesion into political strength, better schools, higher
    property values, greater prosperity, and plans for a community
    museum to attract tourists.
        The Federal historic rehabilitation tax credit,
    administration of which is also funded through the Historic
    Preservation Fund, converts listing on the National Register
    directly into an economic benefit for property owners and for
    their communities. In the past 20 years, the rehabilitation of
    some 674 income-producing historic buildings across Virginia
    has resulted in an investment of $259 million in historic
    buildings and districts. As a result, an estimated 13,000 new
    jobs have been created with an increase of household income of
    nearly $275 million. Half of these have been in the
    construction industry and half in the professions, lawyers and
    architects and so forth. Last year alone, over $40 million was
    invested in completed rehab projects in Virginia under this
    program.
        Adaptive reuse of old buildings through the Federal tax
    credit helps preserve the character of our communities,
    enhances their tax bases, brings blighted areas back to life,
    uses existing infrastructure, is environmentally responsible,
    and reduces urban sprawl. In Roanoke, for example, the $28
    million restoration of the Hotel Roanoke, a joint project of
    the city government, a university, a redevelopment authority, a
    bank consortium, and tens of thousands of citizens,
    demonstrated all of these advantages and has had a major impact
    on the city's downtown.
        Mr. Chairman, the Historic Preservation Fund is first and
    foremost about helping communities maintain their historic
    fabric. The Certified Local Government Program in Virginia
    includes 23 communities which have made a special effort in
    historic preservation. One great example is Clarke County,
    which has used every possible means of advancing historic
    preservation, including doing a video for economic development
    and education, using the historic fabric as a way to attract
    businesses.
        The fourth major program that the Fund funds is project
    review, section 106. Dulles Airport and National Airport are
    great examples of how citizens have been brought in to the
    review process to make projects better and to ensure
    historically sensitive rehabilitations that are also
    functional.
        If I can, in closing, just say that the Fund also leverages
    many very positive State programs. Governor Allen and his
    Secretary of Natural Resources Becky Norton Dunlop, have
    provided a great deal of leadership in helping us leverage
    these Federal dollars into State projects as well that make the
    Federal dollars go very, very far indeed.
        Finally, let me say that in my 3\1/2\ years, I have seen a
    tremendous improvement in the partnership between the States
    and the National Park Service, and it is a genuine State-
    Federal partner-

    ship. It is a program where federalism is alive and well, and
    we are also very enthusiastic about the new section 106
    regulations and think that our relationship with the Advisory
    Council is where we want it. We think this program is working
    well and that the emphasis should be on reauthorization. Thank
    you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wise may be found at end of
    hearing.]

    STATEMENT OF JOHN T. KECK, STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,
               WYOMING STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE

        Mr. Keck. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
    opportunity to come and speak to this panel this morning. I,
    too, am here to ask for your reauthorization of the Historic
    Preservation Fund and speak on its behalf.
        I do not come to the historic preservation field as a
    trained academician, but the one thing that did become clear to
    me upon assuming the State Historic Preservation Office in
    Wyoming is the vast impact this program can have on the State
    and its citizens, and it is a vast, positive impact. What makes
    that happen is the grass-roots nature of this whole bill and
    the way it provides people, that is just your average citizen,
    with the opportunity to have a voice in how their resources are
    managed. The law States the parameters by which people can
    speak on behalf of things that they feel are important to them,
    because of their local significance, their State significance,
    their national significance. Absent that ability, there would
    be some very devastating effects on the resources. Within
    Wyoming, and I think in the majority of the Western States, it
    has really enabled us to develop numerous partnerships in a
    variety of areas to help with State development.
        One example is heritage tourism. We have some wonderful
    relationships with Grand Teton National Park and Fort Laramie
    that are being tied into local tourism packages. We have
    excellent relationships with the Bureau of Land Management on
    Project Archeology that is being used to develop sites and
    information that is being used through the State Division of
    Tourism to attract people to those types of resources.
        The Tax Act is a program that in Wyoming works integrally
    with the Department of Commerce. We, as a State Historic
    Preservation Office, are housed in the same building, and we
    work hand in glove with them on many issues of interest to our
    local citizenry on how we can maintain a sense of character in
    Wyoming while still providing for needed economic growth and
    development.
        How do we maintain a life-style while confronted with vast
    changes that we know are coming in the future? The Historic
    Preservation Fund and the legislation provides a mechanism for
    doing that through the development of partnerships and by
    enabling the grass-roots support to be there so that the
    communities and the local citizens have a chance to speak and
    act on behalf of these resources.
        One of the major perceptions that causes problems within
    the National Historic Preservation Act is the 106 program, and
    within that, most of the problems you will find are really one
    of perception rather than reality. When we come down to it, the
    Act itself is not causing the problems, the Act is enabling
    that the resources be considered. It is the basic tensions that
    are created by a single-purpose agency, which the State
    Historic Preservation Office is, and in the West we have
    multipurpose agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management
    and the U.S. Forest Service. The problems we have are issues
    that the Act was created to create, in that there are
    differences of opinions, and you have to accept that those
    differences are going to occur, but it does not, when it is
    handled responsibly, preclude those Federal agencies from
    making land management decisions. What it does is affords the
    public a chance to be involved and a responsible partner in the
    development of those resources.
        When I talk about the potential for partnerships, one thing
    that we are doing, and I wanted to site this as an example to
    the Subcommittee, is we are working on an interstate
    partnership relationship with many of the Western States,
    California, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, to name a few,
    and also Massachusetts, for the development of a national
    database. The Park Service has one in effect now. They have
    done an excellent job with it, and they are also coming on
    board as a partner with us, too.
        What we are looking at is with the vast amount of
    information that exists on these resources, how can we make it
    cross jurisdictional boundaries; how can we make it so it is
    more accessible to the public, so that if a citizen wants to
    know about their resources, they can do so easily and at a low-
    cost basis? How can we do it in such a fashion that permitted
    actions under section 106 can be handled in a more efficient
    manner?
        These are the forces that are driving it, and all of these
    factors are available through the authorization of the Historic
    Preservation Fund. I see it as an opportunity that does not
    preclude, but enhances, the opportunities for those
    developments to occur, and for those developments to occur in a
    responsible fashion that meets the needs identified by that
    State who, in partnership with the Federal agencies and the
    local citizens, can effectuate and manage these resources in an
    appropriate and responsible fashion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Keck may be found at end of
    hearing.]

     STATEMENT OF BRENDA BARRETT, DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
                         HISTORIC PRESERVATION

        Ms. Barrett. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Governor Ridge of
    Pennsylvania, I want to thank the Chairman and members of the
    Committee for inviting me here today. I am Brenda Barrett,
    Director of the Historic Preservation Program.
        Over 30 years ago, Congress passed what was then a unique
    partnership bill in the National Historic Preservation Act, and
    each of these partners brought special skills. The National
    Park Service has, of course, the national perspective and a
    long-standing expertise in historic preservation. The Advisory
    Council on Historic Preservation brings together an array of
    Federal land managing agencies and some of our key citizen
    partners, and, of course, the States deliver the program on the
    ground in the communities. As one of the stateside partners, I
    am here to attest to the success of this program and to urge
    its reauthorization.
        In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, this success is
    demonstrated both by the numbers of historic properties
    preserved for new uses and by the less tangible value of a
    heritage that is saved for the next generation. But first, let
    us look at some of these numbers. We have over 3,000 properties
    listed in the National Register, and interest in the program is
    still growing. Our survey files of historic buildings and
    archeological sites contain over 150,000 records, and armed
    with this rich historic database, communities are initiating
    hundreds of mainstream programs in Pennsylvania. They have
    established over 80 local historic districts, and they are
    using it in tourist promotion. Housing, hotel and other
    commercial developers are taking advantage of the investment
    tax credit for historic preservation, and at the commission we
    are proud to report over $1.7 billion in rehabilitation
    investment in Pennsylvania, where we are the national leaders.
        Thanks to the farsighted funding formula and the framework
    of the National Historic Preservation Act, historic
    preservation programs have been woven into the fabric of every
    State. Now, these programs have the advantage of both being
    comparable State to State and tailored to the needs of each
    State's governance. My Governor, Tom Ridge, has supported
    generously our history programs. We have a bricks and mortar
    State grant program that assists hundreds of National Register
    buildings. We have a treasure trove of historic site
    information that supports, for example, our innovative heritage
    park program that is based on our industrial heritage in
    Pennsylvania. And I have actually brought several copies of our
    most recent publication. This is on the coal industry in
    Pennsylvania, and this history research is used as a baseline,
    as a context for National Register nominations, for heritage
    planning, for interpretation, for trails of history, for
    driving tours, and for historic site development.
        But, while the Commonwealth programs are strong and
    diverse, Pennsylvania needs the funding, and we need the
    Federal support of a reauthorized National Historic
    Preservation Act. It is critical so that we can assist Federal
    agencies in fulfilling their mandates when they plan and
    develop projects in our borders; it is critical to providing a
    consistent baseline for history initiatives; and most
    importantly, to connect us to the larger story of our Nation.
    Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hefley. [presiding] Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Barrett may be found at end
    of hearing.]
        Mr. Hefley. Questions?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. One quick question, Mr. Chairman, I would
    like to ask Mr. Wise.
        I notice in your statement that you are recommending that
    the Secretary's authority be terminated, or rescinded, in terms
    of the transfer of property. Can you elaborate a little further
    on that, Mr. Wise?
        Mr. Wise. Which section are you referring to?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. You are recommending in your conclusions
    that the secretarial authority be rescinded on the transfer of
    property. I think you have that number 4 in your
    recommendation. I wasn't quite clear on that.
        Mr. Wise. I am going to ask Mr. Hertfelder to speak on
    that, if I may.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Oh, sure, by all means.
        Now, is there a suggestion that under the current law, the
    Secretary's authority is not used wisely, or is there some
    problems that we are having with the Secretary of the Interior
    doing his job according to the law?
        Mr. Hertfelder. I think we have found that it is generally
    not used, because in a sense it is duplicated by the section
    106 procedures. Whenever the accessing of a Federal building,
    the transfer of Federal properties is, in fact, an undertaking
    under the law, and therefore it is subject to Advisory Council
    review. The Secretary of the Interior is a statutory member of
    the Council, and so that review takes place under 106. It was
    our feeling that to have another whole separate review process
    would be duplicative, and, in fact, it has not been
    implemented.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. And if not by the Secretary, then how are
    you suggesting, that the Council make the final decision for
    the State Council of Historic Preservation?
        Mr. Hertfelder. I believe our suggestion is that since
    existing law creates a review which is duplicated by 106, that
    deleting it would have no effect, because----
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But what is your preference?
        Mr. Hertfelder. Our preference is to have it under section
    106, because there is wider public and agency involvement in
    that review than just having one Cabinet officer do a review of
    all Federal property transfer.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. The officer being the? Which is the
    reviewing body that you are suggesting being the final arbiter
    of the transfer of property? You are saying that we eliminate
    the Secretary's authority. Who are you suggesting that we ought
    to give this authority to then?
        Mr. Hertfelder. Well, we are not suggesting transferring
    the existing authority anywhere else. Our suggestion is that
    this can be deleted, because the Advisory Council, in section
    106 review, duplicates that process.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Your feelings are the Advisory Council
    should be the one doing it?
        Mr. Hertfelder. Yes.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hefley. Mr. Gibbons.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Hertfelder, could you describe the process
    for me by which properties are nominated to the National
    Register of Historic Places, and also, is there a difference
    for landmark status and historic district status?
        Mr. Hertfelder. Right. Each of the States can further
    describe the details, but in general, the State Historic
    Preservation Officers receive suggestions for properties which
    should be nominated to the National Register from communities,
    from individuals, individual homeowners, from businesses who
    want to take advantage of the Federal tax credits and so forth.
    There are procedures involved, standards to be met in terms of
    documentation, so if someone wants to proceed with a
    nomination, they prepare a nomination according to the National
    Register, National Park Service's stand-

    ards. Then that nomination is submitted to the State Historic
    Preservation Office, or, if a local government has assumed
    responsibility under the Act, to the local government, or to a
    tribal government if they have assumed responsibility under the
    Act. But anyway, the State Historic Preservation Office then
    reviews the nomination.
        Before any action is taken to decide whether it is eligible
    or not, the property owners in the affected area are notified
    if it is a district, or an individual owner if it is an
    individual, and given an opportunity to object. Then the State
    Historic Preservation Review Board--I am sorry, the State
    National Register Review Board, which consists of various
    professionals appointed and qualified to comment on various
    aspects of history and archeology, review the nomination and
    decide whether it meets the National Register criteria. If it
    does, then it is forwarded through the National Park Service,
    and then the Park Service has to review it again to decide
    whether or not it is eligible for the Register.
        In the case of owner notifications, if an individual owner
    objects to the nomination, the nomination--it may not be
    entered on the National Register. In terms of districts, if a
    majority of the owners object, it may not be entered on the
    National Register.
        Mr. Gibbons. I guess for each of the States here that are
    represented, does that mesh with your own State procedures?
        Mr. Wise. Yes, it does, and we have a policy in Virginia;
    we do not ram things down property owners' throats, and we very
    much--are very concerned about what property owners want to do,
    and we track exactly what he is saying.
        Mr. Gibbons. So a private property owner would be given an
    opportunity to opt out of the system without any further
    incidents if he were just a single property owner within that
    group, or a historic place rather than a historic district?
        Mr. Wise. Correct.
        Mr. Gibbons. Because if he is only a minority in a historic
    direct, then it is the district that has the choice of
    selection and not a single property owner; is that correct?
        Mr. Wise. If a single property owner objects, that is the
    end of it, as far as we are concerned.
        Mr. Gibbons. Would that take place in a district?
        Mr. Wise. No, in a district, it is majority rules.
        Mr. Gibbons. If it is a single property owner, if he
    objects, he is off the list, no further recourse, no further
    action.
        Mr. Wise. Well, I believe it came up earlier, Mr. Stanton
    was asked the question of whether the Secretary can still say
    that something is eligible, and yes. I think there was some
    confusion there because the Secretary could say that a property
    is eligible, but he could not place it on the Register.
        Mr. Gibbons. Okay.
        Mr. Wise. And the eligibility determination is just an
    objective. It is a statement that this doesn't meet the
    criteria for nomination, but that is different from actually
    putting it on the Register.
        Mr. Gibbons. Now, let me find out, if the originating
    recommendation does not come from the property owner, how is a
    property owner notified?
        Mr. Wise. Well, in Virginia we take care of that by working
    with the property owner up front.
        Mr. Gibbons. How is that? How do you do that? What is the
    process?
        Mr. Wise. Well, we have field offices in Virginia, and if
    somebody came to us who was a third party and said, we want to
    put something on the Register, and then we would immediately go
    to the property owner and say, is this of interest to you? Do
    you want to do this? And if the property owner said no, well,
    we would not proceed.
        Mr. Gibbons. Maybe I should allow the other States, Wyoming
    and Pennsylvania, to add to this as well.
        Mr. Keck. We do it much the same. If I can give you a
    couple of specific instances that may help clarify the
    situation, recently in the community of Cheyenne, there was a
    Lakeview Historic District created, which was a residential
    area encompassing about 50-odd houses, some of which were
    contributing, some of which were not. What we did was we worked
    with the local planning office, found out the names and
    addresses of all of the property owners within that proposed
    district, sent them a formal letter informing them of the
    pending nomination that had been created by our certified local
    government or local historic preservation board, and notified
    them of the status of that. Then we sent them a letter saying,
    do you want--that basically said, do you want to be part of
    this, do you want this to go ahead or not; and took a vote. And
    over--I can't give you the numbers, but over 50 percent said,
    yes, they did want to be a part of it. So we then at that point
    proceeded.
        We also held a public meeting, at which point we offered an
    opportunity for all of those local residents to come, ask
    questions, have their concerns addressed as far as what it
    meant. So within that district allocation, we took the steps
    of, one, notifying them of the pending nomination so that they
    were aware of it and had some people to contact, word of mouth.
    They would have known about it, but would have been lost in the
    bureaucracy. But we also then took the step of doing a formal
    vote of those people who were property owners and then took a
    public hearing so that they had a chance to have their voices
    heard and any interest expressed.
        One side issue that sometimes causes confusion is in the
    area of if you have a single property owner, if I had a piece
    of property that was historic, and I said, I do not want it
    listed, I have the authority to do that. The distinction that
    sometimes gets confusing or where it causes problems in Wyoming
    is that if you have a public entity that is the sole owner of a
    property, because they are an owner as a public entity, that a
    member of the public can go ahead and have that building listed
    on the National Register. An example would be the local high
    school in Pine Bliss, Wyoming, a small school, where the school
    board did not want the property listed, but the people of the
    community did. So, because it was a public building, the
    property was listed over the objections of the school board. So
    that would be an example of how there are some where you could
    say a sole-source owner could be overridden. But in the case
    where the owner is a private party, no, I am unfamiliar with
    any situations that would allow that to be overridden.
        Mr. Hefley. Some States are more aggressive than others
    about historic preservation. I am reminded of the instance in
    Houston where the Houston Mission Control needed to upgrade and
    was held up for years because of preservation concerns.
        Do you have mechanisms by which you say enough is enough
    and you photograph, document, and move on to the use that it is
    intended for? Anyone who wants to respond.
        Ms. Barrett. I think that is an important role that the
    Advisory Council plays. I think the--in a large and complex
    project, having the Advisory Council and the Federal agency who
    is involved, in that case NASA, you know, working directly on
    the issue is extremely important, and the Advisory Council
    regulations have very clear time frames for response to a
    party. When you have a large and complex project, this can
    take, you know, months of time to have public meetings and to
    get the input from all the different parties. But at some
    point, the Federal agency who is really in charge of the
    process and really sets the pace, the Advisory Council and the
    State Historic Preservation Office do have to come to some kind
    of resolution on the issue. My experience has been that it is
    usually hammered out, there is a good negotiation, and there is
    a solution, and in many cases that solution is documentation
    and demolition.
        Mr. Hefley. Do any of these cases end up in court?
        Ms. Barrett. Very few.
        Mr. Keck. One of the problems that ensues, too, a lot of
    times before it can go to the Advisory Council, the State
    Historic Preservation Office and the Federal agency can spend a
    great deal of time and discussion, and neither of them--both of
    them are wanting to, before it goes to that final arbiter of
    the Advisory Council, are wanting to work it out, and that can
    take extended periods of time. That is not the fault of the
    Act, that is a responsibility that we, the States, need to take
    on, and it is one that has caused problems between my office
    and the National Park Service, and one that we are working to
    get rid of, because we have made the decision that we want to
    establish internally at what point we are in a point of
    disagreement so that we can agree that we disagree and allow it
    to move forward; because it is too easy for the bureaucracy to
    allow something to continue to be debated and looked at when we
    are both in agreement that we mutually have looked at it every
    which way we can, we just can't come to a common agreement. So
    we are trying to set up a framework by which that can happen,
    where it can move on and be established within a time frame. So
    that those mechanisms do exist, it just takes the action of
    kicking it into those mechanisms that has to transpire.
        Mr. Hertfelder. Mr. Hefley, if I could add a footnote to
    your NASA example, as is the case with all highly technical or
    military resources, they have to be upgraded all the time to
    maintain their usefulness, so when Mission Control was proposed
    for demolition to have a new Mission Control for the space
    shuttle and so forth, I don't think anybody was saying that you
    can't do that. But as a result of the consultations between the
    Texas SHPO and the Council and NASA over the fate of that room
    which controlled the Apollo 13 moon landing, the equipment was
    stripped out and saved, as opposed to being demolished and
    thrown away.
        I was informed recently by an article in the Texas SHPO
    newsletter that partially as a result of the Tom Hanks film
    Apollo 13, there has been a renewed interested in the landing
    on the moon, and visitation at the center in Texas is up, and I
    believe with the help of the Disney Company, they are now
    recreating that room for visitors, and because they have the
    equipment which they stored as opposed to getting rid of it,
    they are going to be able to reinstall those consoles in that
    strange green color that they used back then and all of those
    blinking lights and so forth. So there was a happier ending at
    least for the equipment than is often the case with historic
    properties.
        Mr. Hefley. I thought that was probably a good solution,
    although it took so long.
        Virginia had an eligibility dispute at Brandy Station
    Battlefield. What was the outcome of that dispute? Has it
    resulted in any change in how nominations are handled?
        Mr. Keck. Yes, very much so. That was actually a little
    before my time when I came into office, but I think the
    sensitivity that we have today to the wishes of property owners
    is traceable to that event, which was a case where the SHPO's
    office, essentially on its own, decided to register Brandy
    Station Battlefield; and it was an extraordinary case, because
    the battle took place over some 14,000 acres, as I recall. It
    was the largest cavalry battle ever fought in the Western
    Hemisphere, 10,000 mounted men as a prelude to Gettysburg.
        When it is a cavalry battle, it is like a tank battle.
    There is a lot of motion and people cover a lot of ground; and
    you can imagine, it is rural property, and the property owners
    are very upset about that.
        The proper groundwork wasn't done in explaining what
    registration meant and what it didn't mean, as we heard.
    Registration of property does not bind property owners, and so
    anyway, there was a political backlash in Virginia. And our
    philosophy today is to work with the property owners up front;
    if they don't want it, leave it alone.
        Mr. Hefley. I want to thank this panel. I would say to you,
    like I did to the former panel, if you have additional specific
    suggestions about how this piece of legislation should be
    amended, we would very much appreciate getting them; and we
    appreciate your expertise working on the front lines of this
    effort. Thank you very much.
        The next panel, Richard Nettler, Edward Norton, Jack
    Williams.

         STATEMENT OF RICHARD NETTLER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
                          PRESERVATION ACTION

        Mr. Hefley. I would give the admonition that the Chairman
    did that we would like to be through by noon, if possible, and
    if you can keep your statements as brief as possible and still
    get the message in, we would appreciate it; and at the same
    time, any statements you have for the record will be put into
    the record.
        Mr. Nettler. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my
    name is Richard Nettler. I am Chairman of the Board of
    Preservation Action. Preservation Action takes great pleasure
    in testifying before the Subcommittee on National Parks,
    Forests and Lands of the House Resources Committee, and as we
    have many times before, actively working for appropriate
    amendment to the Historic Preservation Act since 1976. Our
    success in 1976, 1980 and 1992, as well as a reauthorization of
    funding every 5 years, has fashioned a unique program that is
    working effectively with maximum cooperation at all levels of
    government.
        We thank you, Mr. Hefley, for the introduction of H.R. 1522
    and for the discussion it has produced within the preservation
    community, a lot of that discussion which we are hearing this
    morning. Preservation Action strongly supports the
    reauthorization of funding for the Historic Preservation Fund
    at $150 million through fiscal year 2002; and we further
    support the codification of Executive Order 13006, which Mr.
    Keck spoke about, signed last year by the President to give
    preference to the reuse of historic buildings in historic
    districts for Federal office space needs.
        We see no serious problem with the current divisions of
    responsibilities between the National Park Service and the
    Advisory Council as regards the administration of section 110,
    but we are very disappointed in the omission of required
    consultation between the two agencies, which the National Park
    Service references to the Advisory Council, which we think
    should continue. This change of present law is not a
    constructive one. Mandatory cooperation between the Council and
    National Park Service is more important than who has the lead
    responsibility on section 110.
        Preservation Action believes that the National Historic
    Preservation Program is not broken and, therefore, there is
    little need for many changes or even some small changes in its
    administration, other than the ones that we have just
    mentioned. The reauthorization of the fund, as set up in law in
    1976, is essential, however, and is needed to ensure the
    continuation of annual appropriations for the States, certified
    local governments, and the tribes.
        Since its inception in 1965, the Historic Preservation Act,
    as amended, has become one of the finest examples of federalism
    that exists in government today. You have heard a lot of that
    from some of the State historic preservation officers who
    spoke. While the following description is an understatement of
    agencies' responsibilities in preserving cultural resources,
    the National Park Service program takes a leading role in
    listing qualified properties on the National Register,
    providing technical services to assist those in how to maintain
    those properties, and developing standards and criteria. The
    Advisory Council reports to the President and administers the
    review of proposed Federal projects that receive Federal funds.
        The Park Service and Advisory Council are ably assisted by
    each State Historic Preservation Office which handles a
    workload associated with National Register designation as well
    as determining the historic structures that should be taken
    into account in the section 106 review. This is done usually in
    a minimum of time, ensuring that reviews and determinations are
    not exacerbating experiences, creating costly delays for
    private citizens, local governments or Federal agencies.
        The ``new kids on the block'' in preservation are the
    certified local governments--2,000, I believe, at this time--
    which are mentored by the States in preparation for their
    supporting responsibilities. Whereas National Register
    designation is honorific and makes no requirement upon an
    owner, as has also been discussed, locally designated
    properties are subjected to the provisions of an ordinance as
    passed at the local level. The local government can become a
    partner to the States if it meets the qualifications in the
    Historic Preservation Act for certification.
        In short, historic preservation law has spawned a great
    program that works amazingly well throughout the Federal, State
    and local government system.
        Preservation Action, founded in 1973, is the only national
    organization dedicated solely to grass-roots lobbying for
    historic preservation and neighborhood conservation. We have
    taken leadership roles in advocacy between the Historic
    Preservation Act and the Department of the Interior, including
    the enactment of tax incentives and the authorization of ISTEA
    enhancements. We have watched historic preservation issues come
    onto the screens of many other Federal agencies, such as the
    Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
    the Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, the General
    Services Administration, and the Department of Defense.
        In the latter, we see the fates of preservation and the
    military coming together as the Department of Defense and the
    services confront the maintenance of historic military quarters
    and buildings in a fiscal environment of declining budgets. We
    know you are keenly aware of this problem, Mr. Hefley, in your
    responsibility as Chair of the Subcommittee on Military
    Installations and Facilities of the Committee on National
    Security.
        The coming together of preservation and military housing
    appeared on the scene a year ago. In fiscal year 1997, military
    construction appropriations, the services were directed to
    review their inventories of historic quarters and to report to
    Congress on their plans to remove all but the most historically
    significant from the National Register of Historic Places.
    Language in the report noted erroneously that work on homes
    must receive approval from the various historic preservation
    boards. Language further required the reports to note what
    statutory impediments are being encountered in implementing
    such plans, i.e. those to remove properties from the National
    Register.
        Efforts to change this language last year were successful
    only in requiring consultation with the Advisory Council on the
    reports and made no attempt to clarify erroneous information
    about the National Register and the role of the Advisory
    Council. Much of that clarification you have heard this
    morning.
        The reports from the services were forwarded to Congress in
    April, and we were pleased that both the Army and the Navy
    stated that their historic quarters were not a significant
    drain on their resources and that effective management was the
    answer to the military housing problem.
        In fiscal year 1998, military construction appropriations
    language was again included, also attacking the National
    Register. The false notion that maintenance of historic
    military housing is more expensive has never been
    substantiated. There is no required treatment for historic
    housing, no mandates for a preservation outcome, and in fact,
    there is an economic value to these structures simply because
    they are historic. Indeed, over the last year, the Army has
    been working closely with the Advisory Council and other
    historic preservation groups to fashion its own regulations
    dealing with its historic properties, and also looking at ways
    in which it can privatize many of those properties in a way
    that will take the heat off of the agencies in terms of
    budgeting funds.
        I have taken up a few minutes to give some background on
    historic buildings in the military because we believe there are
    solutions. These solutions, however, will only come to fruition
    if there is a strong, efficient National Register and an
    expeditious system of Advisory Council review of Federal
    actions that is not beset with costly delays and decision-
    making.
        On the Defense Department front, we have watched the
    privatization initiative with interest, but note it is very
    slow moving. Our interest in finding answers that work for both
    preservation and the military is advancing as Preservation
    Action is currently setting up a meeting to bring our
    experiences with private developers and capital, in a
    successful revitalization of commercial historic rehab using
    tax credits, to the table to assist Department of Defense and
    its services in finding creative answers to the maintenance of
    their historic buildings. This could be a precedent, in fact,
    for other agencies; and we have discussed this also with the
    General Services Administration.
        In closing, Preservation Action most strongly supports the
    needed reauthorization of funds for the States, certified local
    governments and tribes. It is critical to maintain a strong and
    adequately funded program at the Federal level to ensure that
    all Federal agencies and the private sector perceive the
    historic preservation program and its designation and review
    process as a cost-effective guide to the creative use of
    historic structures for 20th century purposes. Section 110 is
    the critical tool needed to correct erroneous agency and
    departmental notions about the workings of the historic
    preservation programs and to assist Federal agencies in the
    protection and maintenance of the historic building inventory.
    A clear understanding of historic preservation will open new
    avenues for agencies to involve public-private partnerships to
    assist in meeting their preservation responsibilities.
        We have taken a more limited approach in our testimony
    today on H.R. 1522 in the interest of illustrating how the work
    of this Committee impacts many other committees of Congress and
    agencies of Federal Government; and we are pleased to comment
    before you today and make ourselves available, as well as
    others, to answer questions.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nettler may be found at end
    of hearing.]

     STATEMENT OF EDWARD M. NORTON, VICE PRESIDENT--LAW AND PUBLIC
            POLICY, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

        Mr. Norton. Thank you, Congressman Hefley, and thank you
    very much for the opportunity to testify here today.
        I would like to begin by expressing the National Trust's
    appreciation for your introduction of this legislation for
    reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund, and also to
    express our appreciation for the process that you have engaged
    in in this reauthorization. We have appreciated very much the
    opportunity to meet with you personally and work with you and
    your staff over the last 6 months in developing this
    legislation; and we think it has been a very productive
    process, and we thank you for that.
        I will submit my testimony for the record and be very
    brief.
        I would like to begin on a personal note and say that I
    just returned from New Mexico where the National Trust for
    Historic Preservation held its annual conference, a gathering,
    a rally, a rendezvous, if you will, of more than almost 2,000
    preservations from all over the country, representing all
    segments of the preservation partnership that have been
    discussed here today. I must say that I was impressed with the
    vibrancy and the energy and the grass-roots support at the
    local level. It really made you feel and taste what historic
    preservation does on the ground in communities.
        The other aspect of that that was particularly noticeable--
    to me, at least--was the importance of this preservation
    partnership that you have heard referred to several times
    today, in particular, the role of the States and local
    government and State and local private organizations in that
    partnership. I think, after listening to the testimony today,
    that actually the State historic preservation officers have
    been modest in their statement of really the role that they
    perform under that--in that Federal, State and local
    partnership.
        We strongly support the reauthorization of the Historic
    Preservation Fund. The States, of course, receive the bulk of
    the funding from the Historic Preservation Fund, and we think
    that that is exactly as it should be.
        You noted in your opening statement that the National Trust
    is moving to support from the private sector. Historically, we
    have received, as you know, an appropriation from the Historic
    Preservation Fund that reached almost $7 million in the early
    1990s and then in 1996, 1997 and 1998 has been reduced to $3.5
    million, and after 1998 we will no longer receive an
    appropriation. We have supported that. But we do not support
    reductions in the appropriations for the Historic Preservation
    Fund, and we would urge this Committee, as the authorizing
    Committee and the Committee of primary jurisdiction, in its
    development of report language dealing with the
    reauthorization, to emphasize the important role that the State
    historic preservation offices and the tribes play, and that the
    funding that has, over time and historically, been received by
    the National Trust, should not be lost to the Historic
    Preservation Fund, but should, in fact, go to the States and
    the tribes and the other preservation partners, which will play
    an increasingly important role.
        You have heard a number of the activities referred to here
    today about the States' role in the implementation of the
    Federal-State partnership, and as historic preservation builds
    in its successes, that role will not diminish. And the fact is,
    it will increase, and we think it is an enormously productive
    use of Federal resources to support the State and tribal
    element of the Federal-State partnership; and we would urge
    that that continue and it continue at at least the same level.
        I would also like to comment very briefly--when you
    mentioned it in your opening statement, that the National Trust
    will no longer receive an appropriation from the Historic
    Preservation Fund, and that is a result which we support and we
    have worked very carefully to achieve with members of the
    Appropriations Committee--the legislation that we are
    discussing today, H.R. 1522, actually amends the Historic
    Preservation Act to remove the National Trust authorization to
    receive any funds.
        I would point out that there have been other circumstances,
    other than the general appropriation from the historic
    preservation fund, that we have received appropriations, such
    as for disaster relief; and simply eliminating our entire
    authority to receive any appropriation may have unintended and
    unfortunate consequences, and we would ask, as we have in the
    past, that that be looked at.
        I think that the other major topics have been covered. We
    worked very closely with the General Services Administration on
    the implementation of the executive order. The fact that we
    support the provision in your legislation which codifies the
    executive order should not reflect a lack of confidence in our
    authority and Mr. Peck, the Administrator of GSA, but we do
    think that that does give a very important and additive
    incremental emphasis on the executive order and will help
    people at the State and local level who are trying to ensure
    that that executive order is, in fact, being carried out. We
    would strongly endorse and support the codification of the
    executive order in your legislation.
        Finally, I think since we met with you, Congressman Hefley,
    a number of developments have occurred with respect to the
    implementation of section 110. The National Park Service is now
    finalizing its guidelines, and we think that the removal of the
    110 function from the general jurisdiction of the National Park
    Service is probably not a wise step to take at this time. Thus,
    I agree with what you said in your remarks that what we should
    do here is--with the additions that I have mentioned, we should
    simply go ahead and reauthorize the Historic Preservation Fund.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Norton may be found at end
    of hearing.]

      STATEMENT OF JACK WILLIAMS, AIA, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL
                  ALLIANCE OF PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS

        Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank James
    Hansen, Chairman of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to
    testify on H.R. 1522 to extend authorization of the National
    Historic Preservation Fund.
        My name is John Williams. I am an architect in private
    practice in Seattle where I have a partnership with Robert
    Hoshide. I also serve on two historic preservation
    commissions--one in Oysterville, Washington, the Oysterville
    Design Review Board; and the second in Seattle, Washington, the
    Pike Place Market Historical Commission. Because of these
    activities, I was elected to the National Alliance of
    Preservation Commissions where I serve as chairman of its board
    of directors. It is from these two vantage points that I wish
    to describe my view of the value of the National Historic
    Preservation Fund.
        The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is a
    nonprofit organization committed to serving historic
    commissions created by city or county ordinances. We serve over
    2,000 commissions that work at the local level. Each year,
    10,000 citizens from our communities volunteer their time as
    public servants. They do so because preservation not only
    protects our culture's historic resources; it creates jobs, it
    saves neighborhoods, and it fosters pride in our communities.
        Commonly, historic preservation commissions identify
    historic resources, nominate them to local registers, and enact
    protective measures to preserve our heritage; and in addition,
    these boards create educational programs and stimulate private
    investments.
        As commissions, we can honor many of our responsibilities,
    but we cannot do it alone. We are dependent upon our
    preservation partners. They must be adequately funded for our
    commissions to be able to act effectively. For example, over 80
    percent of our commissions seek assistance from their State
    Historic Preservation Office, and 50 percent receive help from
    the National Trust for Historic Preservation, whereas 25
    percent are helped directly by the National Park Service. All
    of these receive funds through the National Historic
    Preservation Fund.
        It is, however, the certified local government program
    which provides an explicit line of support to commissions. The
    National Historic Preservation Fund provides technical
    assistance as well as small, matching funds for planning and
    restoration. Over 1,000 communities voluntarily participate in
    this event.
        Through my participation in the National Alliance of
    Preservation Commissions, I have seen the value of preservation
    partnerships. In the State of Washington, we have training
    funded by CLG grants; and in a similar fashion, in the State of
    Missouri, I was a participant in training, as well, of handbook
    production. This program is government at its best. It is an
    effective, cooperative program which we sponsored at the
    Federal level and enacted and controlled at the local level.
        Finally, it is from Oysterville that I come, and its local
    government cannot participate in the CLG program. However, we
    still benefit by forming partnerships with organizations
    sponsored by the National Historic Preservation Fund. We were
    able to secure consultant assistance to create new guidelines
    only through the abilities of our preservation partners,
    notably the National Trust, who provided funding through grant
    programs; SHPOs, who provided advice and guidance in the person
    of Kay Austin, our CLG coordinator and preservation planner;
    and finally from the National Park Service. Funding for our
    effort and for our preservation partners comes from the
    National Historic Preservation Fund.
        Because of my vantage point as a preservationist doing
    commission work at the local level, the local level of
    government, I understand my dependence on our partners at the
    State office and at the National level. I know that their
    ability to assist me in the work that I and my 10,000 fellow
    commissioners do comes through the financial support of the
    National Historic Preservation Fund. The partnership works, it
    is effective and efficient. I urge extension of the
    authorization of the National Historic Preservation Fund, and I
    thank you for allowing me to testify.
        Mr. Hefley. I thank all of you. Questions?
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to thank the gentlemen for their
    testimony, Mr. Chairman.
        At least we can come to one basic conclusion in our hearing
    this morning. There is consensus about requesting
    reauthorization of the current law. Procedurally, some of the
    suggestions that were offered by Mr. Hefley in his bill are
    something that we need to work on a little better.
        I would like to ask Mr. Nettler to comment on the
    provisions of the bill, as he had noted in his statement, if
    that would be all right, to submit for the record.
        Mr. Nettler. Yes, I will.
        [The information may be found at end of hearing.]
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, gentlemen.
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you. What has been the working
    relationship of the National Park Service? Has that worked
    well?
        Mr. Norton. Well, Congressman Hefley, from the perspective
    of the National Trust, it has worked I would say very well,
    extremely well, on a number of different fronts, both the
    historic preservation, the National Historic Preservation Act
    and generally relating to our national parks. As you probably
    know, of the 374 units of the national park system, I think, of
    those, 216 or 220 of them were created for their historic
    values. So the national trusts work with the National Park
    Service on a number of problems relating to the national parks
    and, specifically, the historic resources in the parks; and
    also with respect to the implementation of the National
    Historic Preservation Act, the National Park Service and
    Department of Interior's responsibility under section 4(f) of
    the Transportation Act. We found that relationship to be
    extremely positive in every respect.
        Mr. Hefley. Let me ask our representative from the AIA here
    perhaps, what is your professional appraisal of the
    preservation movement industry today? Is there an industry? We
    heard earlier that there are more plasterers and so forth than
    there have ever been.
        In other words, I guess what I am getting at, do we need
    something like the National Center for Preservation Technology
    in Louisiana, or is private industry taking care of those kinds
    of things?
        Mr. Williams. I think that, for the most part, preservation
    succeeds where partnerships are active. I think that we do need
    the center in Louisiana. I would also like to say in regards to
    Mr. Hansen's concerns about whether or not there are plasterers
    available and there are painters available, there are fine
    mechanics and tradesmen who can produce any work of plaster
    that we see around us today. I have never failed in a
    preservation effort at the mechanics level. There are people
    there that can do the job; that is not a concern.
        I think also one of the things that is noteworthy about
    preservation construction is that it keeps construction dollars
    local. I think alluded to today was the fact that many more of
    the construction dollars go into the laborers' hands, as
    opposed to the suppliers' hands; and classically, laborers are
    local. So I think it is a fitting partnership as it exists now.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to
    ask members of the panel, it was noted earlier--in earlier
    testimony; I think it was by Director Stanton. Do you agree
    that a 4- or 5-year period for the approval process of an
    historic site is a reasonable time period for the process to
    function? To me, it seems inordinately long; it takes quite a
    while to approve the process.
        Do you think a 4- or 5-year period is too long, or is it
    just right? Is that the usual time schedule? Are there a lot of
    bureaucratic problems involved here, or do you think that the
    way it is now it is functioning pretty well?
        Mr. Nettler. Well, let me comment first. I think there were
    a number of different processes that were discussed, both the
    process in terms of approving national landmark designations or
    designations to the National Register, the process of working
    with the States, the process of drafting regulations, which I
    think was the one that we were talking about in terms of a 4-
    or 5-year process, and the process of reviewing applications
    for tax credits as well.
        I think the process in terms of tax credits, in terms of
    applications to the National Register, is probably a time frame
    that is--that works very well, and it serves both the interests
    of those who are seeking the credits, which are generally the
    property owners and the developers, and those who are seeking
    to preserve, which may be the States, and ensuring that there
    is adequate participation by property owners and those who are
    otherwise affected.
        The process in terms of adopting regulations, which I think
    is probably closer to the 4- or 5-year situation, is not a
    process that serves the interest of the community or those who
    are affected by those regulations. I think it is important that
    the regulatory process be one that works much, much faster than
    that, recognizing the fact that those regulations affect a wide
    variety of people in all of our States and there need to be
    comments received from both the industry, those who are
    affected in the communities, and the State and local
    governments. But I do think that 4 or 5 years is simply too
    long a process.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Norton, is that pretty much in your--
    --
        Mr. Norton. I think we would defer, Congressman, to people
    who have much more experience on the ground. I think that there
    are--my general observation, which is, I think, from a fairly
    elevated or rarified level, is that there are probably some
    projects that get caught up and take too long, but there are
    many, many others that get resolved in an orderly and
    expeditious way; and sometimes I think--I don't think it is
    irrelevant or inappropriate to look at where the process goes
    awry, but on the other hand, I think that we should be careful
    not to overreact to those circumstances in which it does go
    awry. I don't think we want to--I think if there are problems,
    we should be careful to fine-tune it, rather than take
    draconian measures to change it.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Williams?
        Mr. Williams. I will defer to Mr. Nettler. This is really a
    little bit beyond my area of expertise.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hefley. You know, at the outset, I said that we have a
    good program and I think the testimony has exemplified that
    today; I think everybody agrees that we have a pretty good
    program. If there are ways that we can improve this program,
    now would be the time to do it, and so again, any specific
    suggestions you might have we would like to have that.
        This, in no way, I think, should be a controversial bill.
    There are no particular politics in this--no Democrat, no
    Republican, really no liberal-conservative philosophical
    differences. I think we have seen today that we are all headed
    toward the same goal. So we will work together, we will work
    with your side to try to see that you are comfortable with it
    and that we are comfortable with it, and I think we can come up
    with something we will all be proud of.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to say to the gentleman, the
    sponsor of the bill, that I think the intentions are
    significant in the fact that we just want to fine-tune the
    current Act, and hopefully there are areas, with your
    recommendations--and we have heard both from the community and
    from the appropriate Federal agencies--where we can work
    together and see if we can make improvements on the current
    Act.
        So I thank the gentleman and I thank our friends who have
    testified this morning.
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much for being with us.
        The Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6552.066