[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