[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON H.R. 834, A BILL 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 SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 15, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-72
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-983 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada JAY INSLEE, Washington
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
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 CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Rico
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
Carolina Virgin Islands
CHRIS CANNON, Utah RON KIND, Wisconsin
RICK HILL, Montana JAY INSLEE, Washington
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana MARK UDALL, Colorado
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Todd Hull, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
Gary Griffith, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held April 15, 1999...................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, a Delegate in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico................................ 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Statements of witnesses:
Hertfelder, Eric, Executive Director, National Conference of
State Historic Preservation Officers....................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the
district of Columbia....................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Osterman, Tamar, Director of Policy Research, National
Trust for Historic Preservation........................ 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Stanton, Robert, Director, National Park Service............. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Additional material supplied:
Text of H.R. 834............................................. 2
HEARING ON H.R. 834, A BILL TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Parks
and Public Lands,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
Room 1334, 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. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands will come to order. Today we
will hear testimony on only one bill, but it is a very
important bill, H.R. 834, which would reauthorize the National
Historic Preservation Fund.
H.R. 834 was introduced by my colleague and fellow
Subcommittee member, Congressman Joel Hefley of Colorado. This
bill would reauthorize the currently expired National Historic
Preservation Fund until September 39, 2005. H.R. 834 also
amends the National Historic Preservation Act to include
application of this Act to some areas under the jurisdiction of
the Architect of the Capitol, and also modifies the way Federal
agencies consider historic properties for carrying out their
responsibilities.
[The Bill follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.003
Mr. Hansen. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being
here today to testify on this bill, and now I will turn the
time over to the Ranking Member, Mr. Romero-Barcelo I see he's
not here so, with that in mind, we will just go ahead with the
first witness.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Good morning everyone. The Subcommittee on National Parks
and Public Lands will come to order. Today we will hear
testimony on only one bill, but it is a very important bill--
H.R. 834 which would reauthorize the National Historic
Preservation Fund.
H.R. 834 was introduced by colleague and fellow
Subcommittee member Congressman Joel Hefley of Colorado. This
bill would reauthorize the currently expired National Historic
Preservation Fund until September 30, 2005. H.R. 834 also
amends the National Historic Preservation Act to include
application of this Act to some areas under the jurisdiction of
the Architect of the Capitol, and also modifies the way Federal
agencies consider historic properties for carrying out their
responsibilities.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today
to testify on these bills and now turn the time over to the
Ranking Member Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
Mr Hansen. The first Member up is the Honorable Eleanor
Holmes Norton from Washington, DC. We welcome you here. We
appreciate you being here with us, and we'll turn the time over
to you.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize
that I am a few minutes late. I am particularly appreciative of
all that the Subcommittee has done on the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Rather than read my testimony, I would ask to summarize and
submit my full statement for the record.
Mr Hansen. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I can't begin without thanking
you for your numerous courtesies to me since you have been
chairman. This Subcommittee essentially has jurisdiction over
20 percent of the land in the District and, therefore, matters
that are of considerable importance to my own constituents.
I appreciate the way in which you have handled the bills
that have come before the Subcommittee affecting the District
of Columbia. Most recently, the Subcommittee secured passage of
my bill that authorized private construction of a memorial for
Benjamin Banneker, America's first black man of science. That
effort is now underway with private funds.
I want to also note my appreciation to Congressman Hefley,
who has crafted the bill and reintroduced it. The National
Historic Preservation Act is of immense importance, not only to
the country but especially to this city. This Subcommittee
deserves enormous credit for the way in which you have made
this an effective statute.
The section that I come to testify about is a small but
important change in section 107. It essentially narrows--and I
would say clarifies--the exemption of the Architect of the
Capitol over property under its jurisdiction. Congress never
envisioned that the Architect would be deep into the community,
as he necessarily is. May I saw we welcome the Architect into
the community. His efforts have been most salutary and have
contributed much to the community. Of course, it is necessary,
when the Congress needs facilities, for it to go into the
Capitol Hill community. We can't think of a better neighbor in
the community than the United States Congress, which takes such
effort to build according to the historic nature of the
community.
There are properties that are distant from the U.S. Capitol
complex, and I want to fully endorse the provision in H.R. 834
that clarifies that the exemption of the Architect applies to
the principal buildings and grounds of the U.S. Capitol and
then is very specific about what those grounds are by reference
to a map dated November 6, 1996, on file in the office of the
Secretary of the Interior.
Essentially, this provision complies with the public review
and consultation process that Federal agencies have long
regarded as, not only their obligation, but as something they
have thought contributed to a project as they do it, whenever
there is construction affecting a historic site of any kind in
an area.
I want to emphasize that I think the change in section 107,
Mr. Chairman, is virtually mandated by what this Congress has
done in Public Law 104-1, the Congressional Accountability Act.
As you will recall, in a historic departure, the Congress, in
Public Law 104-1, essentially said, for the first time in the
history of the United States, the Congress will submit itself
to the laws of the United States. Because no one had in mind
the Architect at the time, but were thinking about various
kinds of laws in which people filed complaints, this exemption
was not attended to at that time. That is, I believe, what this
exemption does.
Now, it would be impossible to reconcile the Congressional
Accountability Act with an exemption for the major agent of the
Congress when the Congress engages in construction. The
Architect is the Congress when it comes to construction.
The neighborhood and the Capitol complex are essentially of
a piece. There is enormous respect for the Capitol and all it
does for the neighborhood. The DC Historic Preservation Review
Board is a very sophisticated body in the District. It has
great expertise and has helped to safeguard the historical
character of the neighborhood. If it hadn't done its job, the
Capitol itself would have been in danger because the Capitol
depends upon the preservation and integrity of its historic
environment.
I regret there was what I would regard as a thoroughly
unnecessary misunderstanding that arose when the Senate day-
care center was planned in 1996. The community welcomed the
Senate day-care center with open arms because it took a
blighted building, and also because it loved the idea of a day-
care center.
I recall that, at the time the demolition of an historic
property was being considered, Senator John Warner was also
troubled that there wasn't some way that we could work this
out, because nobody was asking that the building not be
demolished. They were asking for some minor respect for the
facade, and there are many ways to do that, without even
preserving the entire facade.
If Senator Warner and I had had more time, I think that the
matter could have been easily resolved. His intervention was
very skillful. I remember Congress was out of session, and
there were other Members of Congress who were equally upset
because, Mr. Chairman, it almost never occurs that anybody
wants to simply tear down a historic property without paying
some respect to some part of it. Normally you work these things
out because we're old hands at these things by now.
I particularly appreciate the sensitivity that this
Subcommittee has shown to these concerns and in synchronizing
local and congressional concerns. I appreciate particularly
that you, Mr. Chairman, entered into a colloquy with me on the
House floor. I believe that, with some clarification with the
Senate and some time to have conversations with them, if this
bill is passed as it was last session, that we will have an
important addition to the National Historic Preservation Act.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify, and I
am open to any questions that you may have for me.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Romero-Barcelo, and Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
H.R. 834, a bill to extend the authorization for the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). As you know, the
National Park Service and other units of the Department of the
Interior control almost 20 percent of the land in the District
of Columbia, and thus, this Subcommittee has jurisdiction over
important matters bearing directly on the nation's capital and
my constituents. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
thoroughly bipartisan way you have developed this bill and for
the courtesies you have afforded me today and on bills in the
past. Please accept my special thanks for the recent passage of
a bill I introduced to authorize private construction on park
land of a memorial in honor of Benjamin Banneker, America's
first black man of science and one of the individuals who
helped to survey the boundaries of the District of Columbia.
I appreciate the hard work that the Subcommittee has
devoted to H.R. 834. I want especially to thank Congressman
Hefley of the Subcommittee for his efforts in crafting the bill
and re-introducing it early in this Congress. This was
noncontroversial legislation when it passed the full House last
year, and I believe that with clarification, any reservations
that the Senate may have had will be resolved.
First, I want to note my strong support for the National
Historic Preservation Act and my appreciation for your work
that has made this statute so effective. As you know, NHPA
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer a
National Register of Historic Places consisting of districts,
sites, buildings, and other structures that embody significant
aspects of American history, architecture, archeology,
engineering, and culture. This inventory now includes over
800,000 buildings and sites, including Union Station, the Old
Post Office, the Warner Theater, and many others in the
District of Columbia. NHPA also authorizes an Historic
Preservation Fund granting money to states and individuals to
undertake historic preservation projects. NHPA has been a major
and indispensable instrument in the nation's efforts to
preserve its cultural and historic heritage for the benefit of
future generations. H.R. 834 helps maintain this framework, and
I am pleased that this bill extends the authorization for NHPA
through 2005.
I am here mainly to testify in favor of a small but
important change to section 107 of NHPA to narrow the exemption
of the Architect of the Capitol over property under its
jurisdiction. Under current law, NHPA is ``not applicable to .
. . the United States Capitol and its related buildings and
grounds.'' This language has been construed overbroadly to
include all properties under the jurisdiction of the Architect
of the Capitol, including sites that are distant from the U.S.
Capitol complex but fully integrated into the surrounding
community, usually preexisting to being acquired by the
Architect. I strongly support the provision in H.R. 834 to
clarify that any exemption that the Architect of the Capitol
now has applies only to the principal buildings and grounds of
the U.S. Capitol complex as depicted by a map dated November 6,
1996 on file in the office of the Secretary of the Interior.
This change is especially important because it requires the
Architect of the Capitol to comply with the public review and
consultation process that Federal agencies must follow in any
undertaking affecting an historic district, site, building, or
structure pursuant to section 106 of NHPA. Section 106 was
established specifically so that no Federal agency would ignore
unilaterally the preservation of significant cultural resources
affecting local communities.
I emphasize that this change is virtually mandated by and
most certainly consistent with Pubklic Law 104-1, the
Congressional Accountability Act, which requires that Congress
be held to the same laws as other Americans and entities. The
Congress has proudly noted that it has subjected itself to its
own laws. It would be impossible to reconcile the standard of
congressional accountability found in Public Law 104-1 with an
exemption for a major agent of the Congress that no Federal
agency and no American enjoys.
Section 106 is a cornerstone of historic preservation
efforts in the District because of the preponderant Federal
presence here. By narrowing the section 107 exemption, the bill
shows respect for the historic character of the immediate
neighborhood surrounding the White House and the U.S. Capitol.
For example, the neighborhood and the historic Capitol
buildings are of a piece. If the historic character of
structures in the neighborhood were altered, anomalies out of
keeping with the Capitol itself could result, however
unintentionally.
The Capitol Hill community in particular not only provides
a thriving cultural and commercial setting for the Capitol that
serves Members, staff, and tourists alike, This community and
the DC Historic Preservation Review Board, the national
historic preservation partner in DC, as well as the Advisory
Neighborhood Commissions, all help safeguard the historic
character of the neighborhood that is indispensable to
preserving the Capitol's own historic integrity.
I regret that an unnecessary misunderstanding arose with
the Office of the Architect when the Senate day-care center was
planned in 1996. The problem did not involve the center at all,
and no one in the community opposed or sought to delay its
establishment. The community welcomed the day care center with
open arms not only because of its purpose but because it took a
blighted property that marred the neighborhood. With minor
changes that allowed at least minimal respect for the facade
and more time to discuss the matter, a needless confrontation
with the community and with Members of Congress could have been
avoided. I was particularly grateful for the intervention of
Senator John Warner, who was most sympathetic with the historic
preservation concerns. With his skillful efforts and more time,
the matter might have been resolved to the satisfaction of all
concerned.
Most important to bear in mind, the local authorities have
advisory authority only. Moreover, almost always, government
officials say that advice and counsel improves a project.
Allowing advisory expert and community comments that have no
binding legal effect is little enough to ask. I appreciate the
sensitivity of this Subcommittee in its work on section 107 to
synchronize local and congressional concerns.
Mr Hansen. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony.
I would like to turn to the sponsor of the bill, if he has
any questions for our colleague from the District of Columbia,
or for any opening statement he may have as the sponsor of this
important legislation.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a
few words in opening, and then I would have a question or two
of Mrs. Norton.
First of all, I apologize for not being here for all of
your testimony, Mrs. Norton, because you have been extremely on
top of this situation and have been very supportive, I think,
of the concept.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 834, as you will remember, because we
went through it last year in great detail, passed it, got it
over to the Senate, in the last days it got wrapped up, as so
much legislation does over there, with things that didn't have
any relationship to this really. But this was held hostage and
one thing led to another. So I think it's extremely important
that, early in this session, we're bringing this up again so
that we can get it passed and, with Mrs. Norton's help and
others, we'll get it all the way through the process this time.
As all of us know, and as probably already been pointed
out, the authorization for this program expired in September of
1997, so there is some urgency in getting this bill enacted.
The bill before you reflects this program's stature as a
mature undertaking. By and large, existing law has worked.
Historic preservation is now accepted as a legitimate national
concern. I think Mrs. Norton pointed that out in her testimony,
that most people don't want to run roughshod over our history
and culture in this Nation. I think it is a legitimate concern.
The program has evolved into a model of state, Federal and
public/private cooperation. State and local groups have
leveraged relatively scant Federal funds into an investment far
in excess of what Washington alone might have achieved. So the
bill before you authorizes the existing program through 2005.
It allows the Interior Department to administer grants to the
National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is a proven
means of providing funding in emergencies, such as the
Mississippi River floods of some years back.
The bill also deals with treatment of the White House, the
Capitol, the Supreme Court buildings, and codifies an Executive
order directing the use of buildings in historic districts by
Federal agencies.
The reasons for the first of these are twofold: First, this
Congress has maintained that it follow the same laws it enacts
for the general public, and second, the government,
particularly the Congress, has not always done that in the
preservation arena, particularly here in Washington. I believe
Mrs. Norton has pointed that out.
Finally on this subject, I will concede that, for reasons
of daily operations and security needs, there are some
buildings that properly cannot be treated in the same way as
other historic sites, but will nonetheless point out that some
of the Nation's most successful preservation efforts have been
conducted by the armed services, as a matter of fact, all of
which can legitimately claim operational and security needs for
an exemption, and some don't.
I have mentioned before, I think, Warren Air Force Base in
Cheyenne, WY, which was an old calvary post. Black Jack
Pershing was commander there at one time. You go on that base
today and there's the parade field still there. There are the
enlisted men's barracks still there, on one side of the parade
field, and the officers housing on the other side. And behind
the enlisted men's barracks, the stables are still there. The
only thing is, the stables today are computer centers and so
forth. But from the outside, they are every bit stables. So
there are ways, even in national security facilities, to do
that.
This bill also clarifies and codifies Executive Order
13006, which directs Federal agencies to give first priority to
locating the Nation's central cities. This Executive order
builds on a series dated back to the Nixon Administration. But
Executive Order 13006 is also meant to conform with the Rural
Development Act of 1972.
So I think we have worked out most of the concerns in this
bill. I think most people are in favor of it, and we'll hear
additional testimony this morning. If there are problems with
it, we're happy to try to make which changes are necessary to
make it work better. So what we are doing is reenacting the old
law with some modern updates to make it work better.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for holding hearings on
this bill, H.R. 834, which will extend the authorization of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
We already acted upon a version of this bill in the last
Congress and, as with the film fees bill, which we passed
earlier this week, might have enacted that legislation had it
not been for the usual end-of-session fun and games between
this and the other body. But in this case, there is some
urgency--due to our lack of action, the authorization for the
National Historic reservation Fund expired on September 30,
1997. Enactment of this legislation is urgently needed.
The bill before you reflects this program's stature as a
mature undertaking. There is no need for wholesale changes in
the law because, by and large, the existing law has worked. Not
only has historic preservation become established as a
legitimate national concern, the program has evolved into a
model example of partnership between Federal and state
governments and between the public and private sectors. Though
the Historic Preservation Fund had, in the past, been
authorized to a level of $150 million per year, it seldom
received more than $40 million. Nevertheless, state and local
organizations, by using Federal funds as seed money, have been
able to leverage an amount of investment far in excess of what
Washington alone might have achieved.
So the bill before you reauthorizes the existing program
through 2005, reflecting the year's delay in our actions. It
includes a provision for the Secretary of Interior to
administer grants to the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, a funding conduit the appropriators have found
useful in delivering funding in emergency situations, such as
the Mississippi River flooding of some years back.
The bill also contains two provisions which we will examine
today. First, the bill exempts from the National Historic
Preservation Act the White House and properties under the
jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, which are
identified on maps filed with the Secretary of the Interior.
The reasons for this provisions are twofold. Number one,
four years ago this Congress adopted legislation based on the
belief that this body should adhere to the same laws it imposed
on the general public. It is absurd to maintain that historic
preservation is a valid national goal, then turn around and
state that three of the nation's most historic buildings can
ignore that goal.
Second, this lack of congressional direction has resulted
in problems here in the District of Columbia. Some years ago, a
daycare center was constructed in the middle of a local
historic district with little, if any, consultation with local
historic preservation officials. I am told that circumstances
have changed and there should be no repetition of that episode
but we cannot be sure such circumstances will not reoccur.
For reasons of security and daily operations, the White
House, the Capitol and the Supreme Court probably cannot be
treated the same as other historic sites (although I'd point
out that some of the country's most successful preservation
programs have been conducted by the armed services, any one of
which can claim more overriding security concerns.). But I do
not believe it is too much to ask the managers of these
properties to identify their domains and at least, make a stab
at cooperating with local communities and local preservation
laws.
Another provision in this bill clarifies and codifies
Executive Order 13006, which gives priority to locating Federal
facilities in the nation's central cities. Executive Order
13006 was based upon a series of such orders dating back to the
Nixon Administration which directed Federal agencies to use
historic structures whenever possible. This is a goal worthy of
the national government and frankly, in the case of visitors'
centers and the like, will probably save us money in the long
run.
But in our study of these executive orders, we uncovered
what we believe is a contradiction. Executive Order 13006 is
meant to be consonant with previous executive orders and with
provisions of the Rural Development Act of 1972, the latter of
which gave first priority to locating Federal facilities in
rural development areas. Our language flatly directs that
Federal agencies should first look in nearby historic districts
to fill their building needs, no matter whether those districts
are urban and rural in character.
Note that the Administration has logged in with its
proposal for a straight reauthorization of the Historic
Preservation Act, minus any treatment of the use of historic
properties and wonder what questions the Administration has
with codifying a policy it drafted in the first place.
With that, I'll close, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
hearing today's witnesses and hope we'll be able to move this
bill swiftly to enactment.
Mr. Hefley. Mrs. Norton, if I might, you mentioned the
Senate day-care center. Are you aware of other instances of
conflict between the Architect of the Capitol and the local
community? The Senate day-care center was during another
Architect's tenure. I wonder if things have improved under this
present Architect since he came on board?
Ms. Norton. As a matter of fact, the former Architect, Mr.
White, had, in fact, left. I think part of the reason this
problem arose was that there was no Architect at the time. We
had an interim situation.
Mr. Hefley. I see.
Ms. Norton. I want to mention, Mr. Hefley, in response to
your question, that I was absolutely astonished that this
became a problem, because under Mr. White the Library of
Congress built a day-care center in an abandoned school. Did we
love them for doing that. They took a school that had been
abandoned by the Catholic Church and made it into a day-care
center.
Well, the community raised some concerns. They were
concerned that the children might be dropped off on East
Capitol Street and it would slow up traffic. They were
concerned whether or not huge parking problems would arise.
They were concerned that the building itself reflect the
neighborhood.
Well, Mr. White did not jump out a window. Mr. White sent
his agents out to the community, talked with them. I had hardly
anything to do with it. In discussions with the community, Mr.
White made some changes. He hadn't thought about the fact, for
example, that there probably should be some way to drop off for
the safety of the children, so that there were not there in
immediate traffic. Working with the city, he arranged for
parking not to be a problem. So, instead of a big brouhaha with
the community, the Architect simply sat down and worked it out.
The interim people were extremely rigid. The District
people weren't saying leave the building up. Of course, not.
Nor were they saying leave the facade in any particular way.
With the most minor respect for the facade, somehow, on the
grounds, I think the matter could have been solved.
I cannot say that, under this Architect, matters have
improved. In fact, I almost wish for Mr. White back, because
Mr. White would have worked these things out. I wouldn't
probably have thought about the need for a bill. I think this
Architect may have lobbied the Senate and may have been partly
responsible for the misunderstanding in the Senate.
I have to really say that I think the rigidity shown was
there should be no changes, we shouldn't have to submit to
anybody except the Congress, no concern for the Congressional
Accountability Act, which says exactly the opposite, not the
kind of flexibility that I think people in public life have to
have in order to reach an accommodation.
I was very tough on the DC people. I said, look, we're not
up here to dictate to the Congress what to do. I understand
what your law says, and you've been able to work well with
Federal agencies, and we want to have this dialogue.
I must say, I regarded this as the kind of lapse. I have
seldom seen, in the legislative process and public policy
process, where one body says it's ``all or nothing.'' Where
there's historic preservation concerns, it seems to me that,
even without this law, there should have been the notion that
we would want to pay some respect to the fact that there was a
historic building here and we're going to have to tear it down.
Mr. Hefley, they did have to tear it down. There is no way
in which they could have built the child-care center and left
this brownstone standing. So reaching an accommodation, where
the Architect would have gotten virtually all of what he wanted
in any case, would have been possible, it seems to me.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr Hansen. Thank you.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico, the Ranking Member, Mr.
Romero-Barcelo.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank Mrs. Holmes for her testimony, and I apologize for not
having been here when she started. I received an urgent
telephone call just as I was leaving and I had to take care of
it before I came here.
I would just like to make a brief statement in support of
this bill. The National Historic Preservation Act was
established as a comprehensive program through which Federal,
state, tribal and local historic resources have been protected.
The National Register of Historic Places now has more than
62,000 sites listed.
The Governor of each state and U.S. Territory appoints a
State Historic Preservation Officer to administer the historic
preservation program within its boundaries. Several Indian
tribes have now undertaken historic preservation programs on
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 for a
common cause--the protection and preservation of our culture
and our history.
The bill before us today would extend the authorization of
funds for the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation through fiscal year 2005. We
wholeheartedly support extending this authorization. We would
note that the Department of the Interior submitted draft
legislation to the Speaker of the House last week to accomplish
this very purpose.
H.R. 834 goes on to make two minor changes to the National
Historic Preservation Act as well. These changes clarify the
applicability of historic preservation laws to the Architect of
the Capitol and codify an Executive order dealing with
consideration by Federal agencies to using historic properties.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that this bill is a very
reasonable proposal and we look forward to the testimony of the
other witnesses on this matter.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Romero-Barcelo follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Chairman, today we will receive testimony on H.R. 834,
introduced by our colleague Mr. Hefley to reauthorize funding
for the National Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, as well as make several minor
changes to the National Historic Preservation Act.
The National Historic Preservation Act, enacted in 1966,
established a comprehensive program through which Federal,
state, tribal, and local historic resources have been
protected. The National Register of Historic Places now has
more than 62,000 sites listed. The Governor of each state and
U.S. Territory appoints a State Historic Preservation Officer
to administer the historic preservation program within its
boundaries. Several Indian Tribes have now undertaken historic
preservation programs on 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 for a
common cause--the protection and preservation of our culture
and our history.
The bill before us today would extend the authorization of
funds for the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation through fiscal year 2005. We
whole heartedly support extending this authorization. We would
note that the Department of the Interior submitted draft
legislation to the Speaker of the House last week to accomplish
this very purpose.
H.R. 834 goes on to make two other minor changes to the
National Historic Preservation Act as well. These changes
clarify the applicability of historic preservation laws to the
Architect of the Capitol and codify an Executive Order dealing
with consideration by Federal agencies to using historic
properties.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a reasonable proposal and we
look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on this matter.
Mr Hansen. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't
have any questions at this time.
Mr Hansen. The gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Inslee. No questions.
Mr Hansen. Thank you.
We certainly appreciate your testimony. If you would like
to join us on the dais, we would be more than happy to have you
with us.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, anyway, Mr. Chairman. I am due to
testify someplace else. I thank you once again for the
attention you have given to the bill, and particularly to this
section affecting the District.
Mr. Hefley, before you came, I particularly gave my thanks
to you for reintroducing the bill, and for crafting a bill that
I think is of great significance.
Mr Hansen. Thank you so much.
Mr Hansen. It is always an honor and a pleasure to have
with us Robert Stanton, the Director of the National Park
Service. Also, we have Eric Hertfelder, Executive Director,
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers,
and Tamar Osterman, Director of Policy Research, National Trust
for Historic Preservation. We all you all to come up.
Mr. Director, again it's a pleasure to have you with us. We
are always honored to have you here. We will turn the time over
to you, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT STANTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Romero-
Barcelo, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. It is
my pleasure to appear before you and to present to you the
Department of Interior's views on H.R. 834, a bill to extend
the authorization for the National Historic Preservation Fund
and for other purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to summarize my formal
testimony, of which I have a copy, and with your permission, I
would like to submit this for the record.
Mr Hansen. All of the statements will be included in the
record in their completeness. We appreciate your summaries.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Again, it's an
honor to appear before you and to be here with my distinguished
colleagues from the Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
I am also accompanied by Miss Kay Stevenson, who is the
National Park Services' Associate Director for Cultural
Resource Stewardship and Partnerships.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the Department
of Interior strongly supports H.R. 834. In particular, we
endorse the reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation through the
year 2005.
On April 12, 1999, the administration submitted a bill to
Congress for its consideration with respect to the authorizing
the extension of the Historic Preservation Fund and the
Advisory Council. Certainly the Historic Preservation Fund has
helped our Nation to preserve the cultural resources that are
held in trust by the Federal Government and by local/state
governments, as well as private individuals.
Approximately 1,600 new listings are added to the National
Register annually, bringing the total now to over 69,000
properties that have been recognized by local communities,
state officials, preservation and conservation organizations
and, indeed, officials in the Federal Government. Those places
and artifacts and other properties really commemorate our rich
cultural heritage.
Also, the Historic Preservation Fund assists the State
Historic Preservation Officers, who provide, on a day to day
basis, assistance to individuals and organizations in
identifying and in preserving again properties that are
considered important to our cultural heritage. We certainly
enjoy our partnership with the State Historic Preservation
Officers and their staffs.
This Fund has made available to the states, on average,
roughly half a million dollars annually to assist the states in
carrying out their individual responsibilities. Roughly 90
percent of these funds are used directly by the individual
states and the Trust Territories in carrying out historic
preservation activities, including tribal governments.
The Historic Preservation Fund, I should again underscore
the importance to the rich cultural diversity, in that it does
assist, as I mentioned earlier, the tribal governments in
carrying out preservation of tribal resources that are not only
for the benefit of the tribes themselves, but, indeed, to all
of us as a Nation.
Also, we have been able to work closely with the leadership
of many of our Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Many of these institutions were established after the Civil
War, during the era in which members of our society moved from
an enslaved condition into an era of freedom. Many colleges and
universities were established specifically by various religious
denominations and others to meet the educational needs of those
who have moved into freedom. Many of these properties are very
rich and are again reflective of our rich cultural heritage.
Through this program, we have been able to assist many of those
colleges in preserving their resources.
One of the real highlights of this authorization is a great
partnership between the Federal and state governments and the
private sector with respect to the Federal Tax Incentives for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings program. This is a great
Federal/state and private partnership that has in the past
leveraged something like over $400 million in tax credits,
resulting in roughly $2 billion in private investment, again a
great partnership in which the private sector is contributing
to the preservation of our cultural heritage. Certainly this
program remains a very highly cost-effective cornerstone of our
public policy for historic preservation.
Lastly, the Act creates and provides assistance to the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which is a policy
advisor to the Federal Government on historic preservation. We
work very closely, on a day to day basis, with the Advisory
Council, as well as the State Historic Preservation Officers.
This is a great organization that assists us in giving good
advice, not only to the Federal Government but, indeed, to the
states and the private sector in various communities, in terms
of how we can best work in achieving the preservation of our
cultural heritage.
Lastly, I want to commend, on behalf of the Department of
Interior and, indeed, the administration, the leadership of
Representative Hefley for introducing this bill, and certainly
to you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this Committee, for your
support of this measure.
That concludes my overall summary comments, Mr. Chairman.
As I mentioned earlier, we do have written testimony for the
record.
I would be more than happy to respond to any comments or
questions you may have. Certainly, if it should be the will of
the Committee, I would feel free to call upon Miss Kay
Stevenson to assist in responding as well.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee, for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4983.011
Mr Hansen. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Hertfelder.
STATEMENT OF ERIC HERTFELDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS
Mr. Hertfelder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for
having this hearing today on H.R. 834. We would also like to
thank Mr. Hefley for taking the lead to reauthorize critical
elements of the National Historic Preservation Act, the
deposits to the Historic Preservation Fund, and funding for the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Our detailed comments on all of the sections of the bill is
provided in our written testimony, which I assume will be in
the record. In summary, we support all the provisions of the
bill, and my remarks today will focus on the role of the
states.
The National Historic Preservation Act is a model Federal
program in many ways, and the Historic Preservation Fund is the
fuel that keeps this program working. With the passage of the
Act in 1966, which was a time of rapid change and disruption of
major landmarks across the country, the Congress created the
Federal Government's first and only comprehensive historic
preservation program. Unlike many other Federal programs,
however, this one was and remains based on a partnership with
state, local and tribal governments, in which those governments
actually deliver the program benefits and services to the
public and, in addition, provide half the funding for the
program. This reliance on others to do the administration and
provide funding is, thus, a great return on investment for the
Federal Government.
It is also a voluntary program, with a stress on making
information on historic sites available to the public, to
promote informed decision making, and providing incentives to
the private sector to keep historic structures in productive
use. The most remarkable example of the success of this
approach is the program that Director Stanton mentioned, the
historic rehabilitation tax credits, which are now generating
$2 billion a year in private investment.
Finally, this is a program where the emphasis is getting
the decisions and the resources out of Washington and to the
state and local level. Each of the State Historic Preservation
Offices and certified local governments is a field office for
the Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service for
the Federal historic preservation program, but one which
operates based upon and attuned to local needs and priorities.
The states are proud to be a partner with the Federal
Government to carry out this important program, but because it
is a Federal program and the states carry out the Federal
responsibilities, it is important that the Federal funding
continue and be enhanced to keep up with public demand and
increasing workloads.
The principle behind the Historic Preservation Fund is a
powerful and practical idea: to dedicate revenues from the
depletion of one national resource to the conservation of
others. There may be a time when the OCS revenues will decline
or cease and our conservation programs will then have to work
against a declining balance. However, we should not cut off the
funding stream prematurely, as this will limit Congress'
options in the future and, we think, send a bad signal to all
the Federal Government's partners in this program, without whom
the program will fail.
Finally, preserving the Nation's heritage is no accident.
It requires substantial and steady support for the long haul,
and the active participation of all levels of government, as
well as the private sector.
Historic sites are never permanently saved, except in
photographs. To have the real thing available, to foster
community pride and sense of place, and to provide new
opportunities for economic development, requires ongoing
maintenance and timely expert assistance. The Historic
Preservation Fund, with its dedicated funding source for the
programs of the National Historic Preservation Act, is the
embodiment of this principle, and the states urge Congress to
reauthorize the deposits to the Fund as quickly as possible.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hertfelder follows:]
STATEMENT OF MR. HERTFELDER, NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers urges the House to pass H.R. 834. Among other
provisions, the bill would extend to the year 2005 the
authorization for deposits from offshore oil lease revenues
into the Historic Preservation Fund and the authorization of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
These two provisions (Section I Paragraph (4) of H. R. 834
for the Historic Preservation Fund and Section 1 Paragraph (6)
for the Council) are priorities for the National Conference. We
believe the extensions to 2005 are non-partisan and essential
for continuing two key elements of the Nation's historic
preservation program.
INTRODUCTION AND EXPRESSION OF THANKS
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers is the organization of the gubernatorially appointed
officials in each State, territory and the District of Columbia
who carry out the Nation's historic preservation program for
the Secretary of the Interior and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation as provided for in the National Historic
Preservation Act.
This is a program that truly embodies the principles of
federalism. For over three decades, States have willingly
worked with the Federal Government to provide the
infrastructure for historic preservation because our common
heritage merits a coordinated, team approach from government
while permitting variations for local conditions. That said, we
fully acknowledge that the true work of historic preservation
is carried out by the private sector, those millions of
individuals who voluntarily accomplish historic preservation.
The role of government--Federal and State--is to facilitate and
encourage private efforts.
The National Conference and the State Historic Preservation
Officers extend their thanks to Subcommittee Chairman James
Hansen and Representative Joel Hefley for acknowledging the
importance of the national historic preservation program by
holding this hearing. We appreciate all efforts to expedite
passage of H. R. 834.
SCOPE OF TESTIMONY
The National Conference represents State governments. While
we fully support the establishment of Tribal Preservation
Offices (Section 101(d) of the 1992 amendments to the Act), we
would not presume to speak on behalf of Native American
historic preservation activities.
WHAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND DOES
Congress established the Historic Preservation Fund to
provide an income stream for the enhancement of historic, non-
renewable resources. To do this, Congress used a portion of the
revenues earned from the depletion of a non-renewable natural
resource, offshore oil.
The Historic Preservation Fund has been a good investment.
The annual withdrawals that Congress appropriates for the
States have established historic preservation as a viable
option for private citizens nationwide and a planning
requirement for Federal agencies. Further, States have
responded by providing an equal match to the Federal dollars,
adding a State-government commitment to historic preservation
and coloring the national approach to suit the varied
conditions and history of this Nation.
The Historic Preservation Fund, when matched by the States
and conducted by the State Historic Preservation Officers,
provides a point of contact for private citizens interested in
preserving their heritage. The national preservation program
helps interested property owners identify and obtain
recognition of significant places (National Register), and
obtain financial incentives for preservation of income-
producing properties through income tax credits. The program
also provides for local governments to participate in the
Federal program. These preservation services follow national
standards set by the National Park Service ensuring a degree of
consistency and quality control. State decisions on historic
significance come from a store of knowledge about historic
places found in the inventories each State maintains. Such
databases on historic buildings and sites are a tremendous
resource for understanding American history, not from the top
down, but from the ground level of individuals and communities
across America. The on-going progress in digitizing historic
inventory information has unlimited potential to expedite and
facilitate understanding of our history through educational
programs and heritage tourism.
Today the information on historic places and their location
is used most often in the consultations between State Historic
Preservation Officers and Federal agencies planning
undertakings. While the National Historic Preservation Act can
not determine the outcome of a Federal project, Section 106
does require that Federal agencies consider historic places as
they plan projects. This sometimes puts State Historic
Preservation Officers in the cross fire between the proponents
and opponents of a project. However, of the 100,000 Federal
undertakings the State Historic Preservation Officers review
each year, less than a dozen fail to be resolved and need to be
considered by the full Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. This mandated consultation about historic
preservation among Federal agencies, States and other
interested parties provides effective consideration for our
heritage as a part of Federal project planning.
If the Historic Preservation Fund were nor reauthorized, we
could not realistically expect the States to fund the national
historic preservation program by themselves. Who then would
assist property owners seeking National Register listing? Who
would help preservation-minded developers seeking the 20
percent historic rehabilitation investment tax credit? How
would Federal agencies meet project schedules while they seek
the Council's comments? How could our communities realize the
economic, educational and cultural benefits they now realize
from the identification, preservation and use of their historic
resources? Who would make up the losses to neighborhood
revitalization, heritage tourism, community identity, the
education of our children, the ability to attract new
investment, and the quality of life for communities across
America?
The nation reaps these benefits from this far-reaching and
efficient economic development program, although currently its
annual cost to the Federal treasury is about one hour's
expenditure ($30 million) at the Department of Defense. Yet
with last year's $30 million appropriation, the Congress
leveraged $2 billion in construction dollars through the
historic rehabilitation tax credit alone.
The Historic Preservation Fund has made possible a well
functioning team where the Federal Government sets the
standards, the States do the work and the Congress determines
the level of effort (through the appropriations process).
COTERMINOUS AUTHORIZATONS: HPF AND THE COUNCIL
The National Conference believes that it makes sense to set
the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation on the same review schedule, and we
strongly support setting the date for Congressional review for
both at 2005. The Advisory Council fulfills an essential
Federal role in the national historic preservation program,
developing and implementing the review process whereby Federal
agencies consider the impact of their projects on historic
properties. As with many other parts of the national program,
the Council relies upon the State Historic Preservation
Officers to assist in this process, and the States'
participation in this Federal program is made possible by the
support from the Historic Preservation Fund.
VIEWS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON H.R. 834
Paragraph (1) Authorization of funding for the National
Trust
The National Conference acknowledges the role of the
National Trust in the private sector and supports the ability
of the Congress to choose this private organization as a
conduit for grants for national emergencies, among other
things.
Paragraph (2) Re-designation of subsections
This paragraph re-designates two subsections in Section 102
of the National Historic Preservation Act: Subsection 102(d) as
Subsection 102(e) and Subsection 102(e) as Subsection 102(f).
The National Conference cannot find a new, proposed Subsection
102(d in H. R. 834. We believe this paragraph should be dropped
as it serves no purpose.
Paragraph (3) Definition of exemptions for Capitol, White
House and Supreme Court
The intent of this provision amending Section 107, which
the National Conference supports, is to clarify which
properties under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the
Capitol should be exempt from Section 106 of the Act. The areas
related to the White House and the Supreme Court are well
understood. It is the definition of what land constitutes ``the
Capitol'' that has caused controversy. The bill refers to a map
as the definition of ``the Capitol.'' We understand that this
map is updated periodically and may therefore not be a good
reference point. We also understand that uncertainty exists as
to whether the Architect of the Capitol constitutes a ``Federal
agency'' subject to compliance with Section 106.
Therefore, the National Conference believes the goals of
H.R. 834 are to clarify the area, defined as the Capitol,
exempted in Section 107 of the Act as a ``campus'' that
includes the Capitol building itself and the current House and
Senate office buildings with the associated grounds. H.R. 834
needs to make clear that when the Architect of the Capitol acts
``off campus,'' Section 106 applies to the actions of the
Architect. This concept reflects the current language of
Section 107: ``. . the United States Capitol and its related
buildings and grounds.''
Paragraph (4) Extension of the authorization of the
Historic Preservation Fund
The National Conference wholeheartedly supports this
provision.
Paragraph (7) Location of Federal facilities in historic
downtowns
Historic preservationists support the idea of using
existing buildings in existing communities with existing
infrastructure and transportation networks versus building new
buildings and new infrastructure and new parking lots in the
countryside. The President's Executive Order 13006 directs
Federal agencies to do this, among other things. The National
Conference supports codification of this portion of the
Executive Order, although the opposition of the General
Services Administration to this provision as originally drafted
in H.R. 834 is cause for skepticism as to whether this approach
will yield results.
Paragraph (5) Editorial changes in Section 110(l)
The National Conference supports this editorial change, as
it increases the flexibility, for agencies as they comply with
the National Historic Preservation Act.
Paragraph (6) Extension of the Council's authorization
The National Conference wholeheartedly supports this
provision.
ADDITONAL CONCERNS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE
Section 101(e)(3)(A) of the National Historic Preservation
Act makes it clear that only 10 percent of the Historic
Preservation Fund appropriation is to go for direct grants of
the Secretary of the Interior. The primary purpose of the
Historic Preservation Fund is to finance the implementation of
the nation's historic preservation program carried out by
State, tribal and local governments. The Fund is not intended
for funding Federal projects. (Section 110 of the Act indicates
Federal preservation programs are to be funded out of Federal
agency budgets.) Nevertheless, in fiscal year 1999, 60 percent
of the Historic Preservation Fund appropriation went to direct
grants of the Secretary of the Interior. The actual use of off
shore oil revenues is ``out of balance.'' The intent of the
Historic Preservation Fund is to fund State, tribal and local
governments. Ignoring this intent puts the 95 percent of the
nation's historic properties that exist outside Federal
ownership at risk.
The National Conference appreciates the opportunity to
raise this concern with the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.
Mr Hansen. Thank you.
Tamar Osterman.
STATEMENT OF TAMAR OSTERMAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY RESEARCH,
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Ms. Osterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. It's a pleasure to appear before you today to
testify in support of H.R. 834. We want to commend Congressman
Hefley, and you and the Subcommittee, for the leadership and
support you have shown for historic preservation.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a nonprofit
organization, with more than 270,000 members. We were chartered
by Congress 50 years ago this year to promote public
participation and education in historic preservation, and to
engage the private sector in preserving our Nation's heritage.
We work closely with Federal, state and local governments and
citizens all over the country who are working not only to
preserve their past but to build a better future. The National
Historic Preservation Act and the Historic Preservation Fund
are very important tools and, really, the cornerstone of that
effort.
We enthusiastically endorse H.R. 834, and I want to mention
several specific issues that are important to us.
First of all, reauthorization of the deposits to the
Historic Preservation fund to 2005 is a top priority of the
Trust. The states and tribes and certified local governments
utilize this funding to achieve the responsibilities with which
they are charged in the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, which Mr. Hertfelder just enumerated.
Through these activities, Federal funding for historic
preservation not only preserves our Nation's historical legacy,
but it also creates jobs, promotes local economic development,
and it produces a much larger financial commitment from private
sources, as well as other public sources.
Second, we strongly support the language in H.R. 834 that
would provide statutory support to Executive Order 13006,
signed by President Clinton in 1996, which calls on GSA and
other Federal agencies to first consider historic districts and
historic buildings in downtown areas when selecting sites for
new Federal facilities.
We believe that this provision will support GSA's efforts
to implement the Executive order. We know that they have
recently issued very effective implementing guidelines, and we
feel this legislation would strengthen their work.
Third, we support the language in section 1 of H.R. 834
that would authorize the Trust to continue to receive funding
through the Historic Preservation Fund.
Four years ago, the National Trust and Congress negotiated
an agreement for the National Trust to phase out its Federal
appropriation. Beginning this year, fiscal year 1999, the
National Trust no longer receives an appropriation to support
its operations, but from time to time Congress and the National
Park Service and other agencies have determined that the
National Trust is the best provider of historic preservation
assistance to communities, particularly with regard to disaster
assistance. Congressional authorization facilitates the release
of funding and project management responsibilities to the
National Trust. It ensures a quality control framework and that
assistance will be provided quickly to communities in need.
Fourth, we support language that would extend the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's authorization to 2005 and
make its authorization schedule coterminous with that of the
Historic Preservation Fund's. The Advisory Council, on which
the National Trust serves, plays an important role in ensuring
that the impact of Federal projects on historic resources is
taken into account.
It occurs to me, after listening to Congresswoman Norton's
statement, that this is exactly the kind of situation which the
Council is uniquely equipped to assist, to come in and try to
help parties work out a settlement on scenarios and sites where
there has been some conflict.
Extending the Council's authorization is important to those
kinds of efforts, and coordinating that with the Historic
Preservation Fund will make things easier for everyone.
Finally, the National Trust also supports the language to
amend section 107 of the National Historic Preservation Act, to
clarify and limit the exemption from the Act to the White House
and its grounds, the Supreme Court buildings and its grounds,
and the Capitol and its related buildings and grounds.
We believe that this is an appropriate enumeration of the
Architect of the Capitol's jurisdiction with regard to section
107. Moreover, it is consistent with the legislative history of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and
congressional intent, as enumerated in the report of that
initial passage of the Act, which specifically mentions
principal buildings and grounds.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on H.R. 834. The
Trust enthusiastically supports this bill, and we thank you for
the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Osterman follows:]
STATEMENT OF TAMAR OSTERMAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY RESEARCH, NATIONAL
TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure
to appear before you to testify regarding H.R. 834, legislation
to extend the authorization of deposits to the Historic
Preservation Fund, and for other purposes.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a non-
profit organization with more than 270,000 members, chartered
by Congress to promote public participation and education in
historic preservation and to engage the private sector in
preserving our nation's heritage. As the leader of the national
historic preservation movement, the National Trust is committed
to saving America's diverse historic places and to preserving
and revitalizing communities nationwide.
Congress established the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF)
under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The
Historic Preservation Fund is capitalized by royalties paid to
the Federal Government from Outer Continental Shelf oil
drilling leases. Approximately $150 million flows into the Fund
every year. Historically, Congress has appropriated a fraction
of this amount--almost $41 million in Fiscal Year 1998--through
the National Park Service. In Fiscal Year 1999, this amount was
increased to $72 million for the first year of the Save
America's Treasures program. Annual appropriations from the HPF
provide key support to the preservation activities of the state
historic preservation offices, Indian tribes and Native
Hawai'ian organizations, and historically black colleges and
universities. Authorization for funding from the HPF to each of
these entities is provided in the National Historic
Preservation Act.
The National Trust strongly endorses extending to 2005 the
reauthorization of deposits to the Historic Preservation Fund.
HPF dollars help achieve the Congressionally-mandated objective
of preserving our Nation's invaluable historic and cultural
heritage for the education, benefit, and use of present and
future generations. The States, Tribes, and Certified Local
Governments utilize this funding to achieve the
responsibilities with which they are charged in the National
Historic Preservation Act. Through these activities, Federal
funding for historic preservation not only preserves our
nation's historical legacy but also creates jobs, promotes
local economic development, and produces much larger financial
commitments from private sources as well as other public
sources.
The reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund is a
legislative priority for the National Trust and therefore we
enthusiastically support H.R. 834 for proposing to accomplish
this end. We commend and thank Congressman Hefley for his
support for historic preservation and the Historic Preservation
Fund.
I want to take this opportunity to elaborate upon two other
provisions of H.R. 834 that are of particular interest to the
National Trust. H.R. 834 would provide statutory support to
Executive Order 13006, signed by President Clinton in 1996,
which calls on the General Services Administration and other
Federal agencies to first consider historic districts and
historic buildings in downtown areas when selecting sites for
Federal facilities. Historic preservation often involves real
estate activity, and historic buildings must be used in order
to be preserved. Directing the Federal Government's
considerable property acquisition and leasing requirements
toward historic resources will significantly assist in that
effort. In addition, by locating Federal facilities in historic
downtown areas, the Federal Government will be assisting local
economic revitalization efforts and will save taxpayer dollars
on land use and infrastructure development.
The National Trust was an early advocate for this executive
order, and we are presently working closely with the General
Services Administration on its implementation. We believe that
codifying this executive order in law will significantly assist
in that effort. Making Executive Order 13006 a part of the
National Historic Preservation Act will hold Federal agencies
accountable to law, and will improve its chances for broad
implementation.
Moreover, amending Section 110 of the National Historic
Preservation Act to incorporate portions of Executive Order
13006 could help improve the Federal land managing agencies'
implementation of that portion of the Act, which details
Federal agencies' responsibility to preserve and use historic
buildings. Over the last several years, the National Trust has
become increasingly engaged in the issues surrounding the
Federal Government's stewardship of its historic resources,
broadening this interest beyond the traditional purview of the
historic resources managed as national park units. We have
discovered, regrettably, that although good management of
historic resources rarely conflicts with agency missions and
responsibilities, in far too many cases there is missing a
broad commitment to fulfillment of Section 110 requirements.
We believe that Federal agencies, particularly the
Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the
General Services Administration, which control a great deal of
historic lands and resources, need to be held accountable to
their Section 110 responsibilities. We will continue to work
with our preservation partners, and with Federal agencies to
better achieve this goal. We commend this Committee, as the
committee of jurisdiction for historic resources, for taking an
active interest in this matter, first with the passage of H.R.
1522, and now with consideration of H.R. 834. We urge that
appropriate provisions of Executive Order 13006 be incorporated
into law, as proposed in H.R. 1522 and H.R. 834.
The National Trust also strongly supports Section 1 (3) in
H.R. 834. This provision would amend Section 107 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, which exempts the White
House and its grounds, the Supreme Court building and its
grounds, and the United States Capitol and its related
buildings and grounds from the Act. Our most recent experience
with Section 107 comes from our involvement in 1996 with the
Stanton Park Neighborhood Association, and other District of
Columbia preservation partners, as well as Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton and other Members of Congress, in an effort to
oppose demolition of a contributing 19th century rowhouse in
the Capitol Hill Historic District owned by the legislative
branch. The demolition had been ordered by the then-Architect
of the Capitol in order that a new building could be
constructed to house the Senate day care facility, a privately-
operated enterprise.
This property, which has since been demolished, was located
in the middle of a commercial and residential neighborhood
several blocks from the Capitol grounds. We believe that this
demolition was an unreasonable interpretation of the Section
107 exemption and was inconsistent with the legislative history
of the National Historic Preservation Act. When the House of
Representatives passed the NHPA in 1966, the House Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs included report language that
specifically defined the intent of Congress in granting the
Section 107 exemption, by specifying that this exemption be for
``principal buildings and grounds.'' (``House Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee, House Report 1916, August 30, 1966,
to accompany S. 3035.'')
H.R. 834 proposes to limit the Section 107 exemption to the
White House and its grounds, the Supreme Court building and its
grounds, or the United States Capitol and its related buildings
and grounds, with a relevant cartographic citation. The
National Trust supports this provision as an appropriate
enumeration of the Architect of the Capitol's jurisdiction with
regard to Section 107 and as consistent with the legislative
history of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and
Congressional intent.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony on H.R.
834. The National Trust enthusiastically supports this
legislation, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify
before this Subcommittee.
Mr Hansen. Thank you very much.
Questions for the panel? The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Stanton, not
directly related to the issue here, but related to the Historic
Preservation Act.
This Act provides support to the Historically Black
Colleges and Universities for the restoration of their historic
campus properties. Is there a reason why it doesn't provide the
same for the Hispanic-serving institutions?
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much for the question.
Three years ago, I believe, there was a measure enacted in
Congress that specifically asked that funding be earmarked for
a select number of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, so it does not necessarily preclude other
colleges and universities, through the normal grant process, of
applying, as long as it has been determined by local and state
officials--in this instance, a Commonwealth official--that it
is historic and should be preserved.
So no one is excluded, necessarily, other than Congress
asking specifically that we give some priority attention to
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, that had
prominent cultural resources that were deteriorating at a rapid
pace. Many of these are over a hundred years old.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. There are several campuses throughout
the Southwest, from Texas to California, and----
Mr. Stanton. They are eligible to compete, that is correct,
sir.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. [continuing] and in Florida, and also
Puerto Rico.
Mr. Stanton. That is correct.
Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
Mr Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hefley.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. I appreciate all of your testimony.
I'm curious. You know, I guess the first Executive order
was in '71 by Nixon, dealing with the Federal Government's
Federal agencies and historic preservation. What since that
time has been the government's record, and more specifically,
before the moratorium on visitor centers three years ago, what
was the record of government agencies in utilizing historic
buildings for visitor centers and for other purposes? I guess
maybe the Park Service particularly would be where I direct
that question.
Mr. Stanton. Yes. We have as a policy, Mr. Hefley, a
priority to give consideration to historic properties that are
under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service throughout
the National Park System, and many of our parks are located in
developed areas--some, obviously, in more remote rural areas.
But in those instance in which we can adaptively use a historic
structure for a visitor center, administrative purposes of all
sorts, we attempt to do that.
Also, Congress has given us authorization to lease, under
certain conditions, historic properties located in our parks to
nongovernmental entities, on a rehabilitation basis or they
could pay an appropriate fee for the use of the structure that
adds towards the preservation of those cultural resources. But,
by and large, our thrust is to make adaptive use of cultural
resources for contemporary purposes.
Mr. Hefley. Under present law, the words ``to the maximum
extent feasible'' are used, while in H.R. 834 we have changed
the language to ``when operationally appropriate and
economically prudent.''
Could you or any of the other panelists speak to those two
phrases on what different that might or might not make, either
for good or bad, in this legislation?
Mr. Stanton. I would comment, Mr. Hefley, I think from two
perspectives.
One is, obviously, within the National Park Service, we
have an organic Act with respect to those resources that are
not our direct responsibility. We are responsible for
preserving cultural resources in various parks throughout the
system. But for those cultural resources, we have to make some
engineering and architectural evaluation in terms of whether or
not a structure could be modified in a reasonable way to
accommodate a contemporary use.
Then, I believe, also the legislation and the Executive
order would speak to those instances in which the General
Services Administration would be constructing or otherwise
leasing buildings to meet certain office or other kinds of
administrative needs for Federal agencies throughout the
country and the Executive order speak to the General Services
Administration in looking at historic properties to meet the
needs of the Federal Government, and obviously to try to adapt
to the use of historic properties, if it is determined to be
cost effective and reasonable and prudent to do so.
Mr. Hefley. Would your bottom line conclusion be that there
is very little difference in how you would operate based upon
those two phrases, the change in that phrase?
Mr. Stanton. I would submit that there is not much
difference. I think the spirit of it is the same.
Mr. Hefley. Yes, I think you're right.
Anyone else?
Mr. Stanton. I would turn to my colleagues, with respect to
some of their experiences in managing cultural resources.
Mr. Hertfelder. Yes, I think I would agree, although--Mr.
Hefley, you said the current language is ``to the maximum
extent feasible'', and that is in which section?
Mr. Hefley. I'm sorry, I don't have the citation here.
Section 110.
Mr. Stanton. I think that's the Executive order he's
referring to.
Mr. Hertfelder. I'm sorry. That's in the Executive order. I
think, just hearing those two phrases, that they probably
overlap pretty heavily.
I think I would agree with the Director, that the statement
of congressional intent, regardless of the exact words used,
but having passed that section of the bill, would probably be
the best tool for the public to understand what Federal
agencies should do.
I use the word ``tool'' advisedly, because I've come to
think of historic preservation, or the way to do historic
preservation, is you need to have a big ``tool kit'', which
means you have to have not only a hammer but also a wrench, a
screwdriver and, if you're smart, a ``band aid'' in it, too.
The reason is you can't really predict what the situation is
going to be or what a Federal agency is going to face in the
future.
But by having a structure throughout the country, in the
state and local governments, with all the expertise they have
under this Act--the Advisory Council with its dispute
resolution expertise, and at the Federal level tax incentives,
where perhaps there's a public/private partnership and you can
entice a private developer to do something for the Federal
Government to lease--having all those tools available, and
you're never quite sure when you're going to need them, that
allows those interests in preservation to have the best chance
possible to have success. That's what this Act is all about.
Mr Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to make a comment and then ask Director Stanton a question.
I want to thank the dean of our Colorado delegation, Mr.
Hefley, for bringing this legislation. I would like to be added
as a cosponsor, if it wouldn't hurt your eventual prospects for
the bill.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hefley. I would be honored.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Great.
I want to thank the panel for taking the time to appear
before us today.
I had a question for Director Stanton. You talked a little
bit about tax credits and the value that they have for historic
preservation. Are those in permanent law, or do they have to be
reauthorized periodically?
Mr. Stanton. The law gives us authority to grant tax
incentives to a developer that would contribute towards the
preservation of resources.
But it has to go through an evaluative process, starting at
the local level and ultimately coming to the National Park
Service for final certification, that what has been proposed is
consistent with the law and that, if it's acceptable, then the
developer would be entitled, again under the law, to receive a
tax benefit for the investment they would make. There is no
sunset provision.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. I'm sorry? There is no----
Mr. Stanton. [coninuing] sunset provision.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. No sunset provision. So they're in
place and will continue to be available?
Mr. Stanton. That's correct.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr Hansen. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't have any questions particularly, but I do want to
say that I think this is a great program. I always have loved
history.
I notice in your literature that you're working to preserve
some of the historic hotels. We have a beautiful old theater in
downtown Knoxville called the ``Tennessee Theater'', which was
built in 1927. A few years ago I think that theater was close
to being demolished. Now it has been saved, and there are many
examples like that all across the country. So I think this is a
great program.
Actually, I had the privilege of introducing the bill that
allowed the funding to go to the Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, Mr. Stanton, and I can tell you that that has
made a tremendous difference at Knoxville College.
You know, many of the small, private colleges around the
country, whether black colleges or all of the small, private
colleges, many of them have had real struggles to survive in
recent years. For instance, at the University of Tennessee in
Knoxville, each student, I think, receives kind of a subsidy of
almost $7,000 per student, but these private, small colleges,
they don't receive anything like that. So this particular
legislation has made a big difference for these colleges.
Not everybody needs to go to one of the big, giant
universities. I remember when we had the first hearing on this.
I said at that time that I went to the University of Tennessee,
but I probably should have gone to a smaller college because I
was so bashful, and not everybody fits in or needs to go to one
of these big, giant universities.
So I really appreciate what you've done for Knoxville
College and these other colleges, although I wouldn't have a
problem in extending it to some of the other historic buildings
on some of the other colleges campuses as well. But thank you
very much for what you're doing on this.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Congressman Duncan.
Mr Hansen. The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Chairman Hansen, and
thank you, members of the panel, for being here.
Director Stanton, I know that you were first hired by my
father to work for the National Park Service.
Mr. Stanton. That's correct.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. I can tell you, he would be very
proud today to see that you're heading up this very important
agency.
Mr. Stanton. That's very kind of you. Thank you.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. I want to try to get to the root
of a problem here that looks like we have a little bit of a
conflict, Mr. Hefley, between the two Executive orders and the
statute, in terms of locating Federal buildings in historic
areas.
I notice that Director Stanton mentions that in his
testimony, that we have Executive Order 13006, which gives
direction and first consideration to Federal agencies to locate
in historic areas, and then we also have a statute that
apparently tries to give priority for Federal buildings to be
located in rural areas. It seems like both the administration
and maybe the Congress at this point aren't clearly focusing in
on what we want to do in terms of historic areas.
I mean, I'm a little bit torn on this, I must say, because
I represent a rural area. I would love to see more Federal
buildings in rural areas, although I understand the intent very
much of Mr. Hefley to try to give a directive in his bill to
specifically say that first consideration should be given to
locating Federal offices in historic areas.
What are your thoughts on that? I notice you recommend--I
think this is your testimony, Director--that you might be
willing to work with language to clarify that.
Mr. Stanton. Yes. I appreciate that.
There are two Executive orders and one Act of Congress that
directs the Federal Government to look at the location of
Federal buildings and emphasize the use of historic properties.
What we believe within the Department of Interior, and
obviously the General Services Administration, which is the
principal procurer of real estate, if you will, and offices to
accommodate the government function, would be a principal
participant in further review of this, and certainly all would
agree that the provision included in the bill introduced by
Congressman Hefley is commendable. I think the objective is the
same for all and that all objectives could be met.
I would like, Mr. Udall, if possible, to ask Miss Osterman
to respond. Her office has done a great deal of work, in
collaboration with the Department of Interior and the General
Services Administration, on this.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. That would be great.
Ms. Osterman. Thank you very much.
I am happy to respond to this point because the National
Trust was involved not only with the drafting of Executive
Order 13006, but also the revamping of the other Executive
order in question, which took place at approximately the same
period of time.
It is our belief that there is no conflict between these
Executive orders, nor between the Rural Development Act. In
fact, first of all, our view is that the same underlying intent
exists, in fact, in both Executive orders and in the Rural
Development Act, which is to use Federal agencies to reinforce
economic vitality and viability of various economic centers
around the country.
In fact, Executive Order 13006 is at the moment being very
much in play in rural areas--in fact, in a sense more so than
in large downtown areas, where Federal agencies are often drawn
because of the population mass and transportation facilities.
But in smaller towns, where we've been working very closely
with GSA and Federal agencies, particularly offices like USDA
field offices that are located in rural areas throughout the
country, because what's happening there is that you'll have a
downtown--rural areas have downtown areas, of course. What we
want to see happen, what the communities want to see happen,
what the intent of both Executive orders is, and I believe the
Rural Development Act, is that where you have the economic
centers already in place, you want to use the Federal
facilities to continue to anchor them. You don't want them
leaving the downtown areas and going out into greenfields
beyond where there is no development, and starting to foster
and draw development away from the already built up areas.
That's true in communities of any size.
Be that as it may, as we read this language here, we think
this is entirely consistent. In fact, Executive Order 13006
acknowledges the Rural Development Act in its language.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. So you don't have any problem with
this giving first consideration to historic properties within
historic districts because you believe it's compatible, that
you could locate in a rural area or you could locate in a
downtown area, and there's not any incompatibility then?
Ms. Osterman. Not at all, because historic districts are
really most frequently found in--especially in small towns,
you're going to find them in what you think of as traditional
downtown core areas. You're going to find them in places of
historic settlement, obviously. These are the kind of places
that we want to reinforce the economic life of and where we
would like to see the Federal facilities located.
You know, it's strictly a tiered process. In the two years
that this Executive order has been in place, we haven't heard
of any kinds of conflict, any vying between cities and small
towns, between cities and rural areas, over the location of a
Federal facility. What you're usually talking about is, ``Is it
going to be in the core downtown area, or is it going to be two
miles away in the middle of a corn field''.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. So you don't see any need for it
to be amended, Director Stanton, at this point?
Mr. Stanton. No, I think it's a question of whether or not
the language, as set forth in the draft bill, perhaps could be
modified in some fashion. But I would defer again to the
General Services Administration, working certainly with the
National Trust for Historic Preservation and others. But we
believe the intent is in place and there is no basic problem.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Mr. Hefley, if we can resolve this
issue, I would be happy to join up and cosponsor. I commend
your effort at trying to get reauthorization of what I think is
a very important Act.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. If the gentleman will yield----
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Sure.
Mr. Hefley. I think our witness did a much better job than
I could in responding to your question. But there was no intent
to shift the emphasis. From a practical standpoint, you might
have a historic barn two miles outside of Eufaula, OK or Taos,
NM and you wouldn't want a government building going out there
to do that, and develop shopping centers around it and parking
lots and all that kind of thing. I think you explained that
very, very well.
So the intent was not to take away the emphasis from the
rural area, but if there is language we need to tighten it up,
I would be happy to work with you on that. I would be honored
to have both of the Udalls as cosponsors, and also Jimmy Duncan
and any of the rest of the Committee who would like to join in.
I think this is something there is vast agreement on, and if
there are little tweaks we need to do, we're happy to work with
you to do that.
Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you very much. The Udalls
don't want to weight it down, though.
[Laughter.]
Mr Hansen. The gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. No questions.
Mr Hansen. The gentleman from California has no questions.
Is there any Member of the Committee that has further
questions for the panel? Members of the panel, do you have
something ``burning in your bosom'' that you just have to say?
If not, we thank you for your excellent testimony. It is
the intent of the Subcommittee to move this legislation as
rapidly as we can. Thanks for being here.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]