[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1606 AND H.R. 2388
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
November 1, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-72
__________
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://resourcescommittee.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-982 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Joel Hefley, Colorado Samoa
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 1, 2001................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate to Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 2
Clyburn, Hon. James E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina.................................... 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 1606.......................... 5
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 2388.......................... 8
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Carlino, August, President and Chief Executive Officer, Steel
Industry Heritage Corporation and the Rivers of Steel
National Heritage Area, and Chairman, Alliance of National
Heritage Areas, Homestead, Pennsylvania.................... 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 2388.......................... 31
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 42
Roscoe, Dr. Wilma, Interim CEO and President, National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education,
Silver Spring, Maryland.................................... 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 1606.......................... 21
Stevenson, Katherine, Associate Director of Cultural Resource
Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C................ 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 1606.......................... 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 2388.......................... 12
Waddell, Dr. John K., President, St. Paul's College,
Lawrenceville, Virginia.................................... 26
Prepared statement on H.R. 1606.......................... 27
Additional materials supplied:
Harris, Annie Clay, Executive Director, Essex National
Heritage Area, Statement submitted for the record on H.R.
2388....................................................... 37
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 43
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1606, TO AMEND SECTION 507 OF THE OMNIBUS
PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1996 TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, TO
DECREASE THE MATCHING REQUIREMENT RELATED TO SUCH APPROPRIATIONS, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 2388, THE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS POLICY
ACT OF 2001.
----------
Thurssday, November 1, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:20 a.m., in
Room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Welcome to the hearing on the Subcommittee
on National Parks, Recreation & Public Lands, and thank you for
taking the time to find the right building in the new building,
and I appreciate that everybody is here.
I am going to go right into my opening statement, and then
we will go right into the first panel on the hearing.
So the Subcommittee will come to order, and this morning
the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation & Public Lands
will hear testimony on two bills, H.R. 1606 and H.R. 2388. Our
first bill is H.R. 1606, introduced by Congressman James
Clyburn. Welcome, Mr. Clyburn of South Carolina.
Mr. Clyburn. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. Which would amend the Omnibus Parks and
Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to authorize additional
appropriations for historically black colleges and universities
and to decrease the matching requirements related to such
appropriations.
Our other bill is H.R. 2388, introduced by our Subcommittee
colleague, Congressman Joe Hefley from Colorado. Joe, welcome,
and would establish uniform criteria for designating national
heritage areas by defining the circumstances under which a
region warrants national heritage area designation, and by
further defining standards for managing and maintaining that
status.
At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Congressman Clyburn be permitted to sit on the dias following
his statement and/or testimony. Without objection, so ordered.
I would also like to thank our witnesses for being here to
testify on these bills, especially Mr. Carlino who has come to
Washington twice to testify on H.R. 2388, only to be turned
away due to the tragic events of September 11th, and then again
on October 18th, when the Longworth Building was closed due to
the anthrax matter. So your timing is not very good, but you
are very welcome, and we are glad we actually have a meeting
you can make.
I now turn the time over to Mrs. Christensen for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE FROM THE
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
again commend you and the staff, both of our staffs, for making
sure that the work of the Subcommittee continues despite just
about all of us being out of our homes in Longworth and the
Ford Building.
Our meeting today will receive testimony on two important
initiatives, H.R. 2388, which establishes a policy for the
study and designation of national heritage areas, and H.R.
1606, which provides for the preservation of historic buildings
on the campuses of historically black colleges and
universities.
On H.R. 2388, I am glad that we were able to reschedule
this hearing for yet again the third time. Hopefully the third
time is the charm. This bill was introduced by our friend and
former Subcommittee Chair, Mr. Hefley, and I remember some of
the issues included being concerns brought up at other hearings
that our Subcommittee had.
National heritage area policy has not been a new issue for
the Subcommittee. H.R. 2388 is the latest version in a line of
legislation that goes back nearly a decade. Mr. Hefley has been
working with all interested parties, and while each of those
involved have issues and concerns with the bill as it is
written, it nevertheless has provided us with a good starting
point from which we can hopefully craft consensus legislation.
The other bill before the Subcommittee this morning is H.R.
1606, which I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of. It
would provide a very important initiative which builds upon the
work started in 1996 with the passage of the historically black
colleges and universities historic preservation program. That
program has been the catalyst for the preservation of historic
structures at these institutions of higher learning, including
the one in my district, the University of the Virgin islands.
Now because we had these funds to help restore a historic
plantation great house on the St. Croix campus, we have a home
for our school of nursing which before had been scattered all
over the island. We could never have done this without the help
of this program.
The money, though, has never measured up fully to the need,
and so it is extremely unfortunate that all of the existing
authorized funding has been used up while there are still many
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which
despite the other fund-raising activities of these
institutions, are still in need of the funding that this
program brings to fully restore the national treasures that are
on their grounds.
Many of the buildings that are in line to be assisted by
this program are integral elements of the school campuses, and
as in our case, their preservation will not only preserve the
history and spirit of these pioneering institutions, but
provided needed classroom and other space as well.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, for many reasons our colleges
and universities, all of which have made unique contributions
to the history and the present of our nation, do not have the
large endowments that some of their counterparts do. Yet many
of them, when surveyed, had already fully or partially restored
those buildings which had been identified as having special
historic significance.
The assistance which this program provides is critical, as
is the requested change in the match. Without it, many of these
properties which tell a history of the institutions themselves,
but also of our country, would be lost.
I want to take the opportunity to welcome the former chair
of the Congressional Black Caucus, himself a proud graduate of
an HBCU that I had the opportunity to attend the homecoming for
last weekend, and as well as our other witnesses today, and I
look forward to their testimony.
I also want to welcome Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia
who is here with us this morning.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen. Any other
opening statements from anybody else on the panel? If not, we
will get right to it.
Again, the first part of the hearing is on H.R. 1606, which
is a bill to amend section 507 of the Omnibus Parks and Public
Lands Management Act of 1996, to authorize additional
appropriations for historically black colleges and
universities.
Mr. Clyburn, welcome. And as we have taken care of earlier,
you are more than welcome after your testimony to set with us
on the dias.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You are so
kind. I am pleased to do that.
Thanks to you, Chairman Hansen, with whom I worked for a
long time on this legislation, and to the members of the panel
for allowing me to be here today.
I want to express my gratitude to all of you for holding
this hearing today. I very much appreciate the opportunity to
testify on behalf of my legislation to expand an authorization
for the Historical Black Colleges and Universities Historic
Preservation Program.
As a former school teacher, I have always possessed an
acute appreciation for history, and have enjoyed its study for
many years. That is one reason I was so pleased you introduced
the legislation establishing the South Carolina National
Heritage Corridor. Many of you who were on the Committee at
that time may remember my good friend, Congressman Lindsey
Graham, joined me in testimony before this Committee in support
of that legislation, which Congress authorized in 1995.
I worked to appropriate funds for a 3-year study of the
Gullah culture along the sea islands of South Carolina and
Georgia. This is a culture very unique and very much at threat
of extinction, and hopefully this will give us recommendations
on how to preserve and interpret what most scholars say is the
closest African roots of any native-born Americans.
I worked very closely for many years on many issues with
Dick Moore, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and
was overjoyed when the National Trust, acting on the nomination
of the Southeast Regional African-American Preservation
Alliance, listed one of the three HBCU campuses as a category
on his 1998 list of the 11 most endangered historic sites in
the country.
I tell you these things so you can know how very important
historic preservation is to me personally. But of all the
things I have worked on in preservation, I am most proud of
HBCU Historic Preservation Program. Many of these campuses date
back a century or more. The history contained within the
hallowed halls of these institutions is as rich and diverse as
the students who pass through them.
Dr. John Waddell is here today and will testify as to the
profound impact this program has had on Allen University in
Columbia, South Carolina.
I want to tell you what it meant to me as a student of
history, to see a treasure such as Arnett Hall on Allen's
campus brought back from the brink of destruction. This
structure was designed by an African-American architect, built
by the students themselves, and completed in June 1891.
The time we were authorizing the original $29 million for
this program, the South Carolina Department of Archives and
History, our State's SHPO, listed Arnett Hall as the most
endangered historic site in South Carolina. I am happy to
report today the building has been saved, preserved to the
Secretary of the Interior's standards, and shines as a beacon
in that part of Columbia. And the same is true for Ministers
Hall on Claflin University's campus in Orangeburg, South
Carolina, and will soon be true for Massachusetts Hall on the
campus of Voorhees College in Denmark.
In 1997, the Congressional Black Caucus requested the GAO
to conduct a study to determine the projected cost of
preserving all threatened historic sites at the 103 HBCUs. I
was asked to coordinate that study with the GAO. I worked very
closely with Dr. Wilma Roscoe, who you will be hearing from
very shortly, to get that study done.
The study took one solid year to complete, but it was very
comprehensive, and very objective. The GAO identified 712
historic sites on the campuses, with a projected preservation
cost of $759 million. That's a lot of money, even in this town.
But the need has been documented.
The bill before you today would authorize 70 percent of
that total. The vast majority of these colleges have had a very
difficult time raising a dollar-for-dollar match. Consequently,
many of these college presidents would prefer a grant, but I
believe it is important for the schools themselves to feel
vested in the project. So my bill requires a 30 percent match.
As you may know, the Park Service allows 70 percent of funding
for planning and survey projects funded by the Historic
Preservation Fund, so there is a precedent for this ratio, and
it is a formula that is sorely needed.
Now I now that there are those who question why we should
authorize a program at such a large amount over what the
Preservation Fund has authorized. I have three responses to
such a question.
The first is fundamental. I firmly believe the Preservation
Fund is underauthorized and I know it is underappropriated. If
it were up to me, the Preservation Fund would be authorized and
appropriated at $500 million a year.
My second response is that this program has proven its
merit, the need has been documented and, most important,
without this program's expansion we as a nation will lose many,
many historically and architecturally significant treasures.
This money is just not available to save them.
But my third and paramount response, Mr. Chairman, is this
authorization will allow the campuses, the structures
identified for preservation, to do strategic planning. If these
schools were able to point to the Federal Government's
commitment to cover 70 percent of the preservation costs,
alumni and potential donors would be more amenable to
contributing the matching funds for the projects.
Mr. Chairman, should this bill become law, it would be
unrealistic for anyone to expect full appropriations in the
near future. It will take many years and a strong commitment to
meet the need the GAO has documented. But without this bill, we
cannot even begin.
Mr. Chairman, I know the Subcommittee's support for
preservation is strong, and I pledge to stand shoulder to
shoulder with you to do all we can for the historic
preservation community. And I want you to know that there is no
issue of jurisdiction before this full Committee that is more
important to the Congressional Black Caucus, and to me
personally, than H.R. 1606. I will be happy to respond to any
questions you or members of the Committee may have. And I thank
you for allowing me to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clyburn follows:]
Statement of the Hon. James E. Clyburn, a Representative in Congress
from the State of South Carolina
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my gratitude to you and Chairman
Hansen for holding this hearing today. I very much appreciate the
opportunity to testify on behalf of my legislation to expand the
authorization for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Historic Preservation Program.
As a former schoolteacher, I have always possessed an acute
appreciation for history and have enjoyed its study for many years.
That is one reason I was so pleased to introduce the legislation
establishing the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor. Many of you
who were on the Committee at the time may remember that my good friend
Congressman Lindsey Graham joined me in testimony before this Committee
in support of that legislation which Congress authorized in the 1995
Poseidon Bill.
I worked to appropriate funds for a three-year study of the Gullah
culture along the sea islands of South Carolina and Georgia. This is a
culture very unique and very much at threat of extinction, and
hopefully, this study will give us recommendations on how to preserve
and interpret what most scholars say is the closest African roots of
any native born Americans.
I have worked very closely for many years and on many issues with
Dick Moe of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and was
overjoyed when the National Trust - acting on the nomination of the
Southeast Regional African American Preservation Alliance - listed the
103 HBCU campuses as a category on it's 1998 list of the 11 most
endangered historic sites in the country.
I tell you these things so you can know how very important historic
preservation is to me personally. But of all the things I have worked
on in preservation, I am most proud of this HBCU Historic Preservation
Program. Many of these campuses date back a century or more. The
history contained within the hallowed halls of these institutions is as
rich and diverse as the students who passed through them. Dr. John
Waddell is here today and will testify as to the profound impact this
program has had on Allen University in Columbia, South Carolina. But I
want to tell what it meant to me, as a student of history, to see a
treasure such as Arnett Hall on Allen's campus saved from the brink of
destruction. This structure was designed by an African-American
architect, built by the students themselves, and completed in June
1891.
At the time we were authorizing the original $29 million for this
program, the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, our
state's SHPO, listed Arnett Hall as the most endangered historic site
in South Carolina. I am happy to report today the building has been
saved, preserved to the Secretary of the Interior's standards, and
shines as a beacon in that part of Columbia. The same is true for
Ministers Hall on Claflin University's campus in Orangeburg, South
Carolina, and Massachusetts Hall on the campus of Voorhees College in
Denmark.
In 1997, the Congressional Black Caucus requested the GAO to
conduct a study to determine the projected cost of preserving all
threatened historic sites at the 103 HBCU's. I was asked to coordinate
that study with the GAO. I worked very closely with Dr. Wilma Roscoe,
who you will be hearing from very shortly, to get that study done.
The study took one solid year to complete, but it was very
comprehensive and very objective. The GAO identified 712 historic sites
on the campuses, with a projected preservation cost of $755 million.
That's a lot of money, even in this town. But the need has been
documented.
The bill before you today would authorize 70% of that total cost.
The vast majority of these colleges have had a very difficult time
raising a dollar for dollar match. Consequently many of these college
presidents would prefer a grant, but I believe it is important for the
schools themselves to feel vested in the project, so my bill requires a
30% match. As you may know, the Park Service allows 70% of funding for
planning and survey projects funded from the Historic Preservation
Fund, so there is a precedent for this ratio and it is a formula that
is sorely needed.
Now I know there are those who question why we should authorize a
program at such a large amount over what the Preservation Fund is
authorized. I have three responses to such a question.
The first is fundamental--I firmly believe the Preservation Fund is
under authorized and I know it is under appropriated. If it were up to
me, the Preservation Fund would be authorized and appropriated at $500
million a year.
My second response is that this program has proven its merit, the
need has been documented, and most important, without this program's
expansion, we as a nation will lose many, many historically and
architecturally significant treasures. The money is just not available
to save them.
But my third and paramount response, Mr. Chairman, is this
authorization will allow the campuses with structures identified for
preservation to do strategic planning. If these schools were able to
point to the federal government's commitment to cover 70% of the
preservation costs alumni and potential donors would be more amenable
to contributing the matching funds for the projects.
Mr. Chairman, should this bill become law it would be unrealistic
for anyone to expect full appropriation in the near term. It will take
many years and a strong commitment to meet the need the GAO has
documented. But without this bill becoming law, we cannot even begin.
Mr. Chairman, I know the Subcommittee's support for preservation is
strong, and I pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder with you to do all
we can for the historic preservation community. And I want you to know
there is no issue of jurisdiction before this full Committee that is
more important to the Congressional Black Caucus, and to me personally,
than H. R. 1606. I will be happy to respond to any questions you or the
committee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Clyburn, for your opening
statement, and again please feel free to join us on the dias.
Mr. Clyburn. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. It is kind of a strange thing, but we are
going to be dealing with both bills at one time. So the next
two panels will be speaking to your issue as well as the next
issue, so if there are questions for Mr. Clyburn, then we are
going to go on to Mr. Hefley, who will do his opening statement
regarding H.R. 2388, which is the National Heritage Areas
Policy Act of 2001, and then we will invite our next two panels
up to deal with both bills at the same time.
So, Mr. Hefley, welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
patience, and thank you for rescheduling. And I want to thank
again, as you did, Mr. Clyburn for coming again. I was
embarrassed to invite him back. We had one of our witnesses who
had come twice before all the way from Boston, and was here
actually on the 11th, and bless her heart, it took her 30 hours
to get home, or something. So this has been a bit of a struggle
to get this bill before the Committee, but I am very
appreciative that you were tenacious enough and we did it.
I also would like to give credit to my predecessors with
this. Mr. Vento, who was Chairman of this Committee, was a
great champion of this, and piqued my interest in it as I was a
member of the Committee during his reign here, and also Mr.
Hansen, who worked very hard on this subject over the years.
I guess today's hearing is just the latest chapter in a
long story because the heritage areas really emerged, I think,
in the mid-1970's as an invention of local groups and
cooperative appropriators, and properly done, heritage areas
proved to be a way that state and local groups could access the
expertise and prestige of the National Park Service to preserve
areas of unique national interest.
Illinois and Michigan Canal and the Blackstone River Valley
National Heritage Corridors are two examples of areas which
have not only preserved important natural and historical
resources, but which have improved local economics through
tourism. But as these heritage areas proliferated, the Park
Service continued to deal with them one at a time in the
complete absence of any kind of a uniform policy. As one Park
Service official said, we don't really know what these are.
By 1991, it was estimated that 100 state and local heritage
areas existed nationwide. Today the figure is closer to 150. At
the national level Congress has achieved some semblance of a
policy through a gentlemen's agreement between Chairman Hansen
and Mr. Regula, the former Chairman of the Parks Appropriation
Subcommittee.
Simply stated, that agreement states that the national
heritage areas are limited to 10 years and $10 million in
direct Federal involvement and local control. These
stipulations mirror heritage legislation that Mr. Vento and I
worked on many years ago.
As we shall hear today, areas which have followed these
guidelines have worked pretty well, and some of the areas which
have been created without these guidelines have not done nearly
as well.
We will also hear from one of the witnesses today of the
importance of business planning and national significance in
creating these heritage areas. In Pennsylvania, prospective
heritage areas are required to submit a business plan as part
of their proposals. This ensures the champions of such areas
take a realistic, long-term view of their proposals.
Further, we will hear discussion of the issue of national
significance. As I said, there are 150 or so heritage areas
nationwide. A relatively small percentage of those are national
ones, and this is probably as it should be. These areas that
carry the national title should preserve something meaningful
to the entire Nation.
Former Park Service Director Roger Kennedy said of park
units that every park proposal is important to someone. And,
yes, but we shouldn't pay, probably, for all of them. I want to
see us codify the Hansen-Regula agreement as a policy which has
worked.
The bill before us today is a result of almost 7 years of
work and was crafted with the help of the Park Service and many
interested groups. We have tried to consult, Mr. Chairman, with
everybody we can think of.
Let me state that we are or should not be in the business
of economic development. That is not the reason you should
create these things, although that is a byproduct of them
sometimes.
We also shouldn't be in the business of making Members of
Congress look good because they took something back home in the
form of a heritage area. But we are in the business of
preserving our history and culture in this country, and
heritage areas are one of the ways of doing this. We simply
need a logical process for getting this job done, and that is
what this bill seeks to do, and I look forward to the witnesses
today, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]
Statement of Hon. Joel Hefley, a Representative in Congress form the
State of Colorado
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for scheduling this hearing
today on my bill, H.R.2833, the National Heritage Areas Policy Act.
Mr. Chairman, when I first introduced this bill five years ago I
was roundly denounced by people and groups I usually count among my
supporters. The Pacific Legal Foundation questioned why we needed a
heritage area policy at all and suggested my bill would lead to runaway
government spending and land acquisition. Chuck Cushman of the League
of Private Property Voters said I was establishing a new government
program that would give legitimacy to the heritage area concept.
``We'll fight them one at a time,'' he vowed.
Well, that was 1996. Since that time, this Congress has established
at least nine national heritage areas. Mr. Cushman and his colleagues
have fought--and lost--all of them over the past five years.
When I introduced this bill five years ago, conventional wisdom set
the number of state or regional heritage areas at 100. Today, that
number is estimated at 150. The state of Pennsylvania alone has 11 and
there are at least four such proposals in my home state of Colorado.
This concept is not going to go away nor, I am sure, should it. There
are heritage areas around the country which have revitalized the local
economy while preserving those areas'' unique flavor. There are also
some which has been dismal failures. Those are largely areas which were
the result of political wish lists instead of grassroots support-
building.
There has been a change in the heritage area concept over the past
five years. Beginning with those eight bills in 1996, heritage areas
began to resemble what I'd outlined in my 1996 heritage areas bill--10
years, $10 million, limited Park Service involvement, local control and
planning, periodic renewals of local support. And, as we will hear from
some of our witnesses today, that ``non-policy'' has worked for
everyone. The most recent heritage areas have thrived while keeping
government spending at a minimum.
To a large degree, this uniformity has been the result of a
gentlemen's agreement between this subcommittee and its appropriations
counterpart. My fear is, What happens when that agreement no longer
holds? My guess is we will go back to the glorious days of individually
crafted heritage areas, each specifically tailored to the needs of
their congressional sponsors, with no limits on federal involvement or
spending. ``Unique'' heritage areas which can swallow almost half-a-
billion dollars over 15 years or masquerade as national parks. Areas
which may go years after their authorization without a single
constructive step toward fulfilling their mission.
The bill before you builds on our past work on this subject and was
developed with the cooperation of the Park Service and other interested
groups. What I would like to see is codification of the formula that
has served us so well for the past three years--10 years, $10 million,
local control, limited federal involvement. I'll be willing to make
whatever changes are necessary to bring that about.
Some time ago, I lobbied a few of my western colleagues to support
this bill. I pointed out the growth of these areas and Chairman Hansen
mentioned that heritage areas ``could bleed us white.'' In the absence
of a federal policy, they could indeed. We are shirking our duties if
we do not frame such a policy. Fighting them one at a time sounds good
but is a recipe for losing.
With that I'll close, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing
today's testimony.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hefley. And now I would like
to introduce Ms. Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director of
Cultural Resources, Stewardship and Partnerships of the
National Park Service, of course in the Department of Interior.
Good morning, Ms. Stevenson. Welcome.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Welcome. And you certainly may begin your
testimony. If you would be mindful of--I am not a real hard-
core guy on these time clocks, but if you could kind of keep
yourself around 5 minutes, that would be great.
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir, I would be pleased to do that.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
CULTURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIPS, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Stevenson. First, thank you very much for the
opportunity to be here before you to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 2388 and H.R. 1606.
With your permission, I would like to summarize my
testimony and submit the entire text for the record.
Mr. Radanovich. Surely.
Ms. Stevenson. The Department sincerely appreciates the
efforts of the Committee staff, and particularly Mr. Hefley's
staff, to work with the National Park Service on the Heritage
Areas bill. You know that we agree that a bill to create--that
meets the needs of the heritage areas across the country is a
very important bill indeed.
You all have been very willing to discuss various
alternatives and have integrated many of the changes that we
have recommended into this bill.
It is clear that we share the same goal, the goal of
creating a framework for the establishment and management of
national heritage areas. The bill makes great strides to
accomplish this goal.
With that in mind, we have a couple of concerns about
language in the bill. This may reflect our misunderstanding of
intent, and we would welcome further discussion.
First, we worry about the complexity of the approval
process. While we fully support inclusiveness and recognize
that heritage areas cannot be successful without broad local
support, we are concerned about the many steps proposed for the
approval process. We worry that increased approval steps may
overly complicate the process.
As an example, in the Hudson River Valley area, were this
bill in effect, it would require the approval of approximately
290 municipalities of the feasibility study, the management
plan, and the local coordinating entity, resulting in almost
900 approvals.
Second, we are unclear about the intended role of the
National Park Service. I believe some of the most successful
heritage areas are those with a full partnership with the
National Park Service. This permits the heritage area and the
National Park Service and other partners to work toward mutual
goals, broaden the involvement, and facilitate connections to
other heritage areas, to parks, and other Federal agencies.
This bill as written appears to limit the role of the
National Park Service to a pass-through grant provider, rather
than a convener, a partner or a mentor. We would like to
continue to work with the Committee to clarify these and some
other relatively minor issues.
H.R. 1606 authorizes the Secretary to make matching grants
of $530 million to HBCUs to preserve and repair historic
buildings. Regrettably, the Department must oppose this bill.
We are concerned that when dollars are apportioned to carry out
the act, it will reduce the modest amount available for States
and Indian tribes to distribute according to need as they
identify that need.
Since 1966, the Department has been strongly committed to
the principle that the States and the tribes know their
historic resources and are best suited to determine the
priorities for allocation of grant funds.
Second, we believe that the provision to lower the non-
Federal matching share is unnecessary. Presently the Secretary
has the authority to waive or to adjust the share on a case-by-
case basis.
One HBCU has already supplied the requisite explanation and
has been approved for a lower matching share. We anticipate
other data submissions and likely other approvals for a reduced
match.
Finally, the National Park Service has worked very closely
with HBCU since 1995 to identify their highest priority needs
and to support their efforts to preserve historic structures.
Since 1995, 34, or fully one-third of all HBCUs, have received
allocations from the Historic Preservation Fund. The bureau and
the Department commit to continue technical assistance directly
to HBCUs to assist the universities and colleges in preserving
their historic structures.
In addition to this continued assistance on the grant side,
we will assure that the HBCUs receive special notice of any
other NPS grant funds, especially the Save America's Treasures
grants, for which they may apply.
This concludes my prepared testimony. I would very happy to
answer any questions that any of you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Stevenson follow:]
Statement of Katherine H. Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural
Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior on H.R. 1606
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the
Interior's views on H.R. 1606, which authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to make matching grants of $530 million to historically black
colleges and universities to preserve and repair buildings listed on,
or eligible to be listed on, the National Register of Historic Places
under the authority of Section 507 of Public Law 104-333. The bill also
includes a provision that would permit the non-Federal matching share
to be reduced from 50 percent to 30 percent of total costs of the
project.
The Department opposes H.R. 1606, because it would place large, new
financial obligations on the Federal Government to take care of non-
federal facilities at a time when funds are limited and demands to
maintain existing federal facilities are growing. We appreciate efforts
to preserve significant historic buildings on the campuses of
historically black colleges and universities and the dedicated work of
the members of the Congressional Black Caucus on this bill, but the
Department's priorities are protecting and preserving national parks,
monuments, refuges, public lands, and Indian schools.
Background
In 1988, the National Park Service cosponsored a survey and
assessment of historic properties on the campuses of historically black
colleges and universities. The intent of the survey was to identify,
assess, and prioritize historic properties and initiate a coordinated
effort to support the restoration of the properties that were deemed
the highest priority. Building on this survey, the General Accounting
Office conducted a study in 1997-98 to identify historic properties at
the 103 historically black colleges and universities, and to provide
cost estimates for these restorations. Respondents identified 712
historic properties (mostly buildings), of which 323 were already on
the National Register of Historic Places. According to the information
provided, an estimated $755 million is needed to restore and preserve
the 712 historic properties.
In Section 507 of Public Law 104-333, Congress authorized $29
million, which was eventually appropriated for the preservation and
restoration of historic buildings at historically black colleges and
universities, and specified that of the amount to be appropriated, $23
million in grants would be earmarked for thirteen particular colleges
and universities. Since this law was passed, the Administration
included funding for this program in its annual budgets. Funding
provided in the fiscal year 2001 Interior Appropriations Act, Public
Law 106-291, completed the 12 ongoing projects authorized in the 104th
Congress.
Legislation
The Department has major concerns with H.R. 1606. First, we are
concerned that when funds are appropriated to carry out this Act, it
would reduce the overall amount of funds available from the Historic
Preservation Fund to States and Indian tribes. The Department strongly
supports the principle that States not the Federal government are best
suited to determine the highest priorities for awarding grants under
the Historic Preservation Fund. Under the current competitive process,
the Department allocates funds to States and Indian tribes who approve
grants to projects that meet certain criteria. There are many very
worthy projects, including numerous other historic buildings, in need
of assistance from the Historic Preservation Fund.
Second, the Department believes that the provision to lower the
non-Federal matching share under H.R. 1606 is unnecessary. The 50
percent non-Federal matching share for grants under the Historic
Preservation Fund is required under the National Historic Preservation
Act. We recognize that, in some cases, raising a 50 percent non-Federal
matching share can be difficult. In fact, under Public Law 104-333, the
Secretary currently is authorized to waive the matching requirement on
a case-by-case basis if the circumstance is an extreme emergency or
such a waiver is in the public interest. To date, only one historically
black college or university has submitted a specific proposal for a
waiver of the matching requirement from the Secretary. The school
demonstrated that it had a viable project that was in the public
interest, and thus, the Secretary granted the waiver. We believe that
this case-by-case approach is more appropriate than a general reduction
in the matching requirement.
Third, we note that previously appropriated funds have been
expended at a very slow rate, suggesting that applicants have not been
able to find sufficient matching funds. Of the $29 million authorized
by Public Law 104-333, only $7 million has been expended thus far. The
National Park Service has worked closely with each applicant throughout
the process. Site visits also have been conducted at each college and
university that has an approved historic grant. Many of the colleges
and universities that have approved grants are now ready to move
forward with raising the non-Federal matching share and hiring
contractors to begin preliminary site work. We plan on contacting each
of these colleges and universities to discuss ways that the National
Park Service can assist them in spending the $22 million that has
already been appropriated.
For the above reasons, the Department opposes H.R. 1606.
There are other sources of funding for historic preservation work
that could be available to historically black colleges and
universities. One example is the Save America's Treasures program that
awards grants for preservation and conservation work on nationally
significant intellectual and cultural artifacts and nationally
significant historic structures and sites. We will work with
historically black colleges and universities to ensure they receive
special notice on when the application process begins on the fiscal
year 2002 Save America's Treasures competitive grants program and
provide any needed guidance and assistance.
The Department recognizes that historic buildings on these campuses
are important national historic treasures worthy of our care and
attention. We would be pleased to work with the Committee to address
the concerns outlined in our testimony.
This concludes my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other committee members may
have.
______
Statement of Katherine Stevenson, Associate Director, Cultural Resource
Stewardship and Partnerships, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior on H.R. 2388
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department on H.R. 2388. This
bill creates a definition and a structure for the study, designation,
management, funding, and sunset of national heritage areas.
The Department sincerely appreciates your efforts to work with the
National Park Service to create a bill that meets the needs of heritage
areas across the country. You have been very willing to discuss various
alternatives and have integrated many of the changes the National Park
Service recommended into this bill. The Department supports the
creation of a framework for the establishment and management of
national heritage areas as proposed in H.R. 2388. Such a framework is
needed to maintain a rigorous standard, so that future national
heritage areas meet all the appropriate criteria. We also believe it is
important that heritage areas continue to be initiated and supported at
the local level. The Administration will follow up with suggested
amendments to encourage the establishment of locally supported heritage
areas.
Heritage areas implement that part of the National Park Service's
mission statement that speaks to cooperation and partnership ``...to
extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and
outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.'' Heritage
areas embody partnerships that blend education, cultural conservation,
and resource preservation, recreation and community revitalization,
which are all integral parts of our work.
Interest in heritage areas and corridors is growing. In the past
two years, the number of national heritage areas has increased from 18
to 23. In the 107th Congress so far, nine bills have been introduced to
study the feasibility of heritage area designation or to actually
designate a region. In addition, the National Park Service has nine
feasibility or special resource studies already underway related to
potential heritage areas including the Upper Housatonic River Valley in
Massachusetts and Connecticut, and the Crossroads of the American
Revolution in New Jersey. It is important to emphasize, however, that
funding for heritage areas is limited, so new areas can only be funded
to the extent that established areas become self-sufficient and no
longer need the same level of financial support. Finally, there has
been a positive growth in state heritage programs including newcomers
like Maryland, Louisiana, and Utah.
Interest in the heritage areas is growing because they work. The
heritage area strategy is based on a shared vision for the future
grounded in the best of the past. At their best, these heritage
partnerships engage local governments who have never planned for the
future around a shared past. At their best, they bring together a host
of federal, state, and local partners to remediate brownfields,
reinvigorate main streets, institute educational curriculum that draw
from local history, and demonstrate that environmental lessons are just
outside our back door. Heritage partnerships encourage regional
interpretation and reinvigorate local tourist offerings with real and
authentic experiences.
The recent National Park System Advisory Board report ``Rethinking
the National Parks for the 21st Century'' hails heritage areas for
their Federal and local partnerships to conserve and commemorate
distinctive regional landscapes. It recognizes the benefits in
preserving resources outside of park boundaries by the people who live
there with the assistance of the National Park Service.
For these reasons, we believe that generic legislation would be
valuable as a way to provide for the development and designation of
national heritage areas. A number of provisions of H.R. 2388 reflect
our cooperative effort to develop such a program, including the
contents of a feasibility study, the need for public involvement
throughout the process, the elements of a management plan, and the need
to effectively identify a management entity or local coordinating
entity. All of these principles would provide useful guidance to
communities in developing a strategy to create a heritage area and to
Congress in evaluating an area for designation or funding. H.R. 2388
provides some good, solid building blocks for a program, but more could
be done to ensure the process maintains high standards for new areas
and relies on the support and initiative of local communities.
The National Park Service has been looking at the issue of heritage
conservation for many years and is now engaged in various levels of
management and technical assistance in heritage partnerships located
all around the country. In the past, we worked with members of Congress
and communities on legislation similar to H.R. 2388 that, if enacted,
would have provided general guidelines for the establishment and
management of national heritage areas. We believe that it is a valuable
goal to establish a national program that enforces these guidelines
while encouraging communities that take the initiative to protect their
natural, cultural, historic, scenic, and recreational resources.
The Administration would like to follow up in writing with specific
recommendations on H.R. 2388. For example, we would like to clarify
that the role of the National Park Service in the heritage area program
is to assist--not lead--communities in assessing their resources and in
planning for their conservation and interpretation. As well, we would
like to clarify the obligations of other federal agencies under section
11(b) and reconcile the tension between the language of sections 13(a)
and 13(b).
We strongly believe that attention must be paid to maintaining
standards for future heritage area designations. In our work with
heritage area studies and designations, we have begun to incorporate
provisions found in H.R. 2388, such as basing our feasibility studies
on criteria outlined in the bill. We very much appreciate the interest
of this committee and look forward to working with you to identify the
parameters necessary to make heritage areas successful and accountable.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Ms. Stevenson.
The regular order of things is that I get 5 minutes and
then Mrs. Christensen gets 5 minutes. I am going to defer to,
since we have both sponsors of the bills here, my questions to
both Mr. Clyburn and Mr. Hefley in my 5 minutes. I am not sure
how we want to do this, but I want to make sure that you have
the opportunity. But that has to be with the consent of the
full Committee to ask the questions, so if there is no
objection, then I guess we will do it this way. I will give Mr.
Hefley 5 minutes and then Mrs. Christensen will give Mr.
Clyburn 5 minutes. And again I am not, you know, a real tough
guy on this thing, but stick to 5 minutes, if you can. Mr.
Hefley.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Stevenson, thank you for being here today, and your
testimony, and thank you for working with us on this, because
we have tried to work with the Park Service on it. And you
point out two very important areas, I think, that we do want to
solve before this bill moves forward.
We certainly don't want to throw up artificial barriers to
creation of heritage areas. If it is something significant that
should be preserved, then we want it to be done, and not make
it so difficult that people throw up their hands in
frustration. And what you described in the Hudson River Valley,
we don't want that.
Do you have suggestions on both of these? Also part of the
reason for this bill is to define the role of the Park Service,
so if we are not doing that correctly, we want to do that.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hefley. Will you, either now or later, have specific
suggestions about how we can solve your concerns about this?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir, we do. We will be happy to provide
them to you. We want to make sure that they are absolutely
correct before we bring them up there.
Mr. Hefley. Okay.
Ms. Stevenson. Some of them are extremely technical in
nature, and would bore everybody to death, and others reflect
changes we think would correct these two issues that we
identified.
Mr. Hefley. Okay. Well, we certainly want to work with you
on that.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you, Mr. Hefley.
Mr. Hefley. Also, does the Park Service feel that the chief
executive in a State, and the State itself, should have a major
role in these designations?
Ms. Stevenson. A major role, absolutely.
Mr. Hefley. But as a partner?
Ms. Stevenson. As a partner. It is hard to define--the
emphasis has to come from the local community. Our experience
has been if the local community doesn't support a heritage
area, it falls of its own weight. What we don't want is for
there to be a conflict between the local area and the chief
executive, perhaps different parties, perhaps different
intentions, and not have the opportunity for them to work it
out without a veto power because the Congress and the local
groups usually have a very good sense of what is going to be
successful. So we want to see that be able to work out without
undue animosity.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Chairman, I think that is all the questions
I have at this point. I will give back some of my time.
Mr. Radanovich. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clyburn, or Mrs.
Christensen. I am not real good on procedure.
Mrs. Christensen. I will yield to my colleague to begin the
questioning.
Mr. Clyburn. Thank you very much, Madam Ranking Member, and
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
I was kind of hoping that Chairman Hefley would give me his
time because I do have some questions.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. Well, you can ask on both bills, if you
want to.
Mr. Clyburn. Thank you very much. I am very, very concerned
about the historic corridors, as you know. I do have some
questions for Ms. Stevenson.
Ms. Stevenson. Sure.
Mr. Clyburn. Ms. Stevenson, are you aware of how many
historic buildings have been saved by this program?
Ms. Stevenson. I have a list of all the universities, sir,
but I don't have a list of every building that has been
assisted in every university. I could provide that for you.
Mr. Clyburn. Well, I do have the list, but I am trying to
get some stuff in the record here.
Ms. Stevenson. I see.
Mr. Clyburn. I would ask you, though, what importance do
you place on this kind of historic preservation?
Ms. Stevenson. I think it is clear by our assistance to the
HBCUs that we consider them of great significance.
Mr. Clyburn. Would you then say that the level of
significance could very well be determined by the level of
commitment on resources?
Ms. Stevenson. This is a very complicated situation, and
partially we are driven by the fact that there are literally
thousands of historic resources nationwide that are in need of
help. For us to single out a single class of resources and
recommend that the Congress assist one and not be able to
assist another makes us very uncomfortable. And that has been
our position for years and years.
We have recommended and have worked very closely with the
States since 1966 to ask the States to work within their areas,
or asked the tribes, when it is a tribal area, to identify the
resources they consider to be not only the most significant but
the most in need. That way the Federal Government doesn't have
to come in and make a determination that overrules that of the
States. That process has worked extremely well with the States
and with the tribes, and we don't want to deviate from that
process.
Mr. Clyburn. Well, being from South Carolina, Ms.
Stevenson, my roots in South Carolina go back a long, long way,
and I know my State's history, and I think you are aware of my
State's history. I don't believe that you would testify today
that South Carolina State University, of which I am a product,
founded in 1896, as a land grant college, has a history of
being treated fairly by my State.
Ms. Stevenson. Point well taken.
Mr. Clyburn. So, then, before I next my question, I want to
give you a little bit of background. I have worked very closely
with this administration since January on various things. One
of the things I have worked very closely, meeting with the
President personally on this issue, has been the need for us to
do remedial stuff because of our history.
In fact, my January meeting with President Bush, I think,
is partly responsible for the fact that Solicitor General Olsen
on yesterday went before the Supreme Court in support of the
program initiated by the Congressional Black Caucus on the
highway program, and this administration supports that. And Mr.
Olsen made it very clear as to why he was supporting that. And
I would suggest that the same principles apply to this program
here today.
Now it is my understanding that when this original $29
million was appropriated, a couple of things took place. One of
them is that you wanted to divert this funding from this to
other purposes, and I would like to know why. Was there some
misunderstanding as to Congress' intent as to why you would
make this suggestion?
Ms. Stevenson. I am not at all familiar with that, sir.
Mr. Clyburn. Well, let me ask you this. In reading your
testimony that you have submitted for the record, you indicated
in your testimony that only around $7 million of the authorized
$29 million has been expended.
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clyburn. And you testify in there that this is some
indication of the schools' inability to raise the money.
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clyburn. Yet you also testify in the very next
paragraph that you would oppose lowering the match. That is one
reason I am suggesting that we lower this match, because all of
us know that these schools have tremendous difficulty. I have
established at my alma mater, South Carolina State University,
an endowed chair for me and my wife. The school was founded in
1896. They have never, in the history of that school, had an
endowed chair. Never.
I would like for you to think about that, because that is
what we are here today to try to preserve and protect the
tremendous history of Arnett Hall, completed in 1891, built by
the students themselves. Can you imagine what it was for black
kids on that campus in 1891? And that building sat there since
the 1950's, boarded up, until we came through with this
program. Now that building stands there as a tremendous edifice
and brought back that entire area of Columbia in a way which I
cannot explain to you how emotionally that has captured the
people of that area.
I think that Congress would be doing a tremendous
disservice if we did not take advantage of the fact that this
long history, this great culture, is not preserved, and to
allow these buildings to crumble simply because these schools
have historically not been able to raise monies. And if we had
this kind of authorization--nobody is asking for the funding
here. We are asking for this authorization, so these schools
can be armed with this authorization and go out here and go to
the various foundations and go to the alumni who right now
don't support a program where they don't think there is a
commitment to do it. But if they knew that the Federal
Government was committed to doing something, I believe it would
be easier for these schools to raise the money and that
objection that you have would go by the wayside with the
signing of this legislation.
Ms. Stevenson. Actually, sir, our point is that the
Secretary already has the authority to change the level of
match, and so that the authority rests in the Secretary at
present, so we don't need new authority. And, in fact, she has
already exercised that authority with Rust University. They
requested a lower matching share and, in fact, that has been
approved.
Mr. Clyburn. That is true, and I have talked to Secretary
Norton about this legislation, and I think she is tremendous. I
appreciate that she has done that. But she will not always be
Secretary, and I am not too sure what the next Secretary's
attitude is going to be. And so I want this Congress to do it
so that as Secretaries come and Secretaries go, so that this
formula will be in law so that every Secretary will know what
Congress' intent is, and was, at the time.
So though I congratulate the Secretary and I thank her very
much for Rust College, I also remind you that we lost the money
for Selma University in Alabama because they were not able to
do the match.
Ms. Stevenson. That is correct, but it was also allocated
to other HBCUs.
Mr. Clyburn. Absolutely. But I do believe that Selma needed
the money, because you all made them a priority. They were
there in line because you put them in line. So when they were
not able to raise the money, somebody else replaced them. But
if we had a 70-30 match, they may have been able to keep their
place in line.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. You are welcome, Mr. Clyburn. Anybody else
wishing to question the witness?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Stevenson, like all of my other colleagues who have
priorities in our districts, we all have large backlogs in
funding in these units, and so we can really appreciate that
the Secretary sets as a priority eliminating some of those
backlogs.
However, I am sure you would agree that it is the
prerogative of the Congress to set new priorities, if it is our
wish to do so. And if this bill should become law, this would
be a new priority. And I also wanted to underscore that this
bill would authorize the funding would come later, but we hope
that you would reconsider in light of the very poignant
comments of Congressman Clyburn, the Secretary and the
Department's objection to this legislation.
You said that only $7 million had been expended, but yet 12
projects that have been authorized have been completed within
that $7 million?
Ms. Stevenson. There are two different pots of money. One
was authorized in 1995, and the other one later. And I have and
can submit for the record a complete explanation of what money
has been appropriated and expended by each of the universities
covered, colleges and universities covered.
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate if we
could get that information submitted for the record.
Mr. Radanovich. If there is no objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. Christensen. You also said that--you indicated that
the expending of the dollars was moving very slowly, and I
agree with Congressman Clyburn that the match is a big
obstacle. But in the interest of maybe looking at other ways
that we can help to move that funding more swiftly, has the
Park Service identified any other obstacles or barriers that we
could look at addressing?
Ms. Stevenson. Originally the United Negro College Fund
assisted the universities and colleges in raising money, and
they assisted not only universities and colleges that were
within their purview, but they assisted others as well. They
were very successful in assisting fund raising.
With the new appropriation, they were really stretched
beyond their ability to help. But many of these colleges and
universities don't have the expertise for fund raising that the
United Negro College Fund has, and maybe other fundraisers.
Secondly, in the second lump of appropriations, although we
have had a National Park Service employee visit each and every
one of the universities and talk to both their university
president as well as the staff on board, some of the schools
have not yet developed their plans and specifications. And it
takes a while to develop those.
So some of the money that you see that has not been
expended may be money that is in the pipeline ready to be
expended. We just don't know that at this point, or at least I
don't know this. Some of our staff may.
Mrs. Christensen. So you don't know how much of it is
obligated?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, I do know how much of it is obligated
and I know how much has been expended. What I don't know is how
far down the line some of the plans are at some of the specific
schools.
Mrs. Christensen. But I think again the first reason that
you cited with regard to the fund raising also supports the
request for the change in the match. You also said that the
Secretary had granted a waiver. I, like my colleague, would
want to establish the match and not leave it to a different
Secretary that may not be so inclined to have to make a
decision on that waiver. But you said that one waiver had been
approved. How many had been requested? Were others requested?
Ms. Stevenson. Several, and I don't have the exact number
here in front of me, several requests, very general requests,
came in just at the end of the last administration, and we
wrote back to all of them and told them that we needed
additional information. And Rust College has been the only one
that I am aware of that submitted the additional information,
and they were approved on October 4th.
I am not aware of any others in the pipeline right now.
Mrs. Christensen. Okay. But there have been others that
have made the request, but none of them have really supplied
you the information that you asked for?
Ms. Stevenson. Correct.
Mrs. Christensen. So that indicates that again the
inability to meet the 50-50 match requiring a waiver, which
makes that part of this legislation, you know, so much more
important.
I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen. Anybody else
have any questions? Mr. Udall?
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to also add
my voice to those we have heard with regard to this
legislation. I think my colleague, Mr. Clyburn, makes a very
compelling set of arguments that we should do all we can to
support the historical black colleges and universities. I would
note that there are 103 of these campuses that are rich in
diversity, and we should do all we can to support them.
I thought the most compelling argument that is made in the
testimony was the strategic planning aspect of this for all
these universities. I think we could play a very, very
important role in helping these universities leverage dollars
if we support Mr. Clyburn's proposal.
I would also, if I could, since I have the floor, just
thank you for holding a hearing in regards to my colleague Mr.
Hefley's bill on the national heritage areas. He has offered an
important piece of legislation. I would support him in moving
that.
I would also like to just mention that I have a piece of
legislation on state heritage areas and for which I request a
hearing and hope that at some point we could also do that. I
think there is an opportunity for real synergy with the Federal
Government and states. I thank you for the Chair's indulgence,
and I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Radanovich. I, too, look forward to working with you on
those issues as well, Mr. Udall. Thank you for your comments on
both bills. And if there are no further questions of Ms.
Stevenson, thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. And then we will call our next panel.
All right, thank you very much for coming to testify. We
have on this next panel Mr. August Carlino, who is the
president of the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area and
chairman of the Alliance of the National Heritage Areas in
Homestead, Pennsylvania. Welcome for the third and lucky time,
Mr. Carlino. Thanks for being here.
Mr. Carlino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Also Dr. John Waddell, who is president of
Saint Paul's College in Lawrenceville, Virginia. Doctor,
welcome to the hearing.
Mr. Waddell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. We look forward to your testimony. And also
Dr. Wilma Roscoe, who is the interim president of the National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education from
Silver Spring, Maryland. Welcome, Dr. Roscoe.
Ms. Roscoe. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you for being here. What we would
like to do is just start off with your testimony. I am not
going to do the clock. I am sick of it. But if you could kind
of hang around 5 minutes on your testimony, that would be
great, and then we will open it all up to questions after you
are all done giving your testimony. Dr. Roscoe, if you would
like to begin. Please use the microphone. And welcome to the
hearing.
STATEMENT OF WILMA ROSCOE, INTERIM PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION, SILVER
SPRING, MARYLAND
Ms. Roscoe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to the
distinguished lady from the Virgin Islands and other members of
the Committee, I want to thank you for convening this important
hearing. Not only is this historic, but it is very much
necessary and needed.
As a daughter, granddaughter, great-great-granddaughter of
the great State of South Carolina, I want to also acknowledge
Mr. Clyburn and to thank him for his effort in working to
secure funding for the historically black colleges and
universities, and to lead the way for the priorities for the
future of our Nation's historically black colleges and
universities, which are also referred to as HBCUs.
The legislation that he introduced in partnership with
Representative Clement from Tennessee, H.R. 1606, will
authorize the expenditure of Federal funds that are needed to
address the severe historic preservation needs of our Nation's
HBCUs.
Moreover, as a graduate of an HBCU and as interim president
of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education, known as NAFEO, I would like to say that it does my
heart proud, as we say back home, to see and to witness the
Congressional leadership that is being displayed today in
bringing this issue to the forefront.
The vast majority of the schools and structures that are
the focus of this hearing were built in the 1800's. Today there
are 103 Federally-recognized HBCUs that have served as centers
of learning and can claim responsibility for educating between
the 1800's and now over 70 percent of the Nation's African-
American professionals.
Regrettably, the very mission and existence of these
schools are in jeopardy of forever being lost because they are
in critical need of repair. The severity of the situation has
been well documented by public and private authorities since
1988. In 1988, the Department of Interior, through the National
Park Service, began to assess the historic preservation needs
of HBCUs and eventually launched an initiative that listed 11
HBCUs as endangered.
Eventually Congress, the General Accounting Office, and the
National Trust for Historic Preservation confirmed that many of
the historic structures located on HBCU campuses were at risk
of being lost and required significant funding to be saved.
For example, in 1996, Congress, under the Parks and Public
Lands Management Act, authorized $29 million for restoration of
historical properties at selected HBCUs.
Two years later, in 1998, the General Accounting Office
conducted a survey and found that there were about 713
properties on the 103 HBCU campuses that needed repairs or
renovation. GAO estimated that $755 million would be needed to
address these historic preservation needs.
The Subcommittee should note that almost 15 percent of the
historic preservation needs or structures identified by GAO,
approximately $262 million, are located in States represented
by almost half of the members on this Subcommittee, in fact,
10.
Also, in 1998, the National Trust for Historic Preservation
took the unprecedented step of placing all of the nation's 103
HBCUs on the list of America's 11 most endangered historic
places, and concluded, and I quote, that ``immediate action
must be taken to preserve not just the structures, but the
important legacies of HBCUs.''
The legislation you consider today, H.R. 1606, would go a
long way toward finally addressing the needs that have been
recognized for so long. Many of these historic buildings house
classrooms, dormitories, administrative offices, laboratories,
libraries, and provide other uses that are necessary components
of providing a successful higher education experience. The
current condition of many of these sites presents some serious
health and safety concerns, and seriously impede the HBCU
community's, and ultimately the Nation's, ability to catch up,
keep up and step up to the challenges we have inherited over
time, as well as the ones we face.
Specifically, under H.R. 1606, $530 million is requested
for the National Park Service HBCU historical preservation
account. We recognize that the full amount would not be
appropriated in 1 year. It would take some time to address all
these needs. But working together, there is much that we can
accomplish.
I would just like to also add a personal note, that for the
past 40 years I have worked at historically black colleges. I
have worked with programs for historically black colleges, and
the testimony that was just presented today is somewhat of a
reversal of policy originally initiated during the Bush and
Reagan administrations. The Department, independent of
Congress, took the lead in establishing this initiative. I was
a part of that initiative, at least the planning, and remember
the history quite well.
Secondly, let me say that Congress similarly has endorsed
this type of effort through the 1996 Park bill as well as
legislation that was passed to protect historic women's public
colleges and universities.
This will conclude my statement. I have submitted a more
detailed statement for the record, and I thank you, and I will
be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roscoe follows:]
Statement of Dr. Wilma Roscoe, Interim CEO & President, National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
Today, 103 Historically Black Colleges and Universities across
the nation continue to serve as centers of learning and
catalysts for social change. Sadly, they are also victims of a
lack of funding which has left many historically significant
buildings inadequately maintained and desperately in need of
repair . . . Immediate action must be taken to preserve not
just the structures themselves, but the important legacy of
HBCUs--the dreams they fulfill through the educations they
provide.
National Trust for Historic Preservation
June 15, 1998
Introductory Remarks
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee, I am
Dr. Wilma Roscoe, the Interim Chief Executive Officer and President of
the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
(NAFEO). Even more notably, not only am I a proud native of South
Carolina, the home state of Congressman James Clyburn, but I am also a
graduate of an HBCU, Livingstone College, located in Salisbury, North
Carolina. So, it truly is a cherished and esteemed honor to have an
opportunity to testify before this particular congressional
subcommittee, as you address the relevance and needs of the historic
properties and facilities that are located on HBCU campuses. Your
leadership in convening this hearing is unprecedented, and is a
necessary step in preserving facilities that currently are classified
as ``national treasures.'' Moreover, the consideration and ultimate
passage of H.R. 1606, a bill which will amend section 507 of the
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to authorize
additional appropriations for HBCU historic preservation efforts,
urgently is needed to protect the legacies and longevity of historical
institutions that have been and will forever be necessary and indelible
contributors to our success as a nation.
In preparing for today's testimony, I asked my staff to summarize
the number of HBCUs that are located in the states represented by
members of this subcommittee. In reviewing the data, we found that
about half of the members of this subcommittee (10) have HBCUs in their
home states. Three have HBCUs located in their congressional districts.
Even more surprising, the HBCUs located in the states represented by
these Members have about $263 million in historic preservation needs,
representing about 35 percent of the $755 million in needs reported by
a General Accounting Office study that will be discussed later. A chart
providing a summary of this information is attached to my testimony and
I ask that it be included in the record.
Background
With this in mind, if I may, I would like to begin by providing a
brief background statement on the mission and work of the National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO). NAFEO is
the national umbrella and public policy advocacy organization
representing the nation's 118 predominately and Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Our mission is to champion the
interests of HBCUs through the executive, legislative and judicial
branches of federal and state government and to articulate the need for
a system of higher education where race, ethnicity, socio-economic
status and previous educational attainment levels are not determinants
of either the quantity or quality of higher education. The organization
takes lead responsibility for the development and dissemination of
public policy, programmatic efforts, and strategic and educational
materials that: (1) enhance the role of HBCUs generally, and (2)
promote minority student enrollment and attainment specifically. NAFEO
is comprised of institutions of higher education that represent a broad
spectrum of interests public and private, large and small, urban and
rural, liberal arts, agricultural, research, scientific and technology
development. Of all of the HBCUs that belong to NAFEO, approximately
46% are public and 54% are private. The organization's membership is
comprised of 2-year and 4-year institutions, as well as schools that
offer advanced and professional degrees.
NAFEO was founded in 1969, at a time when the nation had before it
overwhelming evidence that educational inequality in higher education
remained manifest. The 1954 Supreme Court decision, Brown vs. Topeka
Board of Education, and its progeny, focused national attention on the
dual and unequal primary and secondary education systems nationwide and
spurred two decades of litigation and legislation designed to redress
the inequalities. But the initial debate neither paid much attention to
the inequalities in higher education nor focused on the nation's HBCUs
as equal opportunity institutions; thus, a solution to some of the
nation's higher education issues was eluded. NAFEO's establishment
occurred in response to the need to have an organizational mechanism in
place that would keep these issues at the forefront of national policy
discussion and development.
Since the organization's inception in 1969, NAFEO has played a key
strategic role in expanding access to higher education for African
Americans, and in more recent years students from other racial/ethnic
groups. In fact, NAFEO institutions historically are responsible for
educating the vast majority of African Americans. Today, while NAFEO
institutions enroll approximately 18 percent of all African American
college students, they confer about 30 percent of all bachelors degrees
awarded to African Americans nationally. In some disciplines, such as
engineering and teacher education, the number is significantly higher.
Moreover, these schools produce the largest number of African American
baccalaureate recipients who eventually go on to receive doctorate
degrees, especially in the sciences.
Consider, for example that eight of the top 10 producers of African
American engineers are HBCUs. Additionally, 42 percent of all the Ph.Ds
earned each year by African Americans are earned by graduates of HBCUs;
18 of the top 23 producers of African Americans who go on to receive
science-related Ph.Ds are HBCUs. NAFEO institutions are situated in
every quarter of the country: in fourteen Southern states, six Northern
states, three Midwestern states, one Western state, the District of
Columbia and the Virgin Islands. They enroll approximately 500,000
undergraduate students and 50,000 graduate, professional and doctoral
students. Our alumni rosters include Mary McLeod Bethune, Booker T.
Washington, Althea Gibson, Thurgood Marshall, Oprah Winfrey, Andrew
Young, Jr., Ronald McNair, Martin Luther King, Jr., Vernon Jordan,
Walter Payton, approximately half of the Members of the Congressional
Black Caucus, and scores of other notable leaders.
Statement of Need
Even with this notable history of accomplishments that have
strengthened the economic, political, and cultural foundation upon
which our nation has been built, many structures on HBCU campuses are
in severe need of repair. The situation is so severe, that in 1998, the
National Trust for Historic Preservation took an unprecedented step and
included 103 HBCUs on its list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic
Places. In announcing this historic designation, the National Trust for
Historic Preservation concluded the following:
Of the 103 HBCUs in the United States, most are showing serious
signs of neglect. Campus landmarks are decaying and college
grounds are badly in need of attention. Most were constructed
during the second half of the 19th century using the finest
materials and craftsmanship available, and built, in many
instances, with the help of the students themselves. Their
architectural styles are as distinctive and varying as the
years in the timespan in which they were built. The excellent
education provided within these walls proved indispensable in
the 1950s and 1960s, when the HBCUs became the training ground
for the Civil Rights movement.
The findings of the National Trust for Historic Preservation are
consistent with findings that have been made by the Department of
Interior, Congress, and the General Accounting Office.
For instance, in 1988 the Department of Interior, National Park
Service established the HBCU Historic Preservation Initiative. As a
part of that program, 11 historically significant and critically
threatened structures were identified. Federal and private resources
were secured to fund these projects. The Department of Interior
contributed $13 million to this initial effort. Consistent with the
findings and efforts of the Department of Interior, under the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management (OPPLM) Act of 1996, Congress
authorized and ultimately appropriated $29 million in funding for the
restoration of historic properties at selected HBCUs. Only those
historic properties on the National Register or which were determined
eligible for listing on the National Register as a result of state
historic preservation officer (SHPO) surveys were eligible for federal
grant assistance under the National Historic Preservation Act or the
OPPLM Act of 1996. The amounts authorized in the 1996 bill have been
fully appropriated, and the authorization has expired.
Two years after funding was authorized in the OPPLM Act, an
pursuant to a congressional request submitted by Representative
Clyburn, the General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study of
historic preservation needs at HBCUs entitled Historic Preservation:
Cost to Restore Historic Properties at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (GAO/RCED-98-51, February 1998). GAO concluded that 712
properties on the 103 HBCU campuses surveyed were in need of repairs or
structural renovations. Of these 712 properties, 672 (94.4%) are
buildings, with the remainder being sites, structures or objects, such
as smokestacks and courtyards. An estimated $755 million is needed to
address these historic preservation needs. The report noted that
approximately 8 percent of the total amount had already been set aside
to pay the restoration costs for specific properties.
The needs at many of the facilities consist of making the
properties more accessible to people with disabilities, replacing leaky
roofs, removing health threats such as asbestos and lead-based paint,
or wiring for new technologies. It should be noted that in recognition
of their historic and present importance, the Park Service in June of
1998 listed all 103 HBCUs on the National Register of Historic Places.
This action makes each of the properties identified by GAO eligible for
historic preservation funding.
The Department of Interior did note that the magnitude of the
repair cost estimates reported by the schools is substantial in terms
of the limited level of appropriations available from the Historic
Preservation Fund for matching grants available to HBCUs pursuant to
the OPPLM Act of 1996. Additionally, any funding for increased
appropriations for grants to HBCUs in furtherance of this effort would
be subject to authorization. As a result, there are legislative
challenges that must be addressed when considering the restoration of
historic properties at these schools.
Recommendations
In order to effectively address the legislative hurdles that must
be cleared before we can move forward in rectifying the HBCU historic
preservation needs that have been documented by authorities at every
level, we respectfully request the expeditious consideration and
passage of H.R. 1606. Any further delay promises to jeopardize the
legacy and future, the very existence, of national treasures that have
been classified as endangered by experts on the subject for more than a
decade. Moreover, if HBCUs are to survive and successfully compete with
larger, more heavily endowed schools, congressional action is needed
now. Our institutions need to preserve and renovate their historic
facilities, not only because they are a part of American history, but
also because they also need to update and upgrade a deteriorating
infrastructure needed to educate students and attract quality faculty
who must have the tools to meet the complex challenges presented by the
new century, many of which are technology-based. Many of these historic
buildings house classrooms, administrative offices, dormitories,
laboratories, libraries and provide other usages that are necessary
components of having a successful higher education experience. The
current condition of many of these sites present serious health and
safety concerns, and seriously impede the HBCU community's ability to
catch-up, keep up and step up to the challenges we have inherited over
time, as well as the ones presented by a new and highly technological
millennium.
Passage of H.R. 1606 and the ultimate provision of sufficient,
long-term funding for the National Park Service's Historic Preservation
account would enable a significant number of HBCUs to begin
preservation activities on the most dilapidated campus facilities.
Specifically, under H.R. 1606, $530 million is requested. This is
significantly less than the cost estimates included in the GAO report,
mainly because the legislation would require HBCUs to provide 30
percent of the project costs in matching funds. Additionally, while we
seek and support a multi-year authorization, we recognize that the full
amount would not be appropriated in one year. Surely, it will take some
time to address these needs. However, with your help and support, there
is much we can accomplish.
This concludes my statement for the record. Again, on behalf of the
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, I want
to thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee.
______
[An attachment to Dr. Roscoe's statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Dr. Roscoe. Dr. Waddell, thank
you very much. You may begin your testimony, too. If you could
please keep it to 5 minutes, that would be great. I will set
the clock.
STATEMENT OF JOHN KENNETH WADDELL, PRESIDENT, SAINT PAUL'S
COLLEGE, LAWRENCEVILLE, VIRGINIA
Mr. Waddell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee
members. Thank you for allowing me to be here today. It is with
great pleasure that I testify as a part of H.R. 1606,
Congressman Clyburn's bill to expand authorization of the HBCU
historic preservation program.
As the former president of Allen University in Columbia,
South Carolina, I have seen first-hand the tremendous national,
State and local impact this appropriation has facilitated with
the restoration of Arnett Hall, a 113-year-old treasure which
sat empty for approximately 35 years.
The building, the first on campus, was the pride and
cultural centerpiece for the campus and the intellectually
acclaimed Old Waverly African-American community. From
inception, it was utilized as a kindergarten, elementary
school, high school, law school, dormitory, and meeting place
for many alumni, neighbors and friends of the college.
In addition, like many historically black institutions, the
campus sits in one of the prime commercial corridors in
Columbia, South Carolina, the State capitol. It is located less
than one mile from Main Street, the major business and banking
centers, and the state legislature. Arnett Hall, its federally
restored jewel, is situated in a pivotal location with an
excellent view of the entire area.
The scope and impact of Federal funding for this initiative
cannot be measured in purely dollars and cents. Prior to this
appropriation, the death knell for Allen University had been
sounded. The student population had dropped from a high of 1000
in the early 1960's to 237 in 1997.
The institution also faced 78 recommendations and
suggestions from the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools. Low morale, dilapidated buildings, deferred
maintenance and run-down streets surrounding the campus were
unfortunately the norm, rather than the exception.
Concurrently, public appreciation for past tradition had
quickly eroded, and ugly rumors of its demise were prevalent.
There were fears that the college, with its cultural
significance, community relationships, and a long-term record
of having more graduates in the South Carolina state
legislature than any private college in South Carolina, would
be lost forever.
However, immediately upon receipt of the appropriation, the
direction changed. The institution moved from a posture of
lifelessness to the perception of a college with hope and a
compelling future. The board of trustees, led by Congressman
James Clyburn and Bishop John Hurst Adams, articulated the
funding as a foundation for a larger vision and an outline for
a New Allen of which the entire South Carolina community would
be proud.
And that is exactly what happened. A phoenix arose from the
ashes and the community, state and National pride in the
college was reborn.
The new strategic plan was implemented, and alumni giving,
teacher education accreditation, a $1.1 million gift from the
Lilly Foundation for programmatic activities within the
building followed.
The board of trustees, through strategic planning, also
leveraged and complemented the gift with the restoration of a
$7.5 million bond issue with Bank of America, the substance of
which allowed the institution to build a new multi-purpose $4
million gymnatorium and the remainder was used for deferred
maintenance and to help get the reaffirmation of the college.
Moreover, the beauty of Arnett Hall stimulated a spark
among local neighbors to upgrade their homes and grounds. City
roads were suddenly repaved, and community groups leased campus
facilities at an all-time rate. As the media attention
continued, Chamber of Commerce groups and other economic
development entities began including the institution in its
plans.
In closing, the scope and impact of this program is truly
magnificent. The appropriation made a significant difference.
It not only spurred institutional progress and saved a 130-
year-old institution, but also renewed community pride and
state interest in historic preservation and economic
development. It continues today. This is a prime example of
Federal dollars making a difference for the public good.
Please, please, please support Congressman Clyburn's bill
and lower the match. These treasures are critical for the
communities served, the States and the Nation. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waddell follows:]
Statement of Dr. John Kenneth Waddell, President, St. Paul's College
It is with great pleasure that I testify in support of HR 1606,
Congressman Clyburn's bill to expand authorization of the HBCU Historic
Preservation Program.
As the former President of Allen University in Columbia, SC, I have
seen first hand the tremendous national, state, and local impact this
appropriation has facilitated with the restoration of Arnett Hall, a
113-year-old treasure, which sat empty for approximately 35 years.
This building, the first on campus, was the pride and cultural
centerpiece for the campus and the intellectually acclaimed ``Old
Waverly'' African-American Community. From inception, it was utilized
as a Kindergarten, Elementary school, High school, Law school,
dormitory and meeting place for many alumni, neighbors, and friends of
the college.
In addition, like many historically black institutions, the campus
sits in one of the prime commercial corridors in Columbia, South
Carolina, the state capitol. It is located less than one (1) mile from
main street, the major business and banking centers and the state
legislature. Arnett Hall, its federally restored jewel, is similarly
situated in pivotal location with an excellent view of the entire area.
Thousands of tax-paying citizens pass each day exclaiming the
beauty of the restored structure. This has been documented by numerous
media sources and an award from the South Carolina Historic
Preservation Society.
The scope and impact of federal funding for this initiative cannot
be measured in pure dollars and cents. Prior to this appropriation, the
deathknell for Allen University had been sounded!
This institution, a state icon and cultural treasure, had drifted
passively for approximately four decades and faced a multiplicity of
challenges ranging from enrollment and accreditation and credibility
issues.
The student population had dropped from a high of 1,000 in the
early 1960's to 237 (FTE) in 1997. The institution also faced seventy-
eight (78) Recommendations and Suggestions from the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). Low morale, dilapidated
buildings, deferred maintenance and rundown streets surrounding the
campus were unfortunately the ``norm rather than the exception''.
Concurrently, public appreciation for past tradition was quickly
eroding and ugly rumors of its demise were prevalent. There were fears
that the college, with its cultural significance, storied history,
community relationships and a long-term record of having more graduates
in the state legislature than any private college in South Carolina,
would be lost forever.
Immediately upon receipt of the appropriation, the direction
changed. The institution moved from a posture of lifelessness and
dormancy to the perception of a college with hope and a compelling
future.
Campus constituencies, the media, community leaders, elected
officials, corporate entities and accreditation officials immediately
took notice. The Board of Trustees led by congressman James Clyburn and
Bishop John H. Adams, articulated the funding as a foundation for a
larger vision and an outline for a ``New Allen'' of which the entire
statewide community could be proud.
This is exactly what happened. A phoenix arose from the ashes and
community, sate and national pride was reborn.
Other unexpected but possible but positive changes occurred. A new
confidence and collaborative efforts were inspired between federal,
state and campus officials. Led by Mr. Cecil McKithian in Atlanta,
officials from the National Park Service conferred with state historic
preservation on a consistent basis.
State officials were also highly impressed with the thorough survey
and study conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the
college's detailed architectural/ Master Plan and cost study required
by Congressman Clyburn to move forward. This effort also brought
persons to campus that did not previously have interest or stake in its
future but quickly became new fans and supporters.
Also internally, changes occurred quickly. As construction
progressed, student, faculty and alumni pride grew. Alumni purchased
bricks and contributions increased to the Alumni and Annual Funds by
25%. Enrollment soared from 237 to 550 and the colleges went from empty
classrooms to being forced to place a hold on new admissions until
further housing space could be located. Traffic on campus increased
threefold and where once, parking spaces were abundant, a new campus
Parking and Ticketing system had to be established.
The appropriation also spurred new sources of revenue and academic
enhancements. The Lilly Foundation gave a gift of $1.1 million dollars
to the college for new technological upgrades and programmatic
activities in Arnett Hall. The State Department of Education moved
forward with its hold on accreditation of the Teacher Education program
primarily due to the lack of an appropriate facility to house the
program. After a tour by state officials, an agreement was struck to
house the program in the restored building and the program was
accredited.
The Board of Trustees also complemented the restoration with the
completion of a $7.5 million dollar Bond issue with Bank of America.
The substance of which allowed the institution to build a new,
multipurpose $4 million dollar Gymnatorium with an Olympic-sized
swimming pool adjacent to the restored facility. The remainder was used
for deferred maintenance and to pay off old debts, which increased
public confidence in the college's financial condition. The
accreditation agency (SACS) also removed the institution from negative
(Warning) status and reaffirmed the institution's ten (10) year
accreditation.
Moreover, the beauty of Arnett Hall stimulated a spark among local
neighbors to upgrade their homes and grounds. City roads were suddenly
repaved in the area and in the community groups leased campus
facilities at an all-time rate. As media attention continued, local
Chamber of Commerce groups and other economic development entities
began including the institution in its discussions for the area and
highlighted th4e building on its placards.
Also, longtime low-income residence of the community would simply
stand at the perimeter of the beautiful courtyard and gaze.
Subsequently, in tears, stating, ``that they or their parents had great
memories of attending school or some activity in the building but had
given up on it's restoration, the college and the community''. It was
also common for persons from all persuasions to walk in without notice
and write a check, acknowledging its beauty, transformation and revival
of the downtown community. Their gift, symbolic of their desire to be
an active supporter of this initiative.
In closing, the scope and impact of this program is truly
magnificent! The appropriation made a significant difference! It not
only spurred institutional progress and saved a 130-year-old
institution but also renewed community pride and state interest in
historic preservation and economic development. It continues today.
This is a prime case of federal dollars making a difference for public
good.
Thank you very much.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Waddell. Before we go to our
next witness, I want to welcome Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
to the panel, and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to
join us on the dais. There certainly being no objection, so
ordered.
Now here to speak on our second bill, which is 2388, is Mr.
Carlino, who is again president of the Rivers of Steel National
Heritage Area. Welcome, Mr. Carlino.
Mr. Carlino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. And if you could kind of keep your
testimony to 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AUGUST R. CARLINO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, RIVERS OF STEEL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, AND CHAIRMAN,
ALLIANCE OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS, HOMESTEAD, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Carlino. And thank you for extending the invitation for
me to appear here today again. I appreciate it, and I know my
colleague, Ms. Harris, sends her regrets that she was unable to
appear, but I know you have her testimony that is going to be
submitted for the record.
As you know, I am president of Rivers of Steel National
Heritage Area, located in Homestead, Pennsylvania, just outside
of Pittsburgh. I am also chairman of the Alliance of National
Heritage Area, a coalition of the 23 congressionally designated
national heritage areas and their partners working in heritage
development across the country.
And as Mr. Hefley has pointed out, indeed, heritage areas
have grown over the past two decades, from a fairly nebulous
concept when it was first proposed back in the 1980's to one
now that has more than 150 heritage programs or projects across
the country. But I think that is being done because heritage
areas come up with a number of development strategies that work
in partnership to preserve the Nation and the States and local
communities' history in unique ways that doesn't rely on a
single source of funding from one unit of local government or
even from a private partner.
Heritage areas, and national heritage areas, are special
places in America. They merge community resources to promote
conservation and community and economic development, or what we
call heritage development.
Heritage areas harness a wide range of community assets and
interests, from historic preservation to outdoor recreation,
museums and performing arts, folk life and crafts, scenic and
working landscapes, and grass-roots community-building
activities that, when they are all combined, create a sum that
is greater than their parts.
All heritage areas have some basis and root in community
activity. Mine in Pittsburgh, in southwestern Pennsylvania, is
not unique. In fact, we were created because there was a
coalition of community groups and local governments and
foundations concerned about the demise and loss of the steel
industry in Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania in 1988,
and that effort grew out of an opportunity to save a part of a
closing mill. That is still a very important program that we
are working toward in our organization, one that Congressman
Doyle has introduced legislation on to designate as a new
national park. But out of that grew the effort to create a
national heritage area that celebrates and commemorates the
complexity of the industry for steel-making in southwestern
Pennsylvania, and that is one that has worked remarkably well
over the past 12 years.
But since we have been designated as part of the Omnibus
Parks bill in 1996, I just wanted to point out to you some
statistics on our organization.
Not counting this year's appropriation that just passed in
the conference Committee, the Steel Industry Heritage
Corporation, the parent organization of the Rivers of Steel
National Heritage Area, has received a little under $4 million
in appropriated funds through NPS, Department of Interior
monies.
We have been able to leverage directly almost $23 million,
a little over $23 million, in other public or private funding
for projects.
We also work with partners in the communities in the
heritage area, and they, because of that money that we regrant
and work to put into programs, they have been able to raise
approximately $25 million more toward projects.
This success exists because the money that we get through
the heritage area program that the Congress gives us is money
that we are able to use as seed financing and work toward that.
Boy, 5 minutes goes quickly, doesn't it?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carlino. If I can jump to the points of the bill, if I
may, I think you see a lot of the things of heritage areas, as
it says in my statement, are, as Mr. Hefley's bill indicates,
are things that we think are important to have. There needs to
be a consistent policy and program, and Mr. Hefley's staff,
particularly Larry Hojo, has been extremely open in working
with us, and we appreciate that, and thank the Congressman and
Larry for his work.
Some points I would like to make. At least in my
experience, I think the heritage area should not be designated
as national heritage area until all planning is completed. That
includes both the feasibility and the management plan.
I think that the limitations that the bill suggests, as Ms.
Stevenson pointed out, to have the consent of all units of
local government could be cumbersome to the point of not being
able to be achieved. Like Hudson River, our region in
southwestern Pennsylvania has a number of local government
units. In Allegheny County, there are 137 units of local
government, of which the city of Pittsburgh is one. We cover
seven counties. We would spend all of our time trying to get
every single unit of local government to support it. I think
there are other things that we can do that show through our
experience that units of local governments can be added into
the process.
I think the grant program creates a hierarchical approach
that would become bureaucratic and too burdensome to the
heritage areas to function. The way the program works right now
through direct appropriations to the heritage areas allows not
only the heritage areas to work with the communities and
develop the projects that need funding each year, but also
allows the communities to remain in contact directly with their
government in expressing the needs and priorities of their
local communities.
I think that the program also, in limiting the funding to
the heritage areas each year to 3 years of administration, is a
little bit too short. With a good management plan, those
heritage areas will be able to succeed.
I also would point out to you that I believe strongly that
the National Park Service should be allowed to use and gain
appropriations from this for using its staff to provide
continued technical assistance to the heritage areas, although
the amount of funding we think is a little bit--or is
arbitrarily capped at $10 million.
And finally we are concerned that the bill has some
retroactive language in it that affects the 23 heritage areas
as they exist. Some of that has been cleaned up in previous
drafts. We just hope that there could be some cleaning up of
the remaining issues and allow those heritage areas to work
under their organic acts.
Thank you. And I apologize for extending beyond my limit.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlino follows:]
Statement of August R. Carlino, President & Chief Executive Officer,
Steel Industry Heritage Corporation and the Rivers of Steel National
Heritage Area, and Chairman, Alliance of National Heritage Areas
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my name is
August R. Carlino, and I am the President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation, developers of the Rivers of
Steel National Heritage Area located in and around Pittsburgh and parts
of southwestern Pennsylvania. I am also here today testifying in my
capacity as Chairman of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, an
organization whose membership includes 22 of the 23 congressionally-
designated NHAs, along with other organizations and partners. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to
discuss H.R. 2388, the National Heritage Areas Policy Act of 2001.
In the last two decades, heritage areas have grown from a nebulous
concept to a powerful national movement. Heritage areas span a wide
spectrum of activities. They can range from a single effort to save a
group of historic buildings to a multifaceted approach to community
conservation, preservation, tourism and economic revitalization.
Heritage areas can be located in one neighborhood, or they can be
multi-jurisdictional, crossing the boundaries of counties and even
states. Heritage areas can be fostered by the philanthropy of an
individual, or by the collective participation of foundations,
businesses and governments in a regional project. Our latest estimate
indicates that heritage areas have sprouted in more than 150 places
throughout the U.S. This ``niche'' in the preservation industry has
become the catalyst for the creation of investment and economic
development strategies in a number of states and through the federally-
sponsored initiatives with our partner, the National Park Service, in
the National Heritage Areas.
These National Heritage Areas are special places in America. NHAs
merge community resources to promote conservation and community and
economic development or heritage development. They harness a wide range
of community assets and interests - from historic preservation, outdoor
recreation, museums, performing arts, folk life and crafts, and scenic
and working landscapes, to grassroots community-building activities,
that when combined create a sum greater than its parts.
NHAs celebrate the special character and culture of places, and
have a strong sense of place and identity. They are neither urban nor
rural and often include communities and sites throughout a region.
Typically, NHAs work to protect historic and cultural resources while
encouraging development for tourism and other economic opportunities.
NHAs illuminate the history and culture of a region so those people
within the region feel proud of their heritage and those who visit come
away with an appreciation of the cultures of the region.
Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania maintain an important role
in the story of America, with a history of extraordinary
industrialization, forged by steel and related industries. Steel
production spawned a spectacular wealth of physical, social and
cultural legacies that distinguish the region on a state, national and
international level. Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania wear this
heritage proudly, with life in the region still dominated by industry,
ethnic tradition, and communities. A strong central framework for
linking these resources exists in the rivers and river valleys. This
background, supported by all of the region's existing resources, served
as the basis for the establishment of the Rivers of Steel National
Heritage Area in 1996 (P. Law 104-333).
In 1988, a coalition of community groups, businesses, labor
organizations and local foundations came together to save a part of
Pittsburgh's rapidly disappearing steel heritage. That effort grew into
a regional community-based task force that, in working in partnership
with the National Park Service and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
developed the necessary feasibility studies and management plans to
create both the Steel Industry Heritage Corporation and the Rivers of
Steel National Heritage Area. Rivers of Steel covers seven counties in
southwestern Pennsylvania and works to conserve, interpret, promote and
develop the industrial, cultural, natural and recreational resources of
the region, making them critical elements of community revitalization
and heritage tourism.
Rivers of Steel has succeeded because of its true partnership
structure, and grassroots organizational and management objectives.
Communities in southwestern Pennsylvania have formed a regional
coalition unlike any before; one in which local constituencies, with
the technical assistance the of professional staff of SIHC, partner
with local, state and the federal governments to commemorate their
heritage while working to make their communities better places to live,
work and play. These communities are in charge of the projects and
programs in the heritage area, and each community knows it must work to
support and strengthen its neighboring communities' projects to be
successful. This success has translated into more than $43.4 million
SIHC has risen in the past nine years for projects in the Rivers of
Steel region. As significant as this number is, it becomes more
significant when I illustrate what designation as a NHA has meant.
Since our authorization in 1996, SIHC has received $3.988 million in
National Heritage Area funds. This has leveraged more than $23.5
million in other public or private funding (590 percent). This exists
only because the heritage management entity, SIHC, and its partnering
communities have the responsibility as granted by the Congress in P.
Law 104-333 to develop the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area. In
addition, Rivers of Steel has a true partner in the current
relationship with the National Park Service, providing guidance and
expertise in projects and programs. If the NHA designation would cease
without any ability for reauthorization and additional funding, this
leveraged funding would cease to exist. I believe you will find this to
be true for most NHAs as well.
To be successful, NHAs not only have to work with communities to
develop projects and to raise funds, they also have to develop
partnerships to carry out work. In all that we do, our most
significant, and most important partner to our efforts is the National
Park Service. After all, NHAs exists because their historical,
cultural, recreational and natural resources have been determined to be
nationally significant. NHAs extend the breadth of the National Park
Service's mission, and broaden the public's awareness of the Service's
responsibility and commitment to the nation's heritage. As one of my
colleagues, an NPS Superintendent, stated, National Heritage Areas are
successful, too, `` because they are where people and the government
can come together to preserve a piece of America's heritage and do it
in a way that unites a region.'' National Heritage Areas are fully
consistent with the National Park Service's mission to protect the
nation's natural, cultural and historic resources. NHAs have been
successful in developing and implementing preservation strategies and
in bringing communities together to protect resources, and I believe,
from my work with the Northeast Region, in particular, that National
Park Service believes in and desires to enhance and encourage such
local endeavors.
To that end, the National Park Service and the National Heritage
Areas should have a continuing relationship in their larger partnership
to protect the resources of America. NHAs are not just important to the
public, they are important to the NPS in meeting its conservation and
education goals. NHAs enable the NPS to involve communities first-hand
in protecting resources and understanding and promoting the nation's
heritage. Working together, NHAs and the NPS tell the stories and
protect the resources that are the backdrops of many of the nation's
national parks, national historic sites, national monuments and
national battlefields. Together, they build constituencies that support
each other's work, and support the national parks. But this is a
reciprocal relationship as NPS provides local groups with the needed
resources, experiences and expertise that help NHAs succeed in ways
beyond most peoples' expectations and imaginations.
Before I discuss the specifics of H.R. 2388, I wish to make some
general statements regarding NHAs. First, much to the contrary of some
people's belief, NHAs are not a drain on the budget of the National
Park Service. The investment that that Congress provides each year to
the designated NHAs actually helps extend the reach of the NPS and
furthers its mission in places where it might not be financially
feasible if a project were to be otherwise solely funded by NPS
dollars. The record shows that NHAs are greatly successful in brokering
the Interior Appropriations funds each year by using that money as seed
investment to attract money to projects from other federal, state,
local and private sources. NPS funds are, therefore enhanced. The
additional money leveraged from other sources is that much more that
remains available in Interior funds for projects within the national
parks.
Second, NHAs continue to be proposed and created because they are
successful conservation strategies. They draw national and
international attention to the benefits of locally driven initiatives,
committed communities, and NPS partnership and funding as new,
innovative ways provide for the interpretation and protection of our
nationally significant resources. NHAs should be looked at as ways to
extend the National Park Service's mission and meet its obligations in
the nation.
Lastly, just as NHAs can enhance NPS's role and the national park
that they are near, the establishment of national park units within
NHAs can further enhance the heritage area. It concerns me greatly, and
I believe we must avoid at all cost, the belief that just because a NHA
has been established means that no historic resource within the
boundary of the NHA is eligible for designation as a unit of the
National Park Service system. NHAs offer new approaches to conservation
and protection of the nation's history but the fundamental roles and
responsibilities of the National Park Service still exist, and it must
continue to act as the ultimate protector of our nation's most valued
historic and cultural resources.
In 1999, this Subcommittee convened a hearing on this same subject
and many of our partners, including the National Park Service,
presented testimony an earlier version of this legislation. Let me
start by saying the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, and my
organization Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area is grateful for the
support we have received from members and the staff of this
Subcommittee. I am particularly grateful to the openness you and your
staff have demonstrated in the drafting the National Heritage Areas
Policy Act.
At that hearing Denis Galvin, Deputy Director of the National Park
Service, indicated in his testimony the critical steps necessary to
designate a National Heritage Area. They are:
1. Lcompletion of a feasibility/suitability study;
2. Lpublic involvement in the study process;
3. Ldemonstration of widespread public support among heritage area
residents for the proposed designation; and,
4. Lcommitment to the proposal from the appropriate players,
including governments, business, private and non-profit organizations,
and the local citizenry.
At that same hearing, the Alliance of National Heritage Areas
founding Chairman, Dan Rice of the Ohio and Erie Canal National
Corridor, reiterated the need for strong public participation, not only
in the study process, but also throughout the implementation of the
goals and objectives of the NHA. I would add one other critical element
that needs to be completed before Congress considers an area for
designation. All prospective NHAs should be required to complete a
detailed management plan. I am very pleased to see the addition to H.R.
2388 that specifies the management plan as part of the planning
process. Designation by Congress of a NHA should come only after the
management plan is completed.
Overall, the Alliance believes there needs to be policy in place
that governs the steps required before a region can be designated as a
National Heritage Area. The difficulty is often getting all parties to
agree on the specifics. The language of H.R. 2388 has changed in many
ways since it was first drafted to include the comments and suggestions
many people have provided. I believe that with a few more adjustments,
this bill could gain the support of the Alliance and the other partners
in the heritage area industry.
Specifically, the follow issues within H.R. 2388 are still of
concern to the Alliance of National Heritage Areas:
The bill requires congressional designation at both the
feasibility study phase and after the completion of a management action
plan. We believe congressional designation should come upon completion
of the management plan, and no area should be designated a National
Heritage Area before all of the plans are completed.
The bill requires a ``preponderance of units of local
government'' to approve the local coordinating entity and the proposed
heritage area before designation. The term ``preponderance'' we believe
is unnecessary and unclear. If the planning process is carried out
properly, local community and government support should build for the
heritage area. In the planning process, a coordinating entity will
emerge that has the support of all of the partners involved in the
process. If not, the weakness of the plan and the coalition of partners
if they exist at all will be evident to the Secretary and to the
Congress when they review the plan and its recommendations.
If designation of NHAs, and subsequent funds, are not
made until all planning, including the management plan, is completed,
then the language providing a three-year eligibility for new area for
funding is unnecessary (Section 6.G.2).
We believe the grant process as delineated in Section 6
to be damaging to the whole process of National Heritage Area
programming. The process of a prioritized list of grants submitted to
the Congress by the Secretary removes from the process one of the
fundamental elements that NHAs create the direct link to establishing
funding priorities in the NHA by the public/private partnership and
that partnership's ability, as it exists now, to communicate those
needs directly to their members of Congress. NHAs are successful
because they connect people to their government and the to the process
of obtaining government funding for projects they feel are important to
their communities. To sever this tie now, and make funding for NHAs
available only on a grant process as determined by the Secretary
undercuts the spirit of involving the citizenry in, and instilling in
them the responsibility for, the development of their NHA.
Furthermore, Section 6 requires a pre-prioritization from
the Governor of each state where a NHA is located, increasing the
complexity of the funding process and further limiting the citizens
ability to determine and make known the importance of funding for
specific projects in their heritage area. If this procedure were to be
enacted, we fear the process would become long, drawn out, cumbersome
and intensely bureaucratic, and cripple the ability of NHAs to
effectively undertake projects.
The Alliance and its members have strong concern for the
limitation to the first three fiscal years of the use of NHA funds for
operational expenses. The basic realities are that all granting
entities, whether government or from private, must permit a necessary
percentage of funds to be used for operations and administration,
otherwise no one could be employed to oversee the project for which
funding was received. NHAs, if properly managed and with strong
management plan will, over time, become more self-sustaining; however,
withdrawing necessary financial support too early would be more
damaging than beneficial.
We believe the funding cap of $10 million per year to the
National Heritage Area program to be inadequate considering that there
are 23 NHAs, all of which conceivably could receive $1 million each
fiscal year. The proposed funding cap is even less than the proposed
funding amount in Interior Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2002.
Under the proposed scenario, the average amount per area would be
considerably less than the current appropriation for almost all of the
existing NHAs. This funding cap would irreparably harm the NHAs and
their programs.
The Alliance is concerned that the bill as currently
written, still contains a number of elements that would be retroactive
to the 23 NHAs and their organic acts, or re-authorizations. We hope
that this language can be clarified, so that our organization and its
members will support this legislation.
Finally, I believe that no program within the government can
properly function without adequate support from the professional staff
of the agency that oversees the program. NHAs have been incredibly
successful, in part due to the determination and cooperation of the
partners within each area. The NHAs have succeeded, too, because of the
strong support they receive from the National Park Service, both in
Washington and in the regional offices. For the National Heritage Area
program to continue, funding must be provided on an annual basis to the
NPS for staffing and technical support to both the existing NHAs and
those that will continue to be created. Thus I would suggest language
in the bill that authorizes an amount necessary each year to carry out
the work of NPS within the NHAs.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the National Heritage
Areas represent a successful, new approach to governing that defines
the role of all the partners. The nation's historic and cultural
resources are further protected when an involved and educated
citizenry, working with the National Park Service, become stewards of
these resources, and champions for their continued conservation and
interpretation. There is tremendous enthusiasm in the public for the
National Heritage Area program, and for the continued role of the
National Park Service as a strong, effective partner in this process.
While I understand that achieving consensus on general policy and
legislation might be a difficult undertaking, we stand prepared to work
with you to continue making the National Heritage Area program
successful. We may find that some of these principles may not need to
be instituted through legislation. Nonetheless, I know that you agree
with me that any new legislation should look to what is successful
today, and set into policy those elements that will permit this program
to flourish.
Again, thank you for your invitation to appear before the
Subcommittee. I appreciate your interest in our work, and I am
available to answer any questions you have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. That is okay. It is just all the bells and
whistles mean we have a vote in about--we have 15 minutes to
get to the Floor, so what I am going to try to do is wrap it
up, if we can, and so for that reason, if there is no
objection, I want to put the emphasis on the sponsors of the
bill, and the questions that they might want to ask, so I am
going to start with Mr. Hefley. Joel, if you have got questions
of Mr. Carlino or of Drs. Waddell or Roscoe, then please feel
free to do that, and then we will go on.
Mr. Hefley. Well, I know we are limited on time, and I
won't take much time. Mr. Carlino, again thank you for your
patience, and you have been very helpful in helping us craft
this piece of legislation. Your suggestions that you made, we
would like to address, so we will continue to work with you.
Particularly the retroactivity is something that we want to
make doubly sure does not affect existing heritage areas in a
negative way, so please help us with that.
Mr. Carlino. Thank you. I will do that, and I appreciate
that, Congressman.
Mr. Hefley. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. I
know we are on a real time schedule.
Mr. Radanovich. Forgive me, but I appreciate that, and
thank you, Mr. Hefley. Mrs. Christensen? Shall we defer to Mr.
Clyburn?
Mrs. Christensen. Yes, I will yield some time to Mr.
Clyburn.
Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, this may
come as a big surprise to you, but I really would like to take
my time to say thank you to Dr. Waddell and Dr. Roscoe, both of
whom have been very, very much aware of how important this
program is and has been. And I would like to emphasize one
thing that Dr. Roscoe mentioned, and that is that what we
attempted to do with this legislation was to continue a policy
put in place by the previous Bush administration and the Reagan
administration. What Ms. Stevenson said here today is a
tremendous departure from the past three administrations, and I
would hope that will not hold. But I really want to say to Mr.
Hefley how much I appreciate his attempts to bring some
standards to the heritage areas' legislation.
South Carolina, as you know, is one of the original 13, and
of course there is a lot of heritage in that State. In fact,
when we established the South Carolina heritage corridor, then
governor of South Carolina, David Beasley, has said that that
legislation would bring an additional 700,000 tourists to South
Carolina annually, and we used the old Hamburg-to-Charleston
railroad to establish that corridor, and I want you to know
that--and I think I read in my history at one point that the
old Best Friend locomotive ran on that railroad, and I want to
say to you that that railroad, that corridor, is not in my
district. But South Carolina is important to me; history is
important to me; heritage is important to me. And so I
sponsored that legislation because I knew what it would do to
the heritage and the culture of that state, irrespective of the
fact that it was not in my congressional district.
And so your legislation is very, very important to me, and
I would hope that we can work together to address the issues
that are raised here today, because that to me is what the
country is all about.
Thank you so much, Mr. Hefley, for introducing the
legislation.
Mr. Hefley. Well, thank you for your kind words. And
although I am not from South Carolina, we love South Carolina
and vacation there every year at Edisto Island south of
Charleston.
Mr. Clyburn. That is in my district.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hefley. Well, for a week each year you are my
congressman.
Mr. Clyburn. Very good.
Mr. Radanovich. I want to make sure everybody gets their
opportunity.
Mrs. Christensen. I just had some comments. I want to thank
the panelists as well, Dr. Roscoe also, for reminding us how
far back this goes, and this is not a partisan issue, as it
should not be. And Dr. Waddell for adding--you know, we realize
the importance of preserving the structures, of making them
available for our students, enhancing the educational
environment, but also the economic value to the communities,
which is something that was not brought up. And, Mr. Carlino,
thank you for coming back again, and not only for that, but
just for the input that you are providing into the legislation.
I am looking at hopefully doing a heritage site, heritage area
in my district, and we really appreciate your input.
Mr. Carlino. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Mr. Kildee, any comments?
Mr. Kildee. I just thank the panel. I had a conflict in
schedule today, but thank you very, very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Mr. McGovern?
Mr. McGovern. I just want to briefly thank Dr. Roscoe and
Dr. Waddell for their testimony, and I support Mr. Clyburn's
legislation. And Mr. Carlino, I have three questions I want to
put to you. You are not going to be able to answer them, but
maybe you could submit the answers in writing for the Committee
for the record.
Mr. Carlino. Absolutely.
Mr. McGovern. You touched on some of these things in your
testimony, but I think they are important to kind of clarify
for the record.
First, with regard to H.R. 2388, you know, what is the
effect of changing the current system of direct appropriations
to national heritage areas to a grant system of projects
prioritized by the governors and approved by the Secretary? You
touched on it a little bit. I would appreciate a more kind of
detailed response.
Second, is the proposed amount in the bill of $10 million
per year adequate for an annual national heritage area program?
And thirdly, what is going to be the effect on the local
management and the community partners in the national heritage
area if this bill passes?
And if we did not have a vote, I would like to sit and hear
your answers, but I think it would be helpful to the Committee
if we could get those responses from you, which I think would
be very important.
Mr. Carlino. I would be happy to do that and, Mr. Chairman,
if anyone else has questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Radanovich. Absolutely. In fact, I ask unanimous
consent to allow 30 days for written testimony for answers for
these and other testimony that might be written regarding both
these bills. If there is no objection, so ordered. And finally,
Ms. Johnson, thank you for joining us.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of this Committee. I appreciate this
hearing. I am very supportive of this legislation. As Chair of
the Congressional Black Caucus, I want to say that on behalf of
the Caucus, we all support it. Not all of us are products of
historically black colleges and universities, but we know their
value. My grandmother and her sisters and one of my sisters and
our brother are products, and it goes to indicate just how old
they are and how much they are still very current and needful
to our population.
Thank you so very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. And Dr. Roscoe, Dr.
Waddell, and Mr. Carlino, thank you very much for attending
this hearing. And with that, the hearing is ended.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A statement submitted for the record by Annie Clay Harris,
Executive Director, Essex National Heritage Area follows:]
[Responses to questions submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Annie Clay Harris, Executive Director, Essex National
Heritage Area
Chairman Congressman Radanovich and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, thank you
for asking me here today to testify on H.R. 2388 an Act ``to establish
the criteria and mechanism for the designation and support of national
heritage areas.'' I regret that I am unable to appear before you due to
the postponement of this hearing following the acts of terror
perpetrated against the United States on September 11 and followed by
the further disruptions that closed the hearing room on October 18. I
am honored to be asked to present testimony to this subcommittee and
regret that I cannot do so in person as I had planned on the two
previous hearing dates. In light of the extremely unfortunate and
unusual events of the last month, I have added to my original testimony
a brief summary of the key points that I would like to bring to the
committee's attention.
Executive Summary:
The National Heritage Area program provides the National Park
Service with a unique opportunity to preserve and enhance thousands of
important historic, cultural and natural resources at a fraction of the
cost of a traditional national park. Designated by Congress, the
National Heritage Areas are ``partnership parks'' between local citizen
organizations and the National Park Service. The twenty-three National
Heritage Areas that exist today provide some of the best examples of
public-private partnerships in this country and serve to build
community spirit at a time when it is most needed.
The key to their success lies in the close working relationship
that is established between each heritage area and the local/regional
units of the National Park Service. The success of the National
Heritage Areas is due to the immediacy and accountability that occurs
because local management entities are empowered to take action under
the guidance and oversight of the National Park Service. Through this
unique relationship, the preservation of nationally significant
historic and natural resources is performed by local organizations;
federal funds are matched and are usually far exceeded by non-federal
funding; educational and interpretation programs based on Park Service
themes are enhanced by local educators; and important cultural
resources are saved for future generations.
HR 2388 would radically change this system. This bill creates a
different method for designating new areas and for funding both new and
old areas. It requires that a ``preponderance'' of local units of
government, the chief executive officers of the states, and the
Secretary of the Interior play new, expanded roles in establishing and
approving Heritage Area management plans and in determining the funding
for all heritage areas existing and new. It will sever the direct
relationship that now exists between legislative authorization, Park
Service oversight and individual heritage area's plans and programs.
The initiative will be moved away from the local citizens who must
perform the work and raise the non-federal matching funds. Instead
program and funding decisions will be made by governmental entities
that are empowered to decide but that do not have the means or mandate
to perform the implementation. If the local entities become isolated
from the priority setting process then community support, matching
funds and the essential public-private partnerships will disappear.
Testimony:
My name is Annie Clay Harris and I am the Executive Director of the
Essex National Heritage Area, a Congressionally designated heritage
area located in Essex County, Massachusetts. For the past 12 years I
have worked with businesses and local governments to promote community
based, economic development partnerships. For several years, I directed
the highly successful public-private Salem Partnership located in the
City of Salem, Massachusetts and more recently I have headed up the
activities of the Essex National Heritage Area. I also serve as the
volunteer treasurer of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas. Prior
to these positions, I worked for 16 years in real estate development
and finance. Based upon these years of experience, I can say without
reservation that I believe that partnerships between businesses and
non-profits, between local governments and social organizations,
between large Federal agencies like the National Park Service and
grassroots community groups are essential to building and maintaining a
civil society in America. Seldom can one sector of our society
accomplish as much as a partnership of organizations. The Federal
government and local municipalities, corporations and business
organizations, regional arts associations and local non-profit grass-
roots groups - all offer important perspectives and contributions.
Working together small initiatives can lead to big changes.
Clearly, this point of view underlies many of the programs
supported by President Bush and this administration. His faith-based
initiative is just one example of the concept that small, strategically
placed, public investment in local, grassroots organizations is one of
the most effective ways to bring about change. In my experience,
national heritage areas are another excellent example of this idea in
action.
In its most basic form, a national heritage area is a ``partnership
park,'' a close relationship between the National Park Service,
community based organizations and local government. Heritage areas are
often able to help the Park Service meet its mission without requiring
that new lands be acquired or new personnel be hired. In the National
Park System Advisory Board's recent report ``Rethinking the National
Parks for the 21st Century'', the Board directs the National Park
Service to: ``embrace its mission, as educator...encourage the study of
the American past,...advance the principles of sustainability,...[and]
encourage collaboration among park and recreation systems at every
level--Federal, regional, state and local...'' (pg 3). The report
specifically recommends that heritage areas are one of the ways to meet
these goals and states that ``the National Park Service should...foster
them'' (pg 9). For a fraction of the cost of a federally owned National
Park, heritage areas can meet many of the goals of the National Park
Service while helping the Service ``reach broader segments of society
in ways that make them more meaningful in the life of the nation.'' (pg
1). If we, as a nation, are serious about preserving our past for our
future while at the same time remaining fiscally responsible, then the
future of the National Parks lies in building effective partnerships
and not in creating new parks.
Heritage areas are one of the most effective ways to manage
important historic resources, unique cultural institutions and special
natural resources for the benefit of the public without incurring
significant public cost. For example, the Essex National Heritage Area
was authorized in 1996 and has received $1,000,000 each year for 3
years. Last year, we matched this federal investment with more than
twice as much in direct non-federal funding (audited) and more than
five times as much in indirect investment. Our experience has been
that, using a small amount of public funding, we can leverage a
tremendous amount of non-federal investment and produce substantial
community and economic benefits.
In addition to leveraging significant non-federal investment,
National Heritage Areas accomplish a great deal more. Most are actively
involved in education, in community based economic development, and in
heritage tourism as well as in preserving our National resources for
future generations. Again, by way of illustration, let me briefly
describe some of the programs that the Essex National Heritage Area is
managing or sponsoring. Essex received federal designation because of
the three significant historic themes that are represented by hundreds
of nationally important sites and resources located within this region.
These include: a great number of 17th century buildings (more first
period structures than any other region in this Nation); the oldest,
continuously operating museum in America; and the last remaining 18th
century maritime complex of wharves, warehouses, and related
structures. To preserve and interpret this multitude of resources, we
run a very active annual partnership grants program that has leveraged
substantial non-federal investment. We provide site based teacher
training, web-based curriculum development, a summer teacher institute,
and an after-school program that links new immigrant children to their
common history. We work to promote cultural tourism and its economic
benefits by fostering partnerships and cooperative programs between
small sites and museums. We assist in the preservation of the region's
important historical records not just because they are historically
valuable but also because access to records is crucially important to
municipal governments, to the legal system and to the medical
community. We seek ways to reach agreement on open space conservation
while recognizing the need to build affordable housing, and we work to
preserve scenic by-ways while supporting the economic necessity of
growth and development. We celebrate the contributions of our community
leaders and the volunteers who donate so much time to improving the
quality of our lives. We do all this in consultation with the National
Park Service and with their oversight, and we do it at a fraction of
what it would cost if we were a ``unit'' of the National Park system.
Is this true of all the existing national heritage areas? Are they
all running successfully? The short answer is no. A few of the 23
nationally designated areas are still not fully operational. To be
successful heritage areas must be managed by dynamic, dedicated local
partnerships and, like marriages, partnerships are unique to each area
and its people. Some national heritage areas have established more
effective relationships than others. However, the real question that
needs to be asked here today is this: what is the public cost for those
areas that are not working up to their potential yet? The cost is very
little because each federal dollar that is spent by the National Park
Service in a heritage area must be matched with non-federal funds.
Those areas that do not have strong local support and have management
problems cannot generate the non-federal match and, therefore, are not
eligible for the federal funding. To date, I am only aware of two or
three areas that are struggling and to the best of my knowledge none of
them have received funding under the current heritage partnership
program. Altogether, in fiscal year 2001, the 23 existing national
heritage areas received on average only $462,000 from the National Park
Service's ``Heritage Partnership Programs'' while they leveraged
millions of dollars in non-federal matching funds. This is an excellent
return on investment by any standard.
Heritage areas are effective economic development tools and they
support the goals of the current administration. Therefore, I applaud
the purpose of HR 2388. Its goals--``to provide for recognition of
areas; to encourage...governments, nonprofit organizations, and the
private sector to...conserve and manage resources; and to encourage...a
broad range of economic opportunities'' and to do all this by
establishing rational criteria and defining the responsibilities of the
Federal government--are very worthwhile.
In light of the success that we have had in the Essex National
Heritage Area, I will outline some of the factors that have been
crucial to our achievement and that I believe should be included in any
discussions about national heritage areas:
1. Annual cooperative agreements between the National Park Service
and individual heritage areas ensure the best public oversight. Almost
all of the existing heritage areas receive federal funds from an annual
appropriation. These funds are disbursed to the areas by the National
Park Service through cooperative agreements. Cooperative agreements not
only establish an area's obligations to the Park Service, but also
provide an outline of the area's annual work program. Through these
contracts, the National Park Service units that are closest to the
heritage area are able to closely monitor their heritage area partners.
Additionally, these cooperative agreements foster partnerships between
the Park Service and the area that usually extend far beyond their
specific contractual obligations. In the Essex National Heritage Area,
I am in weekly contact with our local National Park Service
superintendent and his staff. He serves as the National Park Service
representative to the Essex National Heritage Commission, and he
participates in all of the major decisions in our area. Our close
contractual and working relationship maximizes the National Park
Service's oversight of our heritage area. HR 2388 changes the method of
funding heritage areas to a system of grants that are prioritized by
the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the chief executive
officer of the state. It appears that this grant system may make it far
more difficult for the National Park Service to tailor the heritage
area's work program to meet their mission. I believe that the current
system of cooperative agreements is a crucial element in the success of
the program. These agreements enable those with local knowledge and a
true understanding of the most effective ways to stimulate private
investment to set the area priorities through a process of negotiation
and trust.
2. The annual federal funding to the national heritage area program
should be expanded. There is no question that the national heritage
area program is a success. In addition to the Essex National Heritage
Area, other areas such as Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, Ohio
& Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor, Hudson River Valley National
Heritage Area, John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor and South Carolina National Heritage Corridor stand as
remarkable examples of the success that these public-private
partnerships can achieve. Not only do these areas produce substantial
social and economic benefits, but they also further the National Park
Service's mission. Therefore, I urge this committee to expand the
federal funding to this program. By limiting funding to national
heritage areas to an annual maximum of $10,000,000 and including the
existing areas as well as new ones under this cap, this Bill sets the
funding limit lower than the program's current level.
3. The period of eligibility during which a heritage area can
receive funding should be at least 15 years. The current legislation
for most heritage areas authorizes them to receive funding over a 15
year period. This relatively long period of time is essential to
building effective partnerships. There needs to be time to allow
effective programs grow from the ground up; time to include multiple
partners and their various points of view; and time to listen and
develop relationships of trust. Equally important, a longer cycle for
``seed'' funding often leads to increased private investment and
foundation support because these sources typically prefer to fund after
the first ``seed'' investments have produced tangible results. A longer
eligibility period, also, means that heritage areas that are still
working on their local partnerships often choose to seek less funding
in the initial years so that they have more time to improve their
management skills and build their organizational relationships.
Conversely, shorter grant eligibility periods may result in areas
applying for the federal grants before they are ready, a process that
can hinder rather than help build the success of new areas.
4. Federal oversight and financial accountability are already built
into heritage area legislation; NPS contracts and OMB requirements are
effective methods to ensure that the federal investment is protected.
At the Essex National Heritage Area, every year we file quarterly and
annual reports with the National Park Service as part of our regular
reporting procedures under the cooperative agreement. Each year, since
our area first received federal funding we have also undergone a
rigorous federal audit following the requirements of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and
OMB Circular A-133 to ensure that we are in compliance with all
applicable federal laws and regulations. Furthermore, to ensure regular
public involvement, we hold public commission meetings at least twice a
year and frequent sub-committee and informational meetings. All of our
business is transparent to the public and every grant made to us or by
us is for the benefit of the public and the purpose it was intended.
However, the language in HR 2388 stating that each grant may ``result
in a right of the United States to (seek) compensation from the
beneficiary of the grant...(and) a schedule for such
compensation''(Section 6 (f)) appears to be an open invitation for
unscrupulous litigation and unreasonable damages. For example, the
Essex National Heritage Area makes small ``seed-money'' grants to
organizations seeking to rehabilitate historic structures for public
use. While these properties are currently in public use, we realize
that in the future, fifteen or twenty years from now, the use of these
properties may change, and our grant recipients may be forced to sell
or reprogram the activities at these sites. This new language may have
a chilling effect on owners, matching partners and, most especially, on
other funders who may decide that they do not want to participate in
any projects with the heritage area if they might be held liable in the
future to pay compensation to the US Government.
5. Heritage areas are successful when they have broad-based,
community support. Extensive public involvement and support from
citizens and local units of government are critical components to
achieving successful partnerships in the heritage areas. However,
attempting to achieve unanimous consensus can prevent the creation of
successful partnerships. In fact, a variety of opinions and points of
view within a framework of cooperation are key elements in creating and
sustaining these vital heritage area partnerships. Furthermore, because
heritage areas do not have any regulatory powers and cannot impinge on
private property rights or local and state governments' abilities to
govern, they can operate successfully even before their benefits are
fully understood by all of their citizens. Broad-based support from
local residents and units of government is very important, but trying
to achieve unanimous consensus can be counterproductive. There are some
phrases in this Bill such as ``endorsement by each participating unit
of government'' (Section 8) that I believe could deter the successful
development of new areas, and trying to achieve this level of agreement
could result in no action.
6. This Bill should exclude the existing 23 heritage areas. The
vast majority of the existing heritage areas already have in place
complex networks of partnerships with community organizations, local
units of government and private funders. In many cases these
partnerships have taken years to nurture. Including existing areas
within this Bill will change the way they are currently doing business
and put at risk the non-federal funding that is a result of these
relationships. Therefore, I urge caution when looking at changing the
rules under which the existing areas operate. Partnerships, non-federal
investment and matching funds, community resources and local units of
government do not respond quickly to change. The tremendous leverage
that most of the heritage areas have achieved--matching their federal
appropriations with millions of dollars in non-federal investment--
could be severely set back if the rules are changed in mid-stream.
In closing, I would like to thank Congressman Hefley for his
determination and foresight in proposing legislation to define the
parameters of the National Heritage Areas Program. The goals stated in
this legislation are of utmost importance to foster effective
partnerships between the National Park Service and the citizens of this
country. The heritage area program is a very effective tool that will
greatly assist the National Park Service in meeting its goals for the
21st century. While I agree with the purposes stated in this Bill, my
experience in the Essex National Heritage Area leads me to urge you to
consider some of the modifications that I have outlined above.
I would like to thank Chairman Radanovich and this subcommittee for
the opportunity to testify on my experience in the Essex National
Heritage Area and the success that we have achieved in our working
partnership with the National Park Service.
______
Response to Questions Submitted for the Record from August R. Carlino,
President & CEO of Steel Industry Heritage Corporation and Chairman of
the Alliance of National Heritage Areas
Questions from Hon. James P. McGovern
What is the effect of changing the current system of direct
appropriations to the National Heritage Areas to a grant system of
projects prioritized by the governors and approved by the Secretary?
Answer: All NHAs are created through a public process that requires
a plan to be submitted that the Secretary of Interior and Congress
approves. This plan includes a list of projects, complied with partners
and communities, to be completed over the life of the plan, along with
a proposed funding outline for the projects. Each year the NHA
management entity prioritizes its projects for the coming year and
makes those projects a part of the request submitted directly to the
Member(s) of Congress representing the NHA. The communities and local
partners often inform their individual Member of the project and the
specific funding needs. Typically then the Member, having evaluated the
support in the community for the projects seeking funds, will request
an earmark in the Interior Appropriations bill for the National
Heritage Area to carry out the specified projects.
The proposed change would institute a bureaucratic process that
would require the NHAs to submit projects each year to the governor of
their state--which, if he/she has more than one NHA in the state, will
prioritize the projects and then submit them to the Secretary. The
Secretary will then approve a selected list of projects. This process
would slow the funding of NHA projects down to a crawl, and would
remove from the community the direct relationship of the constituents
to their members in asking for funds. The members would have no input
into what projects get funded in their districts, and NHAs would be
hamstrung by not being able to raise necessary match, as they would not
know which projects were going to receive funds until the process
played out.
Even more detrimental to the process would be the imposition,
through the proposed language, of decisions being made by an employees
in the Department who have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of
the project, the community or the specific needs of the NHA. The NHAs
were created to relieve administrative burdens on the National Park
Service in the development and implementation of these projects. If the
NPS were to step in and begin to make these decisions, then the NPS
would need to have adequate staffing in each NHA, leading to the need
for hiring more NPS personnel to conduct this work, and expanding the
size of the Federal government.
Is the proposed amount in the bill of $10 million per year adequate
for an annual NHA program?
Answer: No. The Department of Interior Appropriations Bill for
Fiscal Year 2002 as passed by the Congress provides $13.2 million for
the designated NHAs. If the H.R. 2388 were enacted as written, that
amount would be cut by over $3 million, and each NHA might receive less
funding than it currently does. This bill also creates a system by
which more NHAs could become designated, but the level of authorized
funding for the programs would remain constant. If new NHAs were
authorized and the amount of appropriations was not increased to meet
those new obligations, the program would become crippled and die as
less money would be available to each individual NHA each succeeding
year.
It is the position of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas that
the legislation should limit the funds available to each NHA to the
current policy of $1 million per year. Congress, based upon the track
record of the NHA in previous years, should make the final decision as
to whether a NHA should receive the full appropriation.
What is going to be the effect on the local management entity and
the community partners in an NHA if this bill passes?
Answer: All control for project development and funding within an
NHA would rest in the hands of the National Park Service and the
governors of each state. The NHA and the communities, as the intended
stewards for the projects, would have little role, if any. NHAs work
because they create partnerships through the management entity, with
the community, local governments, the states and the NPS. There is a
role for NPS in NHAs, but even the NPS would admit that they see
themselves as facilitators and partners, not as the body responsible
for the day-to-day management of the NHA. If the role of the NPS were
to change in the NHAs as proposed in H.R. 2388, the NPS would need more
staff assistance to perform the added work, increasing the size of the
Federal government, and decreasing the responsibility of the management
entity and the local partners.
______
Response to Questions Submitted for the Record from Annie Clay Harris,
Executive Director, Essex National Heritage Area
Questions from Hon. James P. McGovern
Question: What is the effect of changing the current system of
direct appropriations to the NHAs to a grant system of projects
prioritized by the governors and approved by the Secretary?
Answer: The effect will be to stifle the local heritage area
partnerships and to restrict the amount of non-federal funds that they
can leverage. The local management entities will be forced to change
priorities from year to year, never knowing ahead of time which grants
will approved for which projects. Under the current system most NHAs
are allowed to seek up to $1.0 million annually in appropriations.
Within this ceiling they are able to plan their yearly work program
according to the priorities of their partners, to their ability to
raise non-federal matching funds and to the compatibility of their
programs with the goals and oversight of the National Park Service. A
competitive grant system such as the one proposed in HR 2388 will take
the decision making away from the local entities and give it to the
state and federal officials. It is the antithesis of the cooperative
public-private partnerships that NHAs are so effective in building.
Is the proposed amount in the bill of $10 million per year adequate
for an annual NHA program?
Answer: No. This amount reduces the program by 24% from its current
level of $13.2 million. Since the bill is designed to create new NHAs
as well as to regulate existing ones, both new and existing NHAs will
be severely under-funded if this budget cap is approved.
What is going to be the effect on the local management entity and
the community partners in an NHA is this bill passes?
Answer: If this bill passes in its current form, it will greatly
inhibit the highly effective local public-private partnerships that
form the core of the NHAs. These partnerships, and the non-federal
funding and projects that they leverage, are the most successful aspect
of the NHAs. This bill takes the management and financial control away
from the local entities and community partners and gives it to the
governors, the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior.
It substitutes a complex system of competitive grants, prioritized by
remote state and federal executives, for the present system that allows
for direct negotiations between the National Park Service and the NHAs
management entity and local partners.
-