[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 121 (Monday, September 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6945-H6946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2006
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 5861) to amend the National Historic Preservation Act, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5861
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Historic
Preservation Act Amendments of 2006''.
SEC. 2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER RESPONSIBILITIES.
Section 101(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 470a(b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(7) The State Historic Preservation Officer shall have no
authority to require an applicant for Federal assistance,
permit, or license to identify historic properties outside
the undertaking's area of potential effects as determined by
the Federal agency in accordance with the regulations
implementing section 106.
``(8) If the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal
representative, or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer fails
to respond within 30 days after an adequately documented
finding of `no historic properties affected' or `no adverse
effect' as provided in the regulations implementing section
106, the Federal agency may assume that the State Historic
Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
has no objection to the finding.''.
SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO CARRY OUT NATIONAL HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ACT.
Section 101(c)(1) of the National Historic Preservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 470a(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F);
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) agrees that it shall not use any eligibility
determination regarding the inclusion of any property or
District on the National Register to initiate local
regulatory requirements unless the entity provides full due
process protection to the owner or owners of the property or
District through a hearing process; and''; and
(4) in the matter below the subparagraphs, by striking
``through (E)'' and inserting ``through (F)''.
SEC. 4. HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND.
Section 108 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. 470h) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting
``2015''.
SEC. 5. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
(a) Membership.--Section 201 of the national historic
preservation act (16 U.S.C. 470i) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ``four'' and
inserting ``seven'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``(5) and (6)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (6)''; and
(3) in subsection (f), by striking ``Nine'' and inserting
``Eleven''.
(b) Financial and Administrative Services.--Section 205(f)
of such Act (16 U.S.C. 470m(f)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(f) Financial and administrative services (including
those related to budgeting, accounting, financial reporting,
personnel and procurement) shall be provided the Council by
the Department of the Interior or, at the discretion of the
Council, such other agency or private entity that reaches an
agreement with the Council, for which payments shall be made
in advance or by reimbursement from funds of the Council in
such amounts as may be agreed upon by the Chairman of the
Council and the head of the agency or, in the case of a
private entity, the authorized representative of the private
entity that will provide the services. When a Federal agency
affords such services, the regulations of that agency for the
collection of indebtedness of personnel resulting from
erroneous payments, prescribed under section 5514(b) of title
5, United States Code, shall apply to the collection of
erroneous payments made to or on behalf of a Council
employee, and regulations of that agency for the
administrative control of funds under sections 1513(d) and
1514 of title 31, United States Code, shall apply to
appropriations of the Council. The Council shall not be
required to prescribe such regulations.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 212(a) of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 470t(a)) is amended by striking ``for purposes
of this title not to exceed $4,000,000 for each fiscal year
1997 through 2005'' and inserting ``such amounts as may be
necessary to carry out this title''.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GRANT AND ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS IN MEETING PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF
THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT.
The National Historic Preservation Act is amended by
inserting after section 215 (16 U.S.C. 470v-1) the following
new section:
[[Page H6946]]
``SEC. 216. EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL GRANT AND ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS.
``(a) Cooperative Agreements.--The Council may enter into a
cooperative agreement with any Federal agency that
administers a grant or assistance program for the purpose of
improving the effectiveness of the administration of such
program in meeting the purposes and policies of this Act.
Such cooperative agreements may include provisions that
modify the selection criteria for a grant or assistance
program to further the purposes of this Act or that allow the
Council to participate in the selection of recipients, if
such provisions are not inconsistent with the statutory
authorization and purpose of the grant or assistance program.
``(b) Review of Grant and Assistance Programs.--The council
may--
``(1) review the operation of any Federal grant or
assistance program to evaluate the effectiveness of such
program in meeting the purposes and policies of this Act;
``(2) make recommendations to the head of the Federal
agency that administers such program to further the
consistency of the program with the purposes and policies of
this Act and to improve its effectiveness in carrying out
those purposes and policies; and
``(3) make recommendations to the President and the
Congress regarding the effectiveness of Federal grant and
assistance programs in meeting the purposes and policies of
this Act, including recommendations with regard to
appropriate funding levels.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5861, introduced by me, amends the National
Historic Preservation Act to do five things:
It extends the Historic Preservation Fund to 2015 for State and
tribal preservation activities.
Secondly, it reauthorizes the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation.
Third, requires certain local governments to provide full due process
to property owners who object to a determination of eligibility on
their property.
Fourth, it imposes a deadline on State or Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers to respond to section 106 applications within 30
days of a ``no adverse effects'' determination.
And, fifth, prohibits a State historic preservation officer from
requiring a Federal agency applicant to identify properties outside the
area of potential effects.
From its auspicious start in April of 2004 as a discussion draft to
the bill before us in the House today, H.R. 5861 has been the subject
of more discussion and rewrite they any other bill that I have been
involved with since becoming the chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Parks.
While the bill may not be the final product that many envisioned,
myself included, I believe H.R. 5861 represents a significant step
towards improving the section 106 process under the National Historic
Preservation Act by reducing some of the conflicts that exist between
the business and preservation communities and the State and Tribal
Preservation Officers.
In addition, H.R. 5861 will enhance private property protections in
the listing process, under the Historic Preservation Act as well as
improve the operation of the Advisory Council and extend the
authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund.
Finally, this bill was a truly collaborative effort. I believe it is
important to take a moment to thank those individuals and organizations
for their help in crafting this important bill.
First of all, Congressman Turner of Ohio; Vince Sampson of the
Resources Committee majority staff; David Watkins of the Resources
Committee minority staff; Chairman John Nau of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation; the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers; Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal; the National
Mining Association, the National Trust For Historic Preservation; CTIA,
the Wireless Association; the United South and Eastern Tribes; the
National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers;
Preservation Action; the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association;
the American Cultural Resources Association; the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials; and Rob Howard, from the
National Park Subcommittee majority staff.
I include a letter in support of the bill from CTIA, the Wireless
Association.
CTIA,
The Wireless Association,
Washington, DC, September 25, 2006.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Pombo: I want to thank you and National Parks
Subcommittee Chairman Pearce for all of your diligent efforts
on H.R. 5861, the National Historic Preservation Act
Amendments of 2006 (NHPA) and specifically the Section 106
provisions.
As you know, in 2004 a Nationwide Programmatic Agreement
(NPA) was adopted to streamline the Section 106 tower siting
review process. CTIA--The Wireless Association and its member
companies greatly appreciate the fine work the Committee has
done to clarity the NHPA relative to the NPA.
As such, for tile purposes of legislative history, under
Section 800.3(c)( 4) of the rules of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP), State Historic Preservation
Officers (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
(THPOs) are required to respond to a request for a review of
a finding or determination regarding the impact of a proposed
project within 30 days. If the SHPO or THPO fails to respond
within 30 days, the agency official or its designee may
proceed to the next step in the process or consult with the
ACHP.
This technical amendment clarifies that this 30 day time
period applies equally to SHPOs, THPOs and other tribal
officials acting in the same capacity off tribal lands. Any
SHPO, THPO or tribal representative acting in an official
capacity that is asked to review a finding or determination
of the impact (or lack thereof) of a proposed project must
respond to such a request within 30 days.
All parties acting in such a role must affirmatively
express any concerns about a proposed project within 30 days
of notice. If no such affirmative concern is stated, consent
is assumed and the project may proceed to the next stage in
the process or the ACHP may be consulted.
Again, thank you for all the conscientious work that you
and your National Parks Subcommittee Staff Director, Rob
Howarth, have spent on this legislation.
Sincerely,
Steve Largent.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5861 is an acceptable compromise.
While it makes technical changes to the Historic Preservation Act, it
includes none of the highly controversial amendments that were first
proposed by the majority.
The historic preservation community, including the Advisory Council,
the Trust, and the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose H.R. 5861
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5861, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________