[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 14, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1318-E1319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. RUSS CARNAHAN

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, July 1, 2010

  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, the House passed H.R. 4899, the Disaster 
Relief and Summer Jobs Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010. 
Included in this bill is a rider containing federal law exemptions for 
an Army Corp of Engineers and Transportation project in Dallas, Texas. 
As co-chairman of the House Historic Preservation Caucus and member of 
this Chamber, I want to express my opposition to exemptions like these 
that circumvent the established legislative process, committees of 
jurisdiction, and longstanding administrative processes.
  Section 405 in Chapter 4 of H.R. 4899 would exempt the Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps) Trinity River Flood Control project in Dallas, Texas, 
from the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470 
et seq., and ``any highway project'' in the ``vicinity'' of the Dallas 
Floodway from Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 
U.S.C. Sec. 303 and 23 U.S.C. Sec. 138, setting an alarming precedent 
and undermining our country's national preservation program.
  The NHPA establishes preservation as a national policy and directs 
the Federal government to provide leadership in preserving, restoring, 
and maintaining historic and cultural sites significant in American 
history, architecture, archeology, or engineering. To comply with the 
Act, Federal agencies having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a 
proposed Federal or

[[Page E1319]]

federally assisted undertaking must evaluate the effect of the 
undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that 
is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 
Historic Places. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470f (also known as ``Section 106'').
  In the case of the Trinity River Flood Control Project, the Corps is 
currently complying with Section 106 of the NHPA by determining whether 
or not the Dallas Floodway is eligible for inclusion in the National 
Register. A 55-page research paper produced last November by the Corps 
cited the levees' historic importance to the development of modern 
Dallas and noted that the levees are considered a manmade landmark by 
the American Society of Civil Engineers.
  The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is also planning to build a 
toll road, and one of the potential routes would run between the two 
levees. A determination of National Register eligibility could 
ultimately affect the route by requiring FHWA and local officials to 
seek feasible and prudent alternatives that would avoid and minimize 
harm to the historic levee system--this review is commonly referred to 
as Section 4(f). There is also a need to restore the levees' integrity 
and comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's new flood 
risk maps for Dallas.
  There are hundreds, if not thousands of projects similar to this 
underway around the country. Those projects are all following federal 
laws and utilize administrative options to resolve any issues under the 
NHPA and Section 4(f). There was no evidence that a broad, blanket 
exemption from NHPA and Section 4(f) of the Department of 
Transportation Act warranted Congressional intervention to circumvent 
longstanding, successful administrative procedures already in place 
that balance practical needs with the protection of historic resources.
  This exemption was inappropriate, unnecessary, and unprecedented. 
There was no evidence that administrative tools would not have been 
unable to resolve any issues pertaining to the levees on the Trinity 
River. Congress should have ensured that the available administrative 
mechanisms had been fully employed before including this broad and 
unnecessary exemption that would endanger historic resources intrinsic 
to the development of a major American city and set a dangerous 
precedent.
  The whole purpose of the Section 106 of the NHPA and Section 4(f) of 
the Department of Transportation Act is to ensure that federal 
resources are not used to harm historic properties without the 
consideration of adverse effects and alternatives. A National Register 
listing or eligibility does not prevent private property owners from 
harming or even destroying their own historic properties, as long as no 
federal funding or federal permits are involved. But where taxpayer 
dollars are awarded, or federal regulatory authority is invoked, those 
public benefits must be conditioned on compliance with our federal laws 
that require historic preservation and other policies to be included in 
the process of planning specific projects. This does not mean that 
projects cannot proceed where a historic property is involved; it 
simply means that the impacts of the projects on that property must be 
considered and if necessary, mitigated.
  In 1966 Congress created Section 106 of the NHPA and Section 4(f) of 
the DOT Act as tools to balance historic preservation concerns with the 
needs of federal undertakings. These reviews ensure that federal 
agencies identify any potential conflicts between their undertakings 
and historic preservation and resolve any conflicts in the public 
interest. The process has worked efficiently and effectively for nearly 
fifty years. The NHPA and Section 4(f) exemption language contained in 
H.R. 4899 is an affront to the Act's visionary framers.
  America's industrial and engineering infrastructure, and associated 
historic properties are essential to the nation's identity--its 
culture, history, and economy, past, present and future. In the absence 
of the protections afforded by Section 106 of the NHPA and 
Transportation's Section 4(f), those corridors have no meaningful 
procedural guarantees for preservation consideration, ensuring pieces 
of American history will be lost forever.

                          ____________________