[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21916-21918]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND AUTHORIZATION

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 834) to extend the authorization for the National Historic 
Preservation Fund, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 834

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT.

       The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 and 
     following; Public Law 89-665) is amended as follows:
       (1) Section 101(e)(2) (16 U.S.C. 470a(e)(2)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) The Secretary may administer grants to the National 
     Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, 
     chartered by an Act of Congress approved October 26, 1949 (63 
     Stat. 947), consistent with the purposes of its charter and 
     this Act.''.
       (2) Section 102 (16 U.S.C. 470b) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) and by 
     redesignating subsection (d), as added by section 4009(3) of 
     Public Law 102-575, as subsection (e).
       (3) Section 107 (16 U.S.C. 470g) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``Sec. 107. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be 
     applicable to the White House and its grounds, the Supreme 
     Court building and its grounds, or the United States Capitol 
     and its related buildings and grounds. For the purposes of 
     this Act, the exemption for the United States Capitol and its 
     related buildings and grounds shall apply to those areas 
     depicted within the properly shaded areas on the map titled 
     `Map Showing Properties Under the Jurisdiction of the 
     Architect of the Capitol,' and dated November 6, 1996, which 
     shall be on file in the office of the Secretary of the 
     Interior.''.
       (4) Section 108 (16 U.S.C. 470h) is amended by striking 
     ``1997'' and inserting ``2005''.
       (5) Section 110(a) (16 U.S.C. 470h-2(a)) is amended as 
     follows:
       (A) In paragraph (1) by deleting the second sentence.
       (B) In paragraph (2)(D) by deleting ``and'' at the end 
     thereof.
       (C) In paragraph (2)(E) by striking the period at the end 
     thereof and inserting ``; and''.
       (D) By adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F)(i) When operationally appropriate and economically 
     prudent, when locating Federal facilities, Federal agencies 
     shall give first consideration to--
       ``(I) historic properties within historic districts in 
     central business areas; if no such property is suitable; then
       ``(II) other developed or undeveloped sites within historic 
     districts in central business areas; then
       ``(III) historic properties outside of historic districts 
     in central business areas, if no suitable site within a 
     historic district exists;
       ``(IV) if no suitable historic properties exist in central 
     business areas, Federal agencies shall next consider other 
     suitable property in central business areas;
       ``(V) if no such property is suitable, Federal agencies 
     shall next consider the following properties outside central 
     business areas;
       ``(VI) historic properties within historic districts; if no 
     such property is suitable; then
       ``(VII) other developed or undeveloped sites within 
     historic districts; then

[[Page 21917]]

       ``(VIII) historic properties outside of historic districts, 
     if no suitable site within a historic district exists.
       ``(ii) Any rehabilitation or construction that is 
     undertaken affecting historic properties must be 
     architecturally compatible with the character of the 
     surrounding historic district or properties.
       ``(iii) As used in this subparagraph:
       ``(I) The term `central business area' means centralized 
     community business areas and adjacent areas of similar 
     character, including other specific areas which may be 
     recommended by local officials.
       ``(II) The term `Federal facility' means a building, or 
     part thereof, or other real property or interests therein, 
     owned or leased by the Federal Government.
       ``(III) The term `first consideration' means a preference. 
     When acquiring property, first consideration means a price or 
     technical evaluation preference.''.
       (6) The first sentence of section 110(l) (16 U.S.C. 470h-
     2(l)) is amended by striking ``with the Council'' and 
     inserting ``pursuant to regulations issued by the Council''.
       (7) The last sentence of section 212(a) (16 U.S.C. 470t(a)) 
     is amended by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2005''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-
Barcelo) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 834 reauthorizes the National Historic Preservation 
Fund until the year 2005. The bill also amends the National Historic 
Preservation Act of 1966 to include a larger area of exemption under 
the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol and modifies the way 
Federal agencies consider historic properties for carrying out their 
responsibilities.
  H.R. 834 reauthorizes funds for the National Historic Preservation 
Act which established a general policy of Federal support and funding 
for the preservation of the prehistoric and historic resources of the 
Nation.
  This policy directs the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a 
national register of historic places, to encourage State and local 
historic preservation through State historic preservation officers, 
authorizes a grant program under the Historic Preservation Fund to 
provide States monies for historic preservation projects and to 
individuals for the preservation of properties listed on the national 
register.

                              {time}  1445

  Lastly, the policy established the advisory counsel on historic 
preservation which reviews the policies of federal agencies in 
implementing the Historic Preservation Act. We need this policy to 
continue in order to protect our valued historic treasures.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that one of the principle purposes of the 
government is to preserve the cultural fabric of the Nation. Since 
1966, one way this Nation has tried to accomplish that goal is through 
the National Historic Preservation Act. The bill before us reauthorizes 
that act, as I said, through 2005 at its present level. I think it is a 
tribute to the program that it has achieved enormous success in spite 
of the fact that it has never received its full authorization.
  State historic preservation agencies have used these federal funds to 
attract over three times the amount of State and private investment. 
The bill also codifies and clarifies Executive Order 13006 regarding 
historic properties by federal agencies. H.R. 834 includes a check list 
agencies must run through to ensure that wherever possible federal 
agencies will first make use of adjacent historic properties before 
seeking to build or buy new buildings.
  The bill maintains the exemptions for the Capitol, as I stated 
earlier. It is hoped that the requirement that the Architect of the 
Capitol report the area of his jurisdiction will bring awareness to the 
Federal Government that it should abide by the same laws it passes for 
the citizenry. That has not always been the case, particularly here in 
the District of Columbia.
  Finally, this bill provides as authorization by which the Interior 
Department may administer grants to the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation. This does not mean we are putting the trust back on the 
public payroll. Rather it allows Interior to respond quickly to 
emergency situations such as hurricanes or flooding.
  In conclusion this bill makes most sweeping changes, only incremental 
changes to what has become a mature and, I think, a very successful 
program. There is an element of urgency in passing this legislation 
since the program has been without authorization for 3 years.
  So I would hope that all my colleagues would support this very sound, 
very solid legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 834 reauthorizations funding for the National 
Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation. The bill also makes several minor changes to the National 
Historic Preservation Act. The National Historic Preservation Act 
enacted in 1966 established a comprehensive program through which 
federal, State, tribal, and local historic resources have been 
protected. This successful program shows what can be done when 
governments at each level are willing to work together for a common 
cause, the protection and preservation of our culture and our history.
  And sometimes new nations forget, do not pay that much attention to 
preserving their culture and preserving their history, and when we 
travel abroad and we see the preservation of the culture and the 
history in so many other countries, we realize how important it is; and 
when we come back, we make sure that we preserve ours for future 
generations.
  And H.R. 834 would extend the authorization of funds for the Historic 
Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
through fiscal year 2005. We wholeheartedly support extending this 
authorization. H.R. 834 goes on to make two other minor changes to the 
National Historic Preservation Act as well. These changes clarify the 
applicability of historic preservation laws to the Architect of the 
Capital and codify the executive order dealing with consideration by 
federal agencies to using historic properties.
  In addition, the committee adopted an amendment to the bill that 
contained the suggested changes of the General Services Administration 
to the section of the bill dealing with federal agency use of historic 
properties. While the language embodied in these suggested changes was 
somewhat convoluted, we did not oppose the amendment. During committee 
consideration we offered, but subsequently withdrew, an amendment to 
provide for a study by the Secretary of the Interior of the 
preservation and restoration needs of historic buildings and structures 
located on the campuses of historic Hispanic-serving institutions of 
higher learning.
  Within the area I represent is the University of Puerto Rico, the 
largest Hispanic-serving institution of higher learning in the country. 
The university has significant historic resources that would benefit 
along with the other educational institutions from such an assessment. 
In lieu of the amendment, the Committee on Resources has included a 
report language on the bill expressing support for the study and 
strongly encouraging the Secretary of the Interior to undertake such a 
study using existing authorities.
  The Department of the Interior has experienced in doing such studies 
and having completed in several years a very similar study of 
historically black colleges and universities. Such a study will provide 
Congress and the public with useful information in which to assess the 
historic preservation needs of these educational institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, we support H.R. 834, as amended, and would encourage our 
colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, with the appointment of Alan M. Hantman as 
the new Architect of the Capitol, Congress has a chance to begin a new 
era and build a partnership with the citizens of Washington, DC. The 
land that houses the nation's congressional offices, the Botanical 
Garden and several of the administrative offices is under the 
stewardship of the

[[Page 21918]]

Architect of the Capitol. In the past, Congress has exempted the 
Architect of the Capitol from meeting the same building, design, and 
community notification guidelines it requires other builders in the 
city and nation to meet. These exemptions have not worked to the 
public's benefit nor have they encouraged Congress to set the example 
of being good partners with the surrounding community.
  In the early 1960's Congress spent over $100 million to build the 
Rayburn House Office Building. It was designed by the Architect of the 
Capitol of the time, J. George Stewart. The building sits on 50 acres 
and is considered a waste of precious space. Only 15 percent of the 
building is used for hearing rooms and offices. Forty-two percent is 
used for parking. The appearance and design of the building since its 
inception has been considered architecturally void and barely 
functional with its hallways that end without warning.
  Again, in 1997 the Architect of the Capitol, without consulting the 
public, demolished an historic row house built in 1890 to construct a 
$2 million day care center. The location was bitterly opposed by 
residents and local groups. The Architect demolished the historic house 
and constructed a new structure with what appeared to be of very little 
coordination with the people who lived in the neighborhood.
  Fortunately, Representative Joel Hefley's bill H.R. 834 takes steps 
to curb the Architect of the Capitol's influence on the surrounding 
neighborhoods. I am hopeful the mistakes of the past will not be 
repeated due to the building guidelines in this bill and other efforts 
currently in process by my office. The Architect of the Capitol needs 
to update their services by including the public in their decision 
making process and by following building guidelines established by 
Congress.
  In addition, I would like to add that H.R. 834 successfully addresses 
the codification of Executive Order 12072 and 13006. These Executive 
Orders require federal buildings to locate in downtown areas. Over the 
last several decades the federal government has been drawing investment 
away from our cities and helping the elements of urban sprawl by 
building outside of our downtown. Sprawling development leads directly 
to traffic congestion, decreased air quality, loss of farm and forest 
land, decreased water quality and the need for costly new 
infrastructure. As land development continues to press further and 
further out, many of our older suburbs have begun to deteriorate as 
well.
  I am pleased that there appears to be one agency within the federal 
government that is restructuring its programs so it can take the lead 
in making our communities more livable. Earlier this year, the General 
Service Administration established the Center for Urban Development and 
Livability. G.S.A. is the nation's largest real estate organization, 
and the 3,000 location, planning, design and construction decisions 
that they make every year have a tremendous impact on urban vitality in 
the more than 1,600 communities around the country where they control 
federal property. The establishment of the Center for Urban Development 
and Livability has been created to take advantage of opportunities to 
leverage federal real estate actions in ways that bolster community 
efforts to encourage smart growth, economic vitality and cultural 
vibrancy.
  I am hopeful that Congress and the new Architect of the Capitol will 
follow G.S.A.'s example and modify programs to actively seek the 
public's opinion with their building and renovations to make Capitol 
Hill and downtown D.C. more economically viable and to help create a 
more livable community.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill 
to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Fund, H.R. 834. The 
National Historic Preservation Fund is a part of the National Park 
Service that preserves America's significant historic and archeological 
sites. The Preservation Fund helps to preserve our national history.
  As we approach the end of this century, it is fitting that we seek to 
preserve our past. This bill will ensure that we preserve the legacy of 
this century for the generations to come.
  The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) assists states, territories, 
Indian Tribes, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 
their efforts to protect and preserve properties listed in the National 
Register of Historic Places.
  The preservation services include American Battlefields, Historic 
Buildings, National Historic Landmarks, Historic Landmarks, and Tribal 
Preservation. Each of these initiatives preserves an important aspect 
of American culture and history.
  For example, the Tribal Preservation Program works with Native 
American tribes, Alaska Native Groups, Native Hawaiians and other 
national organizations to protect resources that are important to 
Native Americans. This program seeks to preserve language, traditions, 
religion, objects and sites especially because of the massive 
destruction Native American cultures have experienced in the past 500 
years.
  The National Historic Landmarks Assistance Initiative preserves the 
nation's most historic and archeological places. There are now more 
than 2,200 sites that have been designated by the Secretary of the 
Interior as places of national significance.
  The funding we provide to these programs and initiatives are 
necessary to preserving and protecting our nation's irreplaceable 
heritage. Therefore, I support this reauthorization bill and I urge my 
colleagues to vote in support of America's heritage.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have other requests for 
time.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 834, 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.

                          ____________________