[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19218-19219]
[From the U.S. 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 19219]]



     ``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.
  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.

                          ____________________