[Senate Report 105-389]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 632
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     105-389
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                   NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

                                _______
                                

  October 9 (legislative day, October 2), 1998.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2257]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 2257) to reauthorize the National 
Historic Preservation Act, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill, 
as amended, do pass.
    The amendments are as follows:
    1. On page 1, line 3, strike ``NATIONAL HISTORIC 
PRESERVATION ACT.'' and insert in lieu thereof, 
``REAUTHORIZATION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND.''.
    2. At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

``SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

    ``The last sentence of section 212(a) (16 U.S.C. 470t(a)) 
is amended by striking `2000' and inserting in lieu thereof, 
`2004'.''

                         Purpose of the Measure

    The purpose of S. 2257 is to re-authorize the National 
Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation through the year 2004.

                          Background and Need

    The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 
Public Law 89-665, established a policy of Federal support and 
funding for the preservation of prehistoric and historic 
resources. The NHPA also encouraged State and local historic 
preservation through the establishment of State Historic 
Preservation Offices (SHPO).
    The NHPA authorized a grants-in-aid program under the 
Historic Preservation Fund. This program provides funding to 
States for historic preservation projects, to individuals for 
the preservation of properties listed on the National Register, 
and to assist State Preservation Offices with State and local 
historic preservation projects. These funds are authorized by 
Congress through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The 
$150 million per year authorization expired on September 30, 
1997.
    The NHPA also established the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation (Council) to advise the President and the Congress 
on matters relating to historic preservation. The Council also 
reviews the policies of Federal agencies in implementing NHPA, 
conducts training and educational programs, and encourages 
public participation in historic preservation. The Advisory 
Council's authorization expires in 2000.

                          Legislative History

    S. 2257 was introduced June 26, 1988 by Senator Landrieu 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and 
Recreation held a hearing on S. 2257 on September 17, 1998.
    At its business meeting on September 24, 1998, the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 2257, 
favorably reported as amended.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open 
business session on September 24, 1998, by a unanimous voice 
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 
2257, if amended as described herein.

                          Committee Amendment

    During the consideration of S. 2257, the committee adopted 
an amendment which made a technical correction and re-
authorized the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
through 2004.

                           Summary of S. 2257

    S. 2257 amends the National Historic Preservation Act, 
Public Law 89-665, re-authorizing the Historic Preservation 
Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation through 
2004.

                   Cost and Budgetary Considerations

    The following estimate of costs of this measure has been 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 25, 1998.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2257, a bill to 
reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah 
Reis (for federal costs) and Leo Lex (for the state and local 
impact).
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

S. 2257--A bill to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Act

    Summary: S. 2257 would extend through fiscal year 2004 
annual deposits of $150 million to the Historic Preservation 
Fund (HPF). Authority for such deposits, which consist of 
receipts earned from oil and gas development on the Outer 
Continental Shelf, expired at the end of fiscal year 1997. The 
National Park Service uses amounts appropriated from the HPF 
for grants to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, to 
state, local, and tribal governments, and to nonprofit and 
other organizations. The bill also would extend through fiscal 
year 2004 the authorization of $4 million a year for the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This sum is 
currently authorized to be appropriated (from the general fund 
of the U.S. Treasury) through fiscal year 2000.
    Assuming appropriation of the amounts deposited into the 
HPF each year, and assuming appropriation of the authorized 
amounts for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, CBO 
estimates that enacting S. 2257 would result in additional 
discretionary spending of $570 million over the 1999-2003 
period. The legislation would not affect direct spending or 
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 
S. 2257 contains no intergovernmental of private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
Because state, local, and tribal governments receive grants 
from the Historic Preservation Fund, the bill would permit 
future funding for state, local, and tribal historic 
preservation projects.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The $150 million 
to be deposited into the HPF under S. 2257 is the same amount 
that was deposited to the fund annually from 1980 through 1997, 
but is significantly higher than the$30 million to $50 million 
generally appropriated (from the HPF) for each year. In recent years, 
annual appropriations for the advisory council have been about $3 
million. The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2257 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
function 300 (natural resources and environment).

                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1998     1999     2000     2001     2002     2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending under current law:
    Budget authority/authorization level \1\..............       44        4        4        0        0        0
    Estimated outlays.....................................       44       26       12        2        0        0
Proposed changes:
    Authorization level...................................        0      150      150      154      154      154
    Estimated outlays.....................................        0       40       85      140      145      160
Spending under S. 2257:
    Budget authority/authorization level..................       44      154      154      154      154      154
    Estimated outlays.....................................       44       66       97      142      145      160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1998 level includes $41 million appropriated from the HPF and $3 million appropriated for the Advisory
  Council on Historic Preservation. The 1999 and 2000 levels are the amounts authorized under current law for
  appropriation to the council.

    Basis of Estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that the entire amounts deposited into the HPF or 
authorized for the advisory council under S. 2257 would be 
appropriated for each fiscal year. Outlay estimates are based 
on historical spending patterns for council activities and HPF 
programs. We adjusted the observed outlay rates for the 
purposes of projecting future HPF outlays because the higher 
appropriations assumed in this estimate--relative to historical 
appropriation levels--would likely cause some delays in finding 
matching shares for certain grants. The table does not include 
any potential spending from amounts deposited to the HPF in the 
past that have not yet been appropriated. Such funds--about 
$2.3 billion--will remain available for appropriation under 
existing law even in the absence of legislation.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
S. 2257 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA. Because state, local, and tribal governments receive 
grants from the Historic Preservation Fund, the bill would 
permit future funding for state, local, and tribal historic 
preservation projects.
    Estimatred impact on the private sector: S. 2257 contains 
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Previous CBO estimate: On April 7, 1998, CBO prepared an 
estimate for H.R. 1522, a bill to extend the authorization for 
the National historic Preservation Fund, and for other 
purposes, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 
Resources on March 25, 1998. The authorization levels contained 
in the two bills are identical, as are the two estimates.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Deborah Reis; Impact 
on State, local, and trial Governments: Leo Lex.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Evaluation

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out S. 2257. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing government-established standards of 
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals 
and business.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from 
enactment of S. 2257, as ordered reported.

                        Executive Communications

    On September 3, 1998, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of 
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting 
forth Executive agency recommendations on S. 2257. These report 
had not been received at the time the report on S. 2257 was 
filed. When these reports become available, the Chairman will 
request that they be printed in the Congressional Record for 
the advice of the Senate. The testimony of the Department of 
the Interior at the Subcommittee hearing follows:

Statement of Maureen Finnerty, Associate Director, Park Operations and 
      Education, National Park Service, Department of the Interior

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the 
Department's views on S. 2257 and H.R. 1522, bills to extend 
authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund, and for other 
purposes.
    We strongly support the reauthorization of the Historic 
Preservation Fund through 2004 addressed in S. 2257 and H.R. 
1522. We also strongly support the reauthorization of the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation through 2004 
contained in H.R. 1522. However, we have serious concerns with 
amendments (1) and (4) of H.R. 1522, and we urge that the 
language be deleted.
    The Historic Preservation fund, established by Section 108 
of the National Historic Preservation Act, is the authority 
under which Congress appropriates matching grant funds to 
States, tribes, local governments, and the National Trust for 
Historic Preservation to carry out federally mandated 
activities under the national historic preservation program. 
The Historic Preservation Fund grant program supports the 
identification and protection of the Nation's irreplaceable 
historic and archaeological resources for future generations of 
Americans. The Historic Preservation Fund grant program is 
highly cost-effective and remains the cornerstone of the 
national federal-Tribal-State-local-private partnership in 
historic preservation. The Fund has had strong bipartisan 
support and has been reauthorized three times since its 
creation in 1976. Reauthorization of the Historic Preservation 
Fund has no direct budgetary impact in that outlays occur 
solely through the appropriation process. The Fund is a good 
value for all of us.
    We support amendment (9) of H.R. 1522, which reauthorizes 
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation through 2004. We 
believe the Council serves a critical role in the national 
historic preservation partnership. The Advisory Council 
continues to be a vital part of the historic preservation 
success story in this country. We are pleased that this 
amendment puts the reauthorization of the Advisory Council and 
the Historic Preservation Fund on a parallel rather than 
staggered schedule.
    Although we support several amendments in H.R. 1522, we 
have serious concerns with two amendments offered in this 
legislation. First, we believe amendment (1) weakens the 
Secretary of the Interior's statutory mandate in certain 
situations to make determinations of eligibility for listing in 
the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary, acting 
through the Keeper of the National Register, is currently 
require to assess a property's National Register eligibility 
(or lack of it) when that property cannot be listed on the 
National Register because the owner objects to its listing. 
Amendment (1) would make this assessment optional rather than 
required as it exists now in statute. This determination of 
eligibility does not restrict the owner's property rights and 
does not result in a de facto listing. Making the assessment 
optional creates the potential to politicize the current system 
that has served the nation will for more than thirty years.
    Second, amendment (4) restricts the Secretary's authority 
to set certain minimum professional requirements for State and 
tribal historic preservation office staff carrying out the 
national historic preservation program. Such minimum 
requirements are in place to ensure professional competency, 
credibility, and consistency of the federal program to 
customers and citizens nationwide. The existing requirements 
are neither onerous nor burdensome and have been accepted 
practice within this national program for more than twenty 
years. Existing regulations for States require only that each 
state staff includes one professionally qualified historian, 
archeologist, and architectural historian. There is no other 
federal direction on which required disciplines are needed to 
manage this federally funded program in 59 programs nationwide. 
We believe that current regulations give the National Park 
Service the flexibility to waive these minimum requirements if 
they do not suit unique situations and that the current system 
works well and provides a minimal professional credibility 
nationwide for our citizens while allowing for flexibility in 
approach.
    Again, I reiterate the Department's strong support of the 
reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund through 2004 
contained in both bills and the reauthorization of the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation through 2004 stated in H.R. 
1522. However, we recommend that amendments (1) and (4) of H.R. 
1522 be deleted.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would 
be pleased to respond to any questions you and other members of 
the subcommittee may have.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill S. 2257, as ordered reported, are shown as follows 
(existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman).

                 (Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992)

SEC. 4011. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND.

    Section 108 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 470h-2) is amended by striking ``1992'' and inserting 
[``1997''] ``2004''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4017. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADVISORY COUNCIL ON 
                    HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

    The Council shall submit its budget annually as a related 
agency to the Department of the Interior. There are authorized 
to be appropriated for the purposes of this part not to exceed 
$4,000,000 in each fiscal year 1997 through [2000] 2004.