U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–983 u 2000

HEARING ON H.R. 834, A BILL TO EXTEND

THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 15, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–72

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

TODD HULL, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel

GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held April 15, 1999 ................................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado ................................................................................................................ 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Romero-Barcelo ́, Hon. Carlos, a Delegate in Congress from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .................................................................................... 12

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Statements of witnesses:

Hertfelder, Eric, Executive Director, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers ............................................................................ 24

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the district

of Columbia ................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Osterman, Tamar, Director of Policy Research, National Trust for

Historic Preservation ............................................................................. 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Stanton, Robert, Director, National Park Service ......................................... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16

Additional material supplied:

Text of H.R. 834 ................................................................................................ 2

(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 834, A BILL TO EXTEND

THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE NATIONAL

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS

AND PUBLIC LANDS,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen

[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr HANSEN. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will come to order. Today we will

hear testimony on only one bill, but it is a very important bill, H.R.

834, which would reauthorize the National Historic Preservation

Fund.

H.R. 834 was introduced by my colleague and fellow Subcommittee member, Congressman Joel Hefley of Colorado. This bill

would reauthorize the currently expired National Historic Preservation Fund until September 39, 2005. H.R. 834 also amends the

National Historic Preservation Act to include application of this Act

to some areas under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol,

and also modifies the way Federal agencies consider historic properties for carrying out their responsibilities.

[The Bill follows:]

2

3

4

5

Mr. HANSEN. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here

today to testify on this bill, and now I will turn the time over to

the Ranking Member, Mr. Romero-Barcelo I see he’s not here so,

with that in mind, we will just go ahead with the first witness.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF UTAH

Good morning everyone. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands

will come to order. Today we will hear testimony on only one bill, but it is a very

important bill—H.R. 834 which would reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Fund.

H.R. 834 was introduced by colleague and fellow Subcommittee member Congressman Joel Hefley of Colorado. This bill would reauthorize the currently expired National Historic Preservation Fund until September 30, 2005. H.R. 834 also amends

the National Historic Preservation Act to include application of this Act to some

areas under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, and also modifies the

way Federal agencies consider historic properties for carrying out their responsibilities.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today to testify on these bills

and now turn the time over to the Ranking Member Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́.

Mr HANSEN. The first Member up is the Honorable Eleanor

Holmes Norton from Washington, DC. We welcome you here. We

appreciate you being here with us, and we’ll turn the time over to

you.

STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize

that I am a few minutes late. I am particularly appreciative of all

that the Subcommittee has done on the National Historic Preservation Act.

Rather than read my testimony, I would ask to summarize and

submit my full statement for the record.

Mr HANSEN. Without objection, so ordered.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I can’t begin without thanking you

for your numerous courtesies to me since you have been chairman.

This Subcommittee essentially has jurisdiction over 20 percent of

the land in the District and, therefore, matters that are of considerable importance to my own constituents.

I appreciate the way in which you have handled the bills that

have come before the Subcommittee affecting the District of Columbia. Most recently, the Subcommittee secured passage of my bill

that authorized private construction of a memorial for Benjamin

Banneker, America’s first black man of science. That effort is now

underway with private funds.

I want to also note my appreciation to Congressman Hefley, who

has crafted the bill and reintroduced it. The National Historic Preservation Act is of immense importance, not only to the country but

especially to this city. This Subcommittee deserves enormous credit

for the way in which you have made this an effective statute.

The section that I come to testify about is a small but important

change in section 107. It essentially narrows—and I would say

clarifies—the exemption of the Architect of the Capitol over property under its jurisdiction. Congress never envisioned that the Architect would be deep into the community, as he necessarily is.

6

May I saw we welcome the Architect into the community. His efforts have been most salutary and have contributed much to the

community. Of course, it is necessary, when the Congress needs facilities, for it to go into the Capitol Hill community. We can’t think

of a better neighbor in the community than the United States Congress, which takes such effort to build according to the historic nature of the community.

There are properties that are distant from the U.S. Capitol complex, and I want to fully endorse the provision in H.R. 834 that

clarifies that the exemption of the Architect applies to the principal

buildings and grounds of the U.S. Capitol and then is very specific

about what those grounds are by reference to a map dated November 6, 1996, on file in the office of the Secretary of the Interior.

Essentially, this provision complies with the public review and

consultation process that Federal agencies have long regarded as,

not only their obligation, but as something they have thought contributed to a project as they do it, whenever there is construction

affecting a historic site of any kind in an area.

I want to emphasize that I think the change in section 107, Mr.

Chairman, is virtually mandated by what this Congress has done

in Public Law 104-1, the Congressional Accountability Act. As you

will recall, in a historic departure, the Congress, in Public Law

104-1, essentially said, for the first time in the history of the

United States, the Congress will submit itself to the laws of the

United States. Because no one had in mind the Architect at the

time, but were thinking about various kinds of laws in which people filed complaints, this exemption was not attended to at that

time. That is, I believe, what this exemption does.

Now, it would be impossible to reconcile the Congressional Accountability Act with an exemption for the major agent of the Congress when the Congress engages in construction. The Architect is

the Congress when it comes to construction.

The neighborhood and the Capitol complex are essentially of a

piece. There is enormous respect for the Capitol and all it does for

the neighborhood. The DC Historic Preservation Review Board is

a very sophisticated body in the District. It has great expertise and

has helped to safeguard the historical character of the neighborhood. If it hadn’t done its job, the Capitol itself would have been

in danger because the Capitol depends upon the preservation and

integrity of its historic environment.

I regret there was what I would regard as a thoroughly unnecessary misunderstanding that arose when the Senate day-care center

was planned in 1996. The community welcomed the Senate daycare center with open arms because it took a blighted building, and

also because it loved the idea of a day-care center.

I recall that, at the time the demolition of an historic property

was being considered, Senator John Warner was also troubled that

there wasn’t some way that we could work this out, because nobody

was asking that the building not be demolished. They were asking

for some minor respect for the facade, and there are many ways to

do that, without even preserving the entire facade.

If Senator Warner and I had had more time, I think that the

matter could have been easily resolved. His intervention was very

skillful. I remember Congress was out of session, and there were

7

other Members of Congress who were equally upset because, Mr.

Chairman, it almost never occurs that anybody wants to simply

tear down a historic property without paying some respect to some

part of it. Normally you work these things out because we’re old

hands at these things by now.

I particularly appreciate the sensitivity that this Subcommittee

has shown to these concerns and in synchronizing local and congressional concerns. I appreciate particularly that you, Mr. Chairman, entered into a colloquy with me on the House floor. I believe

that, with some clarification with the Senate and some time to

have conversations with them, if this bill is passed as it was last

session, that we will have an important addition to the National

Historic Preservation Act.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify, and I am open

to any questions that you may have for me.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Norton follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Romero-Barcelo ́, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 834, a bill to extend the

authorization for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). As you

know, the National Park Service and other units of the Department of the Interior

control almost 20 percent of the land in the District of Columbia, and thus, this Subcommittee has jurisdiction over important matters bearing directly on the nation’s

capital and my constituents. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the thoroughly

bipartisan way you have developed this bill and for the courtesies you have afforded

me today and on bills in the past. Please accept my special thanks for the recent

passage of a bill I introduced to authorize private construction on park land of a

memorial in honor of Benjamin Banneker, America’s first black man of science and

one of the individuals who helped to survey the boundaries of the District of Columbia.

I appreciate the hard work that the Subcommittee has devoted to H.R. 834. I

want especially to thank Congressman Hefley of the Subcommittee for his efforts

in crafting the bill and re-introducing it early in this Congress. This was noncontroversial legislation when it passed the full House last year, and I believe that

with clarification, any reservations that the Senate may have had will be resolved.

First, I want to note my strong support for the National Historic Preservation Act

and my appreciation for your work that has made this statute so effective. As you

know, NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer a National Register of Historic Places consisting of districts, sites, buildings, and other structures

that embody significant aspects of American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. This inventory now includes over 800,000 buildings and sites,

including Union Station, the Old Post Office, the Warner Theater, and many others

in the District of Columbia. NHPA also authorizes an Historic Preservation Fund

granting money to states and individuals to undertake historic preservation

projects. NHPA has been a major and indispensable instrument in the nation’s efforts to preserve its cultural and historic heritage for the benefit of future generations. H.R. 834 helps maintain this framework, and I am pleased that this bill extends the authorization for NHPA through 2005.

I am here mainly to testify in favor of a small but important change to section

107 of NHPA to narrow the exemption of the Architect of the Capitol over property

under its jurisdiction. Under current law, NHPA is ‘‘not applicable to . . . the United

States Capitol and its related buildings and grounds.’’ This language has been construed overbroadly to include all properties under the jurisdiction of the Architect

of the Capitol, including sites that are distant from the U.S. Capitol complex but

fully integrated into the surrounding community, usually preexisting to being acquired by the Architect. I strongly support the provision in H.R. 834 to clarify that

any exemption that the Architect of the Capitol now has applies only to the principal buildings and grounds of the U.S. Capitol complex as depicted by a map dated

November 6, 1996 on file in the office of the Secretary of the Interior.

This change is especially important because it requires the Architect of the Capitol to comply with the public review and consultation process that Federal agencies

8

must follow in any undertaking affecting an historic district, site, building, or structure pursuant to section 106 of NHPA. Section 106 was established specifically so

that no Federal agency would ignore unilaterally the preservation of significant cultural resources affecting local communities.

I emphasize that this change is virtually mandated by and most certainly consistent with Pubklic Law 104-1, the Congressional Accountability Act, which requires that Congress be held to the same laws as other Americans and entities. The

Congress has proudly noted that it has subjected itself to its own laws. It would

be impossible to reconcile the standard of congressional accountability found in Public Law 104-1 with an exemption for a major agent of the Congress that no Federal

agency and no American enjoys.

Section 106 is a cornerstone of historic preservation efforts in the District because

of the preponderant Federal presence here. By narrowing the section 107 exemption,

the bill shows respect for the historic character of the immediate neighborhood surrounding the White House and the U.S. Capitol. For example, the neighborhood and

the historic Capitol buildings are of a piece. If the historic character of structures

in the neighborhood were altered, anomalies out of keeping with the Capitol itself

could result, however unintentionally.

The Capitol Hill community in particular not only provides a thriving cultural and

commercial setting for the Capitol that serves Members, staff, and tourists alike,

This community and the DC Historic Preservation Review Board, the national historic preservation partner in DC, as well as the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, all help safeguard the historic character of the neighborhood that is indispensable to preserving the Capitol’s own historic integrity.

I regret that an unnecessary misunderstanding arose with the Office of the Architect when the Senate day-care center was planned in 1996. The problem did not involve the center at all, and no one in the community opposed or sought to delay

its establishment. The community welcomed the day care center with open arms not

only because of its purpose but because it took a blighted property that marred the

neighborhood. With minor changes that allowed at least minimal respect for the facade and more time to discuss the matter, a needless confrontation with the community and with Members of Congress could have been avoided. I was particularly

grateful for the intervention of Senator John Warner, who was most sympathetic

with the historic preservation concerns. With his skillful efforts and more time, the

matter might have been resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Most important to bear in mind, the local authorities have advisory authority

only. Moreover, almost always, government officials say that advice and counsel improves a project. Allowing advisory expert and community comments that have no

binding legal effect is little enough to ask. I appreciate the sensitivity of this Subcommittee in its work on section 107 to synchronize local and congressional concerns.

Mr HANSEN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.

I would like to turn to the sponsor of the bill, if he has any questions for our colleague from the District of Columbia, or for any

opening statement he may have as the sponsor of this important

legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a few

words in opening, and then I would have a question or two of Mrs.

Norton.

First of all, I apologize for not being here for all of your testimony, Mrs. Norton, because you have been extremely on top of this

situation and have been very supportive, I think, of the concept.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 834, as you will remember, because we went

through it last year in great detail, passed it, got it over to the Senate, in the last days it got wrapped up, as so much legislation does

over there, with things that didn’t have any relationship to this

really. But this was held hostage and one thing led to another. So

I think it’s extremely important that, early in this session, we’re

9

bringing this up again so that we can get it passed and, with Mrs.

Norton’s help and others, we’ll get it all the way through the process this time.

As all of us know, and as probably already been pointed out, the

authorization for this program expired in September of 1997, so

there is some urgency in getting this bill enacted.

The bill before you reflects this program’s stature as a mature

undertaking. By and large, existing law has worked. Historic preservation is now accepted as a legitimate national concern. I think

Mrs. Norton pointed that out in her testimony, that most people

don’t want to run roughshod over our history and culture in this

Nation. I think it is a legitimate concern.

The program has evolved into a model of state, Federal and public/private cooperation. State and local groups have leveraged relatively scant Federal funds into an investment far in excess of

what Washington alone might have achieved. So the bill before you

authorizes the existing program through 2005. It allows the Interior Department to administer grants to the National Trust for

Historic Preservation, which is a proven means of providing funding in emergencies, such as the Mississippi River floods of some

years back.

The bill also deals with treatment of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court buildings, and codifies an Executive order

directing the use of buildings in historic districts by Federal agencies.

The reasons for the first of these are twofold: First, this Congress

has maintained that it follow the same laws it enacts for the general public, and second, the government, particularly the Congress,

has not always done that in the preservation arena, particularly

here in Washington. I believe Mrs. Norton has pointed that out.

Finally on this subject, I will concede that, for reasons of daily

operations and security needs, there are some buildings that properly cannot be treated in the same way as other historic sites, but

will nonetheless point out that some of the Nation’s most successful

preservation efforts have been conducted by the armed services, as

a matter of fact, all of which can legitimately claim operational and

security needs for an exemption, and some don’t.

I have mentioned before, I think, Warren Air Force Base in

Cheyenne, WY, which was an old calvary post. Black Jack Pershing

was commander there at one time. You go on that base today and

there’s the parade field still there. There are the enlisted men’s

barracks still there, on one side of the parade field, and the officers

housing on the other side. And behind the enlisted men’s barracks,

the stables are still there. The only thing is, the stables today are

computer centers and so forth. But from the outside, they are every

bit stables. So there are ways, even in national security facilities,

to do that.

This bill also clarifies and codifies Executive Order 13006, which

directs Federal agencies to give first priority to locating the Nation’s central cities. This Executive order builds on a series dated

back to the Nixon Administration. But Executive Order 13006 is

also meant to conform with the Rural Development Act of 1972.

So I think we have worked out most of the concerns in this bill.

I think most people are in favor of it, and we’ll hear additional tesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:23 Sep 14, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64983 pfrm04 PsN: 64983
10

timony this morning. If there are problems with it, we’re happy to

try to make which changes are necessary to make it work better.

So what we are doing is reenacting the old law with some modern

updates to make it work better.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. Chairman, I’d like to thank you for holding hearings on this bill, H.R. 834,

which will extend the authorization of the National Historic Preservation Act.

We already acted upon a version of this bill in the last Congress and, as with the

film fees bill, which we passed earlier this week, might have enacted that legislation

had it not been for the usual end-of-session fun and games between this and the

other body. But in this case, there is some urgency—due to our lack of action, the

authorization for the National Historic reservation Fund expired on September 30,

1997. Enactment of this legislation is urgently needed.

The bill before you reflects this program’s stature as a mature undertaking. There

is no need for wholesale changes in the law because, by and large, the existing law

has worked. Not only has historic preservation become established as a legitimate

national concern, the program has evolved into a model example of partnership between Federal and state governments and between the public and private sectors.

Though the Historic Preservation Fund had, in the past, been authorized to a level

of $150 million per year, it seldom received more than $40 million. Nevertheless,

state and local organizations, by using Federal funds as seed money, have been able

to leverage an amount of investment far in excess of what Washington alone might

have achieved.

So the bill before you reauthorizes the existing program through 2005, reflecting

the year’s delay in our actions. It includes a provision for the Secretary of Interior

to administer grants to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, a funding conduit the appropriators have found useful in delivering funding in emergency situations, such as the Mississippi River flooding of some years back.

The bill also contains two provisions which we will examine today. First, the bill

exempts from the National Historic Preservation Act the White House and properties under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, which are identified on

maps filed with the Secretary of the Interior.

The reasons for this provisions are twofold. Number one, four years ago this Congress adopted legislation based on the belief that this body should adhere to the

same laws it imposed on the general public. It is absurd to maintain that historic

preservation is a valid national goal, then turn around and state that three of the

nation’s most historic buildings can ignore that goal.

Second, this lack of congressional direction has resulted in problems here in the

District of Columbia. Some years ago, a daycare center was constructed in the middle of a local historic district with little, if any, consultation with local historic preservation officials. I am told that circumstances have changed and there should be

no repetition of that episode but we cannot be sure such circumstances will not reoccur.

For reasons of security and daily operations, the White House, the Capitol and

the Supreme Court probably cannot be treated the same as other historic sites (although I’d point out that some of the country’s most successful preservation programs have been conducted by the armed services, any one of which can claim more

overriding security concerns.). But I do not believe it is too much to ask the managers of these properties to identify their domains and at least, make a stab at cooperating with local communities and local preservation laws.

Another provision in this bill clarifies and codifies Executive Order 13006, which

gives priority to locating Federal facilities in the nation’s central cities. Executive

Order 13006 was based upon a series of such orders dating back to the Nixon Administration which directed Federal agencies to use historic structures whenever

possible. This is a goal worthy of the national government and frankly, in the case

of visitors’ centers and the like, will probably save us money in the long run.

But in our study of these executive orders, we uncovered what we believe is a contradiction. Executive Order 13006 is meant to be consonant with previous executive

orders and with provisions of the Rural Development Act of 1972, the latter of which

gave first priority to locating Federal facilities in rural development areas. Our language flatly directs that Federal agencies should first look in nearby historic districts to fill their building needs, no matter whether those districts are urban and

rural in character.

11

Note that the Administration has logged in with its proposal for a straight reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Act, minus any treatment of the use of historic properties and wonder what questions the Administration has with codifying

a policy it drafted in the first place.

With that, I’ll close, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing today’s witnesses

and hope we’ll be able to move this bill swiftly to enactment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mrs. Norton, if I might, you mentioned the Senate

day-care center. Are you aware of other instances of conflict between the Architect of the Capitol and the local community? The

Senate day-care center was during another Architect’s tenure. I

wonder if things have improved under this present Architect since

he came on board?

Ms. NORTON. As a matter of fact, the former Architect, Mr.

White, had, in fact, left. I think part of the reason this problem

arose was that there was no Architect at the time. We had an interim situation.

Mr. HEFLEY. I see.

Ms. NORTON. I want to mention, Mr. Hefley, in response to your

question, that I was absolutely astonished that this became a problem, because under Mr. White the Library of Congress built a daycare center in an abandoned school. Did we love them for doing

that. They took a school that had been abandoned by the Catholic

Church and made it into a day-care center.

Well, the community raised some concerns. They were concerned

that the children might be dropped off on East Capitol Street and

it would slow up traffic. They were concerned whether or not huge

parking problems would arise. They were concerned that the building itself reflect the neighborhood.

Well, Mr. White did not jump out a window. Mr. White sent his

agents out to the community, talked with them. I had hardly anything to do with it. In discussions with the community, Mr. White

made some changes. He hadn’t thought about the fact, for example,

that there probably should be some way to drop off for the safety

of the children, so that there were not there in immediate traffic.

Working with the city, he arranged for parking not to be a problem.

So, instead of a big brouhaha with the community, the Architect

simply sat down and worked it out.

The interim people were extremely rigid. The District people

weren’t saying leave the building up. Of course, not. Nor were they

saying leave the facade in any particular way. With the most minor

respect for the facade, somehow, on the grounds, I think the matter

could have been solved.

I cannot say that, under this Architect, matters have improved.

In fact, I almost wish for Mr. White back, because Mr. White would

have worked these things out. I wouldn’t probably have thought

about the need for a bill. I think this Architect may have lobbied

the Senate and may have been partly responsible for the misunderstanding in the Senate.

I have to really say that I think the rigidity shown was there

should be no changes, we shouldn’t have to submit to anybody except the Congress, no concern for the Congressional Accountability

Act, which says exactly the opposite, not the kind of flexibility that

I think people in public life have to have in order to reach an accommodation.

12

I was very tough on the DC people. I said, look, we’re not up here

to dictate to the Congress what to do. I understand what your law

says, and you’ve been able to work well with Federal agencies, and

we want to have this dialogue.

I must say, I regarded this as the kind of lapse. I have seldom

seen, in the legislative process and public policy process, where one

body says it’s ‘‘all or nothing.’’ Where there’s historic preservation

concerns, it seems to me that, even without this law, there should

have been the notion that we would want to pay some respect to

the fact that there was a historic building here and we’re going to

have to tear it down.

Mr. Hefley, they did have to tear it down. There is no way in

which they could have built the child-care center and left this

brownstone standing. So reaching an accommodation, where the

Architect would have gotten virtually all of what he wanted in any

case, would have been possible, it seems to me.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr HANSEN. Thank you.

The gentleman from Puerto Rico, the Ranking Member, Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank Mrs. Holmes for her testimony, and I apologize for not having been here when she started. I received an urgent telephone call

just as I was leaving and I had to take care of it before I came

here.

I would just like to make a brief statement in support of this bill.

The National Historic Preservation Act was established as a comprehensive program through which Federal, state, tribal and local

historic resources have been protected. The National Register of

Historic Places now has more than 62,000 sites listed.

The Governor of each state and U.S. Territory appoints a State

Historic Preservation Officer to administer the historic preservation program within its boundaries. Several Indian tribes have now

undertaken historic preservation programs on reservations, and the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation advises the President

and Congress and makes recommendations to help coordinate preservation activities.

This successful program shows what can be done when government at each level is willing to work together for a common

cause—the protection and preservation of our culture and our history.

The bill before us today 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. We would note that the Department of the Interior submitted draft legislation to the Speaker

of the House last week to accomplish this very purpose.

H.R. 834 goes on to make two minor changes to the National

Historic Preservation Act as well. These changes clarify the applicability of historic preservation laws to the Architect of the Capitol

13

and codify an Executive order dealing with consideration by Federal agencies to using historic properties.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that this bill is a very reasonable proposal and we look forward to the testimony of the other witnesses

on this matter.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́ follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO ́, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO

Mr. Chairman, today we will receive testimony on H.R. 834, introduced by our colleague Mr. Hefley to reauthorize funding for the National Historic Preservation

Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, as well as make 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. The National Register of Historic Places now has more than

62,000 sites listed. The Governor of each state and U.S. Territory appoints a State

Historic Preservation Officer to administer the historic preservation program within

its boundaries. Several Indian Tribes have now undertaken historic preservation

programs on reservations and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation advises

the President and Congress and makes recommendations to help coordinate preservation activities. This successful program shows what can be done when government

at each level is willing to work together for a common cause—the protection and

preservation of our culture and our history.

The bill before us today would extend the authorization of funds for the Historic

Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation through fiscal

year 2005. We whole heartedly support extending this authorization. We would note

that the Department of the Interior submitted draft legislation to the Speaker of

the House last week to accomplish this very purpose.

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 Capitol and codify an Executive Order dealing with consideration by Federal agencies to using historic properties.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a reasonable proposal and we look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on this matter.

Mr HANSEN. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr HANSEN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t

have any questions at this time.

Mr HANSEN. The gentleman from Washington.

Mr. INSLEE. No questions.

Mr HANSEN. Thank you.

We certainly appreciate your testimony. If you would like to join

us on the dais, we would be more than happy to have you with us.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, anyway, Mr. Chairman. I am due to

testify someplace else. I thank you once again for the attention you

have given to the bill, and particularly to this section affecting the

District.

Mr. Hefley, before you came, I particularly gave my thanks to

you for reintroducing the bill, and for crafting a bill that I think

is of great significance.

Mr HANSEN. Thank you so much.

Mr HANSEN. It is always an honor and a pleasure to have with

us Robert Stanton, the Director of the National Park Service. Also,

we have Eric Hertfelder, Executive Director, National Conference

of State Historic Preservation Officers, and Tamar Osterman, DiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:23 Sep 14, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64983 pfrm04 PsN: 64983
14

rector of Policy Research, National Trust for Historic Preservation.

We all you all to come up.

Mr. Director, again it’s a pleasure to have you with us. We are

always honored to have you here. We will turn the time over to

you, sir.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT STANTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE

Mr. STANTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. It

is my pleasure to appear before you and to present to you the Department of Interior’s views on H.R. 834, a bill to extend the authorization for the National Historic Preservation Fund and for

other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to summarize my formal testimony, of which I have a copy, and with your permission, I would

like to submit this for the record.

Mr HANSEN. All of the statements will be included in the record

in their completeness. We appreciate your summaries. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. STANTON. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Again, it’s an

honor to appear before you and to be here with my distinguished

colleagues from the Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

I am also accompanied by Miss Kay Stevenson, who is the National Park Services’ Associate Director for Cultural Resource

Stewardship and Partnerships.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the Department

of Interior strongly supports H.R. 834. In particular, we endorse

the reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation through the year 2005.

On April 12, 1999, the administration submitted a bill to Congress for its consideration with respect to the authorizing the extension of the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council. Certainly the Historic Preservation Fund has helped our Nation

to preserve the cultural resources that are held in trust by the Federal Government and by local/state governments, as well as private

individuals.

Approximately 1,600 new listings are added to the National Register annually, bringing the total now to over 69,000 properties

that have been recognized by local communities, state officials,

preservation and conservation organizations and, indeed, officials

in the Federal Government. Those places and artifacts and other

properties really commemorate our rich cultural heritage.

Also, the Historic Preservation Fund assists the State Historic

Preservation Officers, who provide, on a day to day basis, assistance to individuals and organizations in identifying and in preserving again properties that are considered important to our cultural heritage. We certainly enjoy our partnership with the State

Historic Preservation Officers and their staffs.

This Fund has made available to the states, on average, roughly

half a million dollars annually to assist the states in carrying out

their individual responsibilities. Roughly 90 percent of these funds

are used directly by the individual states and the Trust Territories

15

in carrying out historic preservation activities, including tribal governments.

The Historic Preservation Fund, I should again underscore the

importance to the rich cultural diversity, in that it does assist, as

I mentioned earlier, the tribal governments in carrying out preservation of tribal resources that are not only for the benefit of the

tribes themselves, but, indeed, to all of us as a Nation.

Also, we have been able to work closely with the leadership of

many of our Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Many of

these institutions were established after the Civil War, during the

era in which members of our society moved from an enslaved condition into an era of freedom. Many colleges and universities were established specifically by various religious denominations and others

to meet the educational needs of those who have moved into freedom. Many of these properties are very rich and are again reflective of our rich cultural heritage. Through this program, we have

been able to assist many of those colleges in preserving their resources.

One of the real highlights of this authorization is a great partnership between the Federal and state governments and the private sector with respect to the Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings program. This is a great Federal/state

and private partnership that has in the past leveraged something

like over $400 million in tax credits, resulting in roughly $2 billion

in private investment, again a great partnership in which the private sector is contributing to the preservation of our cultural heritage. Certainly this program remains a very highly cost-effective

cornerstone of our public policy for historic preservation.

Lastly, the Act creates and provides assistance to the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, which is a policy advisor to the

Federal Government on historic preservation. We work very closely, on a day to day basis, with the Advisory Council, as well as the

State Historic Preservation Officers. This is a great organization

that assists us in giving good advice, not only to the Federal Government but, indeed, to the states and the private sector in various

communities, in terms of how we can best work in achieving the

preservation of our cultural heritage.

Lastly, I want to commend, on behalf of the Department of Interior and, indeed, the administration, the leadership of Representative Hefley for introducing this bill, and certainly to you, Mr.

Chairman, and members of this Committee, for your support of this

measure.

That concludes my overall summary comments, Mr. Chairman.

As I mentioned earlier, we do have written testimony for the

record.

I would be more than happy to respond to any comments or questions you may have. Certainly, if it should be the will of the Committee, I would feel free to call upon Miss Kay Stevenson to assist

in responding as well.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanton follows:]

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr HANSEN. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony.

Mr. Hertfelder.

STATEMENT OF ERIC HERTFELDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS

Mr. HERTFELDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for

having this hearing today on H.R. 834. We would also like to thank

Mr. Hefley for taking the lead to reauthorize critical elements of

the National Historic Preservation Act, the deposits to the Historic

Preservation Fund, and funding for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Our detailed comments on all of the sections of the bill is provided in our written testimony, which I assume will be in the

record. In summary, we support all the provisions of the bill, and

my remarks today will focus on the role of the states.

The National Historic Preservation Act is a model Federal program in many ways, and the Historic Preservation Fund is the fuel

that keeps this program working. With the passage of the Act in

1966, which was a time of rapid change and disruption of major

landmarks across the country, the Congress created the Federal

Government’s first and only comprehensive historic preservation

program. Unlike many other Federal programs, however, this one

was and remains based on a partnership with state, local and tribal governments, in which those governments actually deliver the

program benefits and services to the public and, in addition, provide half the funding for the program. This reliance on others to

do the administration and provide funding is, thus, a great return

on investment for the Federal Government.

It is also a voluntary program, with a stress on making information on historic sites available to the public, to promote informed

decision making, and providing incentives to the private sector to

keep historic structures in productive use. The most remarkable example of the success of this approach is the program that Director

Stanton mentioned, the historic rehabilitation tax credits, which

are now generating $2 billion a year in private investment.

Finally, this is a program where the emphasis is getting the decisions and the resources out of Washington and to the state and

local level. Each of the State Historic Preservation Offices and certified local governments is a field office for the Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service for the Federal historic preservation program, but one which operates based upon and attuned

to local needs and priorities.

The states are proud to be a partner with the Federal Government to carry out this important program, but because it is a Federal program and the states carry out the Federal responsibilities,

it is important that the Federal funding continue and be enhanced

to keep up with public demand and increasing workloads.

The principle behind the Historic Preservation Fund is a powerful and practical idea: to dedicate revenues from the depletion of

one national resource to the conservation of others. There may be

a time when the OCS revenues will decline or cease and our conservation programs will then have to work against a declining balVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:23 Sep 14, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64983 pfrm04 PsN: 64983
25

ance. However, we should not cut off the funding stream prematurely, as this will limit Congress’ options in the future and, we

think, send a bad signal to all the Federal Government’s partners

in this program, without whom the program will fail.

Finally, preserving the Nation’s heritage is no accident. It requires substantial and steady support for the long haul, and the active participation of all levels of government, as well as the private

sector.

Historic sites are never permanently saved, except in photographs. To have the real thing available, to foster community pride

and sense of place, and to provide new opportunities for economic

development, requires ongoing maintenance and timely expert assistance. The Historic Preservation Fund, with its dedicated funding source for the programs of the National Historic Preservation

Act, is the embodiment of this principle, and the states urge Congress to reauthorize the deposits to the Fund as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hertfelder follows:]

STATEMENT OF MR. HERTFELDER, NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers urges the House

to pass H.R. 834. Among other provisions, the bill would extend to the year 2005

the authorization for deposits from offshore oil lease revenues into the Historic Preservation Fund and the authorization of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

These two provisions (Section I Paragraph (4) of H. R. 834 for the Historic Preservation Fund and Section 1 Paragraph (6) for the Council) are priorities for the National Conference. We believe the extensions to 2005 are non-partisan and essential

for continuing two key elements of the Nation’s historic preservation program.

INTRODUCTION AND EXPRESSION OF THANKS

The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers is the organization of the gubernatorially appointed officials in each State, territory and the District of Columbia who carry out the Nation’s historic preservation program for the

Secretary of the Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as provided for in the National Historic Preservation Act.

This is a program that truly embodies the principles of federalism. For over three

decades, States have willingly worked with the Federal Government to provide the

infrastructure for historic preservation because our common heritage merits a coordinated, team approach from government while permitting variations for local

conditions. That said, we fully acknowledge that the true work of historic preservation is carried out by the private sector, those millions of individuals who voluntarily accomplish historic preservation. The role of government—Federal and

State—is to facilitate and encourage private efforts.

The National Conference and the State Historic Preservation Officers extend their

thanks to Subcommittee Chairman James Hansen and Representative Joel Hefley

for acknowledging the importance of the national historic preservation program by

holding this hearing. We appreciate all efforts to expedite passage of H. R. 834.

SCOPE OF TESTIMONY

The National Conference represents State governments. While we fully support

the establishment of Tribal Preservation Offices (Section 101(d) of the 1992 amendments to the Act), we would not presume to speak on behalf of Native American

historic preservation activities.

WHAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND DOES

Congress established the Historic Preservation Fund to provide an income stream

for the enhancement of historic, non-renewable resources. To do this, Congress used

a portion of the revenues earned from the depletion of a non-renewable natural resource, offshore oil.

The Historic Preservation Fund has been a good investment. The annual withdrawals that Congress appropriates for the States have established historic preservation as a viable option for private citizens nationwide and a planning requirement

26

for Federal agencies. Further, States have responded by providing an equal match

to the Federal dollars, adding a State-government commitment to historic preservation and coloring the national approach to suit the varied conditions and history of

this Nation.

The Historic Preservation Fund, when matched by the States and conducted by

the State Historic Preservation Officers, provides a point of contact for private citizens interested in preserving their heritage. The national preservation program

helps interested property owners identify and obtain recognition of significant places

(National Register), and obtain financial incentives for preservation of income-producing properties through income tax credits. The program also provides for local

governments to participate in the Federal program. These preservation services follow national standards set by the National Park Service ensuring a degree of consistency and quality control. State decisions on historic significance come from a

store of knowledge about historic places found in the inventories each State maintains. Such databases on historic buildings and sites are a tremendous resource for

understanding American history, not from the top down, but from the ground level

of individuals and communities across America. The on-going progress in digitizing

historic inventory information has unlimited potential to expedite and facilitate understanding of our history through educational programs and heritage tourism.

Today the information on historic places and their location is used most often in

the consultations between State Historic Preservation Officers and Federal agencies

planning undertakings. While the National Historic Preservation Act can not determine the outcome of a Federal project, Section 106 does require that Federal agencies consider historic places as they plan projects. This sometimes puts State Historic Preservation Officers in the cross fire between the proponents and opponents

of a project. However, of the 100,000 Federal undertakings the State Historic Preservation Officers review each year, less than a dozen fail to be resolved and need

to be considered by the full Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This mandated consultation about historic preservation among Federal agencies, States and

other interested parties provides effective consideration for our heritage as a part

of Federal project planning.

If the Historic Preservation Fund were nor reauthorized, we could not realistically

expect the States to fund the national historic preservation program by themselves.

Who then would assist property owners seeking National Register listing? Who

would help preservation-minded developers seeking the 20 percent historic rehabilitation investment tax credit? How would Federal agencies meet project schedules

while they seek the Council’s comments? How could our communities realize the

economic, educational and cultural benefits they now realize from the identification,

preservation and use of their historic resources? Who would make up the losses to

neighborhood revitalization, heritage tourism, community identity, the education of

our children, the ability to attract new investment, and the quality of life for communities across America?

The nation reaps these benefits from this far-reaching and efficient economic development program, although currently its annual cost to the Federal treasury is

about one hour’s expenditure ($30 million) at the Department of Defense. Yet with

last year’s $30 million appropriation, the Congress leveraged $2 billion in construction dollars through the historic rehabilitation tax credit alone.

The Historic Preservation Fund has made possible a well functioning team where

the Federal Government sets the standards, the States do the work and the Congress determines the level of effort (through the appropriations process).

COTERMINOUS AUTHORIZATONS: HPF AND THE COUNCIL

The National Conference believes that it makes sense to set the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on the same review

schedule, and we strongly support setting the date for Congressional review for both

at 2005. The Advisory Council fulfills an essential Federal role in the national historic preservation program, developing and implementing the review process whereby Federal agencies consider the impact of their projects on historic properties. As

with many other parts of the national program, the Council relies upon the State

Historic Preservation Officers to assist in this process, and the States’ participation

in this Federal program is made possible by the support from the Historic Preservation Fund.

VIEWS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON H.R. 834

Paragraph (1) Authorization of funding for the National Trust

The National Conference acknowledges the role of the National Trust in the private sector and supports the ability of the Congress to choose this private organization as a conduit for grants for national emergencies, among other things.

27

Paragraph (2) Re-designation of subsections

This paragraph re-designates two subsections in Section 102 of the National Historic Preservation Act: Subsection 102(d) as Subsection 102(e) and Subsection 102(e)

as Subsection 102(f). The National Conference cannot find a new, proposed Subsection 102(d in H. R. 834. We believe this paragraph should be dropped as it serves

no purpose.

Paragraph (3) Definition of exemptions for Capitol, White House and Supreme

Court

The intent of this provision amending Section 107, which the National Conference

supports, is to clarify which properties under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the

Capitol should be exempt from Section 106 of the Act. The areas related to the

White House and the Supreme Court are well understood. It is the definition of

what land constitutes ‘‘the Capitol’’ that has caused controversy. The bill refers to

a map as the definition of ‘‘the Capitol.’’ We understand that this map is updated

periodically and may therefore not be a good reference point. We also understand

that uncertainty exists as to whether the Architect of the Capitol constitutes a ‘‘Federal agency’’ subject to compliance with Section 106.

Therefore, the National Conference believes the goals of H.R. 834 are to clarify

the area, defined as the Capitol, exempted in Section 107 of the Act as a ‘‘campus’’

that includes the Capitol building itself and the current House and Senate office

buildings with the associated grounds. H.R. 834 needs to make clear that when the

Architect of the Capitol acts ‘‘off campus,’’ Section 106 applies to the actions of the

Architect. This concept reflects the current language of Section 107: ‘‘. . the United

States Capitol and its related buildings and grounds.’’

Paragraph (4) Extension of the authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund

The National Conference wholeheartedly supports this provision.

Paragraph (7) Location of Federal facilities in historic downtowns

Historic preservationists support the idea of using existing buildings in existing

communities with existing infrastructure and transportation networks versus building new buildings and new infrastructure and new parking lots in the countryside.

The President’s Executive Order 13006 directs Federal agencies to do this, among

other things. The National Conference supports codification of this portion of the

Executive Order, although the opposition of the General Services Administration to

this provision as originally drafted in H.R. 834 is cause for skepticism as to whether

this approach will yield results.

Paragraph (5) Editorial changes in Section 110(l)

The National Conference supports this editorial change, as it increases the flexibility, for agencies as they comply with the National Historic Preservation Act.

Paragraph (6) Extension of the Council’s authorization

The National Conference wholeheartedly supports this provision.

ADDITONAL CONCERNS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE

Section 101(e)(3)(A) of the National Historic Preservation Act makes it clear that

only 10 percent of the Historic Preservation Fund appropriation is to go for direct

grants of the Secretary of the Interior. The primary purpose of the Historic Preservation Fund is to finance the implementation of the nation’s historic preservation

program carried out by State, tribal and local governments. The Fund is not intended for funding Federal projects. (Section 110 of the Act indicates Federal preservation programs are to be funded out of Federal agency budgets.) Nevertheless, in

fiscal year 1999, 60 percent of the Historic Preservation Fund appropriation went

to direct grants of the Secretary of the Interior. The actual use of off shore oil revenues is ‘‘out of balance.’’ The intent of the Historic Preservation Fund is to fund

State, tribal and local governments. Ignoring this intent puts the 95 percent of the

nation’s historic properties that exist outside Federal ownership at risk.

The National Conference appreciates the opportunity to raise this concern with

the Subcommittee.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.

Mr HANSEN. Thank you.

Tamar Osterman.

28

STATEMENT OF TAMAR OSTERMAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY

RESEARCH, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Ms. OSTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. It’s a pleasure to appear before you today to testify in support of H.R. 834. We want to commend Congressman Hefley, and

you and the Subcommittee, for the leadership and support you

have shown for historic preservation.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a nonprofit organization, with more than 270,000 members. We were chartered by

Congress 50 years ago this year to promote public participation and

education in historic preservation, and to engage the private sector

in preserving our Nation’s heritage. We work closely with Federal,

state and local governments and citizens all over the country who

are working not only to preserve their past but to build a better

future. The National Historic Preservation Act and the Historic

Preservation Fund are very important tools and, really, the cornerstone of that effort.

We enthusiastically endorse H.R. 834, and I want to mention

several specific issues that are important to us.

First of all, reauthorization of the deposits to the Historic Preservation fund to 2005 is a top priority of the Trust. The states and

tribes and certified local governments utilize this funding to

achieve the responsibilities with which they are charged in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which Mr. Hertfelder just

enumerated.

Through these activities, Federal funding for historic preservation not only preserves our Nation’s historical legacy, but it also

creates jobs, promotes local economic development, and it produces

a much larger financial commitment from private sources, as well

as other public sources.

Second, we strongly support the language in H.R. 834 that would

provide statutory support to Executive Order 13006, signed by

President Clinton in 1996, which calls on GSA and other Federal

agencies to first consider historic districts and historic buildings in

downtown areas when selecting sites for new Federal facilities.

We believe that this provision will support GSA’s efforts to implement the Executive order. We know that they have recently

issued very effective implementing guidelines, and we feel this legislation would strengthen their work.

Third, we support the language in section 1 of H.R. 834 that

would authorize the Trust to continue to receive funding through

the Historic Preservation Fund.

Four years ago, the National Trust and Congress negotiated an

agreement for the National Trust to phase out its Federal appropriation. Beginning this year, fiscal year 1999, the National Trust

no longer receives an appropriation to support its operations, but

from time to time Congress and the National Park Service and

other agencies have determined that the National Trust is the best

provider of historic preservation assistance to communities, particularly with regard to disaster assistance. Congressional authorization facilitates the release of funding and project management

responsibilities to the National Trust. It ensures a quality control

framework and that assistance will be provided quickly to communities in need.

29

Fourth, we support language that would extend the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation’s authorization to 2005 and make

its authorization schedule coterminous with that of the Historic

Preservation Fund’s. The Advisory Council, on which the National

Trust serves, plays an important role in ensuring that the impact

of Federal projects on historic resources is taken into account.

It occurs to me, after listening to Congresswoman Norton’s statement, that this is exactly the kind of situation which the Council

is uniquely equipped to assist, to come in and try to help parties

work out a settlement on scenarios and sites where there has been

some conflict.

Extending the Council’s authorization is important to those kinds

of efforts, and coordinating that with the Historic Preservation

Fund will make things easier for everyone.

Finally, the National Trust also supports the language to amend

section 107 of the National Historic Preservation Act, to clarify and

limit the exemption from the Act to the White House and its

grounds, the Supreme Court buildings and its grounds, and the

Capitol and its related buildings and grounds.

We believe that this is an appropriate enumeration of the Architect of the Capitol’s jurisdiction with regard to section 107. Moreover, it is consistent with the legislative history of the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and congressional intent, as enumerated in the report of that initial passage of the Act, which specifically mentions principal buildings and grounds.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on H.R. 834. The

Trust enthusiastically supports this bill, and we thank you for the

opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Osterman follows:]

STATEMENT OF TAMAR OSTERMAN, DIRECTOR OF POLICY RESEARCH, NATIONAL TRUST

FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before

you to testify regarding H.R. 834, legislation to extend the authorization of deposits

to the Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a non-profit organization with

more than 270,000 members, chartered by Congress to promote public participation

and education in historic preservation and to engage the private sector in preserving

our nation’s heritage. As the leader of the national historic preservation movement,

the National Trust is committed to saving America’s diverse historic places and to

preserving and revitalizing communities nationwide.

Congress established the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) under the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The Historic Preservation Fund is capitalized by

royalties paid to the Federal Government from Outer Continental Shelf oil drilling

leases. Approximately $150 million flows into the Fund every year. Historically,

Congress has appropriated a fraction of this amount—almost $41 million in Fiscal

Year 1998—through the National Park Service. In Fiscal Year 1999, this amount

was increased to $72 million for the first year of the Save America’s Treasures program. Annual appropriations from the HPF provide key support to the preservation

activities of the state historic preservation offices, Indian tribes and Native Hawai

’ian organizations, and historically black colleges and universities. Authorization for

funding from the HPF to each of these entities is provided in the National Historic

Preservation Act.

The National Trust strongly endorses extending to 2005 the reauthorization of deposits to the Historic Preservation Fund. HPF dollars help achieve the Congressionally-mandated objective of preserving our Nation’s invaluable historic and cultural

heritage for the education, benefit, and use of present and future generations. The

States, Tribes, and Certified Local Governments utilize this funding to achieve the

responsibilities with which they are charged in the National Historic Preservation

Act. Through these activities, Federal funding for historic preservation not only preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:23 Sep 14, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64983 pfrm04 PsN: 64983
30

serves our nation’s historical legacy but also creates jobs, promotes local economic

development, and produces much larger financial commitments from private sources

as well as other public sources.

The reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund is a legislative priority for

the National Trust and therefore we enthusiastically support H.R. 834 for proposing

to accomplish this end. We commend and thank Congressman Hefley for his support

for historic preservation and the Historic Preservation Fund.

I want to take this opportunity to elaborate upon two other provisions of H.R. 834

that are of particular interest to the National Trust. H.R. 834 would provide statutory support to Executive Order 13006, signed by President Clinton in 1996, which

calls on the General Services Administration and other Federal agencies to first consider historic districts and historic buildings in downtown areas when selecting sites

for Federal facilities. Historic preservation often involves real estate activity, and

historic buildings must be used in order to be preserved. Directing the Federal Government’s considerable property acquisition and leasing requirements toward historic resources will significantly assist in that effort. In addition, by locating Federal

facilities in historic downtown areas, the Federal Government will be assisting local

economic revitalization efforts and will save taxpayer dollars on land use and infrastructure development.

The National Trust was an early advocate for this executive order, and we are

presently working closely with the General Services Administration on its implementation. We believe that codifying this executive order in law will significantly

assist in that effort. Making Executive Order 13006 a part of the National Historic

Preservation Act will hold Federal agencies accountable to law, and will improve its

chances for broad implementation.

Moreover, amending Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act to incorporate portions of Executive Order 13006 could help improve the Federal land

managing agencies’ implementation of that portion of the Act, which details Federal

agencies’ responsibility to preserve and use historic buildings. Over the last several

years, the National Trust has become increasingly engaged in the issues surrounding the Federal Government’s stewardship of its historic resources, broadening

this interest beyond the traditional purview of the historic resources managed as

national park units. We have discovered, regrettably, that although good management of historic resources rarely conflicts with agency missions and responsibilities,

in far too many cases there is missing a broad commitment to fulfillment of Section

110 requirements.

We believe that Federal agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the General Services Administration, which control a

great deal of historic lands and resources, need to be held accountable to their Section 110 responsibilities. We will continue to work with our preservation partners,

and with Federal agencies to better achieve this goal. We commend this Committee,

as the committee of jurisdiction for historic resources, for taking an active interest

in this matter, first with the passage of H.R. 1522, and now with consideration of

H.R. 834. We urge that appropriate provisions of Executive Order 13006 be incorporated into law, as proposed in H.R. 1522 and H.R. 834.

The National Trust also strongly supports Section 1 (3) in H.R. 834. This provision would amend Section 107 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which exempts the White House and its grounds, the Supreme Court building and its

grounds, and the United States Capitol and its related buildings and grounds from

the Act. Our most recent experience with Section 107 comes from our involvement

in 1996 with the Stanton Park Neighborhood Association, and other District of Columbia preservation partners, as well as Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and other

Members of Congress, in an effort to oppose demolition of a contributing 19th century rowhouse in the Capitol Hill Historic District owned by the legislative branch.

The demolition had been ordered by the then-Architect of the Capitol in order that

a new building could be constructed to house the Senate day care facility, a privately-operated enterprise.

This property, which has since been demolished, was located in the middle of a

commercial and residential neighborhood several blocks from the Capitol grounds.

We believe that this demolition was an unreasonable interpretation of the Section

107 exemption and was inconsistent with the legislative history of the National Historic Preservation Act. When the House of Representatives passed the NHPA in

1966, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs included report language

that specifically defined the intent of Congress in granting the Section 107 exemption, by specifying that this exemption be for ‘‘principal buildings and grounds.’’

(‘‘House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, House Report 1916, August 30,

1966, to accompany S. 3035.’’)

31

H.R. 834 proposes to limit the Section 107 exemption 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, with a relevant cartographic citation. The

National Trust supports this provision as an appropriate enumeration of the Architect of the Capitol’s jurisdiction with regard to Section 107 and as consistent with

the legislative history of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Congressional intent.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony on H.R. 834. The National

Trust enthusiastically supports this legislation, and I thank you for the opportunity

to testify before this Subcommittee.

Mr HANSEN. Thank you very much.

Questions for the panel? The gentleman from Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Stanton, not directly related to the issue here, but related to the Historic Preservation Act.

This Act provides support to the Historically Black Colleges and

Universities for the restoration of their historic campus properties.

Is there a reason why it doesn’t provide the same for the Hispanicserving institutions?

Mr. STANTON. Thank you very much for the question.

Three years ago, I believe, there was a measure enacted in Congress that specifically asked that funding be earmarked for a select

number of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, so it does

not necessarily preclude other colleges and universities, through

the normal grant process, of applying, as long as it has been determined by local and state officials—in this instance, a Commonwealth official—that it is historic and should be preserved.

So no one is excluded, necessarily, other than Congress asking

specifically that we give some priority attention to Historically

Black Colleges and Universities, that had prominent cultural resources that were deteriorating at a rapid pace. Many of these are

over a hundred years old.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. There are several campuses throughout

the Southwest, from Texas to California, and——

Mr. STANTON. They are eligible to compete, that is correct, sir.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. [continuing] and in Florida, and also

Puerto Rico.

Mr. STANTON. That is correct.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you very much.

Mr. STANTON. Thank you.

Mr HANSEN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hefley.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. I appreciate all of your testimony.

I’m curious. You know, I guess the first Executive order was in

’71 by Nixon, dealing with the Federal Government’s Federal agencies and historic preservation. What since that time has been the

government’s record, and more specifically, before the moratorium

on visitor centers three years ago, what was the record of government agencies in utilizing historic buildings for visitor centers and

for other purposes? I guess maybe the Park Service particularly

would be where I direct that question.

Mr. STANTON. Yes. We have as a policy, Mr. Hefley, a priority to

give consideration to historic properties that are under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service throughout the National Park

System, and many of our parks are located in developed areas—

some, obviously, in more remote rural areas. But in those instance

32

in which we can adaptively use a historic structure for a visitor

center, administrative purposes of all sorts, we attempt to do that.

Also, Congress has given us authorization to lease, under certain

conditions, historic properties located in our parks to nongovernmental entities, on a rehabilitation basis or they could pay an appropriate fee for the use of the structure that adds towards the

preservation of those cultural resources. But, by and large, our

thrust is to make adaptive use of cultural resources for contemporary purposes.

Mr. HEFLEY. Under present law, the words ‘‘to the maximum extent feasible’’ are used, while in H.R. 834 we have changed the language to ‘‘when operationally appropriate and economically prudent.’’ Could you or any of the other panelists speak to those two

phrases on what different that might or might not make, either for

good or bad, in this legislation?

Mr. STANTON. I would comment, Mr. Hefley, I think from two

perspectives.

One is, obviously, within the National Park Service, we have an

organic Act with respect to those resources that are not our direct

responsibility. We are responsible for preserving cultural resources

in various parks throughout the system. But for those cultural resources, we have to make some engineering and architectural evaluation in terms of whether or not a structure could be modified in

a reasonable way to accommodate a contemporary use.

Then, I believe, also the legislation and the Executive order

would speak to those instances in which the General Services Administration would be constructing or otherwise leasing buildings

to meet certain office or other kinds of administrative needs for

Federal agencies throughout the country and the Executive order

speak to the General Services Administration in looking at historic

properties to meet the needs of the Federal Government, and obviously to try to adapt to the use of historic properties, if it is determined to be cost effective and reasonable and prudent to do so.

Mr. HEFLEY. Would your bottom line conclusion be that there is

very little difference in how you would operate based upon those

two phrases, the change in that phrase?

Mr. STANTON. I would submit that there is not much difference.

I think the spirit of it is the same.

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes, I think you’re right.

Anyone else?

Mr. STANTON. I would turn to my colleagues, with respect to

some of their experiences in managing cultural resources.

Mr. HERTFELDER. Yes, I think I would agree, although—Mr.

Hefley, you said the current language is ‘‘to the maximum extent

feasible’’, and that is in which section?

Mr. HEFLEY. I’m sorry, I don’t have the citation here. Section

110.

Mr. STANTON. I think that’s the Executive order he’s referring to.

Mr. HERTFELDER. I’m sorry. That’s in the Executive order. I

think, just hearing those two phrases, that they probably overlap

pretty heavily.

I think I would agree with the Director, that the statement of

congressional intent, regardless of the exact words used, but having

33

passed that section of the bill, would probably be the best tool for

the public to understand what Federal agencies should do.

I use the word ‘‘tool’’ advisedly, because I’ve come to think of historic preservation, or the way to do historic preservation, is you

need to have a big ‘‘tool kit’’, which means you have to have not

only a hammer but also a wrench, a screwdriver and, if you’re

smart, a ‘‘band aid’’ in it, too. The reason is you can’t really predict

what the situation is going to be or what a Federal agency is going

to face in the future.

But by having a structure throughout the country, in the state

and local governments, with all the expertise they have under this

Act—the Advisory Council with its dispute resolution expertise,

and at the Federal level tax incentives, where perhaps there’s a

public/private partnership and you can entice a private developer

to do something for the Federal Government to lease—having all

those tools available, and you’re never quite sure when you’re going

to need them, that allows those interests in preservation to have

the best chance possible to have success. That’s what this Act is all

about.

Mr HANSEN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want

to make a comment and then ask Director Stanton a question.

I want to thank the dean of our Colorado delegation, Mr. Hefley,

for bringing this legislation. I would like to be added as a cosponsor, if it wouldn’t hurt your eventual prospects for the bill.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HEFLEY. I would be honored.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Great.

I want to thank the panel for taking the time to appear before

us today.

I had a question for Director Stanton. You talked a little bit

about tax credits and the value that they have for historic preservation. Are those in permanent law, or do they have to be reauthorized periodically?

Mr. STANTON. The law gives us authority to grant tax incentives

to a developer that would contribute towards the preservation of

resources.

But it has to go through an evaluative process, starting at the

local level and ultimately coming to the National Park Service for

final certification, that what has been proposed is consistent with

the law and that, if it’s acceptable, then the developer would be entitled, again under the law, to receive a tax benefit for the investment they would make. There is no sunset provision.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. I’m sorry? There is no——

Mr. STANTON. [coninuing] sunset provision.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. No sunset provision. So they’re in

place and will continue to be available?

Mr. STANTON. That’s correct.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time.

Mr HANSEN. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don’t have any questions particularly, but I do want to say that

I think this is a great program. I always have loved history.

34

I notice in your literature that you’re working to preserve some

of the historic hotels. We have a beautiful old theater in downtown

Knoxville called the ‘‘Tennessee Theater’’, which was built in 1927.

A few years ago I think that theater was close to being demolished.

Now it has been saved, and there are many examples like that all

across the country. So I think this is a great program.

Actually, I had the privilege of introducing the bill that allowed

the funding to go to the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Mr. Stanton, and I can tell you that that has made a tremendous difference at Knoxville College.

You know, many of the small, private colleges around the country, whether black colleges or all of the small, private colleges,

many of them have had real struggles to survive in recent years.

For instance, at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, each student, I think, receives kind of a subsidy of almost $7,000 per student, but these private, small colleges, they don’t receive anything

like that. So this particular legislation has made a big difference

for these colleges.

Not everybody needs to go to one of the big, giant universities.

I remember when we had the first hearing on this. I said at that

time that I went to the University of Tennessee, but I probably

should have gone to a smaller college because I was so bashful, and

not everybody fits in or needs to go to one of these big, giant universities.

So I really appreciate what you’ve done for Knoxville College and

these other colleges, although I wouldn’t have a problem in extending it to some of the other historic buildings on some of the other

colleges campuses as well. But thank you very much for what

you’re doing on this.

Mr. STANTON. Thank you, Congressman Duncan.

Mr HANSEN. The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you, Chairman Hansen, and

thank you, members of the panel, for being here.

Director Stanton, I know that you were first hired by my father

to work for the National Park Service.

Mr. STANTON. That’s correct.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. I can tell you, he would be very

proud today to see that you’re heading up this very important

agency.

Mr. STANTON. That’s very kind of you. Thank you.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. I want to try to get to the root of

a problem here that looks like we have a little bit of a conflict, Mr.

Hefley, between the two Executive orders and the statute, in terms

of locating Federal buildings in historic areas.

I notice that Director Stanton mentions that in his testimony,

that we have Executive Order 13006, which gives direction and

first consideration to Federal agencies to locate in historic areas,

and then we also have a statute that apparently tries to give priority for Federal buildings to be located in rural areas. It seems

like both the administration and maybe the Congress at this point

aren’t clearly focusing in on what we want to do in terms of historic

areas.

I mean, I’m a little bit torn on this, I must say, because I represent a rural area. I would love to see more Federal buildings in

35

rural areas, although I understand the intent very much of Mr.

Hefley to try to give a directive in his bill to specifically say that

first consideration should be given to locating Federal offices in historic areas.

What are your thoughts on that? I notice you recommend—I

think this is your testimony, Director—that you might be willing

to work with language to clarify that.

Mr. STANTON. Yes. I appreciate that.

There are two Executive orders and one Act of Congress that directs the Federal Government to look at the location of Federal

buildings and emphasize the use of historic properties. What we believe within the Department of Interior, and obviously the General

Services Administration, which is the principal procurer of real estate, if you will, and offices to accommodate the government function, would be a principal participant in further review of this, and

certainly all would agree that the provision included in the bill introduced by Congressman Hefley is commendable. I think the objective is the same for all and that all objectives could be met.

I would like, Mr. Udall, if possible, to ask Miss Osterman to respond. Her office has done a great deal of work, in collaboration

with the Department of Interior and the General Services Administration, on this.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. That would be great.

Ms. OSTERMAN. Thank you very much.

I am happy to respond to this point because the National Trust

was involved not only with the drafting of Executive Order 13006,

but also the revamping of the other Executive order in question,

which took place at approximately the same period of time.

It is our belief that there is no conflict between these Executive

orders, nor between the Rural Development Act. In fact, first of all,

our view is that the same underlying intent exists, in fact, in both

Executive orders and in the Rural Development Act, which is to

use Federal agencies to reinforce economic vitality and viability of

various economic centers around the country.

In fact, Executive Order 13006 is at the moment being very

much in play in rural areas—in fact, in a sense more so than in

large downtown areas, where Federal agencies are often drawn because of the population mass and transportation facilities.

But in smaller towns, where we’ve been working very closely

with GSA and Federal agencies, particularly offices like USDA field

offices that are located in rural areas throughout the country, because what’s happening there is that you’ll have a downtown—

rural areas have downtown areas, of course. What we want to see

happen, what the communities want to see happen, what the intent

of both Executive orders is, and I believe the Rural Development

Act, is that where you have the economic centers already in place,

you want to use the Federal facilities to continue to anchor them.

You don’t want them leaving the downtown areas and going out

into greenfields beyond where there is no development, and starting to foster and draw development away from the already built up

areas. That’s true in communities of any size.

Be that as it may, as we read this language here, we think this

is entirely consistent. In fact, Executive Order 13006 acknowledges

the Rural Development Act in its language.

36

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. So you don’t have any problem with

this giving first consideration to historic properties within historic

districts because you believe it’s compatible, that you could locate

in a rural area or you could locate in a downtown area, and there’s

not any incompatibility then?

Ms. OSTERMAN. Not at all, because historic districts are really

most frequently found in—especially in small towns, you’re going

to find them in what you think of as traditional downtown core

areas. You’re going to find them in places of historic settlement, obviously. These are the kind of places that we want to reinforce the

economic life of and where we would like to see the Federal facilities located.

You know, it’s strictly a tiered process. In the two years that this

Executive order has been in place, we haven’t heard of any kinds

of conflict, any vying between cities and small towns, between cities and rural areas, over the location of a Federal facility. What

you’re usually talking about is, ‘‘Is it going to be in the core downtown area, or is it going to be two miles away in the middle of a

corn field’’. Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. So you don’t see any need for it to

be amended, Director Stanton, at this point?

Mr. STANTON. No, I think it’s a question of whether or not the

language, as set forth in the draft bill, perhaps could be modified

in some fashion. But I would defer again to the General Services

Administration, working certainly with the National Trust for Historic Preservation and others. But we believe the intent is in place

and there is no basic problem.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Mr. Hefley, if we can resolve this

issue, I would be happy to join up and cosponsor. I commend your

effort at trying to get reauthorization of what I think is a very important Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. If the gentleman will yield—— Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Sure.

Mr. HEFLEY. I think our witness did a much better job than I

could in responding to your question. But there was no intent to

shift the emphasis. From a practical standpoint, you might have a

historic barn two miles outside of Eufaula, OK or Taos, NM and

you wouldn’t want a government building going out there to do

that, and develop shopping centers around it and parking lots and

all that kind of thing. I think you explained that very, very well.

So the intent was not to take away the emphasis from the rural

area, but if there is language we need to tighten it up, I would be

happy to work with you on that. I would be honored to have both

of the Udalls as cosponsors, and also Jimmy Duncan and any of the

rest of the Committee who would like to join in. I think this is

something there is vast agreement on, and if there are little tweaks

we need to do, we’re happy to work with you to do that.

Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you very much. The Udalls

don’t want to weight it down, though.

[Laughter.]

Mr HANSEN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo.

Mr. POMBO. No questions.

Mr HANSEN. The gentleman from California has no questions.

37

Is there any Member of the Committee that has further questions for the panel? Members of the panel, do you have something

‘‘burning in your bosom’’ that you just have to say?

If not, we thank you for your excellent testimony. It is the intent

of the Subcommittee to move this legislation as rapidly as we can.

Thanks for being here.

We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]