U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

46–552 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

HEARING ON H.R. 1522, 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 FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 21, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–66

Printed for the use of the Committee on 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, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

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

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

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

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

P. DANIEL SMITH, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held October 21, 1997 ............................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Christian–Green, Hon. Donna M., a Representative in Congress from

the Virgin Islands ......................................................................................... 6

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Representative in Congress from American Samoa .................................................................................................... 3

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

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Letter from the Architect of the Capitol to Mr. Hansen ........................ 102

Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado ................................................................................................................ 4

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

Statements of witnesses:

Barrett, Brenda, Director, Pennsylvania Bureau of Historic Preservation . 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 77

Fowler, John M., Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ............................................................................................................. 11

Hertfelder, Eric, Executive Director, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers ............................................................................ 20

Keck, John T., State Historic Preservation Officer, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office ............................................................................... 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 68

Nettler, Richard, Chairman of the Board, Preservation Action ................... 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 79

Norton, Edward M., Vice President—Law and Public Policy, National

Trust for Historic Preservation .................................................................... 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 82

Peck, Robert A., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration ....................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 47

Stanton, Robert G., Director, National Park Service, accompanied by

Kate Stevenson, Associate Director for Cultural Resources ...................... 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 43

Williams, Jack, AIA, President-Elect, National Alliance of Preservation

Commissions .................................................................................................. 34

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 95

Wise, H. Alexander, Jr., State Historic Preservation Officer and Director,

Virginia Department of Historical Resources ............................................. 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53

Additional material supplied:

Text of H.R. 1522 .............................................................................................. 39

Slater, Cathryn Buford, Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ............................................................................................................. 50
(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 1522, TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in Room

1324, 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. The Committee will come to order. Good morning.

The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will come

to order.

This morning the Subcommittee will hear testimony of H.R.

1522, a bill to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Fund

and for other purposes, which would amend the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The bill was introduced by

our distinguished colleague, Joel Hefley, a Subcommittee Member

and a very knowledgeable and dedicated supporter of historic preservation in Colorado and the Nation. We look forward to your opening remarks on the bill H.R. 1522.

[The information may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. The hearing today is very timely. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1976, 1980, and most

recently in 1992, has worked well for over 30 years. The major reason for H.R. 1522 is to provide congressional authorization for the

Historic Preservation Fund, which expires on September 30, 1997,

until September 30, 2002. However, Congress has reviewed and

amended the original Act on occasion, and Mr. Hefley’s H.R. 1522

offers a unique opportunity to see if the interaction of historic preservation at the national, State and local levels is in need of new

direction. The distinguished panelists we will receive testimony

from today will provide professional insight into many aspects of

this important historic preservation program.

I am especially interested in this hearing today because of the

action that the House of Representatives took on October 7, 1997,

in passing H.R. 1127, the National Monument Fairness Act of

1997, which I introduced to amend the Antiquities Act of 1906.

Congress again reviewed historic preservation authorities. As most
2

of the panelists are aware, the 1906 Antiquities Act was the original Historic Preservation Act of this Nation. It is the forerunner of

the 1916 Organic Act that created the National Park Service, the

1935 Historic Sites Act and the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act we are considering today.

I made statements on the House floor to inform my colleagues

about the tremendous advantage of historic preservation, land protection, and environmental law that Congress has passed in the 90

years since Congress provided the President with the intended authority of the 1906 Antiquities Act. We continue that process today.

I look forward to the discussion of H.R. 1522.

I recognize my distinguished colleague, Mr. Faleomavaega of

America Samoa, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for his

opening remarks, and following his remarks I will recognize Mr.

Hefley, the sponsor of the bill we are considering today, and any

other Subcommittee members that come in, and then we will go to

our panel.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

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

STATE OF UTAH

Good Morning. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will come

to order.

This morning the Subcommittee will hear testimony on H.R. 1522, a bill to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Fund and for other purposes, which

would amend the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

This bill was introduced by our distinguished colleague, Joel Hefley, a Subcommittee member, and a very knowledgeable and dedicated supporter of historic

preservation in Colorado and the Nation. We look forward to your opening remarks

on your bill, H.R. 1522.

The hearing today is very timely. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,

as amended in 1976, 1980, and most recently in 1992, has worked well for over 30

years. The major reason for H.R. 1522 is to provide Congressional authorization for

the Historic Preservation Fund, which expired on September 30, 1997, until September 30, 2002. However, Congress has reviewed and amended the original Act on

occasion, and Mr. Hefley’s H.R. 1522 offers a unique opportunity to see if the interaction of historic preservation at the National, State, and local levels is in need of

new direction. The distinguished panelists we will receive testimony from today will

provide professional insight into many aspects of this important historic preservation program.

I am especially interested in this hearing today because of the action that the

House of Representatives took on October 7, 1997. In passing H.R. 1127, the National Monument Fairness Act of 1997 which I introduced to amend the Antiquities

Act of 1906, Congress again reviewed historic preservation authorities. As most of

the panelists are aware, the 1906 Antiquities Act was the original historic preservation Act of this Nation. It is the forerunner of the 1916 Organic Act that created

the National Park Service, the 1935 Historic Sites Act, and the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act we are considering today. I made statements on the House

floor to inform my colleagues about the tremendous advance of historic preservation,

land protection, and environmental law that Congress has passed in the 90 years

since the Congress provided the President with the intended authority of the 1906

Antiquities Act. We continue that process today. I look forward to the discussion on

H.R. 1522.

I recognize my distinguished colleague, Mr. Faleomaveaga, of American Samoa,

the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, for his opening remarks.

Following any other opening remarks, I recognize Mr. Hefley to elaborate on the

details of H.R. 1522 for the benefit of the Subcommittee and all present today.

The Subcommittee welcomes the distinguished witnesses that will appear today.

On our first panel, we are pleased to have Mr. Bob Stanton, recently confirmed Director of the National Park Service. This will be his first official testimony as Director before this Subcommittee, and we look forward to many more visits in the future. The Subcommittee is also pleased to have Mr. Bob Peck, Commissioner of the

Public Buildings Service, of the U.S. General Services Administration, and Mr. John
3

Fowler, recently selected as the Executive Director of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, after serving in an acting capacity for many months.

The second panel consists of representatives of the National Conference of State

Historic Preservation Officers. I welcome Mr. Eric Herfelder, Executive Director of

the Conference; Mr. Alexander Wise, Jr. the State Historic Preservation Officer for

the Commonwealth of Virginia; Mr. John Keck the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer; and Ms Brenda Barrett, Director, Bureau of Historic Preservation for

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The third panel consists of historic preservation experts and advocates representing the local, State, and National levels. We welcome Mr. Richard Nettler,

Chairman of the Board of Preservation Action; Mr. Edward Norton, Vice PresidentLaw and Public Policy for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Mr. Norton

it is good to see you again. The last time you appeared before us we were discussing

the Arches National Park Expansion bill. And Mr. Jack Williams, President-Elect

for the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Faleomavaega.

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before proceeding and offering my statement for the Subcommittee, I certainly would like to offer my personal welcome to our Director of

the Nation Park Service, who is with us this morning, and look forward to his statement, and I certainly want to thank my good

friend and colleague from Colorado for having introduced this piece

of legislation, and I look forward to working with him to see what

the problems underlying the National Historic Preservation Act

are.

Mr. Chairman, this morning we are here to receive testimony to

H.R. 1522, introduced by our colleague, Mr. Hefley, to reauthorize

the funding for the National Historic Preservation Fund and make

several changes to the National Historic Preservation Act. I commend the gentlemen for all his hard work in this area and for initiating this piece of legislation.

The Historic Preservation Act enacted in 1966, established a

comprehensive program through which the Federal, the State, tribal and local historic resources have been protected. The National

Register of Historic Places now has over 62,000 sites listed. The

Governor of each State and territory appoints a State historic preservation officer to administer the Historic Preservation Program

within its boundaries. Several Indian tribes have now taken over

the historic preservation programs on their respective 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 or for a common cause, and that is the protection and the

preservation of our culture and our history.

The bill before us today would extend the authorization of the

National Historic Preservation Fund through the year 2002. I

wholeheartedly support the extension of the fund’s authorization

and would even support a 10-year reauthorization.

The bill then goes on to make several other changes to the current program, which I am not yet convinced needs to be made. Several provisions would transfer authority away from the Secretary

of the Interior and places it with the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation. I am not aware of specific problems which exist to

warrant such a change and wonder if these actions could alter the
4

original purpose of the Council. Perhaps after hearing from our expert witnesses today, we will be in a better position to understand

a little more of the proposed changes, and like I said, I look forward to working with the gentleman from Colorado for this proposed bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

The gentleman from Colorado.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me one of the fundamental roles of

government is the preservation of its cultural values. To paraphrase one historian, we are unlikely to deal well with our future

if we do not understand our past. Since 1966, the Historic Preservation Fund has been part of the way this Nation seeks to accomplish that.

The program has been successful, and what this bill is designed

to do is to make it work even better. And I think all of us are in

agreement on the goals, and it is the matter of how do we get from

here to there. And I hope that we think in terms of H.R. 1522 as

being a starting point, maybe not the end destination. And I would

agree with my friend from American Samoa that I think we have

an outstanding group of panelists here today and of experts, and

we will take their input, and then we will try to put together the

ideas that seem to work best.

The National Register of Historic Places includes over 800,000

building sites and objects. The National Trust for Historic Preservation appears ready to stand on its own without government funding. Most importantly today, it would be unthinkable to raze landmarks like New York’s Penn Station without major public debate,

but that hasn’t always been the case.

H.R. 1522 attempts to reflect what is happening in the States.

It makes no changes to a funding formula which through State innovation has resulted in a significant degree of private involvement

in these programs. It also gives States the flexibility to design their

own preservation offices. It leaves them the final arbitrator of the

in-State eligibility disputes.

H.R. 1522 reserves the biggest changes for the Federal Government’s role. The bill shifts the bulk of government administrative

support from the National Park Service to the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation. The Council has demonstrated its ability as

a lean, competent arbitrator of problems and disputes in the preservation arena. I believe it is time to see whether the Council can

apply these skills in a broader role.

The bill codifies Executive Order 13006 on locating Federal facilities on historical properties in our Nation’s central cities. Until recently, the Postal Service built new post offices every 10 years,

moving further and further out of the central cities. Too often the

Park Service opts for a new visitors’ center, overusing historic

buildings, these often connected with the very sites they seek to interpret.

I think Executive Order 13006 is a good idea, but the administration seems to feel it needs more time. Today I hope to find out why.
5

Finally, we will examine the place of preservation in our Nation’s

capital. The White House, the Capitol and the Supreme Court are

exempt from historic preservation laws. Security concerns are

blamed, but somehow DOD manages to do a pretty good job of complying, even though there are security aspects there. Why not for

these three sites?

I realize historic preservation still makes some people nervous.

How many sites are on the National Register is worthy of a hearing of its own, but I prefer to thinks this program reflects what we

have attempted to do in the past two Congresses. It has devolved

on its own over the past 30 years while helping communities retain

a sense of their own uniqueness. I hope H.R. 1522 continues that

effort, and with that I will close and look forward to hearing today’s witnesses.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]

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

STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me a fundamental role of government is the preservation of cultural values. To paraphrase one historian, we are unlikely to deal well

with our future if we do not understand our past. Since 1966, the Historic Preservation Fund has been a major element in how this nation seeks to accomplish that

end.

While some may argue as to degree, I don’t think anyone believes this program

hasn’t been a success. The National Register of Historic Places now includes over

800,000 buildings, sites and objects. Preservation is now a big enough industry that

we can ask the National Trust to stand on its own. More importantly, it’s now unthinkable to raze a landmark building—such as Penn Station in New York—without

public debate. That wasn’t always the case.

But even successful laws must reflect the reality of the outside world. H.R. 1522

attempts to reflect these changes. The bill reflects the success states have had at

leveraging private sector involvement and in defining their own programs. It codifies the agreement to privatize the National Trust. It leaves the states as the final

judge of eligibility disputes.

H.R. 1522 reserves its biggest changes for those areas involving the Federal Government. My bill shifts the bulk of government support for historic preservation

from the National Park Service to the Advisory Counsel on Historic Preservation.

Over the years, the Council has proven itself to be a lean, competent arbiter of problems and disputes which have arisen in preservation. I believe it is time to see

whether they can bring these same attributes to a broader role.

Second, H.R. 1522 codifies Executive Order 13006, on locating Federal facilities

on historic properties in our nation’s central cities. Until recently, it has been the

policy of the U.S. Postal Service to build new post offices every 10 years, leaving

the old ones behind and moving further and further out from the cities’ centers.

There are Park Service units where visitors’ centers have been built in sight of historic properties directly associated with the site these centers interpret. What is the

logic of this? But while Executive Order 13006 is a good idea that will help communities and probably save us some money, the administration’s reaction to H.R. 1522

has been, ‘‘We need more time?’’ We hope to examine this lack of confidence.

Finally, we will examine the place of historic preservation here in our nation’s

capital. Three of the nation’s landmarks—the Capitol, the White House and the Supreme Court building—are exempted from the nation’s preservation laws. Why is

this so? Security concerns are mentioned yet defense facilities grudgingly manage

to comply. I hope we’ll find out why these sites feel they should be exempt.

I realize historic preservation makes some people nervous. How sites are listed

on the National Register is worth a hearing of its own. But I prefer to think this

program reflects all that we have attempted to do in the past two Congresses. It

has devolved on its own over the past 30 years while helping communities retain

a sense of their own uniqueness. I hope H.R. 1522 continues that effort. With that

I’ll close and I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
6

STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTIAN–GREEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing

me to make these brief opening remarks, and I want to use my

time to welcome the new Director of the National Park Service as

he makes his debut appearance before the Subcommittee today.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, Director Stanton comes to the position of head of the National Park Service with a career in service

which spans over 34 years, beginning as a seasonal park ranger at

the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming to regional director of

the National Capital Region in Washington, DC. But of all the positions he has held with the Park Service, my constituents and I, especially those on the island of St. John, are especially proud of the

3 years he spent with us as the Superintendent of the Virgin Islands National Park. He came to that position at a time when

there were a number of tensions between the Park Service and the

local community, and the very small island of St. John, which is

over two-thirds the national park. Seeking to instill more community input into the park’s management decisions, Mr. Stanton established various NPS community councils, which served to resolve

most of the local disputes at the time.

So as you can see, Mr. Chairman, people of the Virgin Islands

and I are very proud of Mr. Stanton’s appointment as National

Park Service Director and look forward to him doing great things

during his tenure in office.

And with respect to the legislation before us today, Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of the old axiom, if it ain’t broken, don’t fix

it. And while the reauthorization of any major piece of legislation

like the National Historic Preservation Fund is generally something we are all in favor of, it is unclear what problems may exist

that warrant the changes that are being proposed. I am confident,

however, that the issues, as I listened to the opening statement of

my Ranking Member and Mr. Hefley, that the issues in dispute

will be resolved, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses

this morning.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

The gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS. No comments.

Mr. HANSEN. And the gentlemen from Michigan City has no

opening remarks.

The Subcommittee welcomes our guests today. We are pleased to

have Mr. Bob Stanton, recently confirmed as Director of the National Park Service. It is a pleasure to have you with us. We hope

we have many occasions to have you here in a congenial and amicable, get-along attitude, which we know you portray.

We are also grateful Kate Stevenson is accompanying Director

Stanton. We are happy to have you with us at this time. I guess

this is your first testimony before this Committee; is that right, Director?

Mr. STANTON. That is right.

Mr. HANSEN. We appreciate having you here.

We are also pleased to have Mr. Bob Peck, Commissioner of the

Public Building Service of the U.S. General Service Administration;

Mr. John Fowler, recently selected as Executive Director of the Ad-
7

visory Council on Historic Preservation, after serving in his acting

capacity for many months.

The second panel will consist of representatives of the National

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. I welcome Mr.

Eric Hertfelder, Executive Director of the Conference; Mr. Alexander Wise, Jr., the State Historic Preservation Officer for the

Commonwealth of Virginia; Mr. John Keck, the Wyoming State

Historic Preservation Officer; and Ms. Brenda Barrett, Director of

the Bureau of Historic Preservation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The third panel consists of historic preservation experts and advocates, representing the local, State and national levels. We welcome Mr. Richard Nettler, Chairman of the Board of Preservation

Action; Mr. Edward Norton, Vice President of Public Policy of the

National Trust for Historic Preservation. It is good to see Mr. Norton again. I think you were here the last time. You appeared before

us discussing the Arches expansion; And Mr. Jack Williams, President-elect of the National Alliance of Preservation Commission.

We will ask the first panel to come forward at this time, and that

again is Mr. Bob Stanton, and Mr. Bob Peck and Mr. John Fowler.

Now, gentlemen and lady, let me say that we are always under a

time constraint around this place. Whistles are going off, bells are

ringing, and lights are flashing, and, therefore, we would really

urge you to stay within your 5 minutes if you could. We will have

a gentle reminder there in front of you, and it is three lights. It

is just like a traffic light: Green, go wild; yellow, be careful you

don’t run it; and red, I bang this gavel and yell at you. No, honestly, I won’t do that. If you have a burning desire to take a couple

more minutes, and considering the gravity and seriousness of this

situation, by all means take it, but I would appreciate it if you

could stay within the 5 minutes.

Mr. HANSEN. Director Stanton, we will start with you, sir.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. STANTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY KATE STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this

Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, and

certainly I am pleased to be joined by Associate Director for Cultural Resources, Ms. Kate Stevenson.

Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for this opportunity to offer the

views of the Department of Interior on H.R. 1522, a bill to extend

authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund and for other purposes. We strongly support the reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund; however, we have some opposition to the amendments to the Historic Preservation Act enumerated in bill H.R.

1522.

The Historic Preservation Fund established by section 108 of the

Historic Preservation Act is the authority on which Congress appropriated matching funds to State tribes, local governments and

the National Trust for Historic Preservation to carry out activities

under the National Historic Preservation Program. The Historic

Preservation Grant Program supports the identification and the
8

protection by citizens of the Nation’s irreplaceable historical and

archeological resources for this and for future generations.

Reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund has no direct

budgetary impact in that outlays occur solely through the appropriation process. The annual cost of the Historic Preservation Fund

Grant Program to each American citizen is roughly 12 cents a year.

We believe this is a good value for all of us.

With regard to other elements of the bill, when taken together,

amendments 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12 remove the Office of the Secretary

of the Interior from its role as the Nation’s leader and coordinator

of historic preservation policy for Federal agencies. The Department, acting through the National Park Service, as the Nation’s

principal conservation agency, has unique authority and expertise

in fostering sound use of our land and the preservation of our Nation’s resources. The National Park Service is the most outstanding

agency within the Federal Government to work closely with all organizations in carrying out the preservation of our culture and historical resources and to assist other agencies in their respective

programs. This, in our judgment, should not be changed, and we

recommend that the amendments be deleted.

Amendment 13 of H.R. 1522 gives the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation authority to take appropriate action to resolve

historic preservation disagreements and thereby changes the Council’s advisory role from a mediator to an arbitrator with final authority over every Federal undertaking affecting historic and archeological resources. As then Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife Service George Frampton pointed out in his May 1996 letter to Congress, such a change in the Advisory Council authority

has the potential to interfere with the primary mission of Federal

agencies, and, according to a Department of Justice statement,

would violate the appointments clause of the Constitution. The Department of Interior remains opposed to this provision and recommends that it be deleted.

Amendment 15 changes the definition of ‘‘undertaking’’ from ‘‘a

project, activity or program funded in whole or in part under the

direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency’’ to ‘‘a project, activity, or program with potential to affect historic properties funded

in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a

Federal agency.’’ The impact of this definition change is unclear,

but it has, in our judgment, the potential to be interpreted to eliminate protection of a wide range of historic and archeologic resources. We therefore are opposed to it and recommend its deletion.

Amendment 2 of the bill restricts the Department of Interior’s

authority, acting through the Keeper of the National Register, to

assess a property’s historic significance by eliminating a determination of eligibility of National Register-nominated properties that

cannot be listed because of owner objection. The Secretary, in our

view, should not be precluded from making an unbiased professional determination of fact about the historical significance of such

properties. Therefore, we recommend that amendment 2 be deleted

from the bill.

State Historic Preservation Offices have previously overwhelmingly objected to the idea, proposed in amendment 5 to the bill, to

remove the Secretary’s authority to set professional standards for
9

State Historic Preservation Office staff. When offered the opportunity in late 1996 as part of a Federal Register review and comment process, no State Historic Preservation Office objected to the

regulatory provision regarding professional staff H.R. 1522 seeks to

erase. We oppose this amendment as well and recommend it be deleted.

Lastly, amendment 1 of the bill for National Historic Landmark

districts, without officially established boundaries as of the year

2007, would automatically delist the district from the National

Register and presumably redesignate the National Historic Landmark as well. This proposal potentially creates legal exposure for

the government and property owners. In some of these districts, regardless of the final decision, both the process and result of settling

boundary issues will be controversial and will entangle the government in legal challenges over notification issues and prior benefits

derived from the National Historic Landmark and National Register status. Also, where tribal properties are concerned, it may be

difficult to determine exact boundaries. Delisting these properties

from the National Register, in our view, would conflict with the

government’s trust responsibilities for Indian tribes, and we therefore recommend the deletion of this amendment.

In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the distinguished

Committee, it is the Department of Interior’s position that the Historic Preservation Fund be reauthorized through the year 2002, but

that no substantive change be made at this time to the National

Historic Preservation Act.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Ms. Stevenson and I

would be more than happy to respond to any question or comments

you and members of the Committee may have.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanton may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Peck.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. PECK, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Mr. PECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Faleomavaega, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here on behalf of the

General Services Administration; also happy to report to you that

the President has recently announced his intention to designate

our Administrator Dave Barram as a member of the advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, a seat which we have held for

many years.

I have a statement I would like to submit for the record, and I

will summarize it.

We have a very large inventory of historic buildings in the General Services Administration. Of the 1,800 and some governmentowned buildings which we operate, 200 are on the National Register and another 200 are eligible for listing; 12 are individual historic landmarks. We are proud of those buildings and work very

hard to maintain them and keep them up.

I should tell you, although it is not your jurisdiction, that we

have a very large backlog of rehabilitation needs. I know you hear

this from the Park Service all the time. We have the same situa-
10

tion with our inventory as well. We are working very hard to try

to find the funds for rehabilitation, both within our resources,

which come in the form of rents from Federal agencies who are our

tenants, as well as through appropriations and other creative financing means. One such means I will refer to in a few moments

is the authority the National Historic Preservation Act gives us to

help rehab our own buildings.

I grew up in Washington. I am very proud of the buildings we

have here. I should tell you, the GSA was not always, in my opinion, the best steward of its properties. Years ago when I became

active in what was called ‘‘Don’t Tear It Down,’’ subsequently the

DC Preservation League, which I was proud to serve as volunteer

president for 6 years, we had to go to court to keep GSA from tearing down some old buildings. That is no longer the case.

All over the country GSA has rehabbed buildings. In conjunction

with a very large courthouse construction program which we have

under way, we are renovating a great number of the 19th and

early, mid-20th century courthouses which we inherited. I hope you

will have an opportunity to see some of them. The recent renovation of the U.S. Court of Appeals building in San Francisco is truly

a landmark renovation project; similarly in Denver, the Byron

White Courthouse is a gorgeous building.

I would also note that we have a number of authorities aside

from the National Historic Preservation Act which give us the opportunity to work with historic buildings. One is the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act enacted in 1976, which allows mixed uses

in Federal buildings and also orders the Administrator of General

Services, where possible, in acquiring or leasing Federal building

space for Federal agencies to make use of historic buildings not in

the government inventory. We have under way at the moment a

study to find out where in our various rules and regulations we

may have self-inflicted some wounds on our ability to lease space

in historic buildings around the country.

We are putting exhibits in our buildings to interpret them as

well, so that the public is made aware of the magnificent history

that Congress and Presidents have bestowed upon us.

I just wanted to note the one provision we strongly support in

the Act is section 111, only enacted, I believe, in 1992, which gives

Federal agencies the authority, when they no longer have a governmental need for a historic building, to lease it to the private sector.

We are using this authority in GSA for the first time to solicit offers for redevelopment, including historic preservation for the General Post Office Building in Washington at 7th and F Street, this

building was designed originally in the 1840s by Robert Mills as

the general post office for the city, and was subsequently known as

the Tariff Commission Building. It is a national historic landmark.

Of course, one of the reasons you have me here this morning is

to discuss Executive Order 13006, which President Clinton issued

last year, and which piggybacked on Executive Order 12072, issued

by President Carter. 12072 directs Federal agencies, not just GSA,

but all Federal agencies, to locate their facilities in the central

business areas of cities. We obviously have a large responsibility in

carrying out that order, and 13006 extended that by saying that in
11

addition to downtown locations, we should particularly look for

buildings in historic districts and individual landmark buildings.

We do not believe it is necessary to codify Executive Order

13006, in part because we feel we are having success with the Executive Order as it stands. Moreover, Executive Order 12072 consistently has been construed, and there have been court cases on

it, as a Presidential directive that to us has the force and effect of

law, one that we cannot ignore in our procedures. We obviously regard Executive Order 13006 the same way.

I should note that I am concerned section 1 of H.R. 1522 establishes a priority for historic properties, without taking into consideration requirements of the Rural Development Act, which we are

required by law to follow in making location decisions, and the location policy in Executive Order 12072. The language in the bill

does not quite track with the language in Executive Order 13006.

Moreover, in Executive Order 13006, we have the necessary flexibility and discretion we must have in locating Federal facilities in

historic properties. Both mission needs and, particularly these

days, security needs sometimes preclude our finding space in historic buildings. We know that many times I should hasten to say,

those security and operational needs can be accommodated, but we

think the language in particular that notes in the executive order

that we find space in historic properties, ‘‘where operationally appropriate and economically prudent,’’ is very important language.

Finally, I will just note in this regard, legislation and executive

orders can order us to do things. Real estate is a business, which,

as we say in the business, everything is location, location, location,

and each decision is unique, and we need a little bit of flexibility

there in making those decisions. Having said that, I want you to

know I personally, our Administrator personally, because of his

background and his values, and our agency as an agency, are very

enthusiastic about locating our facilities in historic properties, and

in making the very hard decisions, and doing the tough work that

is necessary to make them work for modern government office

space.

Mr. Chairman and members, I am happy to answer any questions you have.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Peck.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peck may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Fowler, I will return to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. FOWLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Mr. FOWLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset I would

like to take this opportunity to express the appreciation of our

Chairman Cathryn Buford Slater for the opportunity to convey the

Council’s strong support for reauthorization of deposits in the Historic Preservation Fund. Ms. Slater serves as the Arkansas State

Historic Preservation Officer. She was not able to be here today,

but her statement has been included for the record.

[The statement of Ms. Slater may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. FOWLER. The Council, as you know, is an independent Federal agency charged by the National Historic Preservation Act of
12

1966 with advising the President and Congress on matters of historic preservation, and coordinating the activities of Federal agencies as they relate to historic properties and historic preservation

issues. We do this under a number of authorities under the Historic Preservation Act, but most important of these is section 106

that requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of

their undertakings on historic properties and then afford the Council a reasonable opportunity to comment.

In the section 106 process that has been developed by the Council over the past three decades, we rely very heavily upon the

SHPOs, State Historic Preservation Officers, to consult with and

assist Federal agencies in meeting their legal obligations. In

amendments we are now proposing to the section 106 regulations,

we will bring tribal Historic Preservation Officers, authorized by

the 1992 amendments to the Historic Preservation Act, into the

partnership, in a similar way to State Historic Preservation Officers, to work with Federal agencies.

You can see from this that SHPOs and tribal Historic Preservation Officers are really essential to the section 106 process. Without

them, serious burdens would be placed on Federal agencies and all

of those who seek assistance from Federal agencies or permits required by Federal law. Continuation of Federal support for State

and tribal historic preservation programs is essential. This comes

from the annual appropriation that is authorized under the Historic Preservation Fund. Accordingly, the Council strongly supports

reauthorization of deposits into the Historic Preservation Fund

through the year 2002, and hopefully beyond.

But the importance of the Historic Preservation Fund supports

for SHPO and THPO programs is such that we are concerned that

some of the amendments in H.R. 1522 may cause controversy or

delay in getting the essential authorization through. I think you

have heard that and will hear that from witnesses this morning.

Therefore, the action that the Council has taken is to support a

simple reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund.

At the same time, we would hope that the Committee would take

this opportunity to deal with some technical amendments of a

minor nature that would help us, the Council, better do our job as

a partner in the Historic Preservation Program. Since 1995, we

have gone through an almost 20 percent downsizing in our operations, and there are provisions in the law that, if we could adjust

them, would make it easier for us to deal with our constrained circumstances and carry out our fundamental mission. An example of

this would be to put our reauthorization, which was recently done

by this Committee through the year 2000, on the same cycle as the

HFP. We would not have to put the resources out that we do as

a small agency to get a bill through quite as soon as we would otherwise have to do it, and I think we could save time for the Committee by putting these two authorizations together.

We have some provisions and obligations in our laws, such as the

requirement to submit an annual report to the Congress, that requires a commitment of staff resources. While it is a very useful

report and a very useful exercise, with the evolution of technology

for information dissemination and so on, it may be something that
13

has outlived its usefulness. We would prefer to have the discretion

to go forward with an annual report as needed.

We would like to deal with our employees, who over the years

have been hired under our excepted authority. We now have longterm Council employees that do not have the full benefit of career

status under the General Schedule. Instead of going through individual conversions, we would like to work with the Committee to

do a conversion of our staff to full GS status.

H.R. 1522 conveys some very useful and interesting ideas in it,

but as our preservation partners will note today, in some cases the

needs they seek to address have changed, such as the concern

about the Interior Department issuing section 110 guidelines. We

are pleased to say we worked closely with the Department, and

these guidelines are near final issuance.

Other ideas, such as reinforcing the Council’s dispute resolution

authority, are certainly interesting, but as Mr. Stanton noted, need

to be done in a manner consistent with the authorities of the Council and the relationships of the partners.

In closing, I would just like to note the Historic Preservation Act

has evolved over 30 years. It is an excellent law. It can certainly

be made better. We would like to work with the Committee to do

this, but we are really concerned at the moment about getting the

Historic Preservation Fund reauthorized. Thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

I will now recognize the members of the Committee for 5 minutes

each to question the panel.

The gentleman from America Samoa, the Ranking Member of the

Subcommittee.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of

questions to the members of the panel, if you could share with us,

gentlemen and Ms. Stevenson, your sense of experience, if there

has been in the past a backlog or a sense of disinterest or noncommitment on the part of the Secretary of the Interior—not this

one, but even, you know, for the past several years—concerning

historic preservation. Have there been any problems with the current law affecting the responsibilities given to the Secretary of the

Interior, because I sense there is disagreement from all three of

you gentlemen concerning the proposed bill. And I respect my good

friend from Colorado; I was thinking perhaps this whole matter of

historic preservation should be given to the States to run, rather

than giving it to ‘‘Big Brother’’ here and have him be the final arbitrator.

Can you comment on that?

Mr. STANTON. Thank you. Mr. Faleomavaega, with respect to the

backlog, obviously, as we consider the large number of existing as

well as potential properties that could be added to national register

historic places, there is a great deal of work that needs to be done

at local, State and Federal levels. Clearly, in terms of our relationship with the national council of historic preservation, other Federal agencies, such as the General Services Administration and certainly working with the States and the trust territories, we are addressing the backlog.

There is a question of financial resources that are available to

meet those needs, and what we have attempted to do is to come
14

up with some alternative approaches with respect to the private

sector, as well as services from public agencies towards the preservation effort. But we believe that the framework, as embodied in

the Historic Preservation Act and the Historic Preservation Fund,

allows us to maximize the services and resources available at all

levels of the government. But the extent to which we would be able

to diminish the backlog within the next decade is difficult to speculate on at this time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Peck and Mr. Fowler?

Mr. PECK. Thank you. It is probably more for the Interior Department and Advisory Council to comment on this process. I will

just note that the historic preservation program, as it runs now, is

a partnership. We get involved mostly when there are projects affecting our historic buildings or where we are looking at historic

buildings in privately owned hands for possible use by the government. We find it is a very effective partnership at the moment between the Federal Government and the States, which have a very

large role to play.

State historic preservation officers, in more instances than not,

if you looked at the project objectively, call the shots. We have to

rely on their resources to identify properties, give us most of the

hard advice on what features of a building need to be preserved

and where national historic landmark nominations are made. They

obviously have a very strong role in making recommendations on

these recommendations to the Federal Government.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Fowler?

Mr. FOWLER. I would like to emphasize what Mr. Peck said about

the notion of a partnership. We work very closely, not just with the

Interior Department and the National Park Service on carrying out

the historic preservation program, but really closely with the

States and, most recently, with tribes; and I think that really is a

hallmark of this program, and it is something that the Congress,

in its wisdom, has strengthened periodically. And I think that is

the reason we are all here today, to support the continuation of the

Historic Preservation Fund.

H.R. 1522 proposes some readjustments in the Federal dimension

of that partnership, and I think that I should note for the record

that our council membership, which includes the Secretary of the

Interior and the Administrator of GSA, has not taken a formal position on these specific amendments. I would note from my experience in dealing with the Interior Department, we work very closely

on implementing section 110; we have jointly drafted, for example,

the section 110 guidelines that are referred to in the legislation,

and we are pleased to see this come to fruition. What needs to be

emphasized, we think, is the notion of consultation regardless of

who has the responsibility under the law to ensure that this partnership continues the way it has.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So your best opinion is that the partnership

is working very well, despite the backlog, the problems that you

have, as it is, with limited resources?

My time is up, I guess, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate very much the

input that each of you had, and I have great respect for your input
15

and I will certainly take your suggestions into consideration; and

any additional suggestions you might have between now and the

time we get to the markup phase of this bill, we would appreciate

having those.

It seemed to me, in listening to your testimony, the major stickler, although there are a number of suggestions, is the role of the

Advisory Council, and the reason for the changes we suggested in

the bill is to strengthen the Advisory Council’s hand as an arbitrator, simply because they don’t have a dog in the fight. In a way,

the park department does, the Department of Interior does and so

forth, GAO does, but they don’t; and they have proved, even under

the present circumstances, at times, they can be an amazingly powerful arbitrator; and we thought that might be necessary. And I

give one example in Victor, a mining district in my district, where

they were opening up an old mine area and they found an Indian

circle or something, and we had every agency known to man descending on the place; and several million dollars later the mine

went on and began to operate. The Cheyenne Arapahoe tribe

blessed it and all this kind of thing, we got through the whole

thing. But it seemed to me we went through an enormous amount

of rigmarole we wouldn’t have had to do if we had had a powerful

arbitrator who said, this makes a difference and that doesn’t and

so forth. But maybe that isn’t the way to go. I’m not sure.

Would you, Mr. Stanton, describe the National Park Service’s relationship with the Advisory Council as you see it, and then I

would like Mr. Fowler to kind of talk from his standpoint as well.

Mr. STANTON. With respect to our relationship, I think it is excellent, but as in all relationships, there are opportunities to enhance,

there are always some questions of adequacy of communication and

coordination. But in terms of a major undertaking on the part of

the National Park Service with respect to properties under our direct jurisdiction, as well as our consultation with State historic

preservation officers and others with respect to properties in private ownership or in ownership of States or their political subdivisions, the relationship with the Advisory Council, I think, has been

excellent.

What we attempt to do is to seek their advice with respect to

maybe general management plans or the undertaking of the restoration of the Washington Monument as an example, and certainly with the siting of the new memorials here in the Nation’s

Capital.

The question has come up as to how effective have we been in

analyzing what the requirements of a preservation project may be,

and I might just add, Mr. Hefley, with respect to our own in-house

capability, we try to assure that our projects are reviewed by historical architects, archeologists and historians, so the historic integrity of an undertaking is fully analyzed by my people before we

even submit a proposal to the National Advisory Council, so it is

a good relationship, it is a good give-and-take.

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, I know that your policy—in the case of the

Victor example I gave, it was one person, I think, within the park

department, who created the enormous difficulty that was created

there; and it was just because of their own personal bias out there

in the field, and this was not under your reign.
16

So Mr. Fowler——

Mr. FOWLER. I certainly echo the Director’s characterization of

the relationship. We deal with the Park Service in two somewhat

distinct ways. One is, as a partner in carrying out the historic preservation program, the Department, acting through the National

Park Service, has certain responsibilities relating to the status

preservation programs, tribal programs, professional standards, et

cetera. Likewise, the council has responsibilities when it comes to

administering the project review process, and I think again the example of the cooperation that we both exhibited in developing the

section 110 guidelines is exemplary of that partnership.

We also deal with the Park Service the way we deal with any

other Federal agency that has actions that affect historic properties, and sometimes—we are not always in agreement as to what

the outcome should be, but we deal with each other professionally.

You made some reference to the dispute resolution provision, and

that, as you noted earlier, was a point of contention. We do attempt, through the section 106 process, to resolve disputes or prevent disputes from emerging by having good, early planning and

early consideration of historic properties. We are currently charged

by this Committee to come back with a report to you next spring

on other ways, alternate ways we can implement the section 106

requirements; and I think the development of this report might

provide a good opportunity to examine whether some additional authority, consistent with the council’s basic legal authorities might

be suitable to have to assist us in carrying—in doing a better job

in dispute resolution or dispute prevention.

Mr. HEFLEY. My time is up. Let me ask one quick question.

Would you agree with Mr. Stanton, Mr. Fowler, that now is not

the time to make the changes that are suggested in terms of your

role?

Mr. FOWLER. I think they need to be made in—I hate to say now

is not the time to consider them because the time to consider them

is when you are looking at this Act and there may be some positive

things that can be done.

I think it needs to be very carefully done, and it should not—as

I noted in my opening statement, it should not be done to the delay

of getting the primary reauthorization through.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director Stanton, maybe you can help me understand this a little

bit better than in your testimony I have here before me. You indicated that changing the Advisory Council’s authority has the potential to interfere with the primary mission of the Federal agencies,

and according to a Department of Justice statement, would violate

the appointment clause of the Constitution.

Can you explain that to me so that I can understand what you

are getting at?

Mr. STANTON. I would only attempt to explain it in a layman’s

way, sir. I appreciate the question.

Again, based on advice from the Justice Department, is that the

statute establishing the Advisory Council clearly gives authority to

be advisory to the executive departments that have the ultimate re-
17

sponsibility of carrying out programs, activities affecting its responsibilities. Clearly, the Secretary of the Interior, clearly the Director

of the National Park Service, as an example, have responsibilities

of managing resources, and the final decision would rest with us

in terms of the delegated authorities.

If I understand correctly the counsel from the Justice Department, it would, in essence, remove that kind of a line authority

from the Department of the Interior, vested in the Secretary of the

Interior and bureaus responsible to him; and therefore, a decision—

ultimate decision affecting properties under our jurisdiction would

reside then with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Mr. GIBBONS. Are you saying this jurisdiction is removed over existing property that is listed in the national historic records or over

proposed property that would be listed, because we are talking

about an advisory decision or a council here?

Mr. STANTON. If I understand the question correctly, it would remove, in some circumstances, the responsibility and indeed the authority from the Department of Interior to make the final decision

on existing, as well as potential, properties that would be affected.

Mr. GIBBONS. Amendment 2, that you also disagree with here,

deletes the Department of Interior’s decision or authority to override property owners’ consent, if you will, to having their property

listed. That is what I believe you are stating in a paragraph on

page 3, second paragraph, of your testimony, is that not correct,

your interpretation that says that Amendment 2 deletes the Secretary of the Interior’s ability to override objections of private property owners?

Mr. STANTON. The view that has been expressed in the testimony, as you describe, sir, is that we believe that the spirit of the

historic preservation program for the Federal Government, vested

in the Department of Interior and certainly with the advice of the

national council of historic preservation should not preclude the

Nation identifying its cultural resources or historic resources, irrespective of ownership. Obviously, the ultimate treatment of those

resources will still be vested in the owner of that property, but to

identify it as having historical significance to our Nation or to a

State still should be in the public interest; but therefore, it does

not, by listing these properties on a national register, remove any

of the rights that run to the ownership of those properties.

Mr. GIBBONS. Help me out. Once a property is listed on a register, is it restricted in any form to the private owner’s ability of

development changes, that that owner may have or may wish to

take with regard to the improvement or changes of that property?

Mr. STANTON. Actually, it does not, unless there is Federal

money involved, or funding involved, but it does not in any way diminish the property owners’ rights to exercise their treatment, development, rehabilitation, or removal of the property, as they see

fit.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. How does the cost compare between a remodeling,

retrofitting and new construction? How does the cost compare when

you put bids out, you talk to builders?

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, since we do that, I can respond; and

as always, it depends. It depends on the level of restoration work
18

you are doing in a building. And, in fact, we have a number of

cases going now in which there are arguments on all sides about

whether in one particular instance it is more expensive to rehab an

existing building we do not currently own, or to build a brand new

court house.

Here are the kinds of factors that come into play. The question

is, in an existing building, will the floor-to-ceiling heights in the

building take the heights we require in courtrooms, because we

have a standard given to us by the courts that requires that the

ceiling height be a certain level. Therefore, we might have to do

some structural things to the old building.

On the other hand, as a general rule, you save a lot of money

when you don’t have to build a new foundation, put up structural

steel or concrete framework; and you wind up—interestingly, in

rehab projects, you wind up spending more of your money on labor

and less on materials than you do on a new construction project.

But I can show you numbers that go both ways on what is more

expensive. It depends on the quality of the new building you are

talking about, too. But I would say, flush all that out and you wind

up saying it is often a wash.

Mr. HANSEN. I guess that is kind of a retail question, isn’t it,

predicated on the building you are looking at, basically, what have

you got? But if you look at some of these old buildings, you say,

where could we find anybody who could figure out how to do that?

I know, as an old land developer, you look at some of the things

and you say, that was wonderful, some real craftsman, some very

skilled person did this particular thing; how can we find somebody

in this day and age? But apparently somebody always seems to

surface if we have enough money to pay them to do it.

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, interestingly, since I got involved in

preservation some 25 years ago, there are a lot more ornamental

plasterers than there used to be because there is now a demand for

them. More people now work in metal and wood to restore old

buildings than at one time. When we rehabbed Union Station, we

were pretty sure we had just about every ornamental plasterer on

the East Coast working on the project. I think there are a lot more

than that now.

Mr. HANSEN. I was just curious how that worked out. As I look

at old buildings, especially religious buildings and historic buildings, I have just been amazed that people can restore them.

Any more questions for this panel?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Mr.

Fowler, it has been my experience in working with the Majority,

that once the train starts moving, you are either on board, or you

are not going to catch up with them.

And I just wanted to ask, Mr. Fowler, you indicated there is

some report you are going to be preparing—submitting sometime

in the spring. Is there some way we can expedite that, because I

think central to this proposed bill is exactly the situation with the

Council on Historic Preservation and your activities—what it takes

to have the historic preservation. You mentioned earlier in your

testimony that you were preparing some kind of report, and I

would like to ask if you can expedite that report and submit it to
19

the Subcommittee sooner. Perhaps it will be helpful to the Subcommittee as we prepare for the markup.

Mr. FOWLER. In all honesty, sir, when we were directed to provide that report, we were given no resources, no additional resources to do it. We programmed it so we can deliver it in May,

and I am not sure that we are going to be able to move that schedule up. But we would certainly be happy to share with the Committee what we are finding in the development of that report, if

that is necessary, in order to meet your time schedule.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Certainly I think it will be helpful to know

exactly where you stand.

Mr. HEFLEY. If the gentleman will yield, I agree it would be helpful.

I also agree with panel members, I would hesitate to do anything

that would slow this up. I think we need to go ahead with the reauthorization here; and maybe if you come in with a report that says

some things that do mean additional changes, Mr. Chairman, we

could take that up in the Committee with a separate bill and work

on that next year. But I would hate to wait until next year to move

forward with this.

Mr. FOWLER. I believe that is the way we were looking at the report, that hopefully it would be the beginning of a discussion about

further ways to improve the National Historic Preservation Act.

Mr. STANTON. We certainly concur in that approach.

Mr. FOWLER. I should note, we are currently finalizing changes

to our section 106 regulations to implement the 1992 amendments.

We started that process in 1993. It usually takes—because of public comment and discussion among agencies and stakeholders and

so on, it takes anywhere from 4 to 5 years to finalize major regulatory changes, so anything that we are looking at in substantial

changes, in implementation of the 106 process, we are looking at

the next round of legislative oversight discussion and regulatory

implementation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

We want to thank the panel for their presentation.

And our next panel will be Mr. Eric Hertfelder, Executive Director of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers; Alexander Wise, Virginia Department of Historical Resources;

John Keck, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office; and Ms.

Brenda Barrett, Director of Historic Preservation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

If they would please come forward, everybody in the right place.

You all heard the suggestion of staying in your time, if you could.

If you want to go over a little bit, we understand.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter addressed to me on October 15, 1997, from the Architect of the Capital be included in the

record. Is there objection?

Hearing none, so ordered.

[The information may be found at end of hearing.]
20

STATEMENT OF ERIC HERTFELDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS

Mr. HANSEN. We will start with you, Mr. Hertfelder.

Mr. HERTFELDER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,

thank you for having this panel today of SHPOs, the State Historic

Preservation Officers.

The National Historic Preservation Act is the organic Act which

defines governmental roles in historic preservation and creates the

intergovernmental partnership, the Federal Government cooperating with State, local and tribal governments, which actually

carry out the Federal Government’s historic preservation program.

The Historic Preservation Fund funding is absolutely critical to

maintaining this partnership, and we are very grateful to Mr.

Hefley for introducing legislation to continue the deposits to the

fund.

At this point I am going to turn to the three officers who are

here. First, Alexander Wise, who is the State Historic Preservation

director in Virginia, appointed in 1994, and he is the director of the

Division of Historic Resources in Virginia; and then John Peck,

State Historic Preservation Officer appointed in 1992, of the SHPO

office in Wyoming, which is located in the Department of Commerce; and then Brenda Barrett, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer from Pennsylvania, appointed in 1980, who is director

of the Bureau of Historic Preservation, a part of the Independent

Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission.

So I will turn it over to Alex Wise.

STATEMENT OF H. ALEXANDER WISE, JR., STATE HISTORIC

PRESERVATION OFFICER AND DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES

Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Subcommittee Members,

I am here today as Virginia’s State Historic Preservation Officer to

urge you to reauthorize deposits into the Historic Preservation

Fund through year 2007.

Virginia is a State rich in history, but it is one thing to have history; it is another to put it to work for the benefit of our citizens,

our communities, and our country. So much of our history has to

do with the perceived liberty and shaping of our Nation in Virginia

that, in a sense, we hold our history in trust for all Americans. The

National Historic Preservation Fund plays a vital role in the development of this priceless asset for all of us. Each year we receive approximately $650,000 from the Historic

Preservation Fund, a modest amount, but let me tell you what it

does. It funds our National Register Program through which significant buildings, archeological sites, structures and districts are

identified, documented and publicly recognized with the consent of

property owners. These places and their settings give our communities their identity and our Commonwealth its character. Communities, like individuals, need identity and roots. Without a sense of

past, there can be no sense of future.

In the past 30 years, nearly 2,000 individual Virginia properties

and districts have been placed on the Register. Let me mention just

one example. Aberdeen Gardens in the city of Hampton was a

1930s resettlement administration project designed and built by
21

and for African Americans. Former Secretary of Energy Hazel

O’Leary grew up there. By the early 1990s, it was becoming rundown, but an extraordinary woman named Evelyn Chandler undertook registration of Aberdeen Gardens as a community project to

build pride and begin the revitalization process. Working closely

with my office, she succeeded in having Aberdeen’s 160 buildings

registered as an historic district, with the full support of the property owners. The community has leveraged its newfound pride and

cohesion into political strength, better schools, higher property values, greater prosperity, and plans for a community museum to attract tourists.

The Federal historic rehabilitation tax credit, administration of

which is also funded through the Historic Preservation Fund, converts listing on the National Register directly into an economic

benefit for property owners and for their communities. In the past

20 years, the rehabilitation of some 674 income-producing historic

buildings across Virginia has resulted in an investment of $259

million in historic buildings and districts. As a result, an estimated

13,000 new jobs have been created with an increase of household

income of nearly $275 million. Half of these have been in the construction industry and half in the professions, lawyers and architects and so forth. Last year alone, over $40 million was invested

in completed rehab projects in Virginia under this program.

Adaptive reuse of old buildings through the Federal tax credit

helps preserve the character of our communities, enhances their

tax bases, brings blighted areas back to life, uses existing infrastructure, is environmentally responsible, and reduces urban

sprawl. In Roanoke, for example, the $28 million restoration of the

Hotel Roanoke, a joint project of the city government, a university,

a redevelopment authority, a bank consortium, and tens of thousands of citizens, demonstrated all of these advantages and has

had a major impact on the city’s downtown.

Mr. Chairman, the Historic Preservation Fund is first and foremost about helping communities maintain their historic fabric. The

Certified Local Government Program in Virginia includes 23 communities which have made a special effort in historic preservation.

One great example is Clarke County, which has used every possible

means of advancing historic preservation, including doing a video

for economic development and education, using the historic fabric

as a way to attract businesses.

The fourth major program that the Fund funds is project review,

section 106. Dulles Airport and National Airport are great examples of how citizens have been brought in to the review process to

make projects better and to ensure historically sensitive rehabilitations that are also functional.

If I can, in closing, just say that the Fund also leverages many

very positive State programs. Governor Allen and his Secretary of

Natural Resources Becky Norton Dunlop, have provided a great

deal of leadership in helping us leverage these Federal dollars into

State projects as well that make the Federal dollars go very, very

far indeed.

Finally, let me say that in my 31⁄2 years, I have seen a tremendous improvement in the partnership between the States and the

National Park Service, and it is a genuine State-Federal partner-
22

ship. It is a program where federalism is alive and well, and we

are also very enthusiastic about the new section 106 regulations

and think that our relationship with the Advisory Council is where

we want it. We think this program is working well and that the

emphasis should be on reauthorization. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wise may be found at end of

hearing.]

STATEMENT OF JOHN T. KECK, STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, WYOMING STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION

OFFICE

Mr. KECK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to come and speak to this panel this morning. I, too, am

here to ask for your reauthorization of the Historic Preservation

Fund and speak on its behalf.

I do not come to the historic preservation field as a trained academician, but the one thing that did become clear to me upon assuming the State Historic Preservation Office in Wyoming is the

vast impact this program can have on the State and its citizens,

and it is a vast, positive impact. What makes that happen is the

grass-roots nature of this whole bill and the way it provides people,

that is just your average citizen, with the opportunity to have a

voice in how their resources are managed. The law States the parameters by which people can speak on behalf of things that they

feel are important to them, because of their local significance, their

State significance, their national significance. Absent that ability,

there would be some very devastating effects on the resources.

Within Wyoming, and I think in the majority of the Western

States, it has really enabled us to develop numerous partnerships

in a variety of areas to help with State development.

One example is heritage tourism. We have some wonderful relationships with Grand Teton National Park and Fort Laramie that

are being tied into local tourism packages. We have excellent relationships with the Bureau of Land Management on Project Archeology that is being used to develop sites and information that is

being used through the State Division of Tourism to attract people

to those types of resources.

The Tax Act is a program that in Wyoming works integrally with

the Department of Commerce. We, as a State Historic Preservation

Office, are housed in the same building, and we work hand in glove

with them on many issues of interest to our local citizenry on how

we can maintain a sense of character in Wyoming while still providing for needed economic growth and development.

How do we maintain a life-style while confronted with vast

changes that we know are coming in the future? The Historic Preservation Fund and the legislation provides a mechanism for doing

that through the development of partnerships and by enabling the

grass-roots support to be there so that the communities and the

local citizens have a chance to speak and act on behalf of these resources.

One of the major perceptions that causes problems within the

National Historic Preservation Act is the 106 program, and within

that, most of the problems you will find are really one of perception

rather than reality. When we come down to it, the Act itself is not
23

causing the problems, the Act is enabling that the resources be considered. It is the basic tensions that are created by a single-purpose

agency, which the State Historic Preservation Office is, and in the

West we have multipurpose agencies, such as the Bureau of Land

Management and the U.S. Forest Service. The problems we have

are issues that the Act was created to create, in that there are differences of opinions, and you have to accept that those differences

are going to occur, but it does not, when it is handled responsibly,

preclude those Federal agencies from making land management decisions. What it does is affords the public a chance to be involved

and a responsible partner in the development of those resources.

When I talk about the potential for partnerships, one thing that

we are doing, and I wanted to site this as an example to the Subcommittee, is we are working on an interstate partnership relationship with many of the Western States, California, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, to name a few, and also Massachusetts, for the

development of a national database. The Park Service has one in

effect now. They have done an excellent job with it, and they are

also coming on board as a partner with us, too.

What we are looking at is with the vast amount of information

that exists on these resources, how can we make it cross jurisdictional boundaries; how can we make it so it is more accessible to

the public, so that if a citizen wants to know about their resources,

they can do so easily and at a low-cost basis? How can we do it

in such a fashion that permitted actions under section 106 can be

handled in a more efficient manner?

These are the forces that are driving it, and all of these factors

are available through the authorization of the Historic Preservation

Fund. I see it as an opportunity that does not preclude, but enhances, the opportunities for those developments to occur, and for

those developments to occur in a responsible fashion that meets the

needs identified by that State who, in partnership with the Federal

agencies and the local citizens, can effectuate and manage these resources in an appropriate and responsible fashion.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keck may be found at end of

hearing.]

STATEMENT OF BRENDA BARRETT, DIRECTOR,

PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Ms. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Governor Ridge of

Pennsylvania, I want to thank the Chairman and members of the

Committee for inviting me here today. I am Brenda Barrett, Director of the Historic Preservation Program.

Over 30 years ago, Congress passed what was then a unique

partnership bill in the National Historic Preservation Act, and each

of these partners brought special skills. The National Park Service

has, of course, the national perspective and a long-standing expertise in historic preservation. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation brings together an array of Federal land managing agencies and some of our key citizen partners, and, of course, the States

deliver the program on the ground in the communities. As one of

the stateside partners, I am here to attest to the success of this

program and to urge its reauthorization.
24

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, this success is demonstrated both by the numbers of historic properties preserved for

new uses and by the less tangible value of a heritage that is saved

for the next generation. But first, let us look at some of these numbers. We have over 3,000 properties listed in the National Register,

and interest in the program is still growing. Our survey files of historic buildings and archeological sites contain over 150,000 records,

and armed with this rich historic database, communities are initiating hundreds of mainstream programs in Pennsylvania. They

have established over 80 local historic districts, and they are using

it in tourist promotion. Housing, hotel and other commercial developers are taking advantage of the investment tax credit for historic

preservation, and at the commission we are proud to report over

$1.7 billion in rehabilitation investment in Pennsylvania, where we

are the national leaders.

Thanks to the farsighted funding formula and the framework of

the National Historic Preservation Act, historic preservation programs have been woven into the fabric of every State. Now, these

programs have the advantage of both being comparable State to

State and tailored to the needs of each State’s governance. My Governor, Tom Ridge, has supported generously our history programs.

We have a bricks and mortar State grant program that assists

hundreds of National Register buildings. We have a treasure trove

of historic site information that supports, for example, our innovative heritage park program that is based on our industrial heritage

in Pennsylvania. And I have actually brought several copies of our

most recent publication. This is on the coal industry in Pennsylvania, and this history research is used as a baseline, as a context

for National Register nominations, for heritage planning, for interpretation, for trails of history, for driving tours, and for historic site

development.

But, while the Commonwealth programs are strong and diverse,

Pennsylvania needs the funding, and we need the Federal support

of a reauthorized National Historic Preservation Act. It is critical

so that we can assist Federal agencies in fulfilling their mandates

when they plan and develop projects in our borders; it is critical

to providing a consistent baseline for history initiatives; and most

importantly, to connect us to the larger story of our Nation. Thank

you very much.

Mr. HEFLEY. [presiding] Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barrett may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HEFLEY. Questions?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. One quick question, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to ask Mr. Wise.

I notice in your statement that you are recommending that the

Secretary’s authority be terminated, or rescinded, in terms of the

transfer of property. Can you elaborate a little further on that, Mr.

Wise?

Mr. WISE. Which section are you referring to?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You are recommending in your conclusions

that the secretarial authority be rescinded on the transfer of property. I think you have that number 4 in your recommendation. I

wasn’t quite clear on that.
25

Mr. WISE. I am going to ask Mr. Hertfelder to speak on that, if

I may.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Oh, sure, by all means.

Now, is there a suggestion that under the current law, the Secretary’s authority is not used wisely, or is there some problems

that we are having with the Secretary of the Interior doing his job

according to the law?

Mr. HERTFELDER. I think we have found that it is generally not

used, because in a sense it is duplicated by the section 106 procedures. Whenever the accessing of a Federal building, the transfer

of Federal properties is, in fact, an undertaking under the law, and

therefore it is subject to Advisory Council review. The Secretary of

the Interior is a statutory member of the Council, and so that review takes place under 106. It was our feeling that to have another

whole separate review process would be duplicative, and, in fact, it

has not been implemented.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And if not by the Secretary, then how are

you suggesting, that the Council make the final decision for the

State Council of Historic Preservation?

Mr. HERTFELDER. I believe our suggestion is that since existing

law creates a review which is duplicated by 106, that deleting it

would have no effect, because——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But what is your preference?

Mr. HERTFELDER. Our preference is to have it under section 106,

because there is wider public and agency involvement in that review than just having one Cabinet officer do a review of all Federal

property transfer.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The officer being the? Which is the reviewing body that you are suggesting being the final arbiter of the

transfer of property? You are saying that we eliminate the Secretary’s authority. Who are you suggesting that we ought to give

this authority to then?

Mr. HERTFELDER. Well, we are not suggesting transferring the

existing authority anywhere else. Our suggestion is that this can

be deleted, because the Advisory Council, in section 106 review, duplicates that process.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Your feelings are the Advisory Council

should be the one doing it?

Mr. HERTFELDER. Yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Hertfelder, could you describe the process for

me by which properties are nominated to the National Register of

Historic Places, and also, is there a difference for landmark status

and historic district status?

Mr. HERTFELDER. Right. Each of the States can further describe

the details, but in general, the State Historic Preservation Officers

receive suggestions for properties which should be nominated to the

National Register from communities, from individuals, individual

homeowners, from businesses who want to take advantage of the

Federal tax credits and so forth. There are procedures involved,

standards to be met in terms of documentation, so if someone

wants to proceed with a nomination, they prepare a nomination according to the National Register, National Park Service’s stand-
26

ards. Then that nomination is submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office, or, if a local government has assumed responsibility under the Act, to the local government, or to a tribal government if they have assumed responsibility under the Act. But anyway, the State Historic Preservation Office then reviews the nomination.

Before any action is taken to decide whether it is eligible or not,

the property owners in the affected area are notified if it is a district, or an individual owner if it is an individual, and given an opportunity to object. Then the State Historic Preservation Review

Board—I am sorry, the State National Register Review Board,

which consists of various professionals appointed and qualified to

comment on various aspects of history and archeology, review the

nomination and decide whether it meets the National Register criteria. If it does, then it is forwarded through the National Park

Service, and then the Park Service has to review it again to decide

whether or not it is eligible for the Register.

In the case of owner notifications, if an individual owner objects

to the nomination, the nomination—it may not be entered on the

National Register. In terms of districts, if a majority of the owners

object, it may not be entered on the National Register.

Mr. GIBBONS. I guess for each of the States here that are represented, does that mesh with your own State procedures?

Mr. WISE. Yes, it does, and we have a policy in Virginia; we do

not ram things down property owners’ throats, and we very much—

are very concerned about what property owners want to do, and we

track exactly what he is saying.

Mr. GIBBONS. So a private property owner would be given an opportunity to opt out of the system without any further incidents if

he were just a single property owner within that group, or a historic place rather than a historic district?

Mr. WISE. Correct.

Mr. GIBBONS. Because if he is only a minority in a historic direct,

then it is the district that has the choice of selection and not a single property owner; is that correct?

Mr. WISE. If a single property owner objects, that is the end of

it, as far as we are concerned.

Mr. GIBBONS. Would that take place in a district?

Mr. WISE. No, in a district, it is majority rules.

Mr. GIBBONS. If it is a single property owner, if he objects, he is

off the list, no further recourse, no further action.

Mr. WISE. Well, I believe it came up earlier, Mr. Stanton was

asked the question of whether the Secretary can still say that

something is eligible, and yes. I think there was some confusion

there because the Secretary could say that a property is eligible,

but he could not place it on the Register.

Mr. GIBBONS. Okay.

Mr. WISE. And the eligibility determination is just an objective.

It is a statement that this doesn’t meet the criteria for nomination,

but that is different from actually putting it on the Register.

Mr. GIBBONS. Now, let me find out, if the originating recommendation does not come from the property owner, how is a

property owner notified?
27

Mr. WISE. Well, in Virginia we take care of that by working with

the property owner up front.

Mr. GIBBONS. How is that? How do you do that? What is the

process?

Mr. WISE. Well, we have field offices in Virginia, and if somebody

came to us who was a third party and said, we want to put something on the Register, and then we would immediately go to the

property owner and say, is this of interest to you? Do you want to

do this? And if the property owner said no, well, we would not proceed.

Mr. GIBBONS. Maybe I should allow the other States, Wyoming

and Pennsylvania, to add to this as well.

Mr. KECK. We do it much the same. If I can give you a couple

of specific instances that may help clarify the situation, recently in

the community of Cheyenne, there was a Lakeview Historic District created, which was a residential area encompassing about 50-

odd houses, some of which were contributing, some of which were

not. What we did was we worked with the local planning office,

found out the names and addresses of all of the property owners

within that proposed district, sent them a formal letter informing

them of the pending nomination that had been created by our certified local government or local historic preservation board, and notified them of the status of that. Then we sent them a letter saying,

do you want—that basically said, do you want to be part of this,

do you want this to go ahead or not; and took a vote. And over—

I can’t give you the numbers, but over 50 percent said, yes, they

did want to be a part of it. So we then at that point proceeded.

We also held a public meeting, at which point we offered an opportunity for all of those local residents to come, ask questions,

have their concerns addressed as far as what it meant. So within

that district allocation, we took the steps of, one, notifying them of

the pending nomination so that they were aware of it and had

some people to contact, word of mouth. They would have known

about it, but would have been lost in the bureaucracy. But we also

then took the step of doing a formal vote of those people who were

property owners and then took a public hearing so that they had

a chance to have their voices heard and any interest expressed.

One side issue that sometimes causes confusion is in the area of

if you have a single property owner, if I had a piece of property

that was historic, and I said, I do not want it listed, I have the authority to do that. The distinction that sometimes gets confusing or

where it causes problems in Wyoming is that if you have a public

entity that is the sole owner of a property, because they are an

owner as a public entity, that a member of the public can go ahead

and have that building listed on the National Register. An example

would be the local high school in Pine Bliss, Wyoming, a small

school, where the school board did not want the property listed, but

the people of the community did. So, because it was a public building, the property was listed over the objections of the school board.

So that would be an example of how there are some where you

could say a sole-source owner could be overridden. But in the case

where the owner is a private party, no, I am unfamiliar with any

situations that would allow that to be overridden.
28

Mr. HEFLEY. Some States are more aggressive than others about

historic preservation. I am reminded of the instance in Houston

where the Houston Mission Control needed to upgrade and was

held up for years because of preservation concerns.

Do you have mechanisms by which you say enough is enough

and you photograph, document, and move on to the use that it is

intended for? Anyone who wants to respond.

Ms. BARRETT. I think that is an important role that the Advisory

Council plays. I think the—in a large and complex project, having

the Advisory Council and the Federal agency who is involved, in

that case NASA, you know, working directly on the issue is extremely important, and the Advisory Council regulations have very

clear time frames for response to a party. When you have a large

and complex project, this can take, you know, months of time to

have public meetings and to get the input from all the different

parties. But at some point, the Federal agency who is really in

charge of the process and really sets the pace, the Advisory Council

and the State Historic Preservation Office do have to come to some

kind of resolution on the issue. My experience has been that it is

usually hammered out, there is a good negotiation, and there is a

solution, and in many cases that solution is documentation and

demolition.

Mr. HEFLEY. Do any of these cases end up in court?

Ms. BARRETT. Very few.

Mr. KECK. One of the problems that ensues, too, a lot of times

before it can go to the Advisory Council, the State Historic Preservation Office and the Federal agency can spend a great deal of time

and discussion, and neither of them—both of them are wanting to,

before it goes to that final arbiter of the Advisory Council, are

wanting to work it out, and that can take extended periods of time.

That is not the fault of the Act, that is a responsibility that we,

the States, need to take on, and it is one that has caused problems

between my office and the National Park Service, and one that we

are working to get rid of, because we have made the decision that

we want to establish internally at what point we are in a point of

disagreement so that we can agree that we disagree and allow it

to move forward; because it is too easy for the bureaucracy to allow

something to continue to be debated and looked at when we are

both in agreement that we mutually have looked at it every which

way we can, we just can’t come to a common agreement. So we are

trying to set up a framework by which that can happen, where it

can move on and be established within a time frame. So that those

mechanisms do exist, it just takes the action of kicking it into those

mechanisms that has to transpire.

Mr. HERTFELDER. Mr. Hefley, if I could add a footnote to your

NASA example, as is the case with all highly technical or military

resources, they have to be upgraded all the time to maintain their

usefulness, so when Mission Control was proposed for demolition to

have a new Mission Control for the space shuttle and so forth, I

don’t think anybody was saying that you can’t do that. But as a result of the consultations between the Texas SHPO and the Council

and NASA over the fate of that room which controlled the Apollo

13 moon landing, the equipment was stripped out and saved, as opposed to being demolished and thrown away.
29

I was informed recently by an article in the Texas SHPO newsletter that partially as a result of the Tom Hanks film Apollo 13,

there has been a renewed interested in the landing on the moon,

and visitation at the center in Texas is up, and I believe with the

help of the Disney Company, they are now recreating that room for

visitors, and because they have the equipment which they stored

as opposed to getting rid of it, they are going to be able to reinstall

those consoles in that strange green color that they used back then

and all of those blinking lights and so forth. So there was a happier

ending at least for the equipment than is often the case with historic properties.

Mr. HEFLEY. I thought that was probably a good solution, although it took so long.

Virginia had an eligibility dispute at Brandy Station Battlefield.

What was the outcome of that dispute? Has it resulted in any

change in how nominations are handled?

Mr. KECK. Yes, very much so. That was actually a little before

my time when I came into office, but I think the sensitivity that

we have today to the wishes of property owners is traceable to that

event, which was a case where the SHPO’s office, essentially on its

own, decided to register Brandy Station Battlefield; and it was an

extraordinary case, because the battle took place over some 14,000

acres, as I recall. It was the largest cavalry battle ever fought in

the Western Hemisphere, 10,000 mounted men as a prelude to Gettysburg.

When it is a cavalry battle, it is like a tank battle. There is a

lot of motion and people cover a lot of ground; and you can imagine,

it is rural property, and the property owners are very upset about

that.

The proper groundwork wasn’t done in explaining what registration meant and what it didn’t mean, as we heard. Registration of

property does not bind property owners, and so anyway, there was

a political backlash in Virginia. And our philosophy today is to

work with the property owners up front; if they don’t want it, leave

it alone.

Mr. HEFLEY. I want to thank this panel. I would say to you, like

I did to the former panel, if you have additional specific suggestions about how this piece of legislation should be amended, we

would very much appreciate getting them; and we appreciate your

expertise working on the front lines of this effort. Thank you very

much.

The next panel, Richard Nettler, Edward Norton, Jack Williams.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD NETTLER, CHAIRMAN OF THE

BOARD, PRESERVATION ACTION

Mr. HEFLEY. I would give the admonition that the Chairman did

that we would like to be through by noon, if possible, and if you

can keep your statements as brief as possible and still get the message in, we would appreciate it; and at the same time, any statements you have for the record will be put into the record.

Mr. NETTLER. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my

name is Richard Nettler. I am Chairman of the Board of Preservation Action. Preservation Action takes great pleasure in testifying

before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands of
30

the House Resources Committee, and as we have many times before, actively working for appropriate amendment to the Historic

Preservation Act since 1976. Our success in 1976, 1980 and 1992,

as well as a reauthorization of funding every 5 years, has fashioned

a unique program that is working effectively with maximum cooperation at all levels of government.

We thank you, Mr. Hefley, for the introduction of H.R. 1522 and

for the discussion it has produced within the preservation community, a lot of that discussion which we are hearing this morning.

Preservation Action strongly supports the reauthorization of funding for the Historic Preservation Fund at $150 million through fiscal year 2002; and we further support the codification of Executive

Order 13006, which Mr. Keck spoke about, signed last year by the

President to give preference to the reuse of historic buildings in

historic districts for Federal office space needs.

We see no serious problem with the current divisions of responsibilities between the National Park Service and the Advisory

Council as regards the administration of section 110, but we are

very disappointed in the omission of required consultation between

the two agencies, which the National Park Service references to the

Advisory Council, which we think should continue. This change of

present law is not a constructive one. Mandatory cooperation between the Council and National Park Service is more important

than who has the lead responsibility on section 110.

Preservation Action believes that the National Historic Preservation Program is not broken and, therefore, there is little need for

many changes or even some small changes in its administration,

other than the ones that we have just mentioned. The reauthorization of the fund, as set up in law in 1976, is essential, however,

and is needed to ensure the continuation of annual appropriations

for the States, certified local governments, and the tribes.

Since its inception in 1965, the Historic Preservation Act, as

amended, has become one of the finest examples of federalism that

exists in government today. You have heard a lot of that from some

of the State historic preservation officers who spoke. While the following description is an understatement of agencies’ responsibilities in preserving cultural resources, the National Park Service

program takes a leading role in listing qualified properties on the

National Register, providing technical services to assist those in

how to maintain those properties, and developing standards and

criteria. The Advisory Council reports to the President and administers the review of proposed Federal projects that receive Federal

funds.

The Park Service and Advisory Council are ably assisted by each

State Historic Preservation Office which handles a workload associated with National Register designation as well as determining the

historic structures that should be taken into account in the section

106 review. This is done usually in a minimum of time, ensuring

that reviews and determinations are not exacerbating experiences,

creating costly delays for private citizens, local governments or

Federal agencies.

The ‘‘new kids on the block’’ in preservation are the certified local

governments—2,000, I believe, at this time—which are mentored

by the States in preparation for their supporting responsibilities.
31

Whereas National Register designation is honorific and makes no

requirement upon an owner, as has also been discussed, locally

designated properties are subjected to the provisions of an ordinance as passed at the local level. The local government can become a partner to the States if it meets the qualifications in the

Historic Preservation Act for certification.

In short, historic preservation law has spawned a great program

that works amazingly well throughout the Federal, State and local

government system.

Preservation Action, founded in 1973, is the only national organization dedicated solely to grass-roots lobbying for historic preservation and neighborhood conservation. We have taken leadership

roles in advocacy between the Historic Preservation Act and the

Department of the Interior, including the enactment of tax incentives and the authorization of ISTEA enhancements. We have

watched historic preservation issues come onto the screens of many

other Federal agencies, such as the Departments of Transportation,

Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury, the Department of

Agriculture, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Defense.

In the latter, we see the fates of preservation and the military

coming together as the Department of Defense and the services

confront the maintenance of historic military quarters and buildings in a fiscal environment of declining budgets. We know you are

keenly aware of this problem, Mr. Hefley, in your responsibility as

Chair of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities

of the Committee on National Security.

The coming together of preservation and military housing appeared on the scene a year ago. In fiscal year 1997, military construction appropriations, the services were directed to review their

inventories of historic quarters and to report to Congress on their

plans to remove all but the most historically significant from the

National Register of Historic Places. Language in the report noted

erroneously that work on homes must receive approval from the

various historic preservation boards. Language further required the

reports to note what statutory impediments are being encountered

in implementing such plans, i.e. those to remove properties from

the National Register.

Efforts to change this language last year were successful only in

requiring consultation with the Advisory Council on the reports

and made no attempt to clarify erroneous information about the

National Register and the role of the Advisory Council. Much of

that clarification you have heard this morning.

The reports from the services were forwarded to Congress in

April, and we were pleased that both the Army and the Navy stated that their historic quarters were not a significant drain on their

resources and that effective management was the answer to the

military housing problem.

In fiscal year 1998, military construction appropriations language was again included, also attacking the National Register.

The false notion that maintenance of historic military housing is

more expensive has never been substantiated. There is no required

treatment for historic housing, no mandates for a preservation outcome, and in fact, there is an economic value to these structures
32

simply because they are historic. Indeed, over the last year, the

Army has been working closely with the Advisory Council and

other historic preservation groups to fashion its own regulations

dealing with its historic properties, and also looking at ways in

which it can privatize many of those properties in a way that will

take the heat off of the agencies in terms of budgeting funds.

I have taken up a few minutes to give some background on historic buildings in the military because we believe there are solutions. These solutions, however, will only come to fruition if there

is a strong, efficient National Register and an expeditious system

of Advisory Council review of Federal actions that is not beset with

costly delays and decision-making.

On the Defense Department front, we have watched the privatization initiative with interest, but note it is very slow moving. Our

interest in finding answers that work for both preservation and the

military is advancing as Preservation Action is currently setting up

a meeting to bring our experiences with private developers and

capital, in a successful revitalization of commercial historic rehab

using tax credits, to the table to assist Department of Defense and

its services in finding creative answers to the maintenance of their

historic buildings. This could be a precedent, in fact, for other agencies; and we have discussed this also with the General Services Administration.

In closing, Preservation Action most strongly supports the needed reauthorization of funds for the States, certified local governments and tribes. It is critical to maintain a strong and adequately

funded program at the Federal level to ensure that all Federal

agencies and the private sector perceive the historic preservation

program and its designation and review process as a cost-effective

guide to the creative use of historic structures for 20th century purposes. Section 110 is the critical tool needed to correct erroneous

agency and departmental notions about the workings of the historic

preservation programs and to assist Federal agencies in the protection and maintenance of the historic building inventory. A clear understanding of historic preservation will open new avenues for

agencies to involve public-private partnerships to assist in meeting

their preservation responsibilities.

We have taken a more limited approach in our testimony today

on H.R. 1522 in the interest of illustrating how the work of this

Committee impacts many other committees of Congress and agencies of Federal Government; and we are pleased to comment before

you today and make ourselves available, as well as others, to answer questions.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nettler may be found at end of

hearing.]

STATEMENT OF EDWARD M. NORTON, VICE PRESIDENT—LAW

AND PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC

PRESERVATION

Mr. NORTON. Thank you, Congressman Hefley, and thank you

very much for the opportunity to testify here today.

I would like to begin by expressing the National Trust’s appreciation for your introduction of this legislation for reauthorization of
33

the Historic Preservation Fund, and also to express our appreciation for the process that you have engaged in in this reauthorization. We have appreciated very much the opportunity to meet with

you personally and work with you and your staff over the last 6

months in developing this legislation; and we think it has been a

very productive process, and we thank you for that.

I will submit my testimony for the record and be very brief.

I would like to begin on a personal note and say that I just returned from New Mexico where the National Trust for Historic

Preservation held its annual conference, a gathering, a rally, a rendezvous, if you will, of more than almost 2,000 preservations from

all over the country, representing all segments of the preservation

partnership that have been discussed here today. I must say that

I was impressed with the vibrancy and the energy and the grassroots support at the local level. It really made you feel and taste

what historic preservation does on the ground in communities.

The other aspect of that that was particularly noticeable—to me,

at least—was the importance of this preservation partnership that

you have heard referred to several times today, in particular, the

role of the States and local government and State and local private

organizations in that partnership. I think, after listening to the testimony today, that actually the State historic preservation officers

have been modest in their statement of really the role that they

perform under that—in that Federal, State and local partnership.

We strongly support the reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund. The States, of course, receive the bulk of the funding

from the Historic Preservation Fund, and we think that that is exactly as it should be.

You noted in your opening statement that the National Trust is

moving to support from the private sector. Historically, we have received, as you know, an appropriation from the Historic Preservation Fund that reached almost $7 million in the early 1990s and

then in 1996, 1997 and 1998 has been reduced to $3.5 million, and

after 1998 we will no longer receive an appropriation. We have supported that. But we do not support reductions in the appropriations

for the Historic Preservation Fund, and we would urge this Committee, as the authorizing Committee and the Committee of primary jurisdiction, in its development of report language dealing

with the reauthorization, to emphasize the important role that the

State historic preservation offices and the tribes play, and that the

funding that has, over time and historically, been received by the

National Trust, should not be lost to the Historic Preservation

Fund, but should, in fact, go to the States and the tribes and the

other preservation partners, which will play an increasingly important role.

You have heard a number of the activities referred to here today

about the States’ role in the implementation of the Federal-State

partnership, and as historic preservation builds in its successes,

that role will not diminish. And the fact is, it will increase, and we

think it is an enormously productive use of Federal resources to

support the State and tribal element of the Federal-State partnership; and we would urge that that continue and it continue at at

least the same level.
34

I would also like to comment very briefly—when you mentioned

it in your opening statement, that the National Trust will no longer

receive an appropriation from the Historic Preservation Fund, and

that is a result which we support and we have worked very carefully to achieve with members of the Appropriations Committee—

the legislation that we are discussing today, H.R. 1522, actually

amends the Historic Preservation Act to remove the National Trust

authorization to receive any funds.

I would point out that there have been other circumstances,

other than the general appropriation from the historic preservation

fund, that we have received appropriations, such as for disaster relief; and simply eliminating our entire authority to receive any appropriation may have unintended and unfortunate consequences,

and we would ask, as we have in the past, that that be looked at.

I think that the other major topics have been covered. We

worked very closely with the General Services Administration on

the implementation of the executive order. The fact that we support the provision in your legislation which codifies the executive

order should not reflect a lack of confidence in our authority and

Mr. Peck, the Administrator of GSA, but we do think that that

does give a very important and additive incremental emphasis on

the executive order and will help people at the State and local level

who are trying to ensure that that executive order is, in fact, being

carried out. We would strongly endorse and support the codification

of the executive order in your legislation.

Finally, I think since we met with you, Congressman Hefley, a

number of developments have occurred with respect to the implementation of section 110. The National Park Service is now finalizing its guidelines, and we think that the removal of the 110 function from the general jurisdiction of the National Park Service is

probably not a wise step to take at this time. Thus, I agree with

what you said in your remarks that what we should do here is—

with the additions that I have mentioned, we should simply go

ahead and reauthorize the Historic Preservation Fund.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Norton may be found at end of

hearing.]

STATEMENT OF JACK WILLIAMS, AIA, PRESIDENT-ELECT,

NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank James Hansen, Chairman of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify

on H.R. 1522 to extend authorization of the National Historic Preservation Fund.

My name is John Williams. I am an architect in private practice

in Seattle where I have a partnership with Robert Hoshide. I also

serve on two historic preservation commissions—one in Oysterville,

Washington, the Oysterville Design Review Board; and the second

in Seattle, Washington, the Pike Place Market Historical Commission. Because of these activities, I was elected to the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions where I serve as chairman of its

board of directors. It is from these two vantage points that I wish

to describe my view of the value of the National Historic Preservation Fund.
35

The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions is a nonprofit

organization committed to serving historic commissions created by

city or county ordinances. We serve over 2,000 commissions that

work at the local level. Each year, 10,000 citizens from our communities volunteer their time as public servants. They do so because

preservation not only protects our culture’s historic resources; it

creates jobs, it saves neighborhoods, and it fosters pride in our

communities.

Commonly, historic preservation commissions identify historic resources, nominate them to local registers, and enact protective

measures to preserve our heritage; and in addition, these boards

create educational programs and stimulate private investments.

As commissions, we can honor many of our responsibilities, but

we cannot do it alone. We are dependent upon our preservation

partners. They must be adequately funded for our commissions to

be able to act effectively. For example, over 80 percent of our commissions seek assistance from their State Historic Preservation Office, and 50 percent receive help from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, whereas 25 percent are helped directly by the

National Park Service. All of these receive funds through the National Historic Preservation Fund.

It is, however, the certified local government program which provides an explicit line of support to commissions. The National Historic Preservation Fund provides technical assistance as well as

small, matching funds for planning and restoration. Over 1,000

communities voluntarily participate in this event.

Through my participation in the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, I have seen the value of preservation partnerships. In the State of Washington, we have training funded by CLG

grants; and in a similar fashion, in the State of Missouri, I was a

participant in training, as well, of handbook production. This program is government at its best. It is an effective, cooperative program which we sponsored at the Federal level and enacted and

controlled at the local level.

Finally, it is from Oysterville that I come, and its local government cannot participate in the CLG program. However, we still

benefit by forming partnerships with organizations sponsored by

the National Historic Preservation Fund. We were able to secure

consultant assistance to create new guidelines only through the

abilities of our preservation partners, notably the National Trust,

who provided funding through grant programs; SHPOs, who provided advice and guidance in the person of Kay Austin, our CLG

coordinator and preservation planner; and finally from the National Park Service. Funding for our effort and for our preservation

partners comes from the National Historic Preservation Fund.

Because of my vantage point as a preservationist doing commission work at the local level, the local level of government, I understand my dependence on our partners at the State office and at the

National level. I know that their ability to assist me in the work

that I and my 10,000 fellow commissioners do comes through the

financial support of the National Historic Preservation Fund. The

partnership works, it is effective and efficient. I urge extension of

the authorization of the National Historic Preservation Fund, and

I thank you for allowing me to testify.
36

Mr. HEFLEY. I thank all of you. Questions?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to thank the gentlemen for their testimony, Mr. Chairman.

At least we can come to one basic conclusion in our hearing this

morning. There is consensus about requesting reauthorization of

the current law. Procedurally, some of the suggestions that were offered by Mr. Hefley in his bill are something that we need to work

on a little better.

I would like to ask Mr. Nettler to comment on the provisions of

the bill, as he had noted in his statement, if that would be all

right, to submit for the record.

Mr. NETTLER. Yes, I will.

[The information may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you. What has been the working relationship

of the National Park Service? Has that worked well?

Mr. NORTON. Well, Congressman Hefley, from the perspective of

the National Trust, it has worked I would say very well, extremely

well, on a number of different fronts, both the historic preservation,

the National Historic Preservation Act and generally relating to

our national parks. As you probably know, of the 374 units of the

national park system, I think, of those, 216 or 220 of them were

created for their historic values. So the national trusts work with

the National Park Service on a number of problems relating to the

national parks and, specifically, the historic resources in the parks;

and also with respect to the implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Park Service and Department

of Interior’s responsibility under section 4(f) of the Transportation

Act. We found that relationship to be extremely positive in every

respect.

Mr. HEFLEY. Let me ask our representative from the AIA here

perhaps, what is your professional appraisal of the preservation

movement industry today? Is there an industry? We heard earlier

that there are more plasterers and so forth than there have ever

been.

In other words, I guess what I am getting at, do we need something like the National Center for Preservation Technology in Louisiana, or is private industry taking care of those kinds of things?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think that, for the most part, preservation succeeds where partnerships are active. I think that we do need the

center in Louisiana. I would also like to say in regards to Mr. Hansen’s concerns about whether or not there are plasterers available

and there are painters available, there are fine mechanics and

tradesmen who can produce any work of plaster that we see around

us today. I have never failed in a preservation effort at the mechanics level. There are people there that can do the job; that is

not a concern.

I think also one of the things that is noteworthy about preservation construction is that it keeps construction dollars local. I think

alluded to today was the fact that many more of the construction

dollars go into the laborers’ hands, as opposed to the suppliers’

hands; and classically, laborers are local. So I think it is a fitting

partnership as it exists now.
37

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to ask

members of the panel, it was noted earlier—in earlier testimony;

I think it was by Director Stanton. Do you agree that a 4- or 5-

year period for the approval process of an historic site is a reasonable time period for the process to function? To me, it seems inordinately long; it takes quite a while to approve the process.

Do you think a 4- or 5-year period is too long, or is it just right?

Is that the usual time schedule? Are there a lot of bureaucratic

problems involved here, or do you think that the way it is now it

is functioning pretty well?

Mr. NETTLER. Well, let me comment first. I think there were a

number of different processes that were discussed, both the process

in terms of approving national landmark designations or designations to the National Register, the process of working with the

States, the process of drafting regulations, which I think was the

one that we were talking about in terms of a 4- or 5-year process,

and the process of reviewing applications for tax credits as well.

I think the process in terms of tax credits, in terms of applications to the National Register, is probably a time frame that is—

that works very well, and it serves both the interests of those who

are seeking the credits, which are generally the property owners

and the developers, and those who are seeking to preserve, which

may be the States, and ensuring that there is adequate participation by property owners and those who are otherwise affected.

The process in terms of adopting regulations, which I think is

probably closer to the 4- or 5-year situation, is not a process that

serves the interest of the community or those who are affected by

those regulations. I think it is important that the regulatory process be one that works much, much faster than that, recognizing the

fact that those regulations affect a wide variety of people in all of

our States and there need to be comments received from both the

industry, those who are affected in the communities, and the State

and local governments. But I do think that 4 or 5 years is simply

too long a process.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Norton, is that pretty much in your——

Mr. NORTON. I think we would defer, Congressman, to people

who have much more experience on the ground. I think that there

are—my general observation, which is, I think, from a fairly elevated or rarified level, is that there are probably some projects that

get caught up and take too long, but there are many, many others

that get resolved in an orderly and expeditious way; and sometimes

I think—I don’t think it is irrelevant or inappropriate to look at

where the process goes awry, but on the other hand, I think that

we should be careful not to overreact to those circumstances in

which it does go awry. I don’t think we want to—I think if there

are problems, we should be careful to fine-tune it, rather than take

draconian measures to change it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Williams?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will defer to Mr. Nettler. This is really a little

bit beyond my area of expertise.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. You know, at the outset, I said that we have a good

program and I think the testimony has exemplified that today; I

think everybody agrees that we have a pretty good program. If
38

there are ways that we can improve this program, now would be

the time to do it, and so again, any specific suggestions you might

have we would like to have that.

This, in no way, I think, should be a controversial bill. There are

no particular politics in this—no Democrat, no Republican, really

no liberal-conservative philosophical differences. I think we have

seen today that we are all headed toward the same goal. So we will

work together, we will work with your side to try to see that you

are comfortable with it and that we are comfortable with it, and

I think we can come up with something we will all be proud of.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to say to the gentleman, the sponsor

of the bill, that I think the intentions are significant in the fact

that we just want to fine-tune the current Act, and hopefully there

are areas, with your recommendations—and we have heard both

from the community and from the appropriate Federal agencies—

where we can work together and see if we can make improvements

on the current Act.

So I thank the gentleman and I thank our friends who have testified this morning.

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much for being with us.

The Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104