SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 1       TOP OF DOC
46–552 CC

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
 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

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
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
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-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
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
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
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-BARCELÓ, 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

C O N T E N T S
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Hearing held October 21, 1997

Statements of Members:
Christian–Green, Hon. Donna M., a Representative in Congress from the Virgin Islands
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Representative in Congress from American Samoa
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Letter from the Architect of the Capitol to Mr. Hansen
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado
Prepared statement of

Statements of witnesses:
Barrett, Brenda, Director, Pennsylvania Bureau of Historic Preservation
Prepared statement of
Fowler, John M., Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Hertfelder, Eric, Executive Director, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
Keck, John T., State Historic Preservation Officer, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office
Prepared statement of
Nettler, Richard, Chairman of the Board, Preservation Action
Prepared statement of
Norton, Edward M., Vice President—Law and Public Policy, National Trust for Historic Preservation
Prepared statement of
Peck, Robert A., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Stanton, Robert G., Director, National Park Service, accompanied by Kate Stevenson, Associate Director for Cultural Resources
Prepared statement of
Williams, Jack, AIA, President-Elect, National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
Prepared statement of
Wise, H. Alexander, Jr., State Historic Preservation Officer and Director, Virginia Department of Historical Resources
Prepared statement of

Additional material supplied:
Text of H.R. 1522
Slater, Cathryn Buford, Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

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.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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 President-Law 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
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
    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:]

 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
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.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
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.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, after serving in his acting capacity for many months.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 government-owned 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 situation 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.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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 long-term 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.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
    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.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 responsibility 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?
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.]
STATEMENT OF ERIC HERTFELDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 and for African Americans. Former Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary grew up there. By the early 1990s, it was becoming run-down, 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.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 3 1/2 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 partnership. 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.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [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.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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?
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
    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.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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?
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
    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.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 standards. 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.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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?
    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.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
    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.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
    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.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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. 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.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 grass-roots 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.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
    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.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
    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.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
    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.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
    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?
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    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 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.]
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 1 TO 104 HERE