[House Report 106-241]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106-241
======================================================================
TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND
_______
July 20, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 834]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 834) to extend the authorization for the National
Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT.
The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 and following;
Public Law 89-665) is amended as follows:
(1) Section 101(e)(2) (16 U.S.C. 470a(e)(2)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) The Secretary may administer grants to the National Trust for
Historic Preservation in the United States, chartered by an Act of
Congress approved October 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 947), consistent with the
purposes of its charter and this Act.''.
(2) Section 102 (16 U.S.C. 470b) is amended by redesignating
subsection (e) as subsection (f) and by redesignating
subsection (d), as added by section 4009(3) of Public Law 102-
575, as subsection (e).
(3) Section 107 (16 U.S.C. 470g) is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 107. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be applicable
to the White House and its grounds, the Supreme Court building and its
grounds, or the United States Capitol and its related buildings and
grounds. For the purposes of this Act, the exemption for the United
States Capitol and its related buildings and grounds shall apply to
those areas depicted within the properly shaded areas on the map titled
`Map Showing Properties Under the Jurisdiction of the Architect of the
Capitol,' and dated November 6, 1996, which shall be on file in the
office of the Secretary of the Interior.''.
(4) Section 108 (16 U.S.C. 470h) is amended by striking
``1997'' and inserting ``2005''.
(5) Section 110(a) (16 U.S.C. 470h-2(a)) is amended as
follows:
(A) In paragraph (1) by deleting the second sentence.
(B) In paragraph (2)(D) by deleting ``and'' at the
end thereof.
(C) In paragraph (2)(E) by striking the period at the
end thereof and inserting ``; and''.
(D) By adding at the end of paragraph (2) the
following new subparagraph:
``(F)(i) When operationally appropriate and economically
prudent, when locating Federal facilities, Federal agencies
shall give first consideration to--
``(I) historic properties within historic districts
in central business areas; if no such property is
suitable; then
``(II) other developed or undeveloped sites within
historic districts in central business areas; then
``(III) historic properties outside of historic
districts in central business areas, if no suitable
site within a historic district exists;
``(IV) if no suitable historic properties exist in
central business areas, Federal agencies shall next
consider other suitable property in central business
areas;
``(V) if no such property is suitable, Federal
agencies shall next consider the following properties
outside central business areas;
``(VI) historic properties within historic districts;
if no such property is suitable; then
``(VII) other developed or undeveloped sites within
historic districts; then
``(VIII) historic properties outside of historic
districts, if no suitable site within a historic
district exists.
``(ii) Any rehabilitation or construction that is undertaken
affecting historic properties must be architecturally
compatible with the character of the surrounding historic
district or properties.
``(iii) As used in this subparagraph:
``(I) The term `central business area' means
centralized community business areas and adjacent areas
of similar character, including other specific areas
which may be recommended by local officials.
``(II) The term `Federal facility' means a building,
or part thereof, or other real property or interests
therein, owned or leased by the Federal Government.
``(III) The term `first consideration' means a
preference. When acquiring property, first
consideration means a price or technical evaluation
preference.''.
(6) The first sentence of section 110(l) (16 U.S.C. 470h-
2(l)) is amended by striking ``with the Council'' and inserting
``pursuant to regulations issued by the Council''.
(7) The last sentence of section 212(a) (16 U.S.C. 470t(a))
is amended by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2005''.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 834 is to extend the authorization for
the National Historic Preservation Fund.
Background and Need for Legislation
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA,
Public Law 89-665, codified at 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
established a general policy of federal support and funding for
the preservation of the prehistoric and historic resources of
the nation. For example, the NHPA authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to expand and maintain the National Register of
Historic Places, an inventory of districts, sites, buildings,
and structures significant on a national, State, or local level
in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and
culture. The Secretary has promulgated regulations to determine
the eligibility of properties for listing utilizing specific
criteria and procedures.
The NHPA also encourages State and local historic
preservation, through State Historic Preservation Officers
(SHPO) coordinating with the Secretary. The program consists of
identification and inventory of historic properties within a
State; nomination of eligible properties to the National
Register; and preparation and implementation of a Statewide
historic preservation plan, including coordination with federal
agencies and the public. Moreover, the NHPA authorizes a grant
program, through the Historic Preservation Fund, to provide
States monies for historic preservation projects and to
individuals for the preservation of properties listed on the
National Register. The grant program provides for two types of
grants: one for survey and planning purposes, which essentially
supports the administrative functions of the SHPO; the other
supports ``bricks and mortar'' preservation or rehabilitation
of historic properties. These funds are derived from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF has an
authorization of appropriations of $150 million per fiscal
year.
The NHPA also established the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, which is now an independent agency, composed of
20 members representing a broad range of federal, State, and
local public and private sector experience in historic
preservation matters. The Advisory Council advises the
President and Congress on historic preservation, reviews the
policies of federal agencies in implementing the NHPA, conducts
training and educational programs, and encourages public
participation in historic preservation. The most important, and
sometimes most controversial, role of the Advisory Council is
administering Section 106 of NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f). Section 106
requires the head of any federal agency directly or indirectly
undertaking or licensing any project to take into account the
effect on any district, site, structure or object that is
listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. The
Advisory Council must also be given a reasonable opportunity to
comment on the project.
H.R. 834 amends the NHPA by reauthorizing appropriations
for the Act, along with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, until 2005. The bill also exempts the Architect
of the Capitol from the Act and modifies the way federal
agencies consider historic properties when using these
properties to carry out their responsibilities.
During Full Resources Committee consideration of the bill,
Commissioner Carlos Romero-Barcelo (D-PR) offered, but
subsequently withdrew, an amendment that would have provided
for a study by the Secretary of the Interior of the
preservation and restoration needs of historic buildings and
structures located on the campuses of Hispanic-serving
institutions of higher learning. While the Committee is
supportive of such a study, there was a general concern with
the addition of any amendments unrelated to the primary purpose
of the bill. The Committee notes that the Secretary currently
has the general authority to undertake a study of historic
Hispanic-serving institutions of higher learning and strongly
encourages him to do so. The Department of the Interior has
experience in doing such studies and the Committee believes a
study would provide useful information in which to assess the
historic preservation needs of these educational institutions.
Committee Action
H.R. 834 was introduced on February 24, 1999, by
Congressman Joel Hefley (R-CO). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. On April 15,
1999 the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill, where the
Administration testified in support, strongly endorsing the
reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation through 2005. On
April 29, 1999, the Subcommittee met to consider the bill. No
amendments were offered and the bill was ordered favorably
reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On June 30, 1999,
the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill.
Congressman Hefley offered an amendment which detailed the
process to be used by federal agencies when locating federal
facilities in accordance with the NHPA. It was adopted by voice
vote. The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported
to the House of Representatives by voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 16, 1999.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 834, a bill to
extend the authorization for the National Historic Preservation
Fund, and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah
Reis (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the state
and local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 834--A bill to extend the authorization for the National Historic
Preservation Fund, and for other purposes
Summary: H.R. 834 would extend through fiscal year 2005
annual deposits of $150 million to the Historic Preservation
Fund (HPF). Authority for such deposits, which consist of
receipts earned from oil and gas development on the Outer
Continental Shelf, expired at the end of fiscal year 1997. The
National Park Service uses amounts appropriated from the HPF
for grants to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, to
state, local, and tribal governments, and to nonprofit and
other organizations. The bill also would extend through 2005
the authorization of $4 million a year for the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation. This sum is currently authorized to
be appropriated (from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury)
through fiscal year 2000.
Assuming appropriation of the amounts deposited into the
HPF each year, and assuming appropriation of the authorized
amounts for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 834 would result in additional
discretionary spending of $590 million over the 2000-2004
period. (About $330 million would be spent in subsequent
years.) The legislation would not affect direct spending or
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
H.R. 834 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
State and local governments would probably incur some costs to
match the funds authorized by the bill, but these costs would
be voluntary.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The $150 million
to be deposited into the HPF under H.R. 834 is the same amount
that was deposited to the fund annually from 1980 through 1997,
but is significantly greater than the $30 million to $50
million historically appropriated (from the HPF) for each year.
It is also higher than the 1999 appropriation of $72 million.
In recent years, annual appropriations for the advisory council
have been about $3 million. The estimated budgetary impact of
H.R. 834 is shown in the fol-
lowing table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget
function 300 (natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal years, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority/Authorization Level \1\.............. 75 4 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... 53 36 20 5 0 0
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level................................... 0 150 154 154 154 154
Estimated Outlays..................................... 0 45 90 147 154 154
Spending Under H.R. 834:
Budget Authority/Authorization Level.................. 75 154 154 154 154 154
Estimated Outlays..................................... 53 81 110 152 154 154
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level includes $72 million appropriated from the HTF and $3 million appropriated for the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. The 2000 level is the amount authorized under current law for appropriation
to the council for that year.
Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO
assumes that the entire amounts deposited into the HTF or
authorized for the advisory council under H.R. 834 will be
appropriated for each fiscal year. Outlay estimates are based
on historical spending patterns for council activities and HTF
programs. We adjusted the observed outlay rates for the
purposes of projecting future HTF outlays because the higher
appropriations assumed in this estimate--relative to recent or
historical appropriation levels--would likely cause some delays
in finding matching shares for certain grants. The table does
not include any potential spending from amounts deposited to
the HTF in the past that have not yet been appropriated. Such
funds--about $2.1 billion--will remain available for
appropriation under existing law even in the absence of
legislation.
Other provisions of H.R. 834, which would amend the
National Historic Preservation Act, would have no impact on the
federal budget.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Estimated Impact on State, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 834 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. Under current law, historic preservation grants to states
must be matched by nonfederal funds equal to at least 40
percent of total spending. Any spending by state and local
governments to match the funds authorized by this bill would be
voluntary.
Estimated Impact on the private sector: This bill contains
no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis. Impact
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller.
Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Compliance With Public Law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law
This bill is not intended to preempt State, local, or
tribal law.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 101. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e)(1) * * *
[(2) The Secretary shall administer a program of matching
grant-in-aid to the National Trust for Historic Preservation in
the United States, chartered by Act of Congress approved
October 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 927), for the purposes of carrying
out the responsibilities of the National Trust.]
(2) The Secretary may administer grants to the National Trust
for Historic Preservation in the United States, chartered by an
Act of Congress approved October 26, 1949 (63 Stat. 947),
consistent with the purposes of its charter and this Act.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 102. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d)] (e) The Secretary shall make funding available to
individual States and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation as soon as practicable after execution of a grant
agreement. For purposes of administration, grants to individual
States and the National Trust each shall be considered to be
one grant and shall be administered by the National Park
Service as such.
[(e)] (f) The total administrative costs, direct and
indirect, charged for carrying out State projects and programs
may not exceed 25 percent of the aggregate costs except in the
case of grants under section 101(e)(6).
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 107. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be
applicable to the White House and its grounds, the Supreme
Court building and its grounds, or the United States Capitol
and its related buildings and grounds.]
Sec. 107. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be
applicable to the White House and its grounds, the Supreme
Court building and its grounds, or the United States Capitol
and its related buildings and grounds. For the purposes of this
Act, the exemption for the United States Capitol and its
related buildings and grounds shall apply to those areas
depicted within the properly shaded areas on the map titled
`Map Showing Properties Under the Jurisdiction of the Architect
of the Capitol,' and dated November 6, 1996, which shall be on
file in the office of the Secretary of the Interior.
Sec. 108. To carry out the provisions of this Act, there is
hereby established the Historic Preservation Fund (hereafter
referred to as the ``fund'') in the Treasury of the United
States.
There shall be covered into such fund $24,400,000 for fiscal
year 1977, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1978, $100,000,000 for
fiscal year 1979, $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1980, and
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 1981 and $150,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1982 through [1997] 2005, from revenues due and
payable to the United States under the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (67 Stat. 462, 469), as amended (43 U.S.C. 338), and/
or under the Act of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 813), as amended (30
U.S.C. 191), notwithstanding any provision of law that such
proceeds shall be credited to miscellaneous receipts of the
Treasury. Such moneys shall be used only to carry out the
purposes of this Act and shall be available for expenditure
only when appropriated by the Congress. Any moneys not
appropriated shall remain available in the fund until
appropriated for said purposes: Provided, That appropriations
made pursuant to this paragraph may be made without fiscal year
limitation.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 110. (a)(1) The heads of all Federal agencies shall
assume responsibility for the preservation of historic
properties which are owned or controlled by such agency. [Prior
to acquiring, constructing, or leasing buildings for purposes
of carrying out agency responsibilities, each Federal agency
shall use, to the maximum extent feasible, historic properties
available to the agency.] Each agency shall undertake,
consistent with the preservation of such properties and the
mission of the agency and the professional standards
established pursuant to section 101(g), any preservation, as
may be necessary to carry out this section.
(2) Each Federal agency shall establish (unless exempted
pursuant to section 214), in consultation with the Secretary, a
preservation program for the identification, evaluation, and
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, and
protection of historic properties. Such program shall ensure--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) that the agency's preservation-related activities
are carried out in consultation with other Federal,
State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, Native
Hawaiian organizations carrying out historic
preservation planning activities, and with the private
sector; [and]
(E) that the agency's procedures for compliance with
section 106--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(iii) provide for the disposition of Native
American cultural items from Federal or tribal
land in a manner consistent with section 3(c)
of the Native American Grave Protection and
Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(c))[.]; and
(F)(i) When operationally appropriate and
economically prudent, when locating Federal facilities,
Federal agencies shall give first consideration to--
(I) historic properties within historic
districts in central business areas; if no such
property is suitable; then
(II) other developed or undeveloped sites
within historic districts in central business
areas; then
(III) historic properties outside of historic
districts in central business areas, if no
suitable site within a historic district
exists;
(IV) if no suitable historic properties exist
in central business areas, Federal agencies
shall next consider other suitable property in
central business areas;
(V) if no such property is suitable, Federal
agencies shall next consider the following
properties outside central business areas;
(VI) historic properties within historic
districts; if no such property is suitable;
then
(VII) other developed or undeveloped sites
within historic districts; then
(VIII) historic properties outside of
historic districts, if no suitable site within
a historic district exists.
(ii) Any rehabilitation or construction that is
undertaken affecting historic properties must be
architecturally compatible with the character of the
surrounding historic district or properties.
(iii) As used in this subparagraph:
(I) The term ``central business area'' means
centralized community business areas and
adjacent areas of similar character, including
other specific areas which may be recommended
by local officials.
(II) The term ``Federal facility'' means a
building, or part thereof, or other real
property or interests therein, owned or leased
by the Federal Government.
(III) The term ``first consideration'' means
a preference. When acquiring property, first
consideration means a price or technical
evaluation preference.
* * * * * * *
(l) With respect to any undertaking subject to section 106
which adversely affects any property included in or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register, and for which a Federal
agency has not entered into an agreement [with the Council]
pursuant to regulations issued by the Council, the head of such
agency shall document any decision made pursuant to section
106. The head of such agency may not delegate his or her
responsibilities pursuant to such section. Where a section 106
memorandum of agreement has been executed with respect to an
undertaking, such memorandum shall govern the undertaking and
all of its parts.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 212. (a) The Council shall submit its budget annually as
a related agency of the Department of the Interior. There are
authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of this title
not to exceed $4,000,000 in each fiscal year 1997 through
[2000] 2005.
* * * * * * *