TO: Concerned colleagues
FROM: Bill Lipe (President, Society for American Archaeology (SAA)), Judy
Bense (Chair, SAA Government Affairs Committee), Donald Craib (SAA
Government Affairs Manager)
SUBJECT: Appropriations for key elements of the historic preservation system
This memo is intended to bring you up to date on Congressional activities as
they relate to funding for important elements of the historic preservation
system--specifically, the Advisory Council, the Historic Preservation Fund,
and the cultural resource programs in the Park Service. We urge you to
contact your members of Congress to ask them to support continued funding
for these aspects of the system. Although most of these programs are
mandated by law, they can be eliminated or crippled if the appropriations
process results in severely reduced funding for them. These programs are
essential to the operation of the larger historic preservation system,
including Section 106 review, the operation of the National Register,
certification of tax credits for rehabilitated historic buildings, etc. We
encourage you to send this memo and supporting materials around to
colleagues, and to urge them also to contact their congressional delegations.
As you may know, both houses of Congress have passed budget resolutions that
include plans to balance the federal budget over the next seven years. This
will necessarily require eliminating some programs and cutting or slowing
the rate of growth of others. The budget resolutions were drafted by the
budget committees of the House and Senate and were voted upon by the full
membership of both of these bodies. The House and Senate resolutions are
somewhat different, so compromises will have to be struck, and eventually a
joint budget resolution will emerge.
The joint budget resolution will be designed to provide Congress with some
budget targets, both in terms of total expenditures, and for the allocation
of funds to broad functional categories within the budget.
The actual allocation of funds to specific programs will occur in the
appropriations process, with most of the work being done by various
subcommittees to which these programs are assigned. This will result in a
series of appropriations bills that will have to be voted on by Congress and
signed by the President in order to go into effect. The reports
accompanying the House and Senate budget resolutions were prepared by the
budget committees to provide some guidance to the appropriating committees
as they draft these appropriations bills. These recommendations are not
binding, and there is a great deal of room for tradeoffs within the broad
goals set by the budget resolutions.
There are some disturbing passages regarding historic preservation in the
reports accompanying both the House and Senate budget resolutions. For
example, the report of the Senate Budget Commitee includes the following
passage in a long statement regarding assumptions about budget cuts:
Eliminate lower priority and duplicate programs in the Department of
Agriculture and Department of Interior such as the forestry incentives
program, urban park and recreation fund, international forestry, advisory
council on historic preservation.
The House Budget Committee report has a similar section on recommended cuts,
which includes the following:
Federal Requirement for Archeological and Historic Impact Statements.
The Federal Government requires historic and archeological impact statements
for certain construction projects under the National Historic Preservation
Act. State historical societies contract out for the service. But most
States and municipalities now have sufficient infrastructure to make
historic and archeological evaluations on their own, without a Federal
requirement. Therefore, this mandate can be waived.
These passages were written by budget committee staff who pretty clearly did
not know much about how the historic preservation system works. They do
indicate that we need to get busy educating members of Congress and their
staffs about the value of archaeology and historic preservation, and about
how federal expenditures on key parts of the historic preservation system
support state and private-sector partnerships. Our first job will be to
make sure that the appropriating committees (and effectively, their relevant
subcommittees) understand the value and cost-effectiveness of historic
preservation and that they include adequate funding for key elements of the
system in the bills they prepare.
Appropriations for the Advisory Council, the Historic Preservation Fund, and
the cultural programs of the Park Service will be in the hands of the
Interior subcommittees of both the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. In the very near future (within a few days to a few weeks),
these committees will produce a number of appropriations bills that
incorporate funds for the various federal agencies and programs. The
members of these committees and subcommittees are listed on an attached
page. Contacts with members of the subcommittees will be especially
important, and are most likely to be effective if you are a constituent of
the member of Congress being conacted. We urge you to make these contacts.
Subcommittee members and their staffs have already started to work on the
appropriations bills, so it is important that you make your views known to
Congress in the near future. Even if your Representative and Senators are
not on the Appropriations Committees, you can ask them to make your views
known to members who are involved in the appropriations process.
The general operating budgets for the federal agencies that manage cultural
resources (e.g., BLM, NPS, USFS) are certainly important, and we are not
implying here that you should not express your support for these agencies.
However, we feel that it is particularly critical at this time to show
support for continued funding of the Advisory Council, the Historic
Preservation Fund, and the cultural programs of the Park Service.
Elimination of any of these programs would have wide-ranging and seriously
negative effects on the protection and management of archaeological sites,
historic buildings, and traditional cultural properties. We've attached
some minimal information about these three programs, including the
President's funding request for F.Y. 1996 (similar to current funding levels).
During the week of May 30--June 2, the three of us, plus Donna Seifert and
Bonnie McEwan of the Society for Historical Archaeology, visited with staff
members of a number of Senators and Representatives in their Washington
offices. We can pass along the following suggestions, based on our
experience. You will of course not be able to use all of these points in a
brief letter (and it is important that it be brief), but we hope that these
"talking points" will help you develop your own arguments.
Overall Value of Historic Preservation
Preserving archaeological sites, buildings, and traditional cultural
properties that reflect the Nation's cultural heritage is an important
national goal and one that enjoys strong popular support. The values
involved are well stated in the preamble to the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966:
(1) the spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected
in its historic heritage;
(2) the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be
preserved as a living part of our community life and development to give a
sense of orientation to the American people;
(3) historic properties significant to the Nation's heritage are being
lost or substantially altered, often inadvertently, with increasing frequency;
(4) the preservation of this irreplacable heritage is in the public
interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic,
inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched
for future generations of Americans.
These principles are widely accepted by the American public, and bipartisan
majorities of Congress have reaffirmed them repeatedly, in the process of
strengthening the Historic Preservation Act by successive amendments over
the years, most recently in 1992.
Specific Reasons to Support Funding for Key Elements of the Historic
Preservation System
1. Don't assume that the staff person or member of Congress you have
contacted knows anything about historic preservation law.
Give a simple explanation of how carrying out Section 106 review helps
ensure that historic values are considered (along with economic and other
values) when a federal undertaking (construction, issuance of a permit,
etc.) has the potential to damage historic buildings, archaeological sites,
or traditional cultural properties.
2. Point out that the Section 106 process does not have absolute standards
that result in saving historic properties at any cost. Rather, it requires
that historic values be given consideration, along with the economic and
other public values of the development under consideration. The process is
designed to find a solution when there is a conflict of values. It is not
designed to stop development; when put into practice, it does not stop
development, and it has generated very little litigation.
It is based on the principle of "look and evaluate before you bulldoze",
which has wide public support. In these respects, the Section 106 process
differs greatly from the way in which endangered species or wetlands are
protected. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation plays a key role
in overseeing this process, at very little cost. Elimination of the Council
as a cost-saving measure would save a small amount of money, but it would
also cause the Section 106 process to work much less efficiently. This
would undoubtedly result in greater costs overall to federal agencies, the
states, and the private sector, as well as an increase in litigation.
3. The Advisory Council has met with representatives of industry, Native
American tribes, archaeologists, and historic preservationists, in response
to comments it received about draft regulations for the Section 106 process
that were designed to implement 1992 amendments to the National Historic
Preservation Act. As archaeologists, we support the Advisory Council's goal
of providing a Section 106 process that provides a clear and cost-effective
way of balancing consideration for historic values with society's needs for
economic development.
4. The Section 106 process gives a major role to the states when decisions
are made about historic properties. Under this process, the states review
the plans of federal agencies, and can cause these plans to be changed if
they find problems with them.
The Historic Preservation fund makes this possible by providing matching
funds to help support a State Historic Preservation Officer and a small
professional staff in each state and territory. These federal dollars
(requested at $32 million for the entire system) are highly leveraged by
additional state and often, private funds. Drastic cuts in the Historic
Preservation Fund would weaken the states' ability to review federal agency
plans, increasing the possibility for litigation or for development projects
to be held up.
5. The Park Service cultural programs provide essential technical support
and other historic preservation assistance to federal and state agencies and
the private sector. Hence, these federal dollars are also highly leveraged,
and enable the whole system to work more effectively and efficiently at the
federal, state, municipal, and private levels. These services are not
limited to the Section 106 process, but provide technical assistance that
enable the private sector to obtain tax credits for rehabilitated historic
structures, etc.
When you write or FAX your member of Congress, your communications need to
be brief, with the focus on asking the member of Congress to support these
three programs (Historic Preservation Fund, Advisory Council, and Park
Service cultural programs). You may also be able to visit directly with a
staff member in the Representative or Senator's home office, or even with
the member of Congress, if she or he is home for a visit.
After you write or FAX in your comments, it would be a good idea to follow
up with a phone call to the member's Washington office.
Tell the person who answers what your interest is, and ask to be called back
by a staff member who is familiar with your issue.
When you talk to this person, make your points again, answer questions the
staff member may have, and try to find out what the member of Congress
thinks about the issue you have raised, and whether he or she is willing to
take some action to further your interest.
Basic Information About Key Elements of Federal Funding for Historic
Preservation, F.Y. 1996
The Historic Preservation Fund. Administration funding request is $43 million
-$32 million for State Historic Preservation Offices
-$7 million for the National Trust for Historic Preservation
-$2 million in grants for cultural and archaeological
preservation programs of Native American tribes and Native
Hawaiian organizations
-$2 million in grants for historically Black colleges, to
protect historic properties that symbolize the civil rights
struggle and the contribution these colleges have made to
education
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Administration funding
request is $3.06 million
-The Advisory council issues regulations and provides guidance
to federal agencies for Section 106 reviews of the effects of
their undertakings on historic buildings, archaeological sites,
and traditional cultural properties.
The cultural resource programs of the National Park Service.
Administration funding request is $18.5 million
-This funding supports the National Register, the Historic
American Buildings Survey, the Historic American Engineering
Record, the National Center for Preservation Technology and
Training, NAGPRA assistance grants, the National Archaeological
Data Base, and other technical information and assistance
services in archaeology and historic preservation.
Senate Appropriations Committee
Republicans (15) Democrats (13)
Mark O. Hatfield, Oregon, Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia, Chair
Ranking Member Ted Stevens, Alaska
Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii
Thad Cochran, Mississippi
Ernest F. Hollings, South Carolina
Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania
J. Bennett Johnston, Louisiana
Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico
Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont
Phil Gramm, Texas
Dale Bumpers, Arkansas
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
Frank R. Lautenberg, New Jersey
Slade Gorton, Washington
Tom Harkin, Iowa
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland
Connie Mack, Florida
Harry Reid, Nevada
Conrad Burns, Montana
Bob Kerrey, Nebraska
Richard C. Shelby, Alabama
Herb Kohl, Wisconsin
James M. Jeffords, Vermont
Patty Murray, Washington
Judd Gregg, New Hampshire
Robert F. Bennett, Utah
Interior Subcommittee
Gorton, chair
Stevens Byrd
Cochran Johnston
Domenici Leahy
Hatfield Bumpers
Burns Hollings
Bennett Reid
Mack Murray
House Appropriations Committee
Republicans (32) Democrats (24)
Robert Livingston, Louisiana,
David R. Obey, Wisconsin, Chair
Ranking Member Joseph M. McDade, Penn.
Sidney R. Yates, Illinois
John T. Myers, Indiana
Louis Stokes, Ohio
C.W. Bill Young, Florida
Tom Bevill, Alabama
Ralph Regula, Ohio
John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania
Jerry Lewis, California
Charles Wilson, Texas
John Edward Porter, Illinois
Norm Dicks, Washington
Harold Rogers, Kentucky
Martin Olav Sabo, Minnesota
Joe Skeen, New Mexico
Julian Dixon, California
Frank R. Wolf, Virginia
Vic Fazio, California
Tom DeLay, Texas
W.G. "Bill" Hefner, North Carolina
Jim Kolbe, Arizona
Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland
Barbara F. Vucanovich, Nevada
Richard J. Durbin, Illinois
Jim Ross Lightfoot, Iowa
Ronald D. Coleman, Texas
Ron Packard, California
Alan B. Mollohan, West Virginia
Sonny Callahan, Alabama
Jim Chapman, Texas James T. Walsh, New York
Marcy Kaptur, Ohio
Charles H. Taylor, North Car.
David E. Skaggs, Colorado
David L. Hobson, Ohio
Nancy Pelosi, California
Ernest Jim Istook, Jr., Okla.
Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana
Henry Bonilla, Texas
Thomas M. Foglietta, Pennsylvania
Joe Knollenberg, Michigan
Esteban E. Torres, California
Dan Miller, Florida
Nita M. Lowey, New York
Jay Dickey, Arkansas
Ray Thornton, Arkansas
Jack Kingston, Georgia
Frank Riggs, California
Rodney Frelinghuysen, New Jersey
Roger Wicker, Mississippi
Michael P. Forbes, New York
George Nethercutt, Washington
Jim Bunn, Oregon
Mark W. Neumann, Wisconsin
Interior Subcommittee
Regula, Chair
McDade Yates
Kolbe Dicks
Skeen Bevill
Vucanovich Skaggs
Taylor (N.C.)
Nethercutt
Bunn
***************************************************************************
Please cross-post or duplicate this message as appropriate. For additional
information, contact:
Society for American Archaeology
900 Second Street NE #12
Washington DC 20002-3557
Telephone: 202/789-8200
Fax: 202/789-0284
Email: [log in to unmask]
William D. Lipe, President
Judy Bense, Chair, Government Affairs Committee Ralph Johnson, Executive
Director
Donald Forsyth Craib, Manager, Goverment Affairs and Counsel
Judy Bense
|
