National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 2006

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1829, companion legislation to one I introduced to repeal an outdated 1936 Federal statute which limits the authority of the Virgin Islands government to assess and collect real property taxes in the territory. I will note that the Senate approved this measure as a stand-alone piece of legislation, but certain extraneous matters such as titles 1, 2, and 4 have been added to this bill by the Republican leadership which will require it to be reconsidered by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that we pass S. 1829, now title III, and have it enacted into law before we adjourn for the year to prevent some of my constituents from facing the very real risk of losing their homes because the Virgin Islands government would not be able to provide them protections from the sky-high property tax bills because of the 1936 statute.

That statute was enacted to address the tax policies of the Danish era in the Virgin Islands. It was generally thought to have been repealed by the enactment of the Revised Organic Act of 1954, which created a comprehensive system within the local government with sufficient legislative powers to resolve local property tax issues without the need of Federal intervention.

S. 1829 and H.R. 59, which I introduced in the House, became necessary because 2 years ago the Third Circuit Federal Court of Appeals revived the 1936 statute, which requires that all real property be taxed at the same rate without regard to classification or use.

This decision, among other things, struck down a local statute capping the amount of any increase in the assessment of residential real property and, therefore, any increase in the property tax owed in any assessment period. It also prevents any exemptions for veterans and other groups who ought to have such a benefit.

If the 1936 law is not now repealed by Congress, it will hinder the exercise of the Virgin Islands government as conferred by the Revised Organic Act to assess, administer, and collect real property taxes in the Virgin Islands. Indeed, the 1936 statute puts at risk longstanding government policies designed to develop the economy, promote social welfare, and protect home ownership in the Virgin Islands. Without the authority to limit such increases by capping such assessments or similar methods commonly used by other jurisdictions, the now revived 1936 statute may have the anomalous result of pricing land and home ownership beyond the reach of many Virgin Islanders. It has long outlived its usefulness and now interferes with the Virgin Islands' ability to perform an essential government function.

The assessment and collection of real property taxes is fundamentally a local government issue with no Federal impact. No other State, territorial or local government is subject to such Federal restrictions.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't point out my deep disappointment of the fact that we are not voting on S. 1829 as a stand-alone bill. By including additional items in the bill, it becomes possible that the repeal of the 1936 statute could not become law before Congress adjourns because of procedural complications in the other body. I hope that is not the case, because it would be extremely lamentable if, because of that result, many of my constituents would receive very high tax bills this coming January and there would be no way that they could afford to pay, and that could in fact mean the loss of their homes. So I am calling on my colleagues, whose bills were added to this otherwise simple but very significant measure, and the leadership to work with me in the remaining day or days of this Congress to save the American dream for their fellow Americans living in the Virgin Islands who have, alongside citizens from all of the other districts, served this country at every level, even to the ultimate sacrifice in every war this country has fought.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5861) to amend the National Historic Preservation Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5861, introduced by me, amends the National Historic Preservation Act to do five things:

It extends the Historic Preservation Fund to 2015 for State and tribal preservation activities.

Secondly, it reauthorizes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Third, requires certain local governments to provide full due process to property owners who object to a determination of eligibility on their property.

Fourth, it imposes a deadline on State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers to respond to section 106 applications within 30 days of a ``no adverse effects'' determination.

And, fifth, prohibits a State historic preservation officer from requiring a Federal agency applicant to identify properties outside the area of potential effects.

From its auspicious start in April of 2004 as a discussion draft to the bill before us in the House today, H.R. 5861 has been the subject of more discussion and rewrite they any other bill that I have been involved with since becoming the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks.

While the bill may not be the final product that many envisioned, myself included, I believe H.R. 5861 represents a significant step towards improving the section 106 process under the National Historic Preservation Act by reducing some of the conflicts that exist between the business and preservation communities and the State and Tribal Preservation Officers.

In addition, H.R. 5861 will enhance private property protections in the listing process, under the Historic Preservation Act as well as improve the operation of the Advisory Council and extend the authorization of the Historic Preservation Fund.

Finally, this bill was a truly collaborative effort. I believe it is important to take a moment to thank those individuals and organizations for their help in crafting this important bill.

First of all, Congressman Turner of Ohio; Vince Sampson of the Resources Committee majority staff; David Watkins of the Resources Committee minority staff; Chairman John Nau of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers; Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal; the National Mining Association, the National Trust For Historic Preservation; CTIA, the Wireless Association; the United South and Eastern Tribes; the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers; Preservation Action; the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association; the American Cultural Resources Association; the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; and Rob Howard, from the National Park Subcommittee majority staff.

I include a letter in support of the bill from CTIA, the Wireless Association.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate

bill (S. 1829) to repeal certain sections of the Act of May 26, 1936, pertaining to the Virgin Islands, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, with time quickly running out in the 109th Congress, the Committee on Resources has amended this bill to package several bills for consideration in the Senate.

Title I is the text of H.R. 6014 authored by Congressman Richard Pombo, which aims to protect levees in the highly vulnerable Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Central California. This bill passed the House in September.

Title II is the text of H.R. 5861, authored by Congressman Stevan Pearce, which strengthens and improves the operation of the National Historic Preservation Act. This bill also passed the House in September.

Title III, authored by Senator Pete Domenici and Congresswoman Donna Christensen, amends the Organic Act which applies to the U.S. Virgin Islands. The language, as reflected in both H.R. 59 and S. 1829, as passed by the Senate on September 29 of this year, will allow the Virgin Islands to control its property tax system. Currently, all other States and territories have this ability, and for the many residents of this territory it is important that we are able to move this provision forward.

The last title includes the text of H.R. 5978, authored by Congressman Roy Blunt. That bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including the battlefields and related sites of the First and Second Battles of Newtonia, Missouri, during the Civil War, as part of Wilson's Creek National Battlefield or designating the battlefields and related sites as a separate unit of the National Park System. All of these bills are worthy of our consideration, and I ask for your support.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I an exchange of letters between Don Young and Richard Pombo for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC, September 28, 2006.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed the text of H.R. 5681,

the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2006, and believe that

the Committee on Resources has a jurisdictional interest in

provisions in this important legislation dealing with

fisheries. Specifically, we have identified a provision

dealing with the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fishery

in the Northern Region of the management plan.

Recognizing that the House of Representatives has a

dwindling number of legislative days left before the 109th

Congress adjourns, I will forego seeking a sequential

referral of H.R. 5681. Waiving the Committee on Resources'

right to a referral in this case does not waive the

Committee's jurisdiction over any provision in H.R. 5861 or

similar provisions in other bills. In addition, I ask that

you support my request to have the Committee on Resources

represented on the conference on this bill, if a conference

is necessary. Finally, I ask that you include this letter in

the Congressional Record during debate on H.R. 5861 when it

is considered by the House of Representatives.

I appreciate your leadership on this bill and I look

forward to working with you on H.R. 586.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5861 is an acceptable compromise. While it makes technical changes to the Historic Preservation Act, it includes none of the highly controversial amendments that were first proposed by the majority.

The historic preservation community, including the Advisory Council, the Trust, and the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose H.R. 5861

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.