Congress returned to Washington last week following its Thanksgiving break, and while a government shutdown is not in the cards for December, lawmakers still have some big issues to contend with.
Shortly before the holiday break, Congress passed and President Biden signed a bipartisan measure to extend government funding into early next year. The short-term spending bill was intended to give Congress enough time to come to agreement on annual appropriations bills for the fiscal year that started last Oct. 1. Although big differences remain between the parties over the levels of spending, it appears that conservative Republicans in the House are softening their demands for steeper spending cuts, which have held up the process until now.
Those appropriations bills do not include emergency spending that the Biden administration is calling on Congress to pass for Ukraine and Israel. House Republicans passed a bill in November that provided aid only for Israel, and paired it with large cuts to the Internal Revenue Service. Senate Democrats have termed their bill DOA, and are trying to forge a bipartisan consensus on a Senate bill that not only provides aid to Ukraine and Israel, but also includes border security funding. However, deep divisions between the parties on what should be in the border security package are holding up further action. Even if Democrats and Republicans in the Senate can come to agreement, there is no guarantee that such a compromise could pass in the House, as a number of Republicans want even more far-reaching border security measures – and some Democrats want less.
In other words, even though a majority of Americans support providing aid to Israel and Ukraine, as well as additional U.S. border security, infighting in Congress threatens to derail all of it.
That infighting may be one reason that a sizable number of lawmakers are calling it quits. To date, 36 members of Congress, including seven Senators and 29 House representatives, have announced they will not run for re-election in 2024 (that does not include now former Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who on Friday became just the sixth House representative to be expelled from the chamber).
The spate of retirement reflects the frustration that many lawmakers feel about gridlock. It also means that the next Congress, which opens in January 2025, will feature a lot of new lawmakers, many of whom will never have dealt with policy issues relating to CRM. The need to educate them about the industry will never be greater.
House Democrats Hold Preservation Roundtable. Although they cannot call for a full committee hearing since they are the minority party, Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee convened a roundtable last week to raise awareness about preservation issues.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Chair Sara Bronin and representatives from organizations that serve as ex-officio representatives on the Council spoke about the need to protect Sec. 106, increase funding for S/THPOs and advance other legislation to promote historic preservation.
In a statement to the Committee, ACRA pointed out that while the federal permitting process can be made faster and more efficient, the solution is not to exempt projects from preservation and environmental reviews: “Excluding projects from Section 106 can lead to more delays and higher costs because preventing public engagement early in the process can lead to more controversy later on. Worse, bypassing the Section 106 process endangers the places that tell our country’s history. We simply cannot replace the irreplaceable.”
ACRA offered the Committee members a number of recommendations on ways in which Congress and the Executive Branch can support CRM, including:
- Addressing workforce shortages and supporting a more diverse workforce for both government historic preservation offices and the CRM industry
- Providing adequate resources to State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices through the federal Historic Preservation Fund, including for making digital and geospatial information about historic and cultural assets more widely available
- Ensuring clarity and consistency in the Section 106 process among federal agencies, including finalizing the replacement of the Army Corps’ Appendix C and providing more training for federal personnel
- Protecting NEPA as an important companion to NHPA.
You can watch a recording of the roundtable here.
ACRA Offers Feedback to Army on Its Pre-1919 Historic Housing Program Comment Plan. ACRA has provided comments to the Army on its proposed Program Comment Plan for Preservation of Pre-1919 Historic Army Housing, Associated Buildings and Structures, and Landscape Features.
It its comments, ACRA said that it was “encouraged by the fact that the Program Comment Plan for Pre-1919 structures and features excludes adverse effect actions, such as demolition, cessation of maintenance and new construction. This is, as the Army notes, a departure from other Army program comments. ACRA believes that, in situations where the Army determines that demolition and new construction are warranted, the letter and spirit of the NHPA demand that such undertakings undergo consultation.”
ACRA also suggested that the Army take steps to preserve historic materials. Noting that the Army’s Program Comment Plan allows for the use of imitative materials – and that replacement of historic materials is at times needed for hazard abatement purposes – ACRA encouraged the Army to “consider ways to ensure documentation of historic materials when they are replaced, or explore restoring a select group of structures using historic materials while using imitative materials on the remaining buildings.”