Overview
Title
To amend title 54, United States Code, to increase amounts deposited in the Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The Historic Preservation Enhancement Act is like a plan to give more money—$300 million a year instead of $150 million—to help take care of old, important places in the U.S., with some of this money specially set aside to help states and tribes preserve their histories.
Summary AI
The Historic Preservation Enhancement Act aims to amend title 54 of the United States Code to increase the funds deposited into the Historic Preservation Fund from $150 million to $300 million annually. The bill specifies that these funds will be made available for use without further need for appropriation, starting from fiscal year 2026. It mandates a minimum allocation of 40% to State Historic Preservation Offices and 20% to Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. Additionally, it allows for allocations to various Historic Preservation programs, such as the African American Civil Rights Movement Initiative & Grants, subject to available appropriations.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, introduced to the United States House of Representatives as H.R. 10553, seeks to amend title 54 of the United States Code related to historic preservation. It aims to increase the funds deposited into the Historic Preservation Fund to $300 million annually. Furthermore, it establishes guidelines for the use and allocation of these funds, emphasizing support for State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. The bill also grants the President certain discretionary powers in how these funds are distributed should Congress not provide alternate instructions.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues stand out within this legislation. Firstly, the substantial increase in funding from $150 million to $300 million comes without any accompanying justification within the text. This lack of transparency might lead to questions about potential wasteful expenditures. The authority given to the President to allocate funds in the absence of Congressional action could undermine the checks and balances between branches of government. Additionally, the bill's provision for making funds available without fiscal year limitations might reduce financial oversight and accountability, leading to potential misuse of resources.
Moreover, the specific allocation percentages set for State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices could favor these entities without providing a clear rationale for these divisions. Ambiguities in terms like "alternate allocation" and the absence of detailed criteria for distributing authorized funds among designated programs heighten the risk of inconsistent or inequitable allocation of resources.
Impact on the Public Broadly
The public may see positive effects from increased funding towards preserving historic sites, potentially benefiting cultural heritage and tourism. These funds could lead to the restoration and maintenance of sites that have historical and educational significance, enriching community identity and local economies.
However, without specified checks and clear allocation standards, the public might also witness inefficient use of taxpayer dollars if funds do not reach their intended targets effectively. The possibility of a power imbalance between Congress and the President in fund distribution could also diminish public confidence in government transparency and accountability.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices are likely to benefit from assured funding, respectively receiving at least 40% and 20% of available funds. This allocation could empower these offices to engage in more comprehensive preservation activities.
On the other hand, stakeholders in other sectors of historic preservation might perceive this allocation as disproportionate, potentially leading to perceived favoritism or inequitable resource distribution. The ambiguous terms and lack of criteria for fund distribution could also create uncertainty for organizations reliant on Historic Preservation Fund support.
In summary, while the Historic Preservation Enhancement Act promises increased resources for preserving American heritage, it also presents challenges that could impact legislation effectiveness and fairness in fund allocation. These considerations should be carefully balanced to meet multiple stakeholders' needs while ensuring efficient use of public funds.
Financial Assessment
The Historic Preservation Enhancement Act proposes significant changes to financial allocations related to the Historic Preservation Fund. The bill primarily aims to increase the funds deposited into the Historic Preservation Fund and establish ways to allocate these funds to various preservation programs. Below is a breakdown of these financial elements and related concerns:
Increase in Funding
The bill proposes to amend the funding provision for the Historic Preservation Fund by increasing the annual deposit from $150 million to $300 million. This is a substantial rise, and there is no detailed explanation or justification accompanying this increase. One potential issue with such an increase is the lack of transparency and fiscal oversight, which could lead to inefficient or wasteful spending. The considerable rise in funding allocation could benefit the preservation efforts but also demands a careful justification and audit to ensure proper utilization.
Allocation and Oversight
The bill dictates that the increased funds should be available for use from fiscal year 2026 onwards, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation. This means the funds can be used automatically without additional approval, which might limit fiscal oversight and increase the risk of funds being misused. Making funds "available for expenditure ... without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation" could lead to less accountability.
Minimum allocation requirements are specified: at least 40% of the funds should go to State Historic Preservation Offices and at least 20% to Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. While this allocation ensures that a significant portion of the funds supports State and Tribal offices, the fixed percentages might favor certain groups without flexible consideration for changing needs or priorities.
Presidential Allocation Authority
The bill provides the President with substantial power to allocate funds if Congress does not enact legislation for alternate allocations. This concentration of power might undermine legislative oversight and the system of checks and balances. It raises concerns about overly centralizing decision-making authority and could lead to possible biases or favoritism in fund distribution.
Additionally, terms like "alternate allocation" and "allocation by program" lack specificity, potentially leading to ambiguous interpretations and inconsistent fund distribution practices. There is a risk of non-transparent or poorly tracked allocation, especially if the responsible agencies are operating under a continuing resolution, allowing for ad-hoc fund distribution rates.
Program-Specific Authorizations
The bill authorizes funds for specific programs, such as the African American Civil Rights Movement Initiative, without explicitly detailing how these funds will be allocated amongst the programs listed. This lack of clarity might result in uneven distribution or favoritism towards certain programs over others. As such, defining clear criteria for fund allocation among authorized programs could prevent potential biases.
In conclusion, while the proposed increase in the Historic Preservation Fund can significantly aid preservation efforts, clear guidelines and oversight mechanisms are crucial to ensure the funds are used efficiently and fairly. Addressing the identified concerns would enhance transparency and accountability in handling public funds.
Issues
The increase in funding from $150,000,000 to $300,000,000 in Section 2, without any explanation or justification for this significant increase, could lead to potential wasteful spending and lacks transparency in fiscal responsibility.
The provision in Section 2 allowing the President to allocate funds if Congress has not enacted legislation for alternate allocations concentrates too much power in the executive branch, potentially undermining legislative oversight and checks and balances.
The removal of fiscal oversight by making funds available 'without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation' in Section 2 could lead to less accountability and potential misuse of funds.
The minimum allocation percentages set for State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices in Section 303103(b)(1) may favor certain organizations over others without clear justification, possibly leading to favoritism.
The vague terms such as 'alternate allocation' and 'allocation by program' in Section 2 might lead to ambiguous interpretations and inconsistent application of fund allocation.
The lack of clarity on how funds for 'other relevant programs' determined by the President will be identified or audited could result in non-transparent distribution of resources, as described in Section 303103(b)(2).
The absence of detailed criteria in Section 3 for how the authorized amounts will be allocated among specified programs could lead to favoritism or uneven distribution of funds.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The beginning of this Act specifies that it can be referred to as the “Historic Preservation Enhancement Act.”
2. Amendments to Historic Preservation Fund provisions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendments to the Historic Preservation Fund provisions increase the funding amount to $300 million and allow the funds to be used for historic preservation activities starting in fiscal year 2026, with a mandate that at least 40% goes to State Historic Preservation Offices and 20% to Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. The President has the authority to allocate these funds and must submit annual cost estimates and reports to Congress, with provisions for alternate allocations if Congress enacts different legislation.
Money References
- (a) Funding.—Section 303102 of title 54, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking “For each” and inserting “(a) In general.—Except as provided in subsection (b), for each”; (2) by striking “of fiscal years 2012 to 2023” and inserting “fiscal year”; (3) by striking “$150,000,000” and inserting “$300,000,000”; and (4) by adding at the end the following: “(b) Deposits.—Unless otherwise provided by law, if the revenues described in subsection (a) are not sufficient to cover the amount to be deposited into each of the funds such revenues are directed under other Federal laws, the difference between the shortfall in the revenues and the amount to be deposited into the Historic Preservation Fund under subsection (a) shall be deposited from amounts in the general fund of the Treasury.”.
303103. Use and availability Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section details the use and distribution of funds from the Historic Preservation Fund, ensuring a minimum allocation to State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices starting in fiscal year 2026, with the President tasked with submitting proposed allocations annually. If no alternative allocations are enacted by Congress, the President is authorized to allocate the funds, and during a continuing resolution, funds can be distributed at the rate of the previous year.
3. Authorization of Historic Preservation Fund programs Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Amounts from the Historic Preservation Fund are authorized to support several programs, subject to available funding. These programs include the African American Civil Rights Movement Initiative & Grants, History of Equal Rights Grants, Survey Grants for Underrepresented Communities, and Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization Grants.