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 bill wants to give more money to a fund that helps protect old and important places in America, making sure that some of this money goes to special groups that take care of these places. But some people are worried because there aren't clear rules on how exactly the money will be used.
Summary AI
S. 5645 is a bill introduced in the 118th Congress that aims to amend title 54 of the United States Code to enhance the Historic Preservation Fund. The bill proposes increasing funding to $300 million annually and establishes guidelines for the allocation of funds, ensuring a minimum percentage goes to State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. It also allows for flexibility in fund allocation by Congress and the President, and mandates annual reports on fund distribution. Additionally, the bill authorizes fund allocations to various preservation programs, such as those focused on African American civil rights and underrepresented communities.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The bill titled "Historic Preservation Enhancement Act" seeks to amend title 54 of the United States Code to increase funding in the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF). A notable feature of the bill is the significant increase in funding, doubling the previous allocation from $150 million to $300 million annually. This fund supports various historic preservation activities, including grants for preservation offices at the state and tribal levels, and initiatives focusing on civil rights movements and underrepresented communities. The proposed changes are scheduled to be effective starting fiscal year 2026.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the most striking elements of the bill is the increase in the funding amount without providing detailed explanation or justification. This lack of transparency could spark concerns about potential wasteful spending. The bill also introduces complexity into funding allocations by allowing the fund to be used "without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation," which could erode fiscal oversight.
Another concern is the significant authority granted to the President to allocate funds if Congress does not provide alternate allocations. This could shift the balance of power, rendering critical oversight functions less effective. The minimum allocations dictated for State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices seem arbitrary, lacking clear explanations for why 40% and 20% have been specified.
The language used in the bill is also complex, with terms like "alternate allocation" which could result in confusion and inconsistencies. Additionally, provisions for adjusting funds for Tribal Offices are vaguely defined, lacking specific guidelines or caps for calculation.
Public Impact
The increase in available funding from the Historic Preservation Fund could significantly benefit public preservation efforts, allowing more resources to be allocated towards maintaining and revitalizing historic sites. This could enhance educational opportunities and foster tourism in communities across the country, providing an economic boost.
However, the lack of oversight and transparency could lead to inefficient use of funds without clear accountability. The ambiguity present in allocation processes could foster mistrust among the public if funds are perceived to be distributed unfairly or wastefully.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The increased funding is likely to positively impact stakeholders in historic preservation, including non-profits, community organizations, and local governments involved with state and tribal historic preservation offices. They could see a substantial increase in available resources, enabling them to undertake additional projects and initiatives.
On the flip side, the concentration of allocation authority within the executive branch could marginalize the influence of Congress, potentially leading to politically motivated funding decisions. Additionally, the predefined allocations for state and tribal offices may lead to dissatisfaction among groups who might feel their needs are overlooked or inadequately addressed due to rigid percentages that lack demonstrated justification.
In summary, while the bill seeks to increase funding for historic preservation significantly, which could be beneficial in many ways, the proposed measures introduce complexities and potential challenges requiring careful consideration and, perhaps, further amendments to ensure fair and efficient application of the funds.
Financial Assessment
The bill S. 5645 seeks to amend the United States Code to increase and manage financial allocations in the Historic Preservation Fund. The primary financial reference in the bill is the proposal to increase the funding from $150,000,000 to $300,000,000 annually. This significant increase raises concerns about potential wasteful spending due to the lack of clear justification or explanation for this adjustment. The absence of a clear rationale or accompanying analysis about how the increased funds will be utilized effectively poses the risk of spending without accountability.
The bill also stipulates that any amounts deposited in the Historic Preservation Fund after the amendment will be made available for expenditure without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation. This means there is no requirement for the usual budgetary oversight processes, which could lead to the misuse of funds. This provision is viewed critically because it removes layers of fiscal scrutiny that typically accompany federal spending.
An important element of the bill is the allocation mechanism that designates certain minimum percentages of the funds: not less than 40% to State Historic Preservation Offices and not less than 20% to Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. While setting these minimum allocations aims to ensure consistent support, the lack of clear justification for these specific percentages raises questions. Without a detailed explanation, the provision might appear arbitrary or suggest favoritism.
The bill grants the President significant authority to allocate funds, especially in the absence of Congressional action. If Congress does not establish alternate allocations, the President is empowered to make allocation decisions. This arrangement might undermine legislative oversight, as it concentrates decision-making power in the executive branch.
There is also an allowance for flexibility in allocations during ongoing budget negotiations, specified under a continuing resolution. While this can provide necessary operational flexibility, it may also hinder transparency and consistent fund distribution across fiscal years.
Lastly, the bill authorizes funds from the Historic Preservation Fund to support various programs but states this in a vague manner as "amounts are authorized to be made available." Without specific funding amounts attached to each program, such language could lead to budget inefficiencies and uncertainties, as program priorities and funding could become subject to interpretation.
Issues
The significant increase in funding from $150,000,000 to $300,000,000 under Section 2(a) lacks explanation or justification, raising concerns about potential wasteful spending without accountability.
The language in Section 2(b) regarding funding allocation, specifically 'without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation,' removes fiscal oversight and could lead to misuse of funds.
Section 303103(b)(3) grants the President significant authority to allocate funds in the absence of Congressional action or alternate allocations, potentially undermining legislative oversight and balance of power.
The minimum allocation of 40% for State Historic Preservation Offices and 20% for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices in Section 303103(b)(1) lacks clear justification, which might suggest favoritism.
The complexity and ambiguity of terms like 'alternate allocation' and 'allocation by program' in Section 303103(b)(3) may result in inconsistent fund allocation and understanding.
The provision for adjusting funds for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices in Section 303103(b)(1)(B) is vague, lacking specificity on calculation or caps, which may lead to arbitrary decision-making.
In Section 3, the phrase 'amounts are authorized to be made available' is vague, not specifying exact funding amounts, which could lead to budget inefficiencies and uncertainties.
The broad language in Section 303103(b)(4) permitting adjustments during continuing resolutions could hinder transparency and consistent fund distribution across fiscal years.
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.