March 2004 - Society for California Archaeology

5
SCA Business and Activities
Senate bill faces a filibuster from
members who fear the proposal would
increase the budget deficit, which is
already projected to top half a trillion
dollars. Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist, R-Tenn., has suggested trimming
the bill to $290 billion, but supporters
of the bill don’t like that idea. “It is
disappointing that some around here
want to stop this bill,” said Sen.
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., according to a
transcript of her remarks scheduled for
Feb. 12 on the Senate floor. “I will be
fighting for it because it is extremely
important for our country and my state
of California.” Boxer, who is
campaigning for re-election, leaves no
doubt that she views the program as a
jobs generator, as well as a way to fix
crumbling roads and bridges and
relieve traffic congestion. The Senate
proposal would create an estimated
87,000 construction jobs in California
and 800,000 nationally. California’s
share of the proposed spending would
be $21.4 billion over the next six
years, up $6.1 billion from the current
program. Meanwhile, in the House, a
$375 billion transportation bill is being
debated.
With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
proposing cuts in state transportation
spending to help deal with California’s
budget deficit, officials have been
hoping for an increased infusion of
federal funds to keep projects on track.
But under the House extension, the
funding will remain at current levels.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek,
a member of the House Transportation
Committee, says the state has $2
billion in projects ready to go, just
waiting for federal funds that it can’t
get until the new bill passes.
In the agencies, final regulations
from the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation dealing with certain
portions of Section 106 are due in
January. The Advisory Council is
currently in the process of amending
its Section 106 rules. In addition, the
Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) is considering a nationwide
programmatic agreement that would
govern the Section 106 process for
communication facilities. The recent
comment period for the revised
Advisory Council regulations has
ended. President Nixon, in the
interest of streamlining the Section
106 process and to fulfill the intent of
Congress, ordered that eligible sites
should be given the same protection as
listed sites, thus eliminating the added
work and time required to get them
listed.
Representatives Pombo (Chair of
the House Resources Committee) and
Radanovich from California, also in the
interest of streamlining, have
submitted comments that support the
idea that eligible sites should no
longer be given the same
consideration as sites actually listed on
the National Register. How this will
streamline the process is unclear,
unless there is no attempt made to
place eligible sites on the register at
all. Representative Pombo, in a letter
to John Nau, Chairman of the Advisory
Council, states, “In 1966, there were
12,000 properties on the National
Register. Today, the Register lists over
77,000 properties with another 9,458
more on the list of properties
determined eligible by the Keeper of
the National Register…. In contrast,
the number of properties that “meet
the National Register criteria” is
unknowable, but is probably in the
many tens of millions, and none have
been vetted for significance or the
eligibility criteria of listed properties.”
California Legislature:
2003-2004 Session
Historical Preservation: California
Cultural and Historical Endowment
(A.B. 393)
Author: Cindy Montañez (D-39 th )
Summary: This bill establishes the
California Urban Historical
Preservation Revolving Loan Fund
under the administration of the
California Cultural and Historical
Endowment, to the extent that funding
is available. Although the endowment
has broad authority to enact a similar
program, the goal of this measure is to
ensure that funds are available for
historic preservation, on an ongoing
basis, through a revolving loan fund.
Specifically, this bill would create a
fund from which loans will be provided
to encourage the development of a
systematic and coordinated
assemblage of buildings, sites,
artifacts, museums, cultural landscapes,
illustrations, written materials, and
displays and interpretive centers to
preserve and tell the stories of
California as a unified society and of
the many groups of people that
together comprise historic and modern
California. In September, 2002
In September 2002, Governor Davis
signed “The California Cultural and
Historical Endowment Act” (act)
which established the California
Cultural and Historical Endowment
under the administration of the
California State Library (AB 716,
Firebaugh, Chapter 1126, Statutes of
2002). The act authorizes the
endowment to make grants and loans
to public agencies and nonprofit
organizations to protect and preserve
California’s cultural and historic
resources. Although the endowment
was created in 2002 it was not funded
until August 2003 when $128 million
in Proposition 40 bond funds were
allocated to the endowment in the
Budget Act of 2003.
Status: Referred to Committee on
Appropriations on January 16, 2004.
California for Preservation Action,
California Preservation Foundation,
National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Los Angeles
Conservancy, Pasadena Heritage, San
Francisco Architectural Heritage, Save
Our Heritage Organization (San
Diego), Napa County Landmarks, and
the California Mainstreet Alliance
have registered their support of this
bill.
California Racial Mascots Act: Athletic
Team Names and Mascots (A.B. 858)
Author: Jackie Goldberg (D-45 th )
Summary: This bill establishes the
California Racial Mascots Act that
SCA Newsletter 38(1)