JFS 4/18/85 SUGGESTED MINERAL LEASING/WILDERNESS CANDIDATE AREA BAN Subject to valid existing rights, except for lands (1) described in sections 105 and 106 of Public law 96-560, (2) lands described in section 103 of Public Law 96-550, (3) lands in the State of Alaska, (4) lands in the Palisades Wilderness Study Area as described in section 301 of Public Law 98-550, and (5) lands in the national forest system or public lands which have been released for non-wilderness uses by any Act of Congress designating components of the National Wilderness Preservation System now in effect or hereafter enacted, none of the funds provided in this Act shall be obligated for any aspect of processing or issuance of leases for coal, oil, gas oil shale, phosphate, potassium, sulphur, gilsonite or geothermal resources on Federal lands within any Forest Service RARE II areas recommended for wilderness designation or allocated to further planning in Executive Communication 1504, Ninety-sixth Congress (House Document numbered 96-119); or within any lands designated by Congress as wilderness study areas or within Bureau of Land Management wilderness study areas. HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS Essentially, the Administration's budget request for fiscal 1986 represents little change from previous requests, which have repeatedly called for drastic cuts in the national The cuts would essentially historic preservation programs. eliminate the successful Federal-State-local partnership that has evolved over the past 20 years. These are modest programs that have leveraged many times over the Federal investment by bringing in other public and private support. In most Following is a brief description of the historic preservation programs, by agency, and the Committee's recommendations on the fiscal 1986 budget request. cases, the recommended amounts are the same as the actual appropriations for fiscal 1985. Miscellaneous.... HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS [Ir fisca' years] This was an advance appropriation for face' 198 in the fraca' 1985 appropriation bit. The manastration requests transler of the fund In The details of our recommendations are provided in the Committee's report to the House Budget Committee. particular, I would draw your attention to our discussion in the report of our continuing concern with the difficulties the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has had with the OMB and Justice Department in promulgating regulations to carry out the requirements of Sections 106 and 211 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). It appears that new authorizing legislation, through an amendment to the NHPA may be necessary. Needless to say, we did not agree to the Administration's request to cut the Council's budget by nearly a third; instead, the Committee recommended $1,707,000 for fiscal 1986, which is slightly more than the 1985 appropriations and which simply reflects the Council's initial budget estimate to OMB to continue its current level of services. The Committee also rejected the Administration's attempt to eliminate the Historic Preservation Fund. At the very minimum, we believe that the Fund should continue at the 1985 appropriations level, which was slightly less than $25 million, to provide grants to the States and to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The Committee also recommended in our report that the unobligated balance of money previously appropriated from the Fund for a study by the Corps of Engineers of the protection of Natchez, Mississippi, (about |