[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 59 (Friday, May 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
        TAXPAYERS, NATIONAL PARKS TAKEN FOR A RIDE BY STEAMTOWN

                                 ______


                        HON. MICHAEL A. ANDREWS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 12, 1994

  Mr. ANDREWS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on May 12, 1994, the House 
Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests 
and Public Lands conducted a hearing on H.R. 3708, which would 
reauthorize Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
The hearing focused on the legislation that would cap this project's 
authorization at its current level, require several changes in the 
project's operation, and limit the Park Service's liability pertaining 
to acquisition of lands containing hazardous waste. I believe this 
legislation is a step in the right direction because it finally 
addresses many of the concerns I have raised about Steamtown 
specifically, and about the issue of funding our national parks in 
general.
  Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment last year, during debate on the 
Interior Appropriations bill, which would have eliminated funding for 
Steamtown. I felt then that Steamtown was unworthy of receiving federal 
funds, especially considering the shortfalls that the gems of our 
National Park Service are currently experiencing. Both Yosemite and 
Yellowstone National Parks have had to cut back on public services due 
to decreases in appropriations. This, in my mind, is the tragedy of 
funding projects like Steamtown.
  The reforms contained in H.R. 3708 merit our strong consideration. Of 
course, I would rather see funding for this project simply eliminated 
from the budget, and I will be considering this when this year's 
Interior funding bill comes to the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has the important duty to preserve our history 
and protect and adequately maintain our national parks. And in these 
times of increasingly scarce federal resources, Congress must act 
responsibly.
  That is why I offered my amendment last year to eliminate funding for 
Steamtown. This project is not a unique historical landmark: our 
country already boasts of more than 200 railroad museums. Nor is it a 
pure display of our nation's rail history: more than 25 percent of the 
steam engines at Steamtown are Canadian in origin, not American. In 
fact, Steamtown has been described as a second-rate collection of 
trains on a third-rate site.
  Interestingly, proponents have envisioned this project as a national 
rail museum, in the same vein as the National Air and Space Museum, 
which would bring back the glory days of our nation's steam railroads. 
Historians have noted, however, that Scranton is of only modest 
historical significance, asserting that Chicago, recognized as the 
greatest rail center in the nation since 1870, St. Louis, historically 
the second largest rail hub and already home to a magnificent rail 
collection, or nearby Baltimore, home of the Mount Clair shops, were 
much more important to the growth of the railroads and would be more 
appropriate sites for a national rail museum. With this in mind, I 
simply fail to see why the Federal Government should be funding such a 
project.
  Actually, Mr. Speaker, Steamtown began as a private venture. Only 
after Scranton lured the project from Vermont did private funding dry 
up and proponents turn to Congress for financial help. So, Congress 
carefully studied the proposal, received comments from the Park 
Service, and made a responsible addition to the National Park System, 
right? Wrong. Steamtown was first authorized in an appropriations bill 
in 1986, thus bypassing the normal authorizing process and the usual 
review by the National Park Service. The project has received more than 
$80 million through fiscal year 1994, although it was originally 
authorized for only $20 million. This $80 million is enough to operate 
Grand Canyon for 7 years, and Steamtown's operation costs are ten times 
per visitor that of Grand Canyon's.
  For fiscal year 1995, the Park Service has requested an appropriation 
of more than $4.3 million for Steamtown, a 39 percent increase from 
fiscal year 1994. Upon completion, the park will need in excess of $5 
million per year for operations. This is simply too much to spend on a 
project that has been dubbed, ``an abuse of the public trust'' by the 
National Parks and Conservation Association.
  Mr. Speaker, I am as interested and active in historical preservation 
as anyone in the Congress. And, that is why I speak out on this issue. 
Funding for projects like Steamtown divert the National Park Service 
from its historic mission of preserving and maintaining great national 
parks like Yosemite and Yellowstone. Both of these parks have been 
forced to scale back services to the public in recent years. Such 
cutbacks include reduced patrols, longer response time to requests, and 
fewer interpretive services. The New York Times editorialized on this 
situation: ``It's galling to let a boondoggle siphon even another penny 
from the Park Service's worthier, maintenance-starved projects.'' It is 
a travesty that we neglect these two true gems of our Park System so 
that we can fund Steamtown. Something here is wrong, and we must work 
to change that.

                          ____________________