[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      REFORMING OPERATION OF THE STEAMTOWN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 3708) to reform the operation, maintenance, and development of 
the Steamtown National Historic Site, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3708

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
     Representatives of the United States of America in 
     Congress assembled,

               TITLE I--STEAMTOWN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--In order to preserve and interpret 
     certain elements of railroading, especially steam-operated 
     railroads during the period of 1850 to 1950, there is hereby 
     established the Steamtown National Historic Site (hereinafter 
     in this title referred to as the ``historic site''). The 
     purposes of the historic site shall include interpretation of 
     the evolution of railroads and their impact on the 
     development of this nation, including technological, 
     economic, social, and political effects and the relationship 
     of railroads to industrialization.
       (b) Boundaries.--The historic site shall consist of the 
     lands and interests in lands within the area generally 
     depicted on the map entitled ``Boundary Map, Steamtown 
     National Historic Site'', numbered STTO-80,000B, and dated 
     June, 1994. The map shall be on file and available for public 
     inspection in the offices of the National Park Service, 
     Department of the Interior. No revisions may be made in the 
     boundary of the historic site, except by Act of Congress.
       (c) Repeal.--Sections 1 through 5 of the Steamtown National 
     Historic Site Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-591; 100 Stat. 3341-
     248-249) are hereby repealed.

     SEC. 102. ADMINISTRATION.

       The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter in this title 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall administer the 
     historic site in accordance with this title and with the 
     provisions of law generally applicable to units of the 
     national park system, including the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes'', 
     approved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3, 
     and 4). On or before September 30, 1995, the Secretary shall 
     prepare and submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of 
     the United States House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United 
     States Senate a new comprehensive general management plan for 
     the historic site. The plan shall be prepared with the 
     assistance of nationally recognized experts in railroad 
     management and history and shall be consistent with this 
     title, with section 12 of the Act of August 18, 1970 (16 
     U.S.C. 1a-1 through 1a-7) and with other applicable 
     provisions of law. The Secretary shall provide for public 
     participation and comment in the development of the plan.

     SEC. 103. ACQUISITION OF LAND.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may acquire lands or 
     interests in land within the boundaries of the historic site 
     only by donation or by purchase with donated funds.
       (b) Contaminated Lands.--The Secretary may not acquire any 
     lands or interests in lands for purposes of the historic site 
     unless such lands are not contaminated with a hazardous 
     substance or a pollutant or contaminant which will require 
     removal or remedial action at the expense of the United 
     States. The Secretary shall take such steps as are necessary 
     to obtain cost recovery under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Compensation, Response, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund) 
     for any funds of the National Park Service expended, prior to 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, on removal or remedial 
     action with respect to any contamination of lands within the 
     boundaries of historic site. Any such reimbursement shall be 
     credited to miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury.

     SEC. 104. PARK SERVICE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall take such actions as 
     necessary and appropriate to administer the historic site, to 
     maintain and preserve the facilities at the historic site, to 
     interpret the resources of the site and their history to the 
     public, and to provide essential services to the public at 
     the historic site.
       (b) Railroad Equipment.--(1) The Secretary shall preserve 
     the collection of railroad equipment, including locomotives 
     and rolling stock, which is present at the historic site as 
     of the date of enactment of this Act. The Secretary may also 
     preserve such equipment and essential machinery as is 
     necessary for the maintenance of the locomotives and rolling 
     stock. The Secretary may not purchase any additional 
     locomotive for operation at the historic site if such 
     purchase would result in the operation by the United States 
     at the historic site of more locomotives than the number of 
     locomotives operating at the site as of June 22, 1994.
       (2) No Federal funds may be expended to provide access 
     between the historic site and any structure that is privately 
     owned and operated for profit. The Secretary may exchange or 
     purchase appropriate examples of locomotives and rolling 
     stock to enhance the site's collection if the total number of 
     such equipment does not increase and if all such actions are 
     consistent with the general management plan for the historic 
     site.
       (3) The Secretary shall dispose of all locomotives and 
     rolling stock that are not needed for exchange under 
     paragraph (2), that do not meet the criteria of the National 
     Register of Historic Places, and that are not necessary for 
     the interpretive activities of the historic site.
       (4) The Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress no 
     later than February 28, 1995 containing an inventory of all 
     locomotive and rolling stock at the historic site, a 
     statement of the range of historic significance of the 
     components of the collection, a statement of how many of each 
     are needed to meet the purposes of the historic site, the 
     restoration and repair plans and estimates of the 
     Secretary for facilities and equipment at the historic 
     site, and a detailed deaccession plan.
       (5) The Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, seek 
     donations and assistance from volunteers and other cost-
     sharing methods to restore the locomotives and rolling stock.
       (c) Artifacts and Archival Materials.--The Secretary shall 
     preserve the artifact collection and archival materials 
     located at the site.
       (d) Excursions.--To the extent that it furthers public 
     understanding, and provided that appropriate interpretation 
     is provided, the Secretary may provide a regular excursion 
     from Scranton, Pennsylvania, to Moscow, Pennsylvania. For 
     purposes of such excursions, the Secretary may provide 
     essential visitor services at Moscow, Pennsylvania. The 
     Secretary may not expend funds of the National Park Service 
     for the restoration or maintenance of tracks, bridges or 
     tunnels located outside the historic site, except that the 
     Secretary may use funds appropriated prior to November 15, 
     1991 for restoration of tracks and bridges between the 
     historic site and Moscow, Pennsylvania, pursuant to a 
     cooperative agreement to be entered into between the 
     Secretary and the owner of such tracks and bridges permitting 
     the national park service to use such tracks and bridges for 
     excursions authorized under this section. The Secretary may 
     pay customary and appropriate track usage fees and may also 
     provide additional special excursions if no such excursion is 
     longer than 60 miles one way.
       (e) User and Interpretive Fees.--(1) User or interpretive 
     fees charged for the rail excursion from the historic site to 
     Moscow, Pennsylvania, or to any other location shall be 
     established at a level such that a minimum of 100 percent of 
     the costs of maintenance, personnel, equipment, and fees 
     imposed on the Secretary for the excursion shall be recovered 
     by the Secretary.
       (2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary is authorized to impose a fee on any person using 
     the core complex within the site. The amount of such fee 
     shall not exceed a single charge of $5 per person per day for 
     the use of the entire core complex. No fee shall be imposed 
     for the use of such complex by any person under 16 years of 
     age or any person who is part of an organized school group or 
     outing conducted for educational purposes by a school or 
     other bona fide educational institution.
       (B) The proceeds of any fee imposed under this section 
     shall be credited to a special account established for the 
     National Park Service in the Treasury of the United States 
     and shall be available, without further appropriation, for 
     use by the Secretary of the Interior to further educational 
     and interpretive programs at the site, including the 
     cooperative agreement specified in subsection (g)(2).
       (C) As part of each annual budget submission to the 
     Congress, the Secretary shall provide a report detailing the 
     amount of fees received under subparagraph (A) and the 
     expenditures under subparagraph (B) during the immediately 
     preceding fiscal year. A copy of such report shall also be 
     made available annually to the Committee on Natural Resources 
     and the Committee on Appropriations of the United States 
     House of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     United States Senate.
       (D) For purposes of this section, the term ``core complex'' 
     means the two museums, the theater, the visitor center, and 
     roundhouse.
       (f) Track and Switch Rehabilitation.--The Secretary may 
     assist the owner of Bridge 60 and Bridge 60 Wye with track 
     and switch rehabilitation to facilitate activities directly 
     associated with the historic site. Any financial assistance 
     for any such project shall be limited to a portion of the 
     total costs of the project. The portion paid by the Secretary 
     shall not exceed that fraction of the total costs of the 
     project which is equal to the fraction of the total usage of 
     such tracks and switches attributable to use by equipment 
     associated with the historic site. Nothing in this Act or in 
     any other provision of law shall authorize the Secretary to 
     acquire either of such bridges or the associated tracks 
     and switches.
       (g) Cooperative Agreements.--(1) The Secretary may enter 
     into cooperative agreements with appropriate authorities for 
     law enforcement and for purposes of controlling rail traffic 
     through the historic site, but the Secretary may not enter 
     into any other cooperative agreement relating to 
     administration of the historic site with any entity (other 
     than a department or agency of the United States) without 
     specific authorization by an Act of Congress approved after 
     the enactment of this Act, except as provided in paragraph 
     (2) of this subsection.
       (2) The Secretary is authorized to enter into a cooperative 
     agreement with a qualified educational institution to 
     provide, at the Secretary's direction, certain visitor 
     services and educational programs within the historic site 
     and to collect the fees authorized under paragraph (2) of 
     subsection (e). The Secretary shall transmit any cooperative 
     agreement proposed to be entered into under this paragraph to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the United States House 
     of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the United States Senate at least 60 days before 
     such agreement is entered into by the Secretary.
       (h) Report on Alternatives.--(1) The Secretary shall 
     prepare a report identifying any feasible and suitable 
     alternatives for managing the historic site, including 
     partnerships or direct management by the Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania, local governments, other agencies, or private 
     entities. Such report shall be submitted to the Congress not 
     later than 2 years after the enactment of this Act.
       (2) In taking the action referred to in paragraph (1) the 
     Secretary shall consult with other Federal land managing 
     agencies, State and local officials, the national park System 
     Advisory Board, resource management, recreation, and 
     scholarly organizations, and other interested parties as the 
     Secretary deems advisable. Such consultation shall include 
     appropriate opportunities for public review and comment.

     SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this title, 
     except that no funds may be appropriated after the enactment 
     of this Act for any construction, development, or related 
     activities with respect to the site without specific 
     authorization by an Act of Congress pursuant to a law enacted 
     after the enactment of this Act. No Federal funds may be 
     expended at the site for purposes other than those specified 
     in section 104 and in section 105(d). Not more than 5 percent 
     of the funds appropriated annually for operation of the 
     historic site may be used for the restoration or repair of 
     locomotives, cars, and other rolling stock without specific 
     authorization by an Act of Congress enacted after the 
     enactment of this Act.

         TITLE II--DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

     SEC. 201. BOUNDARIES.

       Section 2(a) of the Act of September 1, 1965 (79 Stat. 612; 
     16 U.S.C. 460o-1(a)) establishing the Delaware Water Gap 
     National Recreation Area is amended by striking ``as 
     generally depicted on the drawing entitled `Proposed Tocks 
     Island National Recreation Area' dated and numbered September 
     1962, NRA-TI-7100, which drawing is on file'' and inserting 
     ``as generally depicted on the map entitled `Delaware Water 
     Gap National Recreation Area' dated November 1991 and 
     numbered DWGNRA-620/80,900A which shall be on file''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].


                             general leave

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the legislation presently before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3708, which I introduced, attempts to redefine and 
refine the policy Path in law that guides Steamtown National Historic 
Site in Scranton, PA. Steamtown National Historic Park received a 
backdoor authorization in 1986 through provisions included in the 
fiscal year 1987 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 
Since that time considerable funds have been expended on the site 
beyond the authority of that 1986 law, and there has been considerable 
attention given to Steamtown in the media, almost much of it negative. 
To date, the National Park Service has already spent over $80 million 
on Steamtown.
  Few people are neutral about Steamtown--it has ardent proponents and 
equally passionate opponents. Steamtown proponents, proclaim the site 
virtues; a unique educational experience in a historic setting. For its 
opponents, argue that Steamtown is a collection of locomotives and 
railcars, that lacks integrity and significance and which derails 
limited National Park Service resources.
  Beyond these polarized views there is the problem of management 
irregularities at the site. In the past, considerable amounts of 
Federal funds were spent on lands and interests in lands the National 
Park Service didn't own. The National Park Service paid for cleaning up 
hazardous wastes on non-federally owned lands, raising serious issues 
of policy and liability. Plans for the site have undergone little or no 
critical internal review.
  The National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, which I 
chair and which has jurisdiction over this matter, learned less than 
just the day before our hearing on this bill that the National Park 
Service was in the process of entering into a cooperative agreement 
with the University of Scranton that proposed to convey major 
administrative functions to the University of Scranton, and would have 
allowed it to collect fees from visitors that would have been channeled 
into the university's coffers. This proposal caused considerable 
consternation, once discussed the Director of the National Park Service 
stated that no such arrangement will be made final without close 
collaboration with the Natural Resource Committees. The bill before us 
today has been amended to in fact prohibit such arrangements, while 
specifying the nature of cooperative agreements that are appropriate 
and permissible.
  After pragmatically examining the pros and cons of Steamtown, and the 
reality of the present status, and separating issues of management 
irregularities from that of the National Park Service's, and the 
taxpayer's, investment and interest in the site to date, I have 
concluded that Steamtown should continue as a national historic site. 
However, the future development and operation of the site should be 
carefully outlined--consistent with congressional and National Park 
Service policies and practices, and the site's momentum for 
programmatic expansion must be properly defined and curtailed by 
statute. My legislation accomplishes this. In addition, at the 
suggestion of Representative Hefley, H.R. 3708, as amended, includes a 
provision to require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a report 
within 2 years that identifies any feasible and suitable alternatives 
for managing the historic site, included partnerships or direct 
management by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, local governments, 
other agencies, or private entities.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Natural Resources has considered the 
Steamtown matter carefully. The committee has reported legislation to 
put this railroad historic site back on the right track, one that 
provides a much needed focus and parameters for Steamtown National 
Historic Site. In doing so, the committee has applied the brakes to 
what has been a runaway project without adequate governance. The 
committee-passed measure scales back both the development and operation 
of the site.
  The bill reduces the site's boundary and eliminates nonessential 
lands. It limits use of the annual operating appropriation on the 
rehabilitation and restoration of rolling stock to 5 percent each year. 
It specifically prohibits adding to the number of operating 
locomotives, replacing an earlier restriction on the number of special 
excursions each year with a requirement that all excursions be 
completely financed with ticket revenues, and increases the maximum 
one-way distance of such excursions from 50 to 60 miles. A section on 
cooperative agreements was added in committee, reflecting the concern 
about the University of Scranton proposal. In addition, the committee 
has specifically provided the authority for the National Park Service 
to collect and retain a fee for visitation to the core complex of the 
site. Such a fee is to be used solely for interpretive and educational 
programs at the site. The NPS has testified they need such revenue in 
order to fully open and operate the Steamtown site. Such a fee will 
greatly diminish the need for further operating fund increases.

  As I noted earlier, the bill also requires a report examining 
alternative management options for the site as well as a report on the 
disposition of rolling stock that is not historically significant and 
not required to meet the interpretative purposes of the site. Because 
the inventory of rolling stock at Steamtown is large and varied, the 
bill calls for a report to Congress on plans to retain and restore as 
well as deaccession excess elements in the collection. Finally, the 
bill requires the Secretary to seek reimbursement under Superfund for 
the cleanup of contaminated lands.
  As my statement today indicates, Steamtown is a very controversial 
matter. The committee has addressed this issue in a fair and reasonable 
way and has provided the House with what I believe is a balanced 
approach to the future development and operation of what has been a 
controversial site.
  Mr. Speaker, the House in the last Congress passed a similar measure, 
but the Senate failed to act on it. I believe this bill is improved 
over the previous one, through further committee action and cooperative 
work with interested parties, including the National Park Service and 
Congressmen Joe McDade, in whose district this site is located.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I recommend that the House adopt H.R. 
3708, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3708, is a bill to authorize Steamtown National 
Historic Site. I strongly believe the proper place for congressional 
Interior Department policymaking is in the authorizing committee not 
the appropriations committee, whether we are referring to establishing 
new parks, mining or grazing. Therefore, I support the general purpose 
of this bill, to ensure all parks have proper authorization.
  With respect to the future of Steamtown, I believe there continues to 
be outstanding questions. I cannot support continuation of a project 
simply because the Federal Government has invested money in it in the 
past. For that reason, I am very pleased that Mr. Hefley has added an 
amendment to this bill which requires that the National Park Service 
evaluates the role it should play at this park in the future.
  In recent years, Congress has authorized a number of questionable 
additions to the National Park System. Congress must do a better job of 
setting priorities for new National Park Service programs, just as we 
must within the entire Federal Government.
  I am pleased that this version of the bill deletes most of the 
congressional micromanagement language which has appeared in previous 
versions of this bill. Regardless of the history of this site, Congress 
should not be developing reactionary legislation, whether we agree with 
past actions at that park or not.
  Finally, I must say that I am concerned about the user fees 
authorized in this bill. This concern is not one of general opposition 
to user fees in parks. There is ample evidence that recreational use of 
parks and other Federal lands is the most subsidized use of our Federal 
lands and I believe that more costs should be recovered from park 
users. However, the approach in this bill sets up a piecemeal policy 
path which is likely to be sought after by a variety of other park 
proponents. This is not a good direction and I hope the Senate will 
carefully review this section of the bill.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3708, a bill to 
authorize the Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton, PA.
  I commend my colleague from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and the members of 
the House National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee for 
their efforts in this legislation to address issues related to 
Steamtown. I was pleased to testify on May 12 at hearings held by the 
subcommittee regarding the development of Steamtown and concerns I had 
about specific provisions of H.R. 3708.
  At that hearing, I reported that the project is on time and within 
budget. Planning is now underway for the official grand opening in July 
1995. Over 675,000 people have already visited the site, and as many as 
600,000 people are projected to visit the site annually once it 
officially opens.
  Visitors walk away from this historic site with a greater knowledge 
of steam railroading and America's industrial heritage. Steamtown 
affords visitors an educational, safe, and enjoyable opportunity to see 
how a working steam locomotive railyard operated in an earlier American 
era.
  Steamtown enjoys strong bipartisan support. Pennsylvania Senators 
Arlen Specter and Harris Wofford, Gov. Robert Casey and former Gov. 
William Scranton submitted statements at the May 12 hearing in support 
of Steamtown. They are particularly proud of the high levels of 
voluntarism and the over $14.5 million in funds and donations from non-
Park Service sources.
  I am also submitting for inclusion in today's debate a statement from 
the hearing record from noted rail historian William L. Withuhn. Mr. 
Withuhn was an early critic of Steamtown who now supports it as a 
unique and valuable national public resource. I am also submitting 
articles on Steamtown from the Akron Beacon Journal and the Fort 
Pierce, FL, Tribune. The Tribune article was written by nationally 
syndicated columnist Charley Reese.
  Mr. Vento and the subcommittee staff worked in good faith with me and 
the National Park Service to craft a bill that allows this worthwhile 
project to continue its operation for the education and enjoyment of 
current and future generations of Americans. The bill before us today 
contains several cost containment measures and a number of changes to 
ensure the responsible management of Steamtown.
  Those who are concerned about future costs associated with Steamtown 
will be pleased with this legislation. It directs that no more than 5 
percent of annual operating funds may be used for restoration or repair 
of locomotives, cars, and other rolling stock.
  H.R. 3708 also requires that 100 percent of all excursion costs be 
recovered through ticket revenues. It allows for collection of a 
program fee as part of a cooperative agreement with the University of 
Scranton in an effort to control Federal operating costs.
  In addition, the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
identify private sector alternatives to managing Steamtown and that the 
Secretary seek cost recovery under Superfund law for any funds expended 
by the Park Service for removal or remedial action of contaminated 
lands.
  I am grateful to Mr. Vento for his willingness to modify some of the 
orignial provisions of his legislation which I expressed reservations 
about at the hearing. In particular, I objected to a proposed freeze on 
annual operating funds and supported the cooperative agreement with the 
university. His flexibility in addressing these matters is appreciated.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 3708. It is 
responsible and fair legislation which allows the effective management 
of the Steamtown National Historic Site.

Statement of William L. Withuhn, May 12, 1994, Before the Subcommittee 
on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, House Committee on Natural 
                        Resources, on H.R. 3708

       Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear at 
     these hearings in regard to the future management of the 
     Steamtown National Historic Site.
       My name is William L. Withuhn, and for identification 
     purposes, I am curator of transportation at the National 
     Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution. I appear 
     here on my own time, not as a Smithsonian employee, and not 
     in any way speaking for the Smithsonian.
       To establish my perspective on the issues raised by H.R. 
     3708, I view the creation and operation of the Steamtown 
     National Historic Site from two points of view: first as a 
     historian of American transportation and secondly as a former 
     small-business person and former manager of several 
     profitable freight railroad companies. I am concerned with 
     the meaningful and effective interpretation to wider 
     audiences of the historical legacy of American working 
     people, and I am concerned about the costs of such 
     interpretation activities. Especially in activities related 
     to railroad sites and the operation of those, I have had some 
     28 years of experience, including a great deal of time spent 
     in the maintenance and operation of a wide variety of 
     historic steam locomotives.
       I have visited the Steamtown site on many occasions, 
     especially during the past year. I have gotten to know the 
     professional staff there, and I have had a chance to see the 
     plans for the ongoing site improvements and to become very 
     familiar with the operations. As importantly, I have been 
     able to talk informally but frequently with visitors. For the 
     record, and for what is to follow, it is also worth stating 
     that except for responding to a couple of questions from the 
     dais during the 1991 hearing on Steamtown, I have never met 
     or spoken with the Representative on whose list I appear 
     today.
       I was an early critic of Steamtown. In my judgment, much of 
     its early planning was poorly done. With respect to the early 
     years that followed historic site designation, that still is 
     my view. I believe it would be helpful to be candid about 
     that. When I was asked to evaluate the 1987 draft management 
     plan for Steamtown, I found the costs--both the proposed 
     capital costs and the proposed annual operating costs--to be 
     vastly understated in my opinion. The rough cost estimates 
     that I submitted back then, I must tell you, have been borne 
     out.
       It is now some seven years later. Is Steamtown worth it? 
     Will the operation of the site be worth it in the future? 
     From both perspectives of concern to me, historical 
     interpretation and costs, the answer is emphatically, yes.
       Steamtown is not a museum. It is a site created for the 
     direct visitor experience of a part of our industrial 
     heritage. As operated today, and as operated according to the 
     plans developed for operations subsequent to the park's 
     formal opening in 1995, the Steamtown complex will do what no 
     other railroad historical site or museum now does: combine a 
     valid interpretation of working life on a mainline railroad 
     with direct visitor experience in full context.
       The approach is fundamentally different than either a 
     static museum or a tourist railroad. There are, indeed, a lot 
     of tourist railroad rides around. Not a single one of these 
     train rides has any concern with conveying a sense of 
     railroading as part of our nation's history and social 
     changes. The ``interpretation,'' such as it is at such 
     tourist railroads, is to my mind bogus. The only ingredients 
     are a false nostalgia and an ahistorical, romantic view 
     unrelated to the lives of real working people. So I do not 
     see Steamtown as duplicating, in any valid sense, train rides 
     already offered elsewhere.
       The museum approach is also not Steamtown's approach. 
     Ordinary museums, for the most part, focus on the objects 
     themselves. Good museums go a step further and try to use 
     objects to interpret something of their makers or users, but 
     that is hard to do with static displays. Steamtown 
     is actually part of an international movement toward 
     ``living history'' sites, where the focus is squarely 
     where I believe it should be, on the lives of people, not 
     on objects. The U.S. is, frankly, behind in the 
     development of industrial living-history sites and has 
     very few of them, compared to other countries. It has been 
     somehow unfashionable in the U.S. to celebrate working 
     people and the industries in which they labored. Steamtown 
     can help to redress the balance.
       Steamtown's collection of locomotives and cars is 
     appropriate to its mission. Certainly there are other museums 
     with more historic specimens, but nowhere else in the country 
     is the combination of resources--specimens, site, repair 
     shops, heavy tools, a large urban station under private 
     auspices, and operational facilities--as good for the 
     interpretive mission or conveying what working life was like 
     on the railroads, and for interpreting the connections 
     between railroading and the rest of social and economic life.
       There is also ample opportunity at Steamtown for 
     cooperative agreements to both enhance interpretation and to 
     share costs. An example is the recent educational partnership 
     with the University of Scranton. And from the beginning, 
     there have been cost-sharing agreements between Steamtown and 
     the Lackawanna County Railroad Authority as to rail 
     operations and track repair. In the future, I believe 
     partnerships should be permitted to allow repair and 
     operation of locomotives in the Steamtown collection that are 
     of American origin. Steamtown has been criticized for the use 
     of two Canadian locomotives, ignoring the fact that these two 
     engines are noteworthy for their operational reliability and 
     less costly to operate than the possible alternatives at 
     present. But partnerships should be explicitly encouraged, at 
     zero cost to the federal government, to sponsor the repair 
     and periodic operation of some of the significant American 
     pieces in the collection. For that reason, I would suggest 
     amending the bar in H.R. 3708 limiting the number of 
     locomotives that can be restored to operating condition. I 
     also support the other amendments to H.R. 3708 suggested by 
     the Park Service.
       Returning to overall costs, both capital and operating, is 
     Steamtown worth it? Recently, the Steamtown superintendent 
     provided your subcommittee with a breakdown of costs and 
     investments, from Steamtown's inception to date. Based on my 
     experience with rail operations and with renovating or 
     erecting industrial buildings, and based on my familiarity 
     with the present site, the costs in that breakdown seem to me 
     entirely reasonable. Given the scope of the project, there 
     are simply no surprises here. Had some care been given to 
     some of the initial estimates seven years ago, one might 
     wonder how different the subsequent debate about Steamtown 
     might have been.
       Steamtown is today, and can be in the future, a unique and 
     valuable national public resource. I believe in its mission. 
     With the encouragement of cooperative agreements and other 
     sorts of public-private partnerships, I believe that its 
     benefit/cost for the American public will be great. 
     Visitation will grow, and Steamtown will take its proper 
     place as one of the premier interpretive centers of the 
     National Park Service.
       Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 
     testify. I would be happy to respond to any questions.
       Appended: Letters from/to Senator Harris Wofford, in regard 
     to Steamtown, 3 August 1993.


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1993.
     Mr. William Withuhn,
     Curator of Transportation, National Museum of American 
         History, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Withuhn: In your capacity as Curator of 
     Transportation at the National Museum of American History, I 
     am writing to request your comments on the Steamtown Historic 
     Site at Scranton, Pennsylvania.
       The Steamtown Historic Site has been under development for 
     several years and has enjoyed Federal-State-Local funding 
     well as private support. When completed, Steamtown is 
     disigned to provide a working demonstration of our nation's 
     railroad history and its role in the nation's industrial 
     revolution. Although the project enjoys significant support, 
     its historical significance has been questioned.
       Considering your knowledge of the history of our nation's 
     transportation industry and its contribution to the 
     industrial revolution, I request that you provide Congress 
     with your comments on the cultural and historical 
     significance of Steamtown. In particular, I am interested in 
     your analysis of Steamtown's collection of railroad hardware, 
     the significance of Scranton to the railroad industry, and 
     the historical interpretation of the site.
       Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Harris Wofford.
                                  ____

         National Museum of American History, Smithsonian 
           Institution,
                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1993.
     Hon. Harris Wofford,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wofford: Thank you for your inquiry of August 
     3, 1993, in regard to the Steamtown National Historic Site of 
     the National Park Service.
       I have followed closely the progress of this National 
     Historic Site since its initial legislation, for it involves 
     my particular field of historic preservation. My opinions on 
     Steamtown come from two distinct perspectives. First, as an 
     historian and museum professional, I look at the site for its 
     value to the American public as an historical legacy and, 
     more importantly, as a place for the effective interpretation 
     of that legacy. Secondly, as a former railroad manager and 
     small business person, I look at the site in terms of its 
     management, its costs, and especially its value-for-dollar to 
     the public. If I may, therefore, I would like to respond to 
     your request, and especially to your third paragraph, from 
     the above perspectives.
       I was an early critic of Steamtown. In my judgment, much of 
     its early planning was poorly done. With respect to the early 
     years that followed NHS designation, that still is my view.
       Much has changed, however. During the last two years, and 
     especially since last spring, I have spent considerable time 
     at the site. The Park Service and its on-site staff have 
     worked hard to respond to the early criticisms that came from 
     various quarters, and they have taken a planning and 
     management path that I find to be first-rate. I have examined 
     the plans and proposed exhibits for the new visitor center 
     now under construction, and I have become familiar with the 
     daily operations of the site. In addition, I have had many 
     opportunities to talk informally with visitors.
       To summarize my views today, I believe Steamtown is a 
     significant national asset and that its significance will 
     increase. Steamtown will become one of the premier sites in 
     the nation for the public interpretation of America's 
     important industrial heritage. It will engage the public as 
     no museum of static displays ever can.
       The site will be, and is already, a place of living 
     history. Visitors can see actual railroad operations, with 
     real people operating and interpreting the pieces on view. 
     And that is the point. The approach is fundamentally 
     different from either a static museum or a tourist railroad. 
     The former is focused on historic objects for their own sake; 
     the latter is focused on giving tourists a pleasant ride, 
     with no concern for conveying a sense of railroading as part 
     of our nation's industry and history. Steamtown is a facility 
     unique in North America, focused on the relationship of 
     Americans to their industrial past, focused on working people 
     and their roles in that legacy, and bringing an 
     interpretation of this fully to life. When it is finished, in 
     my view, the Steamtown National Historic Site will be a major 
     step forward in helping Americans from all over the country 
     understand the industrial heritage on which this country is 
     built.
       There has been controversy about the historic character of 
     the site and its collections, but I think most of this 
     discussion misses the point. Scranton is one of the few 
     medium-sized cities in this country where there is a 
     combination of historic railroad resources located close to 
     center-city, and where the historic physical connections of 
     railroad to city still exist. Certainly there are other 
     places with more historic specimens, but nowhere else in the 
     country is the combination of resources--specimens, historic 
     site, repair shops, heavy tools, a large urban station, and 
     operational facilities--as good for the interpretive mission 
     of conveying what working life was like on the railroads.
       The unique quality of the collections is that, for the most 
     part, they are operable. The collection consists primarily of 
     typical equipment from the ``standard era'' of steam 
     railroading--locomotives, freight cars, and passenger cars. 
     Their typicality is essential to the interpretive mission. In 
     fact, it would be a serious mistake in my view to be 
     operating unique, one-of-a-kind historical specimens--those 
     belong in museum in protected conditions. The Steamtown 
     collection is one suited for operation--and therefore, to me, 
     of greater value to the goal of interpretation for the 
     general public, as opposed to an audience of specialists.
       As to costs, I believe that the public is being well 
     served. Management of the planning process and of costs has 
     been aggressive. Hard choices have been made as to what to 
     preserve. The roundhouse/visitors center has been planned for 
     maximum educational benefit, and from my museum management 
     background, I believe the capital costs are reasonable. The 
     operating costs, too, are reasonable and have been well 
     thought out.
       By and large, the US has been laggardly in preserving and 
     interpreting its industrial history, compared to other 
     countries. Great Britain, Germany, France, and even 
     Switzerland, have outstanding industrial and railroad 
     historic sites and living, operating museums. 
     Internationally, the trend to living-history museums is well 
     under way. Steamtown fits that trend. In this country, it has 
     usually been unfashionable to celebrate working people and 
     the industries in which they labored all their lives. 
     Steamtown is helping redress the balance, in my view.
       Visitors that I have talked to are enthusiastic in their 
     reactions. They understand, I think, that Steamtown still 
     looks rough around the edges. Amenities are few at this 
     point, because the site is under construction. But already 
     the interim operations are well received. And the high-
     quality interpretation, by experienced park rangers and 
     guides, already adds greatly to the overall visitor 
     experience, visitation from around the country, I believe, 
     will rapidly increase once the site is fully open and 
     functioning.
       ``Functioning'' is a fundamental part of the whole. The 
     investment in the site can be rendered meaningless by unwise 
     cuts in its operations. Care in budgeting is always 
     essential. I believe the Park Service has exercised that 
     care. I would urge those who are concerned to study the site 
     and its operations, as I have, to better evaluate the cost/
     benefit in the interests of the public. A cut of operating 
     funds at this juncture would be disastrous, in my view, 
     Steamtown would then simply revert to being just another 
     static industrial museum. The heart would then be cut out of 
     its essential character and unique value to the American 
     public.
           Sincerely,
                                               William L. Withuhn,
                                        Curator of Transportation.
                                  ____


          [From the Beacon Journal, Akron, OH, July 11, 1993]

 Locomotives Breathe Fire in National Historical Site--Steamtown Keeps 
  Railroad's Past Alive in Its Natural Habitat in Scranton Train Yard

                          (By Michael Schuman)

       Scranton, PA.--The place is gritty, coarse. Steam engines 
     stand stewing in their own sweat, and industrial buildings 
     squat, watching over rolling stock as they have for years. 
     Here are trains in their natural habitat, not along miles of 
     aisles in some spiffed-up museum gallery, roped off and 
     protected, but accessible and outdoors in a railroad yard, as 
     they were in their heyday.
       There are dozens of railroad museums in North America, but 
     Steamtown National Historic Site in Scranton is special. The 
     National Park Service, always casting an eye toward 
     historical accuracy, reports Steamtown to be one of the few 
     collections of railroad engines and cars to be interpreted 
     and displayed in its natural setting. In this case, it's 
     Scranton's Delaware, Lackawanna & Western rail yards, a 
     breathing relic from the days when FDR occupied the White 
     House and the interstate highway system seemed as futuristic 
     as space travel.
       Steamtown is one of the National Park Service's newest 
     offerings; yet, it's not totally new. Once operated by a 
     private foundation, Steamtown for 20 years was a tourist 
     attraction in Bellows Falls, VT., before leaving its longtime 
     home for Scranton in 1983 because of a shortage of visitors.
       Easily accessible via interstate highways, Scranton seemed 
     to promise the hordes of visitors lacking in sparsely settled 
     Vermont.
       After four years, though, Steamtown encountered financial 
     difficulties again.
       The collection of 35 steam locomotives and 78 cars, 
     regarded as one of the country's finest, attracted the 
     attention of U.S. Rep. Joseph McDade, R-Scranton, who felt 
     the nation's steam railroad heritage should be preserved. 
     His efforts paid off. The Steamtown Foundation donated the 
     equipment to the National Park Service in 1988.
       Plans--big plans--are in order for the sprawling railroad 
     yard. Over the next few years, existing structures will be 
     refurbished and given new lives as exhibit buildings, a 
     visitor center and a theater. Restoration of the 13-stall 
     roundhouse and construction of a new turntable were completed 
     in 1992, and tours through the structure are now available.
       You also can climb up to the cupola of a 1938 red caboose 
     to savor the expansive view once available to the train's 
     crewmen, who cooked, rested, ate, stored equipment and kept 
     records there. Then try to make some semblance of order out 
     of the jumble of knobs and gears and levers inside a 
     locomotive. Or inspect the Railway Post Office car, a 1913 
     artifact from the Louisville & Nashville Railroad. Slots and 
     canvas sacks are in abundance, reminders of the times when 
     sorting mail on trains was daily practice. In its day, only 
     armed postal workers were permitted inside.
       Better yet, hop on one of the gray and maroon coaches 
     pulled by Canadian Pacific locomotive No. 3254 or Canadian 
     National locomotive No. 2317 for an excursion ride of about 
     2\1/4\ hours taking you across 26 miles and back 60 years. 
     You might not find puffs of Lucky Strikes and Camels swirling 
     through the air inside your passenger car, as you would have 
     six decades ago, but you still will see whiffs of steam 
     emanating from the engine.
       The conductor and fireman on board are decked out in period 
     costumes, while Park Service rangers discuss life during the 
     1920s and 1930s, a time when travelers not adventurous enough 
     to drive their Nashes or Hudsons on long journeys ventured by 
     rail. Life magazine's debut issue in 1936 carried ads from 
     major railroad lines such as the Chesapeake & Ohio and the 
     Panama Pacific, but anyone who journeyed between Hoboken, 
     N.J., and Buffalo, N.Y., knew the DL&W was the ticket to 
     catch.
       Today you will hear tales of the train yard workers as you 
     rumble along the rails, through the 1\1/3\ mile Nay Aug 
     tunnel and precariously high across a steel-girder bridge.
       Says guide Ken Ganz, ``Kids love the dark and the heights. 
     It's the adults that get scared.''
       However, Ganz adds, children might get rattled by the steam 
     whistle, something they likely have never heard before. 
     Indeed, many young adults have never had their ears tickled 
     by the once-common shrill whistle of the steam engine, nor 
     have they witnessed other hallmarks of rail life.


                              Rail people

       A trip to the visitor center introduces observers to old 
     railroad characters such as fictional Phoebe Snow and some 
     anonymous hobos, part of a whole subculture that for decades 
     centered around this country's rail yards.
       Phoebe Snow, today the name of a pop singer, was recognized 
     around the turn of the century as the spokeswoman for the 
     DL&W Railroad. She predated the Gibson Girl as an advertising 
     spokeswoman. Her likeness is recreated on park bulletins and 
     as part of displays in the visitor center: Look for a 
     brunette ingenue donning a wide-brimmed hat, head jauntily 
     cocked to one side. She often was accompanied with a rhyme 
     like this:
       Says Phoebe Snow
       About to go
       Upon the trip to Buffalo
       My gown stays white
       From morn till night
       Upon the road made of anthracite.
       The DL&W burned hard anthracite, as opposed to softer 
     bituminous coal, and was therefore cleaner and less likely to 
     leave a coating of coal dust on one's clothes, as Phoebe 
     proclaimed in DL&W advertisements.
       On the other hand, there were some very genuine people 
     riding trains earlier this century who also are celebrated at 
     Steamtown. The first hobos were Civil War veterans who took 
     to the road following the war, using the hide-and-ride 
     method: hitching free rides on trains while avoiding 
     authorities. During the hard times of the 1930s, hobos were a 
     frequent sight around the whistle-stops of America.
       Ganz has many tales to tell about hobos who were quite 
     resourceful in finding concealed riding places, for example, 
     on top or inside battery boxes under passenger coaches. Hobos 
     communicated with each other in their own language, drawing 
     chalk figures on fence posts and sidewalks to indicate where 
     they ate and slept.
       Their language is decoded in a visitor center display.
       Other exhibits relate railroad trivia and diagram the 
     technical mechanisms of a steam engine.
       Ganz says the Park Service hopes Steamtown National 
     Historic Site will emerge as ``the country's railroad 
     museum.''
       Or as Phoebe Snow might have said:
       From hill and dale
       The hearty and hale
       Come to ride the rail
       Without fail
       To Pennsylvania they go
       Cameras in tow
       To tour Steamtown
       With Phoebe Snow.
                                  ____


         [From the Tribune, Fort Pierce, FL, January 22, 1992]

                       Steamtown is Worth Funding

                           (By Charley Reese)

       I'd like to say a word in behalf of trains and a national 
     park you probably have never visited, but ought to, and may 
     never have heard of.
       It's called Steamtown. It's in the heart of Scranton, Pa. 
     It's being called a pork barrel boondoggle by its critics, 
     but often that's just another way of saying the project is in 
     someone else's backyard and I want the money spent in my 
     district.
       Steamtown is no boondoggle. I've been there twice and my 
     sons and I love it. It is just shy--about $20 million shy--of 
     being one of the greatest living museums of Americana in the 
     country, a great tribute to America's industrial age.
       These 41 acres and 13 buildings, all of which are on 
     National Register of Historic Places, are situated on an 
     abandoned railroad yard of the old Delaware, Lackawanna and 
     Western Railroad. When it's completed--if it's completed--
     you'll be able to see machinists and craftsmen restoring 
     steam locomotives just as they did in the days when the 
     railroads were America's major means of transportation. Your 
     children will be able to see a working railroad repair shop, 
     roundhouse, and marshalling yard and talk to the skilled men 
     who know how to shape steel and iron with a sculpture's 
     touch.
       Even now it is well worth a visit and is one of the few 
     places in the country where you can take excursions on a 
     train pulled by a steam locomotive. Furthermore, Steamtown is 
     a national park in a city that will allow future generations 
     to see the role urban America played in the nation's history.
       The wild places with their natural wonders are part of our 
     heritage, but so, too, are the urban areas and urban areas 
     have unfortunately received short shrift in the preservation 
     and parks budgets. It just as important for America's youth 
     to be able to see the industrial contributions America's 
     cities made to our history as it is for them to see the great 
     plains or the Rocky Mountains.
       When America was a wild place, Americans were as poor as 
     the Indians they were displacing. The exploration of this 
     great continent and the westward movement of people is an 
     important part of our history--a tragic part if you were an 
     Indian in the path of this human wave.
       But what made the America we know today--the great 
     industrial power--were the cities, like Scranton, and others, 
     which grew from frontier towns into the seats of mighty 
     industries--coal, steel, railroads. It was this great 
     burst of industrial growth in the late 19th Century and 
     early 20th that turned America from a poor nation into a 
     rich one.
       Not much of this part of our history is being preserved. 
     Steamtown is one great start toward it. My kids were just as 
     fascinated by Steamtown and the Anthracite Coal Museum, also 
     in Scranton, as they were by the Amish farms and the mighty 
     Niagara.
       So I hope Congress will spend the $20 million necessary to 
     complete Steamtown. If it can hand out $15 billion a year to 
     foreign countries, it could certainly spare $20 million to 
     complete an urban national park in Scranton that will allow 
     generations to see and know a great segment of American 
     history as no other place can.
       Old railroad yards and locomotives may seem like junk but 
     the saddest part of loving history is to witness how much of 
     our past is lost forever because somebody in authority 
     doesn't have the wit to see its value.
       After Steamtown is completely developed, then we ought to 
     consider a Steeltown project before all the great mills, many 
     of them now idle, are torn down and carted off.

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3708, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________