[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 136 (Monday, September 26, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    LOWELL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Coleman). Pursuant to House Resolution 
532 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4448.

                              {time}  1730


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4448) to amend the Act establishing Lowell National Historical 
Park, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4448, would amend the act establishing the Lowell 
National Historical Park. Lowell National Historical Park was 
established in 1978 to preserve and interpret the nationally 
significant historical and cultural sites, structures and districts in 
Lowell, MA. At that time, Congress established the Lowell National 
Historical Park Commission to complement and coordinate the efforts of 
the park and various other State, local and private entities in 
developing and managing the historic and cultural resources of Lowell. 
While several projects remain to be completed, the Commission is 
scheduled to terminate on June 5, 1995, and the limit on authorized 
development funds has been reached.
  H.R. 4448, introduced by Representative Meehan on May 18, 1994, 
extends the Commission for an additional 5 years, and increases the 
authorization level for the park. The legislation also provides for the 
transfer of the Commission's authorities to the National Park Service, 
and authorizes any revenues or assets acquired to be used for park 
purposes. The bill requires the Lowell Development and Financial 
Corporation to repay to the Secretary of the Treasury loans and 
interest from a low-interest loan fund established in 1978, except for 
any losses taken after all reasonable efforts at collection have been 
completed. Finally, the legislation establishes an advisory committee, 
following termination of the Commission, to provide input on the 
operation, maintenance, development and programming of the park and 
preservation district.
  The Committee on Natural Resources amended the bill as introduced to 
strengthen the language authorizing the National Park Service to assume 
the Commission's responsibilities for loan and grant agreements and to 
retain the revenues from leasing properties currently administered by 
the Commission for park use. This section reflects the committee's 
concern that such action be governed by appropriate regulation, and 
institutes reporting requirements on the financial records related to 
these provisions.
  In response to concerns raised by OMB, the committee also included 
additional language regarding the loan fund that would exempt the 
corporation from repaying principal and interest losses due to defaults 
to make it acceptable under the credit reform act.
  Finally, the committee limited the advisory committee established in 
the bill to 10 years. I believe the establishment of an advisory 
committee to be appropriate in this instance, where partnerships and 
community involvement play such an important role in the operation of 
the park. However, I also believe that such committees should not be 
open-ended, and in fact should be reviewed periodically to determine if 
their activities and membership continue to be appropriate. The 10-year 
sunset seems adequate for this purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, Lowell is in many ways a model for the kind of 
partnerships and community-based parks we are trying to encourage. The 
private investment in the area has far outstripped Federal funding for 
the park. Neglected and deteriorating resources have been restored, and 
the park has been developed with the support and cooperation of local 
public and private entities. Without this legislation, however, the 
National Park Service would be required to assume responsibility for 
incomplete projects and would be left without the necessary authority 
to manage properties and programs currently under the jurisdiction of 
the Commission.
  This legislation provides for the completion of projects already 
underway and provides for the orderly and cost-effective transition 
from management by the community-based commission to the National Park 
Service. This is an existing unit of the National Park Service, and the 
authorities contained in H.R. 4448 are necessary for its continued 
operation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Meehan], who has been the principal architect of this bill, and 
has worked very, very hard as a new Member. I have seen few that have 
developed this understanding and expertise with regard to projects in 
their districts, especially with regards to the Park Service. I want to 
praise Mr. Meehan for his effort, scholarship, and determination to see 
this bill enacted in this session of Congress.
  (Mr. MEEHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support H.R. 4448, 
a bill to amend the act establishing Lowell National Historic Park.
  I greatly appreciate the assistance of Chairman Vento. His efforts 
and support have improved the bill, and I am grateful for his help and 
guidance.
  In 1978, Congress created the Lowell National Historic Park and in 
doing so, recognized the critical role that Lowell played in the 
American Industrial Revolution. On the banks of the Merrimack River our 
Nation's industrial history began in Lowell, MA, the first planned 
industrial community in the United States. Lowell is the first place 
where the mass production of goods, in this case textiles, occurred on 
a large scale. My ancestors immigrated to Lowell, and along with many 
other immigrant families, set out to make a life for themselves in 
America. Lowell is as much a story about immigration and ethnic 
diversity, as it is about industry. Lowell's historic buildings and 
canal system are monuments to those immigrants who came here, and 
through their hard labor and desire for opportunity, sparked the 
Industrial Revolution. Lowell National Historical Park is a testament 
to the spirit of the people who shaped that pivotal period in American 
History, and it warrants preservation.
  The city's industrial mill buildings, historic structures and the 
canal system document America's transition from an agrarian to an 
industrial economy. Congress acknowledged these assets to be nationally 
significant and made the Lowell National Historic Park of unit of the 
National Park Service.
  The original legislation, crafted by former Congressman and then 
Senator Paul Tsongas, created the Lowell Historic Preservation 
Commission in 1978. The Commission membership consists of 15 
representatives of the local, State and Federal Government, as well as 
the private sector. This unique partnership is charged with preserving 
and interpreting Lowell's cultural and historic assets. Seven years 
ago, Congress reauthorized the Lowell Historic Preservation Commission. 
Today, I am asking the House to support the orderly phaseout of the 
Commission so that it may complete its tasks in accordance with the 
intent of the original law.
  Opponents of the bill have argued that too much money has already 
been spent at the park by the National Park Service. I would like to 
emphasize that this park was first authorized 16 years ago, and that it 
has received less than $4 million a year. The park is seven-eights of 
the way finished and, if we authorize the additional $10 million to 
complete the park, the cost to the taxpayer for a living example of 
19th century industrial history--is only $2 million a year. Mr. 
Chairman, this is a modest investment to preserve a unique segment of 
American history that once lost can never be recaptured.
  Currently, the Commission is scheduled to terminate in June 1995. 
However, if we fail to approve H.R. 4448, we saddle the National Park 
Service with an unfinished park that will cost the taxpayer more to 
complete than if we approve the bill currently under consideration.
  H.R. 4448 extends the Commission for 5 years to allow adequate time 
for it to complete its responsibilities. It also provides authorization 
of the necessary funds $10.3 million; to complete the physical 
restoration of the canal system and to preserve certain nationally 
significant historic structures. Simply put, the authorization is the 
quickest and most efficient means for the park to be completed.
  I would like to explain the reasons for requesting the 5-year 
extension and the additional budget authority. In 1987, the Commission 
asked for a 10-year reauthorization and $15 million. This request was 
reduced to 7 years and $12 million. Based upon experience, the 
Commission's original estimates were more accurate as to what is 
required to complete a complex historic preservation project in an 
urban setting.
  The Commission's inability to complete the job within the 7 years is 
due to conditions beyond the Commission's control. Hazardous waste was 
found on one site, structural conditions in major sections of the canal 
system were substantially worse than anticipated; adding to 
construction expense, and the acquisition of an essential parcel was 
delayed due to owner bankruptcy and RTC receivership. I have asked for 
and received assurance that with the passage of H.R. 4448, the 
Commission will be able to complete its work within the requested time 
and budget.

  When the Commission ends, the oversight and administrative functions 
for loan programs, leases and ownership of property and easements will 
revert to the National Park Service. After the Commission terminates, 
an unpaid advisory Committee to the Park Service will be established 
for 5 additional years.
  Mr. Chairman, the Lowell Commission is a model for Government 
cooperation and effectiveness. The Commission has achieved successes 
which the Federal Government could not accomplish on its own. Through 
its loan and grant programs, the Commission helped to preserve and 
restore 63 privately owned buildings, leveraging over $9 of private 
investment for every Commission dollar. The Commission has been cost-
conscious as well. Ninety-five percent of the land for the canal system 
was acquired through donations. Project engineering and design costs 
were reduced by 60 percent through the elimination of outside 
consultants. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Park Service Director 
Kennedy were supportive of the Commission when they visited Lowell Park 
last year. The bill is supported by the National Park Service, the city 
of Lowell, MA, Republican Governor Bill Weld, the Massachusetts 
Historic Commission, Historic Massachusetts, Inc., Preservation Action 
Inc., the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National 
Parks and Conservation Association.
  Some have expressed the view that the Commission should not be 
extended. But, this legislation makes every effort to strike a 
responsible balance.
  It seeks the minimum amount of resources required to protect the 
public investment that has already been made in Lowell. It does not 
expand the park or authorize any new project initiatives. It only 
allows the Commission to complete the type of projects which the 
Congress has already approved. And, it permits the orderly and 
efficient transition of the Commission's functions to the private 
sector and the Park Service. In fact, the Commission has already 
transferred its cultural programs to nonprofit sponsors.
  The national significance of Lowell's historic resources and the 
quality and importance of its interpretive programs are well 
established. Lowell National Historical Park has won international 
acclaim as a model partnership where Government and the private sector 
have worked together to preserve a place which dignifies the history of 
average Americans: Industrial workers, immigrants, builders of canals 
and railroads. National publications, such as Time magazine, Yankee 
magazine, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, have all written 
significant articles about the historical importance of Lowell Park.
  The Lowell Commission was the first of its kind to be created within 
the Department of the Interior, and with the passage of this bill, it 
will be the first to go out of business. Without the Lowell Historic 
Preservation Commission, the National Park Service would be forced to 
contract out for design and construction management for unfinished 
projects if the funding is ever provided.
  The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that voting to cut the commission 
and transferring these responsibilities to the Park Service would 
result in more expense to the taxpayer, because the work would still 
have to be done. The Park Service would have to assume the 
responsibility and farm the work out to contractors. That would take 
more money and more time. Allow the Commission to finish the job. Their 
considerable experience and expertise ensures a cost-effective 
transition process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4448, and to 
oppose any weakening amendments or motions to recommit.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, although I understand there has been a remarkable 
effort to restore the historical values at Lowell and excellent 
cooperation between the Federal Government, State government, and the 
private sector, I must strongly oppose H.R. 4448 as I did when the 
House defeated this legislation nearly 2 months ago.
  This legislation effectively authorizes $14 million for Lowell 
National Historical Park and its historic preservation commission. This 
is on top of the $53.4 million already spent at the park by the 
National Park Service. This figure does not include millions spent for 
park operations and the Commission's administrative expenses.
  This park has a long and controversial history. The first attempt to 
authorize it in 1978 resulted in a defeat on the House floor. Members 
were concerned about its $40 million cost and fears this money might be 
spent on urban renewal efforts.
  Opponents of this legislation in 1978 included such distinguished 
alumni as Al Gore and Dan Quayle. They were joined by current members 
of the leadership as Way and Means Chairman Sam Gibbons, Intelligence 
Committee Chairman Dan Glickman, and Veterans Committee Chairman Sonny 
Montgomery. Distinguished subcommittee chairman Bill Hefner, Andy 
Jacobs, and Tom Bevill joined in their opposition.
  Although then-ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Parks 
and Recreation Keith Sebelius supported the original authorization, he 
wrote in the 1978 committee report that, ``This legislation, in its 
implementation must not be permitted to be a bottomless goodie bag of 
financing assistance.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. Sebelius' fears were well-founded because 9 years 
later in 1987, Congress increased the authorization for Lowell by $13.4 
million and extended the life of the Commission by 7 years. Today's 
legislation effectively increases that authorization by $14 million. 
Examples of this Federal largesse to date include $9.5 million for 
canal construction and design and $3.6 million for a trolley system.
  H.R. 4448 increases the park's development ceiling by $10.33 million. 
Of this total, $5.1 million will be spent to complete the canalway 
system. It also extends the life of the Lowell Historic Preservation 
Commission for 5 additional years.
  In fiscal year 1993 this Commission spent $726,000 in administration 
expenses which has taken the National Park Service's annual budget 
dollars. Extending it by 5 years, assuming current spending levels are 
frozen, which will cost taxpayers an additional $3.63 million. The fact 
that Congress never intended this Commission to have such a long and 
active life is demonstrated by the Senate Interior Committee's report 
on H.R. 11622 in 1978 which stated, ``The role of the Commission will, 
in all likelihood, be very minimal by 1988.''
  This legislation represents the second time in 7 years that Congress 
has been asked to increase the development ceiling for Lowell and 
extend the life of the Commission.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the $53.4 million already spent by the 
National Park Service at Lowell is more than enough. Moreover, because 
of the National Park Service's massive backlog of between $7.4 to $9.4 
billion and our $4.5 trillion national debt, I am astounded this 
legislation is before us.
  My understanding is that the majority will accept my amendment to 
begin a GAO report detailing how Federal money has been spent at Lowell 
Park since it was established. I also plan on offering an amendment to 
reduce this authorization by 50 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, as many of my colleagues are aware, I have 
been a strong advocate of reduced Federal spending. At the same time, 
however, I recognize the responsibility of the Federal Government to 
preserve the remaining vestiges of American history for future 
generations. That is what this bill that is before us today seeks to 
do.
  As a unit of the National Park Service, the Lowell Park depicts a 
significant aspect of America's Industrial Revolution--the history of 
the textile industry in America. This era in our history is rich in 
cultural and ethnic diversity and initiated the transformation of our 
society from an agrarian-based economy to one based on commercial goods 
and products.
  What the Lowell National Historical Park provides the Nation is a 
living example of 19 century industry and how the textile mill 
workers--most of whom immigrants--actually lived and worked. The 
Commission preservation efforts have been exhaustive and visitors to 
the park can read original letters from many of the mill workers to 
their families, view the dormitories and living quarter the mill owners 
provided for the workers, and see the actual weaving of various 
textiles on the original mill floors.
  The success of this award-winning project is well documented by 
publications such as Time magazine, the New York Times, and praised by 
international publications including the London Observer. The 
historical integrity that has been preserved in Lowell is widely 
acknowledged by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Historic 
Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and enjoys the 
endorsement of Republican Governor William Weld.
  The opponents of H.R. 4448 try to portray the Federal investment in 
Lowell as pork. As a deficit hawk, I would be the first to oppose this 
bill if it were not for the facts, which I would like to briefly cite 
for my colleagues.
  The $54 million investment in the Lowell National Historic Park 
represents less than 8 percent of the total cost of the park.
  For every $1 of public funds spent by the commission, $9.60 has been 
generated in private funds.
  For every $1 appropriated by Congress to the Commission, $4.50 in 
State and local funds has been invested.
  Ninety-two percent of the moneys invested in Lowell Park are from 
private or State funds.
  For those who question why the National Park Service doesn't complete 
the park, the simple answer is that it will be more cost effective for 
the Commission to complete park development. If we fail to pass H.R. 
4448, the NPS is still obligated to complete the park and will rely on 
more costly outside contractors and may not be as successful in 
leveraging private investment.
  In sum, the Federal Government has provided seed money for the 
preservation of a unique historical resource--the Lowell National 
Historical Park--and established a model of cost efficiency and cost 
cooperation between the public and private sector that should be 
replicated in other Federal programs if we are serious about reduction 
the Federal deficit.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for allowing me to set the 
record straight on H.R. 4448.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if he would enter into a 
colloquy.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENNY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to enter into a colloquy with 
my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the intent of 
this bill is to provide the necessary authorization to allow the Lowell 
Historic Preservation Commission to complete only those park 
development projects already authorized by Congress. Is that correct?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. H.R. 4448 
contains no new boundary expansions and no new project initiatives.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman confirm for us that H.R. 
4448 will terminate the commission within 5 years without any further 
legislative action?
  Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
that is absolutely correct. The Lowell Historic Preservation Commission 
will phase out no later than June 5 in the year 2000. The commission's 
rights and assets will be transferred in an orderly process to the 
National Park Service.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
providing us with the assurances that no further authorization will be 
needed for the Lowell Historic Preservation Commission. I urge support 
for the bill.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out in the debate, the same thing 
was said that we just now heard on the floor in 1978. Again, we heard 
it in 1987.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my esteemed colleague, the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], who does a great job, and one whom I 
admire and enjoy working with on the issues.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4448. I have serious 
reservations about this expansion of Lowell National Historical Park, 
which would also increase the development ceiling for the park by 
$10.33 million.
  This is the fifth time the House has considered legislation related 
to the Lowell Park. When the park was created in 1978 it had an 
acquisition and development ceiling of $18.5 million. In 1987, this was 
increased to $33.6 million and today we are trying to increase that to 
$43.9 million.
  If this legislation is enacted, how many years must pass before these 
folks ask us to raise this ceiling for a third time.
  The $33.5 million already spent at Lowell by the National Park System 
includes $5.1 million for a cultural center and over $6 million to 
design and construct a canal. Nearly half of the $10.3 million in this 
bill would also go to canal construction.
  The Lowell project reconfirms my worst suspicions that the National 
Park Service is increasingly being transformed into a public works 
agency. At a time when the Park Service cannot take care of basic 
services, such as roads, sanitation facilities and campgrounds, we 
today will give them another $5 million to complete a canalway. Mr. 
Chairman, this is hard to explain outside the beltway.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. The $33.6 million 
already spent at Lowell by the Park Service is more than adequate. Let 
us reject this attempt to spend another $10 million there.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to my distinguished colleague 
that the numbers that we have indicate that between the private sector 
and the State and local government, that they have invested about $600 
million in terms of Lowell National Historical Park in Lowell, MA. 
While the costs have gone up from the initial estimates that existed 
substantially since 1978, when the park was designated, the fact is the 
basic projects that are being undertaken were anticipated to be the 
ones that are in place today. There has not been a great expansion of 
the mission here. It is simply that the costs associated with some of 
the delays in terms of Federal funding, State funding, local funding, 
some other problems that have been more severe, have, of course, caused 
these types of delays.
  Mr. Chairman, we, I think, from time to time have to respond to that. 
I would point out that Lowell, unlike many of our parks, does have a 
development ceiling on it. Many parks do not have. When we have 
development ceilings, then we have to come back and adjust that. We at 
least have some voice and some say with regard to Lowell. It had to 
jump through the hoops, run the gauntlet, so to speak, of the House and 
Senate, and have a law signed in place. Mr. Chairman, I am confident 
that the numbers we have today are as accurate as they can be; that 
they are a true statement of the accounting and the needs of this 
particular park.
  Mr. Chairman, I would again point out to my colleagues the tremendous 
investment, and that this has been a successful park. I wish that the 
costs had been more consistent with the initial estimates, but I think 
they have come back to Congress, and I am certain they do not relish 
the type of analysis that they receive and reviews that they receive on 
this floor with regard to their efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey], a long-time serving and able member of the committee.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this park and the continuation of 
its thriving existence. That is what is at stake in the debate here 
today.
  For the last 20 years now, Mr. Chairman, since Senator Paul Tsongas, 
then Congressman Paul Tsongas, in fact, then City Counselor Paul 
Tsongas, up in Lowell, came up with this innovative, fascinating 
concept of taking the urban parks, urban areas of the country, and 
trying to preserve some of that culture, some of that heritage in our 
country, I have been on the Committee on Natural Resources and here on 
the floor working in support of the Lowell National Park.
  Mr. Chairman, if we cut off the support which is necessary for its 
continuation, then we essentially send a knife to the heart of a 
concept which has worked, which has helped to revivify not only 
downtown Lowell, but the entire greater Lowell area, and in many ways 
we give sustenance to those that argue that communities of that nature, 
that the history of communities like that in this country, do not 
deserve recognition.
  Mr. Chairman, in fact, just the opposite is the case. Lowell and 
Lawrence, MA, along with Manchester, NH, they are the golden triangle 
of the Industrial Revolution of this country.
  For us to turn our backs upon that as not being deserving of support, 
of recognition, and of continued nurturing, denies to those in the 
eastern part of the country their heritage, their national park.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a kind of a sense that only Yosemite or 
Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon National Park are part of the land in 
this country that is deserving of recognition and support and continued 
nurturing. The truth of the matter is that Lowell was the frontier, as 
was Lawrence, as was Manchester, and going across this country at any 
particular point in time, that was the frontier. For the people in that 
community who take such pride, for the businessmen and the ordinary 
citizens in that community who have taken this program and turned 
Lowell into a flourishing example of what the National Park Service, in 
combination with local community leaders, can do to leverage 9 and 10 
times the investment in that area as the Federal Government has put up, 
to turn an area of the country that had basically been thought of as 
the past, looking at it in a rear view mirror, into a past that is as 
current today as it was when it was thriving, I think is an essential 
part of what the Committee on Natural Resources and what this Congress 
should be nurturing. I would hope that we would find support for the 
Lowell National Historical Park out here on the floor today.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I just make the observation before I yield 
time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] that the 
Golden Triangle seems to be getting more golden with each 
authorization.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding me the time, even though we have differing opinions on this 
particular issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4448, to complete the 
work of the Lowell National Historic Park Commission. Urban parks are 
an important part of our Nation's heritage.
  The Lowell National Historic Park is a tribute to our Nation's 
industrial heritage. Local, State, and private funding have supported 
the efforts of the Federal Government to make this park a successful 
addition to the Park Service.
  Opponents of this bill state that the Federal Government is more 
involved than it can afford to be in protecting historical resources. 
They argue these national treasures should be run at a more local level 
for a lower cost.
  I could not agree more. H.R. 4448 phases out the national Commission 
in 5 years, simply allowing for completion of the work already begun. 
Moreover, H.R. 4448 saves taxpayers the cost of having the Park Service 
hire contractors and consultants to complete that work. H.R. 4448 does 
not authorize any new projects or expand the park.
  The Lowell National Park has been a model of private, State and 
Federal commitment to historical preservation. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill which saves taxpayer money, phases out a National 
Park Commission, and allows current projects to be completed.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have one other comment and some information I would 
like to share with the body before I yield back my time.
  I have some information here where I am looking at the line-item 
construction project funding that has been appropriated to selected 
parks over the years. This happens to be a 10-year total. I am looking 
at what some of these figures are.
  Over this same more-than-10-year period, we have seen more than $54 
million gone to Lowell. Yet I see the Everglades National Park has just 
had $22 million; Denali, $20 million; Glacier has not even made the 
million yet. Grand Canyon, $45 million. Zero to the Great Smoky 
Mountains, zero to Olympic, zero to Shenandoah, Rocky Mountain Park has 
had about $1.2 million, Yellowstone $31 million. Yet it seems to me 
when I look at these figures, Lowell has had more than its fair share 
of appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just ask the gentleman, and I would yield to him, that 
obviously in coming to the total, the sum total, the gentleman has 
added in the operation and maintenance of the park during the 16 years, 
is that correct? I would yield to the gentleman to answer if that is 
correct.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that these are 
construction dollars compared to construction dollars.
  Mr. VENTO. Of course the authorized ceiling, I do not know how the 
gentleman got there, because the authorized number is $33 million, so 
did the gentleman misspeak, because I thought he said $54 million. I 
was trying to determine how he got to the number $54 million. I would 
yield to the gentleman to explain that to me.
  Mr. ALLARD. My information is that we have $22 million at the park 
and then $34 million to the Commission. When you add those together, 
then you come up with the total dollars.
  Mr. VENTO. I think obviously there are some loan programs that are 
involved that is a revolving fund that do not necessarily represent the 
same dollars. The number of dollars, as I understand, in terms of the 
authorization is $33 million, which the ceiling may or may not have 
been breached but will be in terms of completing what is done. I would 
further point out to the gentleman and to the Members that, of course, 
Glacier, the Great Smokies, some of the other parks the gentleman 
articulated of course have been long parks. They have been in the park 
system for 30, 40, 50 years. Of course, they have no development 
ceiling on them, so they, of course, can compete for dollars. If their 
development has been completed, then it is not necessary for them to in 
fact have. But Lowell is very much a park that was designated in 1978. 
These parks, the gentleman would concede, were in fact designated 
decades ago. Is that correct?
  I would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ALLARD. Certainly they are pearls that the gentleman mentioned. 
They have been there for some time. Those parks have all been an 
important part of our Park Service. My point I want to make is that in 
the parks we are running short on dollars for construction, we are 
running short on dollars for maintenance and operation. If we extend 
too much towards one park, such as Lowell, for example, there is not 
enough to continue to enhance and even acquire other parks that might 
be serving the goal of enhancing our national beauty and preservation.
  Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman's observations. I certainly 
join with him in trying to attain adequate budgets to maintain these. I 
would just point out that there may be some shortfall in terms of 
adequate construction and other types of resources for parks. But I do 
not know that it had to do necessarily with this particular park. This 
is a park that is designated. I would hope that we could develop 
innovative means, of course, to in fact designate in the future.
  I would say in regards to Lowell, Mr. Chairman, that, of course, this 
embraces an entire town. This is really a more aggressive design than 
much of what we might be doing today. It has been a great success, I 
think, just the portrayal of the numbers, the $600 million that has 
been invested by the entities that are working with the Park Service, 
with the Commission here, is evidence, I think ample evidence of the 
great success of this particular project. The fact that it is costing 
and will necessitate an additional $10 million in authorization in the 
years ahead because of some of the costs attributed to it are of course 
of concern, something we have gone over very carefully and which I 
understand we are going to have further debate under the general 
debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] to continue 
the tremendous national park that has existed largely because of 
Senator Paul Tsongas' efforts in Lowell, MA. The efforts that we are 
talking about trying to incorporate today really just complete a park 
which is \4/5\ completed. It attracts over 1 million visitors a year, 
and it really, I think, commemorates one of the most important aspects 
of the history of this country. We talk long and hard in the Chamber of 
this Congress about how the United States is the richest and most 
powerful Nation on Earth, how we have such a strong military presence, 
how we have such tremendous productivity increases. The fact is that a 
lot of those efforts are only made possible because of the people in 
Lowell, MA, and other Lowell, Massachusettses all across the country 
that were part of the industrial revolution, that enabled America to 
have the tremendous economic growth that we have witnessed over the 
course of the last 150 years. Those people in Lowell, MA, and I think 
the history of that city, deserve the completion that this bill talks 
about.
  I have heard the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] talk about the 
fact that this is additional millions of dollars. The fact is that it 
is $10 million. It is capped after a 5-year period. Do we really want 
to be saying to people from all over the United States that come and 
visit Lowell, MA, that the wonderful park that they see that 
commemorates the tremendous economic changes that the United States has 
gone through is only \4/5\ completed, that we cannot somehow at this 
stage after all the contributions that the people of Lowell have made 
say ``We're sorry, we just can't complete the job.''
  The fact is we do have the resources to complete it, it is an 
important part of our history, and I commend the gentleman from Lowell, 
MA, for getting the job done.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yielded back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1810

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment is in the 
nature of a substitute now printed in the bill is considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 4448

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

       The Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment 
     of the Lowell National Historical Park in the Commonwealth of 
     Massachusetts, and for other purposes'' approved June 5, 1978 
     (92 Stat. 290; 16 U.S.C. 410cc et seq.), is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) In section 103(a)(2), by striking ``$33,600,000'' and 
     inserting ``$43,930,000''. The amendment made by this 
     paragraph shall take effect on October 1, 1994.
       (2) In section 203, by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Loan and Grant Agreements.--Upon termination of the 
     Commission, the Secretary, acting through the National Park 
     Service, shall assume all responsibilities of the Commission 
     for administration and oversight of the loan and grant 
     agreements under section 303.''.
       (3) In section 205, by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Leasing Authority.--(1) In addition to other 
     available authorities, the Secretary may, in his discretion, 
     negotiate and enter into leases, as appropriate, with any 
     person, firm, association, organization, corporation or 
     governmental entity for the use of any property within the 
     Park and Preservation District in accordance with the General 
     Management Plan and any of the purposes set forth in section 
     1 of this Act.
       ``(2) Any leases entered into under this subsection shall 
     be subject to such procedures, terms, conditions and 
     restrictions as the Secretary deems necessary. The Secretary 
     is authorized to negotiate and enter into leases or other 
     agreements, at fair market value and without regard to 
     section 321 of chapter 314 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 
     U.S.C. 303b). For purposes of any such lease or other 
     agreements, the Secretary may adjust the rental by taking 
     into account any amounts to be expended by the lessee for 
     preservation, maintenance, restoration, improvement, repair 
     and related expenses with respect to the leased properties.
       ``(3) The proceeds from leases under this subsection shall 
     be retained by the Secretary, be available without further 
     appropriation, remain available until expended, and be used 
     to offset the costs of preservation, interpretation, 
     restoration, maintenance, improvement, repair, and related 
     expenses, including administration related to such expenses, 
     incurred by the Secretary with respect to properties within 
     the Park and Preservation District, with the balance used to 
     offset other costs incurred by the Secretary in the 
     administration of the Park.
       ``(4) Each lessee of a lease entered into under this 
     subsection shall keep such records as the Secretary may 
     prescribe to enable the Secretary to determine that all terms 
     of the lease have been, and are being, faithfully performed.
       ``(5) The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to 
     Congress a report on property leased under this 
     subsection.''.
       (4) In section 301(i), by striking ``seventeen'' and 
     inserting ``22''.
       (5) In section 303(a), by amending paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) The loan to the corporation shall have a maturity of 
     35 years. At the end of such period, the corporation shall 
     repay to the Secretary of the Treasury (in a lump sum) for 
     deposit in the general fund of the Treasury the full amount 
     of the loan and any additional amounts accruing to the 
     corporation pursuant to this subsection excepting principal 
     and interest losses occasioned by loan defaults after all 
     reasonable efforts at collection have been completed plus 
     those amounts expended by the Corporation for reasonable 
     administrative expenses. The Commission is further authorized 
     to renegotiate the terms and conditions respecting loan 
     repayment of the agreement dated December 8, 1980, with the 
     Lowell Development and Financial Corporation. The authority 
     provided in this paragraph shall be available only to the 
     extent that appropriations for a subsidy cost, as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, are made 
     in advance.''.
       (6) In section 305(g), by inserting before the period at 
     the end thereof ``for administration by the National Park 
     Service in accordance with the general management plan''.
       (7) By adding after section 307 the following:

     ``SEC. 308. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       ``(a) Establishment of Advisory Committee.--Upon the 
     termination of the Commission, the Secretary shall establish 
     a committee to be known as the Lowell National Historical 
     Park Advisory Committee (hereinafter in this section referred 
     to as the `Advisory Committee').
       ``(b) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall be composed 
     of 15 members appointed by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Chairperson.--The Advisory Committee shall designate 
     one of its members as Chairperson.
       ``(d) Quorum.--Eight members of the Advisory Committee 
     shall constitute a quorum. The Advisory Committee shall act 
     and advise by affirmative vote of a majority of the members 
     voting at a meeting at which a quorum is present. The 
     Advisory Committee shall meet on a regular basis. Notice of 
     meetings and agenda shall be published in local newspapers 
     which have a distribution which generally covers the area 
     affected by the park and preservation district. Advisory 
     Committee meetings shall be held at locations and in such a 
     manner as to ensure adequate public involvement.
       ``(e) Functions.--The Advisory Committee shall advise the 
     Secretary on the operation, maintenance, development, and 
     programming of the park and preservation district.
       ``(f) Support and Technical Services.--In order to provide 
     staff support and technical services to assist the Advisory 
     Committee in carrying out its duties under this Act, upon 
     request of the Advisory Committee, the Secretary is 
     authorized to detail any personnel of the National Park 
     Service to the Advisory Committee.
       ``(g) Per Diem.--Members of the Advisory Committee shall 
     serve without compensation but shall be entitled to travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the 
     same manner as persons employed intermittently in Government 
     service under section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(h) FACA.--The provisions of section 14(b) of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix; 86 Stat. 776), are 
     hereby waived with respect to the Advisory Committee.
       ``(i) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Advisory Committee 
     shall be filled in the same manner in which the original 
     appointment was made. Any member may serve after the 
     expiration of his term until his successor is appointed.
       ``(j) Termination.--The Advisory Committee shall terminate 
     on June 5, 2010.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Page 3, strike line 12 and 
     all that follows through line 14 and insert the following:
       ``(3) Surplus proceeds from leases entered into under 
     section 111 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470h-3) with respect to property in the Park and 
     Preservation District, and all proceeds from all other leases 
     entered into under this subsection, shall be retained by the 
     Secretary, remain available until expended, and, subject to 
     appropriation,

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been worked out with the 
distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. 
Yates, who had indicated some concerns about granting the Secretary the 
authority to retain and expend funds generated by leasing buildings now 
administered and leased by the Lowell Preservation Commission.
  Under section 111(b) of the Historic Preservation Act, the Secretary 
is authorized to lease historic properties and retain those revenues 
needed to directly defray the costs of administration, maintenance, 
repair and related expenses incurred as the result of such leases. 
However, revenues from leases of properties not listed on the National 
Register, or revenues exceeding the costs described above are to be 
returned to the U.S. Treasury.
  Currently, the Preservation Commission leases three properties and 
retains the revenues from such leases to offset the costs of 
administering those properties. When the Commission terminates, the 
National Park Service will assume responsibility for those properties. 
Without the authority to retain such revenues, the NPS will require an 
additional $250,000 to $300,000 annually in operating funds to offset 
the loss of the lease revenues.
  While the Secretary's retention of lease revenues may be acceptable, 
there was some concern that the expenditure of such funds should be 
directed and regulated by appropriation acts. Accordingly, my amendment 
provides that any revenues not covered by section 111(b) of the 
Historic preservation act may, subject to appropriation, by retained by 
the Secretary and expended for authorized purposes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado so he can give me 
some advice as to his support for my amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any objection, and I will 
give my support to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: At the end of the bill 
     (page 7, after line 4), add the following:
       (8) By adding at the end the following:


                         title iv--buy american

     SEC. 401. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and 
     products purchased with funds made available pursuant to this 
     Act should be American made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available pursuant to this Act, the Commission, to 
     the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such entity 
     a notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by 
     the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is the standard Buy American 
amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento], chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have 
no objection to this amendment. It has I think merit and certainly the 
products and supplies and dollars spent, paid for by U.S. taxpayers and 
spent in Lowell, MA could and should be on a Buy American basis. I 
commend the gentleman and thank him for his amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I appreciate the chairman's support.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado, the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also 
stand in support of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I appreciate the gentleman's support.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, 
a Member known for his frugality in the House and a leader in that, and 
I will be sorry to see him leave. He is a dear friend, and I want to 
say to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], you are going to be 
missed in the House of Representatives. I do not know if I will have 
another chance to say that. The gentleman does a good job.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
the gentleman to know I will miss working with him and I applaud his 
leadership over the years in promoting American products. I rise today 
in support of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I appreciate it very much, believe me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. allard

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Allard: Page 7, line 4, strike the 
     closing quotation marks and period.
       Page 7, after line 4, add the following:

     ``SEC. 309. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW.

       ``(a) Deadline.--No later than January 1, 1996, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct the 
     audit described in subsection (b) and submit to Congress a 
     report concerning the results of such audit.
       ``(h) Audit.--The audit required by subsection (a) shall 
     deal only with those activities and expenditures authorized 
     by this Act and shall--
       ``(1) review the authorities of the National Park Service 
     and the Lowell Historic Park Advisory Commission and compare 
     them with those of similar units of the National Park System;
       ``(2) undertake a detailed assessment of all major Federal 
     expenditures made by the National Park Service and the Lowell 
     Historic Park Advisory Commission;

  Mr. ALLARD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, Congress spends a great deal of time 
expanding the boundaries of existing parks and establishing new units 
of the National Park System. Unfortunately, we do not spend nearly as 
much time and effort conducting oversight of existing park units.
  The Lowell National Historic Park is a very complicated creature. 
Aside from the park there is an accompanying historic district, a very 
powerful Park Commission, State and private funding and loan authority 
through the Lowell Development and Financial Corporation.
  As a result, it is very difficult to account for how the $50 plus 
million of Interior Department money has been spent there since the 
park was established in 1978.
  Since this bill was defeated 2 months ago, I have received several 
letters from citizens in Lowell, who prefer to remain anonymous, which 
have brought to my attention some serious allegations about 
questionable spending practices at the Lowell Park. One involves 
several hundred thousand dollars being spent to renovate the Nesmith 
House--a job I am told was never completed yet the building was sold 
for $33,000.
  On the other hand, bill proponents assert that for every dollar the 
commission has spent since 1978, $9.60 has been generated in private 
funding and $4.50 in State and local government funds.
  I believe these allegations and others deserve to be investigated by 
a fair and impartial body. Consequently, I am offering an amendment 
which authorizes the General Accounting Office and the Interior 
Department's inspector general to do a complete and thorough audit of 
all major Interior Department spending at the Lowell Park since 1978.
  This audit will also examine all loans made by the Lowell Development 
and Financial Corporation related to the park and document the status 
of those loans which have not been fully repaid.
  This congress and the Nation's taxpayers deserve to know how this 
park is administered. Although this bill represents the third time 
Congress has authorized money for the park, my amendment is the first 
meaningful attempt to force some meaningful oversight of the millions 
we have spent there since 1978.
  Some may claim that this amendment is unnecessary since any Member 
can request a GAO or inspector general investigation. I would point out 
that the type of joint audit my amendment authorizes would be hard to 
direct my sending a letter to a Federal agency. Moreover, my approach 
elevates this important discussion to the House floor where it belongs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will provide the 
Congress and the taxpayers with real oversight on how Federal money has 
been spent at the Lowell National Historic Park.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
to speak in support of the amendment. I do not think there is any 
disagreement on this amendment and I thank the gentleman for his 
cooperation. As Members know, we had had some concerns about the 
inspector general and the GAO doing the same sort of audit, but I think 
it probably would be helpful in terms of what analysis or auditing of 
the numbers will show with regards to the GAO analysis of this. I have 
confidence that the Park Service numbers, the commission numbers would 
be good, and obviously that is the basis for my support of the broader 
authorization.
  But I think it would be salutary for the GAO amendment the gentleman 
is offering, and I rise to support it.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. allard

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Allard: Page 2, line 5, strike 
     ``$43,930,000'' and insert ``38,765,000''.

  (Mr. ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out earlier the Interior 
Department has spent at least $54 million at the Lowell National 
Historic Park since it was established in 1978. This legislation 
represents the second legislative attempt to increase that park's 
authorization ceiling.
  I believe the Federal Government has spent enough at Lowell and I am 
troubled by the massive shortfall at our crown jewels like Rocky 
Mountain, Yellowstone, and Yosemite. These shortfalls will only be 
exacerbated if we spend an additional $10.33 million at Lowell as H.R. 
4448 authorizes.
  Because of the $7.4 to $9.4 billion shortfall at existing national 
parks and our current national debt of $4.5 trillion, we must make a 
reasonable effort to trim this authorization.
  My amendment would reduce the bill's $10.33 million authorization by 
50 percent to a more realistic level of $5.165 million. If bill 
proponents are accurate that every Federal dollar spent at Lowell 
generates $14 in State, local and private spending, then there is 
probably no need for any increased authorization. At the very least, 
this $5.1 million cut would hardly be felt if other parties are as 
effective as they claim in generating money to the Lowell project.
  Last week 240 Members of the House voted for a similar amendment to 
the headwaters forest bill which reduced that authorization from 
potentially $1.5 billion to $200 million. Hopefully, we will show the 
same prudence today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to save taxpayers $5.1 
million.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
understand the concerns of the gentleman from Colorado with regards to 
the general Park Service, but the issue, as I stated previously under 
general debate, Mr. Chairman, is this is an amendment that really 
closes its eyes to the information in the hearing process that has been 
developed within the subcommittee and within the Committee on Natural 
Resources, Subcommittee on Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
  The fact is this is an arbitrary amendment simply to cut the funds 
which would prevent the fulfillment of the basic plan that has long 
existed with regards to Lowell National Historic Park.

                              {time}  1820

  As has been pointed out by my colleague, this is one of the most 
outstanding resources. We made a commitment in 1978. It has been more 
expensive to fulfill that commitment both for the Federal Government 
and the National Park Service, but also for the private sector and for 
the State and for the local government which has contributed far and 
away the greater share of this.
  In other words, the funding has been, as have been indicated, nearly 
$600 million invested by those entities. They are behind this park. 
They are pouring their treasure and their support into it, and it is 
being rewarded. It is a magnificent park. It is a park that does 
reflect the industrial, the labor history, the cultural history of the 
Northeastern part of the United States, one that we all share in as 
part of our legacy and as part of what makes America and this Nation 
what it has become today.
  This amendment is completely arbitrary. It simply strikes the dollars 
out, assuming that less is going to accomplish the task. The Park 
Service and the Commission have specifically pointed out the costs 
here. The costs are the completion of the canal and development 
program, over $5 million; the targeted preservation grants which are 
necessary to leverage the completion of warehouses and other types of 
shops which are in difficult shape, $1.7 million; stabilization of the 
endangered industrial structures, over $3 million; a trolley system for 
handicapped access, $330 thousand. The total, of course, is the $10.3 
million that is incorporated in this bill.
  Does the gentleman propose to cut out the completion of the canal 
system only to have further deterioration to slow down the development 
of these construction projects? These are some pieces and projects that 
cannot be done in a piecemeal manner. The fact is they need the 
targeted preservation grants. We need to incentivize the private 
sector. The commission has been a great success. I regret that things 
cost more than they were anticipated to cost in 1978. That is 16 years 
ago, and the fact is that I think, based on the fact that we can look 
at what has been done here and that Members have the testimony and the 
information before them, I think it is really incorrect and bad 
judgment to come back and just arbitrarily cut the appropriation in 
half because you oppose this or because there are problems with other 
parks.
  We are not going to solve the problems by doing a halfway job with 
Lowell or with the other parks. We need to get the proper resources to 
the National Park Service.
  We talked about a $5 billion backlog in terms of construction and 
maintenance. The Park Service budget is only $1.3 billion or $1.4 
billion a year for the entire budget. That gives the Members some idea 
of the magnitude of the problems we face. This has not been caused by 
the addition of new units or by Lowell. This has been caused by a 
misallocation of the resources on a broad, broad basis that need to go 
to preserve the parks. They just do not get along on their own. They 
need our support. They need our effort. The American people 
overwhelmingly support the park system. I would hope, and I would 
think, they would support this, and I would, therefore, ask the Members 
to reject the Allard amendment. It is unrealistic. It throws out the 
facts simply for a quick fix in terms of cutting the budget there. That 
is not going to do it.
  This has to go through the appropriations process. This is only the 
first step. The Members, on a yearly basis, will be scrutinizing these 
dollars very carefully. We know how carefully our colleagues on the 
appropriation and interior agency committees go through the budget and 
the Senate and to be signed.
  We need to permit them to compete for the dollars available so this 
important historic resource can be preserved.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask Members to reject the amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard]. At 
a time when our constituents are demanding that Federal spending be cut 
dramatically, this is an excellent place to start.
  My colleagues who support this bill claim that for every Federal 
dollar spent at Lowell, $14 dollars are generated by the private sector 
and State and local governments. If this is correct, then I am baffled 
why this bill is before us today at all. Why would the sponsor want to 
go through the grueling schedule of the suspension calendar, a Rules 
Committee hearing and another appearance on the House floor if the 
Federal contribution at Lowell is only 6 percent of the total revenue?
  If this calculation is correct, then the Allard amendment will have 
virtually no impact on operations at the Lowell National Historic Park. 
I urge my colleagues to support the Allard amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is arbitrary: The amount authorized by 
H.R. 4448 is based on cost estimates by historic preservation 
specialists and professional engineers. The amount cut by the Allard 
amendment is based on what sounds good to the gentleman from Colorado. 
The committee relied on experts to decide how much is needed to finish 
the ongoing preservation work.
  The amendment is also inefficient: Lopping off half the authorized 
funding will drag out the work already underway, forcing the commission 
to spend more time and money than necessary. Cutting the authorization 
for the commission only shifts the burden of completing whatever is 
left over to the Park Service. The work will still have to be done, but 
it will be done by outside contractors hired by the Park Service at 
greater cost.
  Last, the amendment is counterproductive: Opponents of the bill say 
too much has been spent on the Lowell Park. But the more visitors to 
the park, the more the taxpayers get out of their investment in Lowell. 
Completion of the canal system will make the park a more interesting 
and attractive place to visit.
  I urge rejection of the Allard amendment. It is an ill-conceived, 
feel-good cut that would gut the bill.
  If the gentleman from Colorado has a study, an expert, or anything at 
all that shows the work could be done for half the money, he has not 
told anyone about it up to this point. It should be obvious that he 
picked a number out of a hat. That might be a good way to score feel-
good political points, but it is no way to make policy.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Colorado is opposed to the bill, 
then he should just vote against the bill, not cut it in half. If we 
cut it in half, that is a waste of half of the money. This amendment 
should be rejected, and I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. 
It is ill conceived. It is a feel-good cut that actually would cut this 
bill, and we do not need to cut this bill. We need to finish the job 
that we started in Lowell.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 215, not voting 59, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 439]

                               AYES--165

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lambert
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Norton (DC)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--59

     Andrews (ME)
     Baker (LA)
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Carr
     Collins (IL)
     Cooper
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Derrick
     Dingell
     Dornan
     Edwards (CA)
     English
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gingrich
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Klug
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     McCurdy
     McInnis
     Mineta
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Rahall
     Ridge
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Sharp
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Stearns
     Sundquist
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wyden

                              {time}  1849

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Dornan for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois, against.
       Mr. Thomas of California for, with Mr. Mineta against.

  Messrs. EDWARDS of Texas, BAESLER, and WISE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. MOLINARI and Mr. EVERETT changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall 
439, the Allard amendment. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Penny) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 4448) to 
amend the act establishing Lowell National Historical Park, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 532, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER, pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and 
third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  I recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 145, not voting 52, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 440]

                               AYES--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff

                               NOES--145

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--52

     Andrews (ME)
     Baker (LA)
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Carr
     Collins (IL)
     Cooper
     Darden
     Derrick
     Dingell
     Dornan
     Edwards (CA)
     English
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gingrich
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Klug
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     McCurdy
     Mineta
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Rahall
     Ridge
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Sharp
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Sundquist
     Thomas (CA)
     Washington
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wyden

                              {time}  1909

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Dingell for with Mr. Dornan against.
       Ms. English for with Mr. Thomas of California against.
  Mr. CONDIT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LEWIS of California changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded a motion to 
reconsider.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________