[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS ACT OF 1994

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 562 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 562

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5044) to establish the American Heritage Areas 
     Partnership Program, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed three 
     hours (excluding time consumed by recorded votes and 
     proceedings incidental thereto). Each section shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII 
     before the beginning of consideration of the bill. Any 
     amendment to the bill caused to be printed in the Record by 
     Representative Vento of Minnesota may amend portions of the 
     bill not yet read for amendment. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will just announce that it is not our 
intention to ask for a vote on this rule, so that if Members would have 
other business to attend to, there probably will not be another vote 
for a good hour or so on the floor.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
that information.
  Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 
30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and pending 
that I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of 
this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 562 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 5044, a bill to establish the American Heritage 
Areas Partnership Program Act of 1994.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Natural 
Resources Committee. The rule provides that each section shall be 
considered as read. Only those amendments printed in the Congressional 
record prior to consideration of the bill will be in order and debate 
on consideration of the bill for amendment is limited to 3 hours. The 
rule provides that any amendment printed in the Record by 
Representative Vento may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
amendment. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, recently a motion was offered to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 5044). Although supported by a large majority, the 
motion failed the required two-thirds vote. I believe there was general 
agreement to the concept of the bill although there was some 
controversy. The resolution recommended by the Rules Committee will 
adequately protect the right of any Member to address their concerns by 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5044 establishes the American Heritage Areas 
Partnership Program, provides for individual American Heritage Area 
designation pursuant to that program, directs the National Park Service 
to study specific areas for inclusion in the program, and makes 
modifications to several laws that designated certain heritage 
corridors or areas in the 1980's.
  H.R. 5044 also sets forth the minimum criteria for recognition of a 
management group to administer a heritage area and for developing a 
management plan. The bill sets limits on the amount of Federal 
financial assistance any one area may receive and requires State and 
local governments to provide matching funds for that Federal 
assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, there are currently four congressionally established 
heritage areas. They have shown that with a small amount of Federal 
financial and technical assistance, State and local governments along 
with participating private groups can develop partnerships to manage a 
variety of historical, cultural, and recreational resources in a way 
that can be of benefit to all the people living in those areas. The 
American Heritage Areas Partnership Program is a good, workable program 
which requires only a small amount of Federal involvement. The 
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and 
Rhode Island, which was established in 1990, is a prime example of how 
well this cooperative arrangement for cultural and historical 
preservation works.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and the bill and I reserve 
the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules for graciously yielding us half of his time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

  I join the gentleman from Massachusetts in urging support for this 
rule, and thank him for his fairness in holding consideration of the 
bill over until today so that Members had the opportunity to put their 
amendments in order.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us a modified open rule providing for 1 
hour of general debate with a time limit of 3 hours on consideration of 
amendments.
  Those amendments which were printed in the Congressional Record prior 
to the consideration of the bill shall be in order.
  While I have some serious concerns about this legislation, I urge 
support for the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, currently the National Park System is facing a 37-year 
backlog in construction, renovation, and maintenance.
  I am sure there are Members listening right now, who have situations 
similar to mine, where park projects have already been initiated in 
their districts and these projects need Federal dollars for their 
completion. In my district alone, sites like the Vanderbilt Mansion and 
the Saratoga Battlefield have been waiting years for much-needed 
Federal assistance for their completion.
  And yet, here we are diverting tens of millions of dollars to new 
areas. Where is the sense in that?
   Do we not owe it to the American taxpayer to finish projects before 
we start new ones?
  The National Park System can ill-afford to take on any additional 
financial burdens at this time, let alone those provided for in this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was debated on the floor the other day under 
suspension, so most Members should be familiar with its contents.
  In this final week of the session, time is of the essence. Therefore, 
the process should go forward with the adoption of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following matter relating to open and 
closed rules for the Record.

              OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Open rules       Restrictive rules
  Congress (years)   Total rules ---------------------------------------
                      granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).....          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).....          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).....          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).....          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).....          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)....          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)....          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).....          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).....          102      31         30       71         70 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported   
  from the Rules Committee which provide for the initial consideration  
  of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive 
  points of order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged
  are also not counted.                                                 
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane    
  amendment to a measure so long as it is otherwise in compliance with  
  the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules  
  as a percent of total rules granted.                                  
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments     
  which can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified
  closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing  
  for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the     
  Whole. The parenthetical percentages are restrictive rules as a       
  percent of total rules granted.                                       
                                                                        
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-   
  102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,'' Committee on Rules, 103d     
  Cong., through Oct. 4, 1994.                                          


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).    
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 17, 1994).   
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 255-178 (Aug. 11, 1994).      
                                           Disclosure Act.                                                                                              
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4822: Cong.               33 (D-16; R-17).  16 (D-10; R-6)............  PQ: 247-185 A: Voice Vote (Aug.  
                                           Accountability.                                                              10, 1994).                      
H. Res. 515, Aug. 10, 1994....  O         H.R. 4908: Hydrogen Etc.       N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Research Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994....  MC        H.R. 3433: Presidio            12 (D-2; R-10)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 19, 1994).   
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 532, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4448: Lowell Natl. Park.  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).  
H. Res. 535, Sept. 20, 1994...  O         H.R. 4422: Coast Guard         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 22, 1994).  
                                           Authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 536, Sept. 20, 1994...  MC        H.R. 2866: Headwaters Forest   16 (D-5; R-11)..  9 (D-3; R-6)..............  PQ: 245-175 A: 246-174 (Sept. 21,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 542, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4008: NOAA Auth. Act....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 26, 1994).  
H. Res. 543, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 4926: Natl. Treatment in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Banking.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 544, Sept. 23, 1994...  O         H.R. 3171: Ag. Dept.           N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).  
                                           Reorganization.                                                                                              
H. Res. 551, Sept. 27, 1994...  MO        H.R. 4779: Interstate Waste    22 (D-15; R-7)..  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 28, 1994).  
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 552, Sept. 27, 1994...  O         H.R. 4683: Flow Control Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Sept. 29, 1994).  
H. Res. 562, Oct. 3, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 5044: Amer. Heritage      N/A.............  N/A.......................                                   
                                           Areas.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 563, Oct. 4, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 301: SoC Re:      N/A.............  N/A.......................                                   
                                           Entitlements.                                                                                                
H. Res. 565, Oct. 4, 1994.....  MC        S. 455: Payments in Lieu of    N/A.............  N/A ......................                                   
                                           Taxes.                                                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Let me thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for both yielding time to me and for 
the rule. This rule is entirely appropriate in that it allows under 
open debate introduction of the amendments that most concerned us when 
this bill came up under suspension. The amendment that we will offer 
today dealing with landowner property rights issues, that is.
  For those of the Members who are sitting at their desks watching the 
television monitors, I will try to give a brief explanation of what is 
ahead when we begin voting on this bill under this open rule that I 
hope we will approve shortly.
  No. 1, we will be offering now an en bloc amendment by agreement with 
the authors that will include several changes in the bill.
  The first and most important change will be a change that allows the 
landowners in the affected areas to consent to be covered by this act, 
to in fact have their property subjected to the regulations that this 
act would bring to their property pursuant to these heritage and 
cultural areas.
  In short, the landowner consent features very similar to the 
landowner consent arguments that were made on the biological survey 
bill will make it clear that the landowners have freedom of choice, to 
either come under its provisions or not. This will protect, if you 
will, the right of landowners to be secure against regulations that 
might take away the use or value of their property without their 
consent.
  I would urge Members to pay particular attention to that part of the 
en bloc amendment. Mr. Regula, I am told, will be offering an amendment 
to delete that portion of the en bloc amendment.
  Let me make it clear that is the most important part of the en bloc 
amendment, the landowner consent feature.
  If that is deleted from the amendment, the en block amendment will no 
longer have the kind of protection for private property rights that the 
bill ought to have. So I would be urging Members to vote against the 
Regula amendment to the Tauzin en bloc amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say--and I will have more to 
say about property rights of individual Americans--if that amendment 
were to be successful, if that is knocked out from the gentleman from 
Louisiana's en bloc, amendment. I am going to guarantee the membership 
right now there is a Senator over in the other body who will put a hold 
on this bill and it will never see the light of day.
  I just wanted to say that.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Let me make it 
clear, I would like to see this bill passed, I would like it to see the 
light of day. I want the Members who have heritage areas, who want 
protection and Federal help, to get it.

                              {time}  1140

  But I want to make sure when this bill goes over to the Senate that 
it has the adequate protection of property rights that this House has 
agreed to put on other bills like the Desert Protection Act. If that 
amendment to guarantee landowners the right of consent to be covered is 
taken out by the Regula amendment, we will be offering a second 
amendment at that point.
  Let me try to wrap this up. If, if the Tauzin amendment is defeated, 
or if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] succeeds in gutting out the 
landowner consent provisions of the Tauzin amendment, we will then 
offer a second amendment. That second amendment will provide 
administrative relief to landowners so that, if that property and its 
value or its use are substantially diminished by the effect of this act 
without their consent, that the act will then provide that those 
landowners are entitled to compensation for their property loss just as 
we have passed that provision on the Desert Protection Act.
  Let me say it again. Our first option is landowner consent. This 
ought to be a consensual program. This ought to be one where the 
property owners affected by it are partners in this act, not just 
government telling them what is going to happen. They ought to be full 
partners in deciding whether to participate fully in these heritage 
corridors that could be as wide as six counties wide and as long as the 
Mississippi River. Landowners ought to have the right to say that they 
want to be or not, that they do not want to be, a part of this kind of 
land use regulation. But if this House should agree with the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula] to take out that landowner consent or to defeat 
the Tauzin amendment, we will be offering a second amendment to 
guarantee landowners who were brought under this program without their 
consent, that they will be guaranteed full compensation for the 
significant loss of property use or value that will flow from these 
regulations.
  Let me sum it up. I am not opposed to heritage acts. I am not opposed 
to heritage corridors or cultural protection. I think those are all 
laudable goals, just as wetlands protection and endangered species 
protection, many other laudable goals in this country. But when these 
good, laudable goals that are good for all of us in society require 
some small landowner to reduce his property as a result, the fifth 
amendment of the Constitution provides a remedy. It says he must be 
compensated and the compensation must be just. We either must give 
these landowners the consensual right to join or not join, or if they 
are forced to join against their consent, we must accord them the right 
of compensation under the fifth amendment.
  I am not talking about a property right. Property does not own 
rights. I am talking about a civil right to own property in America. 
That is what these votes will be all about, and I say to my colleagues, 
if you believe as I do, you'll vote for the Tauzin en bloc amendment 
and against the Regula amendment that will gut it. If for any reason 
that amendment fails or the Regula amendment passes, we will be 
offering the compensation amendment to guarantee property owner rights 
under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and will say that in just one moment I am going to yield to a very 
valuable Member of this body. But let me just for a minute tell my 
colleagues why I have become so exercised about legislation that would 
lead to the usurpation of the rights of property owners in America.
  As my colleagues know, I represent an area of New York State that is 
one of the most beautiful areas in the world. As a matter of fact, 
today, it is the most beautiful area in the world because this is the 
peak day in the Adirondacks when the colors change. Unlike most 
mountain ranges that are mostly fir trees and pine trees, we have over 
100 different species up in the Adirondacks, and they are prevalent 
throughout the entire range. When the colors change, Mr. Speaker, they 
are the most beautiful colors, golds, and oranges, and reds, and 
yellows. I invite all of my colleagues to come up there. No Member can 
go right now because we are in session, but next year come on up to see 
the most beautiful area in the world.
  But let me tell my colleagues something about that area. There are 
6,000,000 acres up there, and the State of New York owns part of that 
land. But most of it is owned by just plain ordinary people such as 
myself and my colleagues. And guess what? We have something called the 
Adirondacks Park Agency, and there is something called regional zoning 
that was put on top of all of the other local zonings up in these small 
towns. We do not have any businesses, industries, up there. We have 
unemployment that runs 9, 10, 11, 12 percent, and in the wintertime up 
to 20 percent in some of these counties, so the people are really hard-
pressed up there. But they have literally been zoned out of the 
reasonable use of their land. So not only are we talking about national 
park land where the people do not have rights, but about people who own 
their own land and really cannot use it as they see fit because they 
have not been compensated for the taking of their rights to develop it 
as they see fit.
  Now the other thing that I am so concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is 
headlines like these. In New York State, we have something called the 
Conservation Department, and it is like the EPA, the Federal EPA. They 
have such stiff regulations on every issue that the Environment 
Protection Agency at the Federal level gives up its own authority and 
says, ``You're tougher than we are, so you go ahead and lay down all 
these laws.'' Well, they have laid down law so much that New York is 
the highest-taxed State in the Nation, and more than that, Mr. Speaker, 
we are the most overregulated State in the Nation.
  What does that bring about? Look at this headline. It says, ``IBM 
Deepens Job Cuts. Kingston, Poughkeepsie to lose jobs.'' Over on the 
other side of the page it says that 4,000 workers are to lose their 
jobs in East Fishkill. Now that is down in the southern part of the 
Hudson Valley, the lower part of the district that I have the privilege 
of representing.
  Then go on over here, and here is another headline. ``GE to Cut 1,200 
Jobs.'' This is on top of the 1,800 that they cut just last year. That 
is 3,000 more jobs that are gone out of our State.
  ``Four Hundred Jobs Going to Mexico. Mallinckrodt to Leave Argyle and 
go to Juarez, Mexico.''
  Here is another one. ``Scott Paper Planning 300 Layoffs.'' Three 
hundred jobs down the drain.
  Here is one just yesterday about leather manufacturers in 
Gloversville and Johnstown, NY, laying off hundreds of workers.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, this goes on and on. So when we 
see people like the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and myself 
stand up here and be concerned about property rights, it is for these 
reasons. I do not want to have to require a business that wants to 
locate in one of these heritage areas to go through the Secretary of 
the Interior to get permits to put up a plant. I want him to go to the 
local government body and get permits to put up that plant, and that is 
what the gentleman from Louisiana is talking about. That is all that I 
am taking about, and that is why we have such concerns about this 
legislation. If it can be amended properly so that we can live up to 
its laudable goals without taking away the rights of property owners, 
then I will vote for this legislation.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, my friend.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing in this bill that I 
failed to mention that our amendment will correct that I think deserves 
mentioning, and that is that this bill picks up some language from the 
404 wetlands regulatory program. It is called the no practicable 
alternative language. I say to the gentleman, ``What it means, Mr. 
Solomon, is that just as in wetlands laws this Heritage Act could 
impose an obligation on Federal agencies not to do the normal things 
Federal agencies do like flood control projects, assistance and 
development projects, or housing projects, not to do those things if 
there is a practicable alternative to do them somewhere else. That's 
the language that's in this bill.''
  Our amendment, in addition to correcting the property rights 
amendment, will also delete that language so we do not have a situation 
where in the guise of heritage protection people will be told, as they 
are in the wetlands laws right now, that they cannot use their own 
property to create jobs, or to form or build their homes, because there 
is a practicable alternative in two counties down or in Juarez, Mexico. 
We want to make sure, in effect, that that same language in the 
wetlands laws is not carried over in this law, and I would urge my 
colleagues to make sure that that Tauzin amendment is adopted because 
we clarify that job-killing provision of this Heritage Act.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of business and industry and the 
farmers in the Hudson Valley, Members can be sure I will be supporting 
that amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula], a very, very distinguished Member of this body 
and one who is really valuable to all of us in looking out for our 
interests.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me and I welcome his vote, along with the accolades.
  All I want to say to the Members is, listen carefully when we get to 
the debate so we do not get confused by some of the rhetoric that does 
not square with the facts.
  First of all, I am as sensitive to private property rights as 
anybody. I live on a farm in a rural area that is unzoned and I am very 
much aware of how important property rights are.
  In this bill, every effort has been made to protect those property 
rights. It does not allow for any taking by the Federal Government or 
the local government. It does not allow for a change in zoning by the 
Federal Government or the local government. It does not allow any 
encroachment on private property rights.
  What this bill does is help people help themselves. That is why in my 
area, we have Boy Scouts and Kiwanis Clubs and garden clubs and all 
kinds of volunteer groups that want to put together this historic 
corridor. They are not going to take anybody's land. They are going to 
simply clean up the towpath, cut the brush. They are already cutting 
brush. They are going to try to make bicycle and hiking trails 
eventually, as a legacy for the generations to come, because in time as 
more and more urbanization takes place, these open spaces will be ever 
more valuable.

  Here is an opportunity for the Federal Government to lend a helping 
hand in terms of money, albeit a very small amount of the National Park 
Service or the Department of the Interior budget, to lend the 
communities a helping hand which will generate thousands of hours of 
volunteers being involved in preserving something for today, tomorrow 
and 100 years or more from now. I think to deny these people the 
privilege of doing something to enhance the beauty and the historic 
values of their community would be very unfair.
  I might say that the substitute that the gentleman from Louisiana was 
talking about, we support a number of things that he is proposing, 
because we do not want to encroach on anybody's property rights. Let me 
reemphasize, there is no taking, no zoning changes provided, we in no 
way disturb private property.
  The gentleman from New York talked about industry, the loss of 
industry. Let me say that the Cleveland Growth Association, this is 
made up of industries and people in the Cuyahoga County area, which is 
the northern terminus of the Ohio and Erie corridor, has a pamphlet 
promoting the great things about Cleveland, the north coast, they call 
it. And one of the features in here is History in the Making.
  And they talk about how valuable this corridor would be in attracting 
industry, in making the quality of life better in northern Ohio and, 
therefore, saying to industries that would contemplate relocating that 
this is a great place to put their business because it is a great place 
for people to live. We have the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation 
Area that was authorized by this body and is supported annually with 
appropriations. Part of the Ohio and Erie corridor goes through the 
recreation area.
  What a great chance we have today to give these 10 communities that 
are involved in these corridors a helping hand, to say, we will give 
you a little Federal money. You raise a lot of money locally.
  I know our local garden clubs already contributed $100. The Kiwanis 
has contributed $100 toward getting a matching fund to do this.
  But more importantly than the money will be the fact that people will 
be involved, that those Scout troops and 4H clubs will be out there 
cleaning the trail and getting a sense of the value of open spaces. 
Most of it is already public land.
  As I mentioned, Cuyahoga Valley, the canal lands are owned by public 
entities. The rivers, of course, are public. The cities own the areas 
within the cities. So private property rights are well preserved.
  Let us not take on in this bill a separate issue, this whole thing of 
private property rights is a separate issue that ought to be addressed 
by this body in another way in establishing perhaps what are the 
criteria for Federal action, but let us not use this bill as a vehicle 
for that, because this bill is designed to create these locally 
initiated and locally managed corridors.
  They have been successful. We have three or four of them in the 
United States now. People like them. In, I think it is, Blackstone they 
want to expand it because people love it.
  Let me say one other thing. Most people of the Eastern States, 
particularly, do not get a chance to go to the great national parks, 
the Yosemites and the Grand Canyons and the Yellowstones. But a 
corridor they can visit every day. They can take the family out for a 
walk.
  We are talking about family values all the time. We are talking about 
partnerships between Federal and local communities. Here is an ideal 
vehicle to enhance family values. This family that goes out and cleans 
a trail and uses that trail on a perhaps daily or weekly basis, it is 
an opportunity to demonstrate that the Federal Government wants to be a 
partner with local communities, that we want the Federal Government to 
be a very valuable presence in helping people help themselves.
  I say again, let us not get confused on this broad issue of private 
property rights. Again, I emphasize, I am as sensitive to that as the 
gentleman from Louisiana, because I have to live it.
  Let us talk about what this does for people. I think that is the 
value of this bill.
  I hope all of our Members will listen carefully to the debate when we 
get to that so that they make their judgments based on the facts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and I support the 
efforts of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], Stark County, my 
neighbor. I give him credit for much of the work he has done on this in 
helping the State of Ohio immensely. I am a very big supporter of the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and I hope that we can work this 
out, because I think they are two of the better Members. I hope that we 
can. This is a good bill.
  I will not take a whole lot of time. I am hoping that the Democrat 
Party is listening and they do not bring the GATT rule to the floor of 
this House. I hope that we pass this rule and we do not, in fact, take 
up the GATT rule today and give Members more time. And Democrats better 
run a head count before the Democrat Party loses some Members.
  I am hoping that the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] will talk with the Speaker.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I have a letter here from John J. Motley III, vice president of Federal 
governmental relations for the National Federation of Independent 
Business. The letter is addressed to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  It says, ``On behalf of the more than 600,000 members of the National 
Federation of Independent Business, I want to express our strong 
support for your landowner consent amendment to H.R. 5044, the American 
Heritage Areas Act of 1994. We commend your effort to protect this 
fundamental right of private property owners.'' And the letter goes on 
from there.
  Let me say, as I said in my opening remarks, I am going to support 
the motion to bring this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter to which I referred.

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 1994.
     Hon. Bill Tauzin,
     2330 Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Tauzin: On behalf of the more that 600,000 
     members of the National Federation of Independent Business 
     (NFIB), I want to express our strong support for your 
     landowner consent amendment to H.R. 5044, the American 
     Heritage Areas Act of 1994.
       We commend your effort to protect this fundamental right of 
     private property owners, by requiring that a property owner 
     provide their written consent before their property is 
     included in the Heritage Management Area or placed on the 
     inventory list of those properties to be ``preserved, 
     restored, managed, developed, or maintained.'' We also agree 
     strongly that the federal government should not be able to 
     dictate to local entities how to manage these Heritage areas.
       Small business owners and landowners have growing concerns 
     about the ever-increasing government intrusion in the name of 
     protecting the environment or other public interests. While 
     small business owners certainly support the preservation of 
     our nation's heritage, they also strongly feel the need to 
     preserve our constitutional private property rights.
       This amendment will serve as an important precedent for the 
     protection of private property rights as small business 
     owners and landowners alike need some degree of control and 
     certainty over what takes place on their property. Your 
     amendment will help retain a vital element in ensuring this 
     certainty.
           Sincerely,

                                           John J. Motley III,

                                                   Vice President,
                                   Federal Governmental Relations.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, I have strong reservations about it. We will see what 
happens during the amendment process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I realize the other side is going to close. 
I want to make one preemptive strike here.
  My friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], pointed out that he 
did not think this bill affected any local zoning ordinances. I want to 
read to you from a report issued by Mr. Dennis Galvin, associate 
director of Augusta Canal National Heritage Corridor.
  This is his statement: ``More specifically,'' this is what they were 
required to do under their plan, ``More specifically, as called for in 
the plan, there needs to be adoption of the plan by the City of 
Augusta, two counties involved, by the State, commitment from all 
levels of government, and evidence of commitment to modify zoning 
regulations.''
  That is what we are talking about. We are talking about major big 
greenways, and the authority and the commitment to modify land use 
zoning regulations, so do not let them kid you, that this is not a 
property rights issue. It is a big one. This will be a big property 
rights vote when we get to it. I urge Members to pay close attention to 
the debate when it does come.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all thank the chairman and 
support the rule. It is a fair rule. It gives the opportunity for the 
opponents of the Heritage Partnership Act, and there are opponents of 
it, to offer amendments which will basically gut the bill.
  The reason that I sought suspension votes and failed nine short on 
this is because there is no way to reconcile the type of proposals 
being made here in the name of property rights with the establishment 
or designation of these heritage area partnership proposals.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that there are about 20 
different measures in this bill that affect a large number of Members. 
Not one Member sponsoring or advocating this is asking for these types 
of property rights amendments. This is either, in terms of the property 
rights, a big misunderstanding, or an effort to superimpose one on it 
and hijack this bill for a different purpose, to make a different 
point.
  I object to that. We are trying to get something done. We are trying 
to make some positive progress in terms of a partnership act here, 
where the Federal Government can for once cooperate in partnership with 
the local governments. What are we getting pushed at us? What are we 
getting pushed at us? Where is the end of this nonsense?
  This Congress doesn't want to set in place what it is that a local 
government can do in zoning and what they cannot do. But, that is what 
this is all about. We do not have enough to do around here, we are 
going to become the local zoning boards in terms of property rights and 
how people are treated from a zoning point of view.
  I think in this bill, Mr. Speaker, I avoid establishing new political 
subdivisions, and try to give the responsibilities to the State and 
local governments. It has worked successfully in the heritage areas 
that we have designated in the past. We've got four of these. This is a 
model that works.
  There is a lot of reform in this bill, there are a lot of 
initiatives. There is not new money. This money is authorized already 
under the National Historic Preservation Act. This is a new way of 
trying to do something to stretch the limited Federal dollars and 
respond to the needs of people in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, if these property rights amendments that are being 
proposed were to be enacted, they would render this bill moot. It would 
not work. There is not a local government, there is not a State 
government, which would accept these types of definitions in terms of 
limiting.
  This would be an individual making a decision here, and there would 
be anarchy in local government. You would have no control over, 
basically, the zoning responsibilities that are inherently and 
appropriately, I think, local, nor is there a place where we can 
demonstrate where there is a compensation panel that is set up 
nationwide.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, if these amendments, if the 
Regula amendment, which we are bending over backwards here for, we make 
numerous disclaimers in this bill to avoid interfering with local 
government. They can enter and use and exercise the powers that they 
have. The Federal Government can exercise and use the powers.
  However, if we want to diminish, eliminate and cut them off at the 
knees and kill these bills, that is what the Tauzin amendment will do. 
We will have a good debate on that. The point is we ought to understand 
what the effects of those amendments are.
  This bill is not going to go forward, in my judgment, on that basis. 
It will not do anything, it will be moot, it will be rendered useless. 
It may make a point for those that want to score one more point in 
terms of saying how much they are for property rights, but they will 
defeat the purpose of this bill and there would be no use in moving 
forward.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule. I urge a proper 
consideration of the amendments. We will be offering some en bloc 
amendments. I appreciate the cooperation from the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] in offering the en bloc amendments, but I 
disagree with them, and would vigorously oppose amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear what the procedure is. The 
procedure is the consideration of the bill, the en bloc amendments as 
the bill was prepared on suspension. Then we will have a Tauzin 
amendment which I will not object to being offered en bloc.
  In fact, I appreciate the cooperation the gentleman has shown with 
regard to limiting the debate time. Then, in concert with the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Regula], another sponsor of the bill, we will offer an 
amendment which will modify the Tauzin amendment. I think it will go as 
far as we can go in addressing some of the concerns and still make the 
bill a meaningful bill.
  Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of that we will consider other 
amendments that have been made in order under the rule that have been 
printed in the Record, and hopefully we will go on to pass this bill. 
This is a very good bill, it is a good initiative.
  As far as the demands that are being made in the Senate as to how we 
can conduct ourselves and what we can do, it seems to me the one-
Senator veto program is working pretty well over there. But, I would 
like to put this bill on their door and see if we have an opportunity 
to pass really what has been a significant amount of work.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been working on this bill for years. I have been 
personally working on it very hard for the last 5 months. I think the 
Members in this body that have elements in this bill very much would 
appreciate a positive vote, and other Members resisting the opportunity 
today to pull down this particular bill. It is a very important bill to 
those Members.
  Resist this property rights amendment, resist it here. We do not 
affect property rights. We should not try to solve that particular 
problem on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support the bill, and I thank the 
chairman of the committee for yielding time to me.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 562 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. 5044.

                              {time}  1206


                     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. 
5044), to establish the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Menendez 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 Utah [Mr. Hansen] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. This bill establishes 
the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program. It provides for 
individual American heritage area designations pursuant to the program 
that directs the National Park Service to study specific areas for 
inclusion.
  This bill, while providing a generic or an overall legislative 
mandate and program, also, of course, designates a number of areas. The 
basic provisions of the bill in terms of setting forth the generic 
proposed law concerning the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
incorporate the provisions of H.R. 3707, which I introduced in November 
1993.
  That bill had hearings, went through the committee, was marked up in 
the committee, was the subject of a major compromise between members of 
the minority and majority in the committee, and has bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, furthermore, all the provisions in the bill that relate 
to the American heritage designations have been the subject of hearings 
in the committee, have been processed by the committee. They had not 
all been marked up, but are generally agreed to by most members.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some very, very important provisions in this 
dealing with Vancouver, dealing with Wheeling, WV, for example. Some of 
them, in fact, Mr. Speaker, have received funding from the Committee on 
Appropriations, but without an overall authorization bill or without a 
policy to guide these measures.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to especially commend my colleague, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Hinchey] for his efforts with regard to the heritage 
area legislation. After introducing his own version he has graciously 
agreed to work with me to draft and craft the proposal that is now 
before us. As my colleagues know, we have advocated for some time the 
establishment of a more effective process to recognize these important 
resources.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is a true partnership act. I think the 
word ``partnership'' often gets overworked with regard to what it 
means, but here is a case where we really have local governments, State 
governments, forming a compact, making commitments in concert and in 
agreement with the Federal Government, with the Department of the 
Interior. So here we have a real partnership.
  Today we have, as the Members know, landmarks that are identified and 
recognized by the Department of the Interior. We have historic 
districts that undergo State and Federal recognition, but there are not 
dollars flowing to them. Here we have an opportunity for Congress to 
actually designate the areas.
  People are going to show us maps today that suggest there are all 
kinds of areas that could be heritage areas. That is true, but Congress 
has to designate any such area. No area can become a heritage area 
unless Congress designates it.

                              {time}  1210

  Then, too, the amount of support is limited. It is matched by local 
governments, it comes out of existing authorization, so it is not new 
spending or new authorization, and there is a limit to the length of 
time or the amount of money the Federal Government can be in a heritage 
area. In 10 years, we are out of there. Then they are on their own and 
we all get the benefit of that conservation.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5044, the omnibus heritage areas legislation, 
establishes the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program, provides 
for individual American heritage areas designations pursuant to that 
program, directs the National Park Service to study certain specific 
areas for inclusion in the program, and makes modifications to several 
laws that designated certain heritage corridors or areas in the 1980's. 
This legislation represents a consensus among the administration, a 
bipartisan group of members of the Committee on Natural Resources and 
other interested parties, that innovative ways must be found to extend 
national preservation efforts in a new cost-effective manner.
  H.R. 5044 was considered under suspension of the rules last week, and 
a significant majority of House Members supported its enactment, but 
the bill failed to get the two-thirds necessary for passage. 
Unfortunately, misinformation about the bill has created confusion 
about the effect of this legislation, and I welcome this further debate 
and the opportunity to set the record straight on this legislation.


              american heritage areas partnership program

  H.R. 5044 incorporates the provisions of H.R. 3707, which I 
introduced in November 1993, and which establishes the American 
Heritage Areas Partnership Program within the Department of the 
Interior. The bill was reported favorably to the House by the Committee 
on Natural Resources on May 25, 1994, and has the strong support of the 
administration and Members on both sides of the aisle who are committed 
to developing this partnership between the Federal Government and State 
and local officials to assure the preservation and conservation of some 
of our most valuable resources.
  These provisions have continued to evolve through discussions with 
the minority, with the administration, and with other interested 
parties, and I believe the version we are bringing to the floor today 
is a better bill because of this input.
  I would like to commend my colleague on the committee, Mr. Hinchey, 
for his efforts with regard to heritage area legislation. After 
introducing his own version, he has graciously agreed to work with me 
on my draft and has provided substantial insight into the process from 
his own experience tin dealing with this type of legislation as a State 
legislator in New York. I appreciate his input.
  As my colleagues know, I have advocated for some time the 
establishment of a more effective process by which to recognize the 
important resources contained in so-called heritage areas while 
limiting Federal involvement in their development and operation. Our 
Nation contains many geographically and thematically unified areas, 
which include significant resources worthy of preservation and 
conservation. In many cases, these areas are connected by greenways, 
trails, or natural corridors which could be the focus of innovative 
management ideas. Such areas are important nationally, and are best 
managed in a true Federal partnership with State and local government 
and private entities.

  In fact, the strong State, local, and private support these areas 
receive, and their diverse resources, indicate that national 
involvement, while welcome and necessary, should be limited. The 
professional expertise of the National Park Service can be useful in 
identifying and providing assistance for defining, establishing, and 
managing these important areas. However, the diversity of their 
resources, the ownership patterns, and the variety of uses and 
activities taking place, suggest that a true Federal partnership, 
wherein the National Government provides recognition and limited 
financial and technical assistance, and other entities, through the 
State and local governments, manage and fund the largest share of the 
necessary preservation and interpretation, is the most appropriate 
method of preserving these areas.
  Proposals for heritage areas or corridors have significantly 
increased in the past several years; there are currently four such 
areas affiliated with the National Park Service. Budgetary reality 
suggests that limited funds will be available to accommodate existing 
units of the National Park System, and less will be available for 
establishing new national park units or proposed heritage areas. The 
American Heritage Areas Program under consideration today would extend 
national preservation efforts in a new cost effective manner and would 
assure that new heritage areas or corridors will have been properly 
reviewed.
  The text of the bill we are considering today incorporates the 
consensus I have reached with various parties on these issues. The bill 
defines an American Heritage Area and lists the criteria for 
designation. Designation will require an act of Congress after an 
entity requesting designation has submitted a feasibility study and 
compact approved by the Secretary. Proposed areas may qualify for 
limited technical and financial assistance before designation, and 
after established, heritage areas may receive technical and financial 
assistance for the purpose of developing and implementing a 
comprehensive management plan. The bill also provides for the 
withdrawal of designation if the Secretary determines that the area no 
longer meets the criteria.
  The legislation states minimum criteria for recognition of a 
management entity to administer an individual heritage area, prohibits 
the use of Federal funds received through this act for the acquisition 
of property, and limits a management entity's eligibility to receive 
Federal funds for 10 years, with an additional 5 authorized if the 
Secretary approves. Other Federal agencies are required to coordinate 
their activities within a designated heritage area to the extent 
possible.
  Authorization for specified activities within an area are limited as 
follows:
  A maximum of $100,000 for feasibility studies, $150,000 for compacts, 
$150,000 for management plans, and $250,000 for early actions. All of 
the preceding must received a 25-percent match, and the total annual 
funding for all such assistance is limited to $10 million.
  Management entities may receive up to $250,000 annually, but must 
provide a 50-percent match for Federal funding for this purpose.
  Technical assistance provided by the National Park Service is limited 
to $150,000 annually for each American Heritage Area. Such assistance 
is defined as guidance, advice, help, or aid, other than financial aid. 
Services procured from the private sector by a management entity using 
funds provided under the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
are not considered technical assistance. Only that assistance provided 
by the employees of the Department of the Interior will be counted as 
technical assistance for the purposes of this program.
  For grants to assist in implementing management plans, the bill 
provides $25 million annually, with no one area eligible to receive 
more than 10 percent of the annual appropriation for this purpose, and 
with the conditions that the area must provide a 50-percent match, and 
that no area may receive more than $10 million for this purpose in 
total.
  H.R. 5044 authorizes the program for 25 years, and states that this 
act does not affect existing authorities for established heritage 
areas.
  Questions were raised during our discussions on heritage areas about 
certain provisions, and I would like to take this opportunity to set 
the record straight on a few issues.
  This is not a Federal land grab. These areas will be established as 
the result of local initiative; heritage area designation will require 
initial nomination by local groups and a demonstration of strong 
commitment by local and State entities. Furthermore, the bill expressly 
forbids the use of Federal funds to acquire property. Finally, section 
110 underscores the fact that nothing in this act shall be construed to 
enlarge, diminish, or modify any current authority under Federal, 
State, and local law to regulate land use. Land use plans for a 
designated area may be adopted and implemented by local governments or 
those entities authorized by State law to exercise such authorities 
concerning private property use. While State and local governments may 
choose to adopt land use plans and regulations in support of American 
heritage areas, nothing in this bill requires such action, nor does 
this bill grant such authority to management entities. Zoning 
regulations are not affected by this act and remain under the 
jurisdiction of State and local governments. No new authorities, 
including the authority to impose or enforce new Federal regulations, 
are included or anticipated.
  The bill does direct other Federal entities to consult with the 
Secretary and to coordinate their activities within an American 
heritage area to the extent practicable. Such agencies are to conduct 
activities within a designated American heritage area consistent with 
the management plan unless the Federal entity determines that there is 
no practicable alternative.
  This requirement does not subordinate other Federal agencies to the 
Secretary of the Interior. The affected Federal entities may take such 
actions as they deem necessary regardless of the Secretary's approval. 
This provision merely requires appropriate coordination to eliminate 
wasteful duplication of efforts and to minimize the impacts of actions 
which may adversely affect the resources contained in the American 
heritage area. This language was suggested by OMB, which coordinated 
discussions with other Federal agencies, and is supported by the 
administration.
  Finally, the funding levels prescribed by the bill were those 
suggested by the administration. This is a program designed to minimize 
the Federal Government's direct involvement in American heritage areas. 
Matches are required for each category of Federal funding, and there 
are conditions placed upon the future uses of projects completed with 
Federal funds. There is an overall cap on spending for each American 
heritage area, and Federal funding is limited to 10 years for each 
area, with a 5-year renewal subject to certain conditions.
  As Members know, there have been many requests for funding through 
the appropriations process, and we are seeing more and more Members 
seeking park designation for such areas which are not really 
appropriate for inclusion in the National Park System. This program, 
and the level of funding associated with it, are designed to encourage 
this limited approach instead of continuing the earmarks and park 
designations now consuming so much of the National Park Service budget. 
I believe the funding contained in this bill provides an appropriate 
incentive for areas which seek Federal funding while limiting Federal 
involvement in these initiatives.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are increasingly interested in conserving and 
preserving natural areas and cultural symbols. There is also an 
increased understanding that resource preservation and economic 
viability are not mutually exclusive but compatible and mutually 
enhancing. Obviously, the National Government can neither own nor 
manage each property or area worthy of preservation. In these active 
communities containing a variety of resources, multiple management and 
funding sources would be the most appropriate method of preserving and 
interpreting the nationally important resources and themes.
  I believe H.R. 5044 provides national encouragement for protecting 
these assets without instituting a massive new Federal bureaucracy or 
providing significant Federal funding. The Federal Government will 
neither own nor manage the resources assembled in these areas. These 
are dynamic, thriving communities, which with the assistance of the 
National Park Service will maintain an appropriate balance between 
preservation and growth.


                        individual designations

  While H.R. 5044 establishes an American Heritage Areas Partnership 
Program, and specifically a process by which heritage areas could be 
nominated and designated American heritage areas, we are providing for 
the designation in this bill of certain areas as American heritage 
areas.
  Many local groups have already begun working to complete studies and 
nominations pending the enactment of generic heritage area legislation. 
Some of these attempts have been underway for some time and there have 
been concerns expressed by supporters that delays may endanger the 
resources contained in the proposed areas and disrupt the coalitions 
formed to assist these projects. To avoid uncertainty and unnecessary 
delays, I have agreed to consider several of these proposals. These 
proposals have all been heard by the Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Forests and Public Lands and have been tailored to the provisions of 
the generic legislation to the extent possible.


                      american coal heritage area

  The section designating the American Coal Heritage Area includes 
provisions of two bills: H.R. 3988, The West Virginia National Coal 
Heritage Act of 1994 introduced by Representative Rahall on March 9, 
1994, and H.R. 4692, the Appalachian Coal Heritage Act of 1994 
introduced by Representative Boucher on June 30, 1994. These bills 
concern contiguous coal mining communities in southern West Virginia 
and in southwestern Virginia, including Pocahontas, Virginia, and 
Bramwell WV, towns on either side of the State line that grew up around 
the Pocahontas Coal Mine. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, 
and Public Lands held a hearing on the Rahall and Boucher measures on 
July 28, 1994.
  The Pocahontas Coal Mine opened in 1882, changing forever the corner 
of Appalachia at the Virginia/West Virginia State line. Local 
architecture reflects the migration to this area of Hungarian, German, 
and Welsh workers, along with others, near the turn of the century.
  The West Virginia mining conflicts of the first decades of this 
century pitted workers and their families against not only mine owners 
but also against the U.S. Army, providing a significant, if dark, 
chapter in the history of the labor movement and Appalachia. The best 
known of these incidents are the battle of Matewan and the battle of 
Blair Mountain.
  Section 201 of H.R. 5044 authorizes the establishment of the American 
Coal Heritage Area upon publication in the Federal Register that the 
Secretary of the Interior has approved the compact. The area will be 
managed pursuant to the provisions of Title I.


                  augusta canal american heritage area

  The section designating the Augusta Canal American Heritage Area 
incorporates many of the provisions of H.R. 2949, introduced by 
Representative Johnson of Georgia on August 6, 1993. The Subcommittee 
on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands held a hearing on H.R. 
2949 on June 28, 1994.
  The Augusta Canal in Augusta, GA, was constructed in 1845 to 
transport cotton from its source to downtown Augusta, prompting the 
construction of several textile mills in the city, and the subsequent 
rise of the area as a center of cotton manufacturing in the South. In 
1875, the canal was expanded, bringing new economic and social vitality 
to the city. The canal, a national historic landmark, remains intact 
along with much of its associated historic, cultural, and natural 
setting in the adjacent industrial area, an example of 19th century 
Southern industrial development.
  The Augusta Canal Authority, established by the General Assembly of 
Georgia in 1989, has prepared the Augusta Canal master plan with 
funding from the State of Georgia, the city of Augusta, Columbia 
County, and the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Interior. The 
plan identifies actions to preserve and interpret the canal and related 
resources, while also proposing strategies to extend the influence of 
the canal and its setting to enhance the natural and urban environment 
of Augusta.
  Section 202 of H.R. 5044 authorizes the establishment of the Augusta 
Canal American Heritage Area upon publication in the Federal Register 
that the Secretary of the Interior has approved the compact. The 
Augusta Canal Authority is identified as an appropriate management 
entity, and the area will be managed pursuant to the provisions of 
title I.


                   cane river american heritage area

  The section designating the Cane River American Heritage Area 
incorporates many of the provisions of S. 1980, introduced by Senator 
Johnston on March 24, 1993. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests 
and Public Lands held a hearing on S. 1980 on July 28, 1994.
  The Town of Natchitoches, LA, is the oldest permanent settlement 
within the Louisiana Purchase territory, and was the site of the 
western-most fort of the French Empire, Fort St. Jean Baptiste. In 
1767, this part of the French Empire was ceded to Spain. The subsequent 
conversion of the frontier economy to an agricultural economy led to 
the development of a plantation economy based on slave labor. In 1803, 
this area was ceded back to France, and shortly thereafter the 
Louisiana Purchase gave jurisdiction over the area to the United 
States.
  The early years of French and Spanish domination, and the relative 
isolation of the area, left a lasting legacy in Natchitoches Parish. 
One aspect of this multi-cultural history was the development and 
nurturing of a unique culture on Isle Brevelle, the Cane River creoles 
of color, a distinct community which exists today. Nearby Cloutierville 
retains its French small village flavor, and the life and folkways of 
the town were the basis for many of the fictional writings of Kate 
Chopin, who lived there between 1879 and 1884.
  A congressionally directed National Park Service special resource 
study completed in 1993 found several resources within the Cane River 
study area nationally significant, and recommended an approach which 
would combine National Park Service management of certain specified 
properties with a heritage partnership framework for the larger area. 
Section 203 of H.R. 5044 authorizes the establishment of the Cane River 
American Heritage Area upon publication of a notice in the Federal 
Register that the Secretary has approved the compact. The Secretary is 
authorized to designate a coalition of listed representatives as the 
management entity for the area, which will be managed pursuant to title 
I.


                      essex american heritage area

  The section designating the Essex American Heritage Area incorporates 
many of the provisions of H.R. 1685, introduced by Representative 
Torkildsen on April 2, 1993. The Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Forests and Public Lands held a hearing on H.R. 1685 on June 28, 1994.
  Essex County in Massachusetts contains historic, cultural, and 
natural resources reflecting the themes associated with Salem Maritime 
National Historic Site, including the history of early settlement, 
maritime trade, and textile and leather industries. In 1987, the city 
of Salem, MA, contracted for the development of a ``heritage park'' 
plan to link the Salem Maritime National Historic Site more closely 
with the surrounding communities. The resulting Salem partnership, 
including representatives from the National Park Service, local 
government, and the private sector produced an action plan to promote 
rehabilitation and expansion of the Salem Maritime National Historic 
Site and improvements in the city's other historic resources and 
visitor services.
  In 1990, the National Park Service produced a study of alternatives 
ranging from rehabilitation of Salem Maritime NHS to a county-wide 
system of historic sites with several adjunct visitor centers and 
county-wide interpretive themes. The Essex Heritage Ad Hoc Commission, 
consisting of mayors of the towns in Essex County, representatives of 
private interests, and residents, was formed, and along with the Salem 
Partnership is proceeding with implementation of the countywide 
preservation and promotion aspects pending legislation authorizing the 
Essex American Heritage Area.
  Section 204 of H.R. 5044 authorizes the establishment of the Essex 
American Heritage Area upon publication in the Federal Register that 
the Secretary of the Interior has approved the compact. The area will 
be managed pursuant to the provisions of title I.
  Because the proposed Essex American Heritage Area contains two 
National Park System units, Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site 
and Salem Maritime National Historic Site, it is expected that park 
operations will be closely coordinated. In particular, Salem Maritime 
National Historic Site will plan an important role in visitor 
orientation and interpretation of the related themes in the surrounding 
heritage area.


               hudson river valley american heritage area

  The section designating the Hudson River Valley American Heritage 
Area incorporates many of the provisions of H.R. 4720, introduced by 
Representative Hinchey on June 30, 1994. The Subcommittee on National 
Parks, Forests and Public Lands held a hearing on H.R. 4720 on July 28, 
1994.
  The Hudson River Valley embraces natural, historic, cultural, and 
recreation resources between Troy, NY and the border of New York City 
representing themes of settlement and migration, transportation, and 
commerce. The Hudson River Valley Greenway, created by the State of New 
York, creates a framework for voluntary regional cooperation in the 10 
counties of New York's Hudson River Valley, emphasizing both 
environmental protection and economic development. The State of New 
York has established a structure in which the communities in the Hudson 
River Valley may join together to preserve, conserve, and manage these 
resources, and to link them through trails. The National importance of 
the resources contained in the valley, as well as the scope of the 
greenway project indicate that Federal participation in development and 
preserving the resources could be appropriate.
  Section 205 of H.R. 5044 authorizes the establishment of the Hudson 
River Valley American Heritage Area upon publication in the Federal 
Register that the Secretary of the Interior has approved the compact. 
The Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council and the Greenway 
Conservancy are identified as appropriate management entities, and the 
area will be managed pursuant to the provisions of title I.


                Ohio & Erie Canal American Heritage Area

  The section designating the Ohio & Erie Canal American Heritage Area 
incorporates many of the provisions of H.R. 3593, introduced by 
Representative Regula on November 20, 1993. The Subcommittee on 
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands held a hearing on H.R. 3593 on 
April 26, 1994.
  In fiscal year 1991, Congress appropriated funds for a National Park 
Service study of the Ohio & Erie Canal corridor. That study, released 
in September 1993, found the area suitable for designation as an 
affiliated area of the National Park System. Its purpose would be to 
preserve the canal, the first inland waterway link between the Great 
Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico, and to Chronicle the evolution of 
transportation systems in America.
  Section 206 of H.R. 5044 authorizes the establishment of the Ohio & 
Erie Canal American Heritage Area upon publication in the Federal 
Register that the Secretary of the Interior has approved the compact. 
The Secretary is authorized to recognize a coalition of specified 
representatives as the management entity, and the area will be managed 
pursuant to the provisions of title I.


         Shenandoah valley battlefields American heritage area

  This section authorizes the establishment of a Shenandoah Valley 
Battlefields American Heritage Area, which incorporates some of the 
provisions of H.R. 746, the Shenandoah Valley National Battlefields 
Partnership Act of 1993, introduced February 2, 1993 by Congressman 
Wolf, and its companion, S. 1033, which was passed by the Senate on 
June 8, 1994.
  The Shenandoah Valley of Virginia was the site of 326 armed conflicts 
during the Civil War, 15 of which were battles of major significance. 
The valley's position enhanced its strategic significance in the war; 
it is defined at its northern end by the first range of the Allegheny 
Mountains, separated from the Virginia Piedmont by the Blue Ridge 
Mountains and divided in the middle by the large and complex ridge of 
Massanutten Mountain.
  Two significant Civil War campaigns took place in the Shenandoah 
Valley. In 1862 Stonewall Jackson brought 17,000 confederate troops 
into the valley and, using his detailed knowledge of the valley's 
topography, rivers and road, bested three Union armies of twice the 
manpower, forcing the Union to divert troops from the confederate 
capital at Richmond, which had been at risk from the growing Union 
presence outside of town.
  In 1864, Union General Sheridan attacked from the north, devastating 
the confederate troops commanded by Jubal Early, and burning the 
valley's farms and mills along the way, disrupted the food supply. The 
campaign concluded with a decisive Union victory at Cedar Creek that 
served to build public confidence in the White House in the month 
before Lincoln's reelection.
  In 1990, Congress authorized a National Park Service study of the 
Civil War battlefields of the Shenandoah Valley. The report identifying 
the resources was issued in September 1992. In September 1993, the 
National Park Service issued a followup report recommending the 
creation of a heritage area to protect and interpret these resources.
  Section 207 of H.R. 5044 authorizes the establishment of the 
Shenandoah Valley Battlefield American Heritage Area upon publication 
in the Federal Register that the Secretary of the Interior has approved 
the compact. The area will be managed pursuant to the provisions of 
title I.


                 Steel industry American heritage area

  This section authorizes the establishment of the Steel Industry 
American Heritage Area in southwestern Pennsylvania centered around the 
city of Pittsburgh. It contains elements of H.R. 3144, the Steel 
Industry Heritage Project, introduced by Representative Coyne on 
September 28, 1993.
  Southwestern Pennsylvania was a center of activity during the 
Industrial Revolution and the steel industry of that region played a 
key role in the establishment in the 1920's of the preeminence of the 
United States in mass production industries. It also gave occasion for 
a new chapter in the history of the labor movement, spawning such labor 
organizations as the Congress of Industrial Workers and the United 
Steel Workers of America. It attracted immigrants whose culture became 
a part of the region's heritage, and shaped settlement patterns across 
six counties, including the city of Pittsburgh.
  In 1988, as a part of the Southwestern Pennsylvania industrial 
Heritage Preservation Commission's enabling legislation (PL 100-698), 
Congress authorized the Commission to conduct a study of the Greater 
Allegheny and Washington Counties/Mon Valley area, in coordination with 
the Pittsburgh Area Steel Industry Heritage Task Force. The study, 
which was completed in March 1993, recommends the establishment of a 
steel heritage area, to be carried out under cooperative management.
  Section 208 of H.R. 5044 authorities the establishment of the Steel 
Industry American Heritage Area upon publication in the Federal 
Register that the Secretary of the Interior has approved the compact. 
The area will be managed pursuant to the provisions of title I.


                    vancouver american heritage area

  This section authorizes the establishment of the Vancouver American 
Heritage Area in Washington State, incorporating aspects of H.R. 4607, 
the Vancouver national Heritage Area Partnership Act of 1994, 
introduced on June 21, 1994, by Congresswoman Unsoeld.
  Vancouver, Washington's location on the Columbia River has played a 
part in several chapters of U.S. history. Fort Vancouver, established 
in 1825, was the regional headquarters of the Hudson's Bay Co. 
Vancouver Barracks has served the U.S. Army from the mid-1800's. 
Officer's Row, an avenue of historic homes, housed top military leaders 
for over 100 years. Pearson airpark, now a general aviation airport, 
played a role in the development of aviation.
  Congress passed a law in 1948 to establish the Fort Vancouver 
National Monument, and in 1961 redesignated it the Fort Vancouver 
National Historic Site. Because nearly all of the fort's structures 
were destroyed within 6 years of its abandonment by the Hudson's Bay 
Co. in 1860, the site comprises reconstructed structures based on 
archeological data.
  Next to Fort Vancouver is Pearson Airpark, including an aircraft 
museum. In 1972 the National Park Service paid over $500,000 to acquire 
from the city of Vancouver a portion of the runway and other land 
serving Pearson Airpark. The general management plan for the fort 
provides for the acquired lands to eventually be open space with 
plantings compatible with the fort. Use of this land for airport 
operation has been an ongoing matter of concern and discussion and is 
one of the aspect the bill seeks to address.
  In November 1990, Congress established the Vancouver Historical Study 
Commission to study the feasibility of establishing a historical 
reserve to preserve and protect the area's special resources (P.L. 101-
523). The study was completed in April 1993, and found the 
establishment of a partnership to preserve Vancouver's resources both 
feasible and suitable.
  Section 209 of H.R. 5044 authorizes the establishment of the 
Vancouver American Heritage Area upon publication in the Federal 
Register that the Secretary of the Interior has approved the compact. 
The areas will be managed pursuant to the provisions of title I. In 
addition, the bill provides for the phasing out of general aviation at 
Pearson Airpark by 2022.


                    wheeling American heritage area

  The section designating the Wheeling American Heritage Area 
incorporates many of the provisions of H.R. 2843, introduced by 
Representative Mollohan on August 3, 1993. The Subcommittee on National 
Parks, Forests and Public Lands held a hearing on H.R. 2843 November 
16, 1993.
  Wheeling, WV became a center for transportation and industry in the 
first half of the 19th century. Serving as the western terminus of the 
National Road in the early 1800's as well as one of the few major 
inland ports, Wheeling was home to developing industries such as coal, 
iron and steel, tobacco, glass, china, title, and boat building. The 
resources remaining in Wheeling illustrate and interpret transportation 
and industrial themes in America's development.
  Since enactment of Public Law 100-121, the fiscal year 1990 Interior 
and related Agencies Appropriations Act, which appropriated funds for a 
study, the National Park Service has been working with the city of 
Wheeling and the State of West Virginia to evaluate the city's 
resources and develop a plan for the preservation, promotion, 
interpretation, and development of these resources. In August 1992, all 
parties approved a plan which calls for the establishment of the 
Wheeling National Heritage Area.

  Section 210 of H.R. 5044 authorizes the establishment of the Wheeling 
American Heritage Area upon publication in the Federal Register that 
the Secretary of the Interior has approved the compact. The area will 
be managed pursuant to the provisions of title I, and funding for the 
Wheeling American Heritage Area will be limited to $5 million for 
capital projects, $1 million for planning, and $500,000 for technical 
assistance. Both capital projects and planning require a 50-percent 
match for Federal funds.


                            ohio river study

  The section directing a study of the Ohio River corridor incorporates 
many of the provisions of H.R. 2095, introduced by Representative 
Hamilton on May 12, 1993.
  The Ohio River flows through six States from its headwaters in the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to its confluence with the Mississippi 
River and comprises a chain of commercial, industrial, historical, 
archaeological, natural, recreational, scenic, wildlife, urban, rural, 
cultural, and economic areas. Section 301 of title III directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to complete within 2 years a study of the 
feasibility and suitability of designating this section of the Ohio 
River as an American Heritage Area.


                  fox and lower wisconsin river study

  The section directing a study of the Fox and Lower Wisconsin River 
corridor incorporates many of the provisions of S. 344, introduced by 
Senator Kohl on February 4, 1993, and approved by the Senate on March 
17, 1993.
  The Fox-Wisconsin Waterway, the discovery route of Marquette and 
Joliet, connects the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River, was 
critical to the opening of the Northwest Territory and served as a 
major artery in bringing commerce to the interior of the United States 
and in providing a vital communication link for early explorers, 
missionaries, and fur traders. Section 302 or title III directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to complete within 2 years a study of the 
feasibility and suitability of designating the Fox and Lower Wisconsin 
River corridors as an American Heritage area.


                     south carolina corridor study

  The section directing the National Park Service to cooperate in a 
study of the South Carolina corridor incorporates many of the 
provisions of H.R. 4330, introduced by Representative Derrick on May 3, 
1994.
  More than 250 miles in length, a corridor stretching from Charleston, 
SC, to Oconee County in the upcountry possesses a diversity of 
significant natural, historic, and cultural resources related to past 
and current commerce, transportation, mining, cattle, pottery, and 
national defense industries in the region providing significant 
ecological, natural, tourism, recreational, timber, management, 
educational, and economic benefits. Section 303 of title III directs 
the Secretary to cooperate with the South Carolina Department of Parks, 
Recreation, and Tourism in preparing a study on the feasibility and 
suitability of designating the South Carolina corridor as an American 
Heritage Area.


                        northern frontier study

  The section directing a study of the struggle for American 
independence within the northern frontier incorporates many of the 
provisions of H.R. 79, introduced by Representative Boehlert on January 
5, 1993.
  The Northern Frontier, comprising the Mohawk Valley in the State of 
New York and the country of the Six Nations--Iroquis Confederacy--was 
extremely valuable to both sides of the American Revolutionary War, as 
well as for the establishment of the Northern Indian Department there. 
Section 304 of title III directs the Secretary to complete within 2 
years a study of the suitability and feasibility of designating the 
Northern Frontier as an American Heritage Area.


           blackstone river valley national heritage corridor

  The title amending the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage 
Corridor establishment incorporates many of the provisions of H.R. 
2633, introduced by Representative Neal of Massachusetts on July 14, 
1993. the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands held 
a hearing on H.R. 2633 on April 26, 1994.
  The Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor was 
established by Public Law 99-647 in 1986 to preserve and interpret the 
nationally significant resources of the corridor associated with the 
American industrial revolution. The corridor consists of the 46-mile 
segment of the Blackstone River running from Worcester, MA to 
Providence, RI, and includes 20 communities in two States. The 19-
member Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission 
was established by Public Law 99-647 to develop and implement a plan 
for preserving and interpreting the corridor's resources. The 
Blackstone River Valley cultural heritage and land management plan was 
approved by the Secretary of the Interior in June 1990, and the 
Commission is slated to terminate in 1996. The establishing act 
authorized $250,000 annually for the Commission with the Federal 
contribution not to exceed 50 percent of the costs of the Commission's 
operation.
  Public Law 101-441, enacted in 1990, authorized the Secretary to 
provide limited financial assistance for qualified projects within the 
corridor. The Federal contribution for such projects was limited to 50 
percent, and the Secretary was required to give consideration to 
projects providing a greater leverage of Federal funds. Public Law 101-
441 also authorized $350,000 annually for the Commission's operations 
and $1 million annually for fiscal years 1991-93 for the financial 
assistance authorized by the act.
  Title IV of H.R. 5044 revises the boundaries of the Blackstone River 
Valley National heritage corridor to include five additional 
communuities--Worcester and Leicester in Massachusetts, and 
Burrillville, Gocester, and Smithfield in Rhode Island, and specifies 
the revision of the cultural heritage and land management plan 
accordingly. The bill extends the Commission for an additional 7 years, 
and increases the authorization for funding for the Commission's 
operation to $500,000 annually. This title also authorizes an 
additional $5 million for development and interpretive materials and 
programs in the corridor.


                  bramwell national historic district

  The section directing the establishment of the Bramwell National 
Historic District accomplishes many of the purposes of H.R 793, the 
Bramwell National Historical Park Act of 1993, introduced by 
Representative Rahall on February 3, 1993, in recognition of the 
importance of preserving, restoring, and interpreting the historical, 
cultural and architectural values of the town of Bramwell, WV.


            Southwestern pennsylvania american heritage area

  The provisions regarding the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Area 
modify the original 1988 law dealing with this area to provide more 
accountability and control on the use of Federal funds in the area, as 
Federal participation in the project draws to a close over the next 
several years. These changes will allow work on the project to continue 
but limits the overall scope and involvement of the Federal Government 
to the minimum necessary to complete the work underway in the area.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time we have looked 
at this particular piece of legislation. As many Members know, it was 
defeated on suspension just a few days ago. Since that time, there have 
been some modifications to the bill which many people have found 
objectionable. I am sure we can overcome many of those today as we move 
forward with this.
  It is an interesting piece of legislation because it is a way that we 
work into parks that we have not done in the past. We find ourselves 
now coming up with a new provision, a new designation for what a park 
would be. These are scattered from one coast to the other and many 
Members are very interested in them. I think the gentleman from Ohio 
said it well when he talked about many people cannot go out to the 
Yellowstone and the Zion and the Bryce and the Grand Canyon but they 
can walk into these heritage areas. They can feel it, they can see it, 
they can have an experience with their family that they have not had in 
the past.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], the chairman, has worked 
very diligently to work out something that would come about for many of 
us. We have lowered the amount of money so it would not be financially 
such a burden. We have changed some of the areas around so that it will 
fit.
  Private property is always a hang-up for us in this particular area. 
No one feels stronger about it than I do. I come from the West where 
people come in on wetland issues and endangered species issues and many 
of our people lost their shirts. They have owned it for 4 and 5 
generations and someone comes along. I worked with the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] during the California Desert protection bill on 
coming up with a reasonable piece of legislation, and I think everybody 
in this House realizes that we will have to face that uncomfortable 
position of facing what we are going to do on endangered species and 
what we are going to do on wetlands, and I urge that this body bring 
this up next time that we can discuss those things.
  Today basically I think we have a good piece of legislation, one we 
should agree on. We should get it out and try this experience of 
working on a heritage area that the people of America can enjoy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not say I do harbor in my 
heart the feeling of where are we going to get the money to take care 
of these things. Hopefully as the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, much 
of this will be done by people themselves who will cut the brush and 
work it out and make these things work, because the Federal Government 
is robbing the money on our national parks and we do not have that 
money at this time. Therefore, I commend my friend from Minnesota, I 
hope we can get this bill through at this particular time. I do not 
know anyone who has worked harder on it and we have had more hours of 
discussion, some of it very strong, some of it working out compromises. 
Let us hope today we can resolve this bill. I would urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to support this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey], who has been my coworker in 
terms of this matter. I commend him. I thank him for his help and 
appreciate his good work.
  (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], the chairman, 
for the hard work he has done on this very important piece of 
legislation, a piece of legislation which is critical to the 
preservation of our national historical heritage. Let me try to explain 
here in a couple of minutes what we are trying to do with the American 
Heritage Partnership Act.
  What we are trying to do is to conserve and protect places that are 
meaningful and valuable to our country and to our country's people. I 
hope that all who are present today, even those who are speaking 
against this bill, recognize that there are such places, and that they 
deserve our attention. Congress has been acting to protect them since 
Yellowstone National Park was established in 1872.
  But we are not trying to establish a new chain of national parks in 
this bill. Far from it. We are trying to establish a new model for 
conservation and protection. The Federal Government would not own land. 
It would not manage land. It would not control land. Instead it would 
work in cooperation with property owners and with local communities who 
want to protect the special places where they live. If they do not want 
any of that help, it will not be forced upon them. But if they do want 
it, and I believe almost all of them will, it will be available. What 
we are proposing in short is a cooperative relationship.
  It is sad to see the cooperation characterized as an attack on 
property owners, since almost all private property owners depend on 
cooperative relationships every day to protect their property. We 
depend on the cooperation of our neighbors, and we depend on the 
cooperation of our local governments. Many property owners depend on 
the cooperation of the Federal Government, too. I was quite surprised 
to hear that some people who say they want to protect property rights 
objected to the bill on grounds that it might put an obstacle in the 
path of other Federal agencies that want to run a road through 
someone's private property or put a military installation or waste 
depot near it. We are trying to help prevent unwanted Federal 
intrusions.
  This bill will protect the rights of property owners against unwanted 
Federal activities. I am a property owner myself and my property is 
located in one of the heritage areas this bill would designate. If I 
thought for a second this bill would take away my rights as a property 
owner or any of my neighbors' rights, I would not be supporting it. But 
I know that it does not take away those rights. It enhances those 
rights. It enhances those rights because it would help protect some of 
the places that make my community a special place. It will invite my 
neighbors to join in that effort, so that we can decide what deserves 
and needs to be protected.
  If you are skeptical about how such efforts can protect property 
rights, read the real estate ads. When they say ``located in historic 
district'' or ``backs up to parkland,'' they mean it as a plus.
  That is not to say that this bill is about real estate values, 
because it is not. But it is about what we jointly value in the land, 
its beauty and its history. Although I believe it will promote the 
private economy, and I have the support of many private owners in the 
Hudson Valley who back me up on that, its chief purpose is to protect 
our common inheritance, our common national heritage.
  I understand that the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], our 
colleague, may raise the issue today of the rights of some people who 
are not necessarily private property owners, people who often use the 
land of private property owners for recreation. I am speaking 
specifically of hunters, fishers and trappers. I welcome the 
opportunity to say that I want to protect their rights, too. This bill 
as written would have no effect on their rights, but I would be glad to 
join the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] in clarifying that point. I 
hope that today's defenders of private property rights will not argue 
that they, the hunters and the fishermen, should lose their access to 
private property. We do not want that to happen. We want to protect it. 
We do not intend that.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that is designed to promote and enhance 
the national heritage by promoting it and enhancing it in discrete 
places around the country. It is a very important piece of legislation, 
and I hope that all of us will join together in defeating the 
amendments and passing the bill.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], a very important Member of our 
committee.
  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting how people can read legislation and 
come up with almost opposite points of view. I think that is the case 
here.
  We have heard a lot from the chairman about trying to deflect this 
question of private property rights in this bill, saying, ``Well, if we 
protect private property rights, we ruin the bill.'' Yet on the other 
hand we have heard people say, ``This does not apply to private 
property rights.'' I guess the obvious question would come, then: If it 
does not affect private property rights, why not accept the Tauzin 
amendment? Yet if you accept the Tauzin amendment, the chairman says it 
will kill the bill. This is very confusing to me.
  I would suggest for safety's sake, if you are interested in private 
property rights, accept the Tauzin amendment and, therefore, you have 
done so. Whether or not one individual's private property right is 
affected or is not, I have heard that one person has private property 
in a heritage area; it is not affecting his. Yet the rest of us in the 
United States are quite concerned about this issue, and if we are 
concerned, let us put a little safety factor in here. Let us say 
private property rights are protected and then go ahead.
  Nobody is suggesting here that we eliminate the rights of counties 
and of cities and jurisdictions to set aside heritage areas. Nobody is 
suggesting that.

                              {time}  1220

  We do know, however, that we have overexposed ourselves in the 
National Park Service. In the last 2 years the Natural Resources 
Committee, on which I serve, has offered up over $2 billion of new 
parks. We are $9 billion behind in financing parks. And by the way, 
every dollar we take for heritage areas we take out of the National 
Park Service budget.
  The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento], has arrears of over $13 million on parks. He is going to drag 
money for heritage areas, a new program for America, and subject his 
parks to continuing underprovision, underfinancing, as is 
everybody in America who has a national park. Remember, this is an end 
run on the National Park Service program.
  I have heard that this is going to be no mandate to counties. My 
goodness, the Federal Government is only helping us here, helping us 
out. How often have we heard the Federal Government is helping without 
controlling? The Secretary of the Interior controls this bill. Read it. 
Read it.
  By the way, if it is such a great deal for counties, why does the 
National Association of Counties oppose this bill? Because they do not 
like unfunded mandates. This is another unfunded mandate upon counties 
of America. They oppose it.
  Listen to who else opposes it: the home builders, realtors, small 
business, farmers, cattlemen. They all support the Tauzin amendment; 
all oppose this bill as written.
  I suggest, folks, that we oppose this bill unless the Tauzin 
amendment and my amendment passes a little later on.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] who is one of the advocates of the Blackstone 
River Corridor which is being expanded in this measure.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 5044, the American Heritage Areas Act of 1994. Through its 
partnership program, this legislation provides a unique opportunity to 
preserve and protect important historical and cultural sites of 
national significance.
  This legislation does not in any way threaten private property 
rights. Inclusion in a heritage area is voluntary. Moreover, the 
Secretary has no authority to modify or add to existing State and local 
land use regulations.
  Local communities and businesses, along with historic and 
environmental groups, work together with the National Park Service 
through a commission to manage, develop, and preserve the unique 
characteristics of a heritage area. The legislation requires A 1:1 
match of Federal dollars with non-Federal dollars.
  A fine example of how successfully the Heritage Program works is the 
Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, part of which is 
located in my district in Massachusetts.
  The Blackstone River runs 46 miles from Worcester to Providence and 
is considered the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution. To 
appreciate the importance of this event, you have to understand that in 
the 1790's, even after we had won the Revolutionary War, America was 
still dependent on England for clothing. In 1793, Samuel Slater built 
the first mill that successfully used waterpower from the Blackstone 
River to spin cotton. This revolutionary method of using water power 
spread quickly throughout the valley and the rest of New England, 
changing our economy and society forever. If you go there today, you 
can feel our Nation changing from the pre-Revolutionary War farming-
based economy to the industrial society that is still the basis of our 
Nation.
  The Blackstone Corridor is a model for heritage areas. Its success is 
due to the solid support and enthusiasm it receives from local groups. 
For every Federal dollar spent on the Blackstone Corridor, 3 non-
Federal dollars are attracted.
  Despite its remarkable accomplishments there remains much to be done 
in the Blackstone Corridor to secure its future as an integral part of 
our American history.
  Time and economics have moved the economic engine of America 
elsewhere. But the Blackstone Valley today provides a unique and 
irreplaceable way for generations of Americans to see how it all began. 
To let this resource slip away would be a great tragedy.
  The American Heritage Areas Act provides a cost-effective and proven 
way to promote historical preservation and environmental conservation 
of nationally significant sites. Without this legislation, these sites 
could be irreparably destroyed and their importance to our American 
history and culture lost forever.
  I strongly urge you to support this legislation, H.R. 5044.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], a gentleman who has worked so very 
diligently on this bill.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time and commend both the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member for their work in getting this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5044, the American 
Heritage Areas Partnership Act of 1994.
  This bill establishes a framework by which heritage areas throughout 
the country can be created and designated. One area being considered 
for designation today, the Essex County Heritage District in 
Massachusetts, is truly unique in its wealth of historical sites and 
structures. As one of the earliest landing sites of European colonists, 
Essex County contributed to and witnessed much of our Nation's history. 
Throughout America's early development, towns throughout the county 
played important roles in early settlement, the establishment of the 
United States as a maritime power, and the emergence of the Industrial 
Revolution, especially in the textile and leather industries.
  Essex County also has the highest concentration of first period homes 
in our country. The sheer number of historical buildings in this 
region, along with the historical significance of these structures, 
offers a unique opportunity to educate future generations about how 
this Nation was settled and developed.
  Designation of the Essex Heritage District will help in the 
coordination of two national park historic sites, 23 national historic 
landmarks, and numerous other resources listed on the National Register 
of Historic Places, all located in this area. Enthusiastic local 
support for this designation has helped drive this legislation to the 
floor. The people of Essex County want this bill and want to be 
involved.
  As a strong and consistent supporter of the rights of people to own 
private property, I would not support this bill if its passage would 
result in a land grab by the Federal Government. I support the strong 
language included in the bill to protect the rights of private land 
owners. I also support many of the reasonable amendments being offered 
today designed to clarify any perceived problems arising from this 
legislation.
  This bill does not constitute a property rights crisis. It is locally 
driven, locally managed, and filled with private property protections. 
I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5044 because of its 
importance for the protection of valuable and irreplaceable historical 
resources throughout the country. America has an important story to 
tell. Allow us to tell it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a very important 
point, and that is that this bill forbids the Federal Government from 
spending any dollars on the land or having any ownership. Any grants 
will be controlled by the local level and the local zoning authorities 
that exist. It is a very, very important point. The management entities 
are set up as a result of local governments coming together to exercise 
their lawful powers.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. I thank the chairman for mentioning that, and thank 
him for clarifying that language so that we would keep this as a local 
control issue without the Federal Government taking property.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Again I want to reiterate my support for the general purposes of 
this bill, but my support conditioned upon the passage of very vitally 
necessary property rights amendments to the bill that I will offer 
along with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], in just a little 
while. The amendments we will offer are supported by the National 
Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, the 
National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Cattlemens 
Association, the Farm Bureau, and the National Wetlands Coalition.

                              {time}  1230

  Why have these six major groups come forward to say, ``We support the 
Tauzin-Grams voluntary landowner consent amendment and oppose the 
Regula amendment that will take that amendment out of our en bloc 
amendment?'' Why have they come forward?
  Well, I think the statement of one of my good friends made earlier 
today on the floor makes the point for me. Our good friend from New 
York talked about hunters and fishermen, hunters and fishermen. You 
will not find a bigger hunter in this Chamber than the gentleman in the 
well. I love to hunt. Most of my people do. But I cannot conceive of 
allowing someone to come hunt on my property without my consent. 
Landowner consent is critical.
  Can you imagine people showing up on your property with guns and 
rifles without your consent?
  Someone said this bill is voluntary. It is not voluntary until you 
pass the Tauzin amendment without the Regula amendment.
  Do you want to make it voluntary? Do you want it to be voluntary? You 
support the Tauzin en bloc amendments. Because we will make it 
voluntary on landowners.
  You see, we are playing with words a little bit here. It is voluntary 
on government, yes, to impose these regulations. It is voluntary on 
government, yes, to subject your land to these new regulations. It is 
voluntary on government to say there will be a greenway, a path, a 
trail, a bike trail on your property without your consent. But it is 
not voluntary on your part.
  I am going to give you one of the best reasons to vote for the Tauzin 
amendment, even if you are not yet persuaded, as I hope you are, just 
thinking about hunters on your property without your consent. If you 
are not yet persuaded, and you want to protect your local governments 
from lawsuits, you had better support the Tauzin amendment. The bill we 
are talking about is a bill about greenways and pathways and bike 
trails. That is right.
  Go check the Supreme Court decision just this year on Dolan versus 
the City of Tigard and find out that city was sued successfully because 
the government in that city imposed an obligation on a landowner to 
create a bike path and a greenway without that landowner's consent and 
without compensation. Do you know what happened in that case? The 
Supreme Court said the fifth amendment protection against taking 
property for public purposes without just compensation applied as 
surely and as strongly as free speech did in America, and it ordered 
that city to pay that family damages for what they did in those 
regulations. If you do not want hunters on your property without you 
consent, you had better pass the Tauzin amendment to guarantee 
landowner consent. if you want to protect property rights in America, 
you need to make sure landowners consent to these new regulations.
  If you do not want to guarantee landowner consent, I will offer you a 
second choice, and that will be a compensation amendment, the same kind 
we passed in the Desert Protection Act.
  I want to draw one final distinction for you. I want you to notice we 
did not offer a compensation amendment on the Headwaters Forest Act. Do 
you know why? Because the authors there agreed to landowner consent in 
the takings; in that bill, landowners' consent, no compensation 
required. In this bill, if you pass landowner consent, we protect 
property rights. if you do not, we will have to provide for 
compensation, or the cities and counties will be sued. Mark my word and 
the word of the Supreme Court.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong 
concern with this legislation, primarily about property rights.
  But there is another concept that has been talked about here 
recently. The two gentlemen from Massachusetts talked about what is 
being done in their State and talked about the farm he visited.
  It is possible to have set these aside by using local government, by 
using State government, by using private. Everything in the world does 
not have to be run by the Federal Government.
  I am especially concerned about the potential in this bill to 
infringe on the rights of private property owners across the country. 
This measure places a Federal boundary around millions of acres of 
private property and allows the Secretary to dictate how these areas 
will be managed. Currently the Federal Government owns about 30 percent 
of the land in these United States.
  This legislation would expand that and provide the potential for an 
additional Federal control. It is time for Congress to stop attacking 
the rights of property owners, to step up and say no to the Federal 
Government bureaucrats who want more and more land across this country, 
no to the Federal Government intrusion on the lives of the American 
people.
  I urge every Member of this House to support the Tauzin amendment and 
work to protect property rights across the country.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Sawyer], a strong proponent of the legislation.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank Chairman Vento for 
his fine work, and to urge the House to give its strong support to the 
American Heritage Areas Partnership Program.
  This legislation provides the framework and management tools to bring 
together the full range of public and private-sector resources that 
projects of this kind require. Preserving areas of national 
significance can and should be partnership initiatives--bringing 
Federal, State, and local resources together with the resources and 
perspectives of the private sector.
  This measure is particularly significant for Ohio and for my hometown 
of Akron. It establishes the Ohio and Erie Canal Heritage Area. This 
legislation will help preserve and enhance the legacy of the canal 
that, in large part, shaped Ohio's society and economy. This historic 
corridor will unite an 87-mile stretch of land and waterway--stretching 
from Zoar in Tuscarawas County to Cleveland at the mouth of the 
Cuyahoga River. As many Ohioans know, the State of Ohio owes a large 
part of its population pattern, its economic diversity, and its social 
cohesion to the economic energies unleashed by the Ohio and Erie Canal.
  Just as the canal corridor provides common ground that unites Ohioans 
with their history, this project has united civic groups throughout 
Ohio. Groups that sometimes find themselves in conflict on other 
issues--advocates of economic development, environmental protection, 
and historic preservation--have come together to advocate the 
preservation of the Ohio and Erie Canal Heritage Area. Such 
preservation-minded groups as Progress Through Preservation and the 
Ohio Historical Society, along with environmental organizations like 
the Sierra Club, are united in this effort with such economic-
development advocates as the Akron Regional Development Board and the 
Greater Cleveland Growth Association.
  But support does not end there. This effort enjoys the strong backing 
of the business community, including such businesses as B.F. Goodrich, 
Roadway Services, and General Tire. This support will enhance and 
augment the already substantial State and local investments already 
made in the corridor and tie them together with the Cuyahoga National 
Recreation Area through which it flows.
  I know it is rare that a single initiative can capture the active 
support from preservation and civic groups and individuals and 
corporations throughout an entire region. However, I also know that in 
Ohio the canal project has done just that.
  Mr. Speaker, the Ohio and Erie Canal Heritage Area enjoys the 
overwhelming support of Ohio delegation. I am especially grateful to my 
colleague from Stark County, Representative Ralph Regula, with whom I 
have worked closely to advance this project. The cooperation shown by 
northeast Ohio's civic groups and civic leaders in advancing this 
project is a testament to the versatility and energies that helped 
shape Ohio's history.
  Mr. Speaker, I again commend Chairman Vento for his hard work on this 
legislation and for recognizing the importance of these kinds of 
partnership initiatives that can, as Ohio has shown, bring together the 
finest resources that our diverse and committed communities have to 
offer.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise, once again, in strong support of the 
American Heritage Areas Partnership Program Act, which includes, among 
other things, the reauthorization of the Blackstone River Valley 
National Heritage corridor.
  As one of the very few Members of this House that represents one of 
these heritage areas, I want to just reiterate to my colleagues that 
these areas are a good idea, and a very wise use of Federal dollars.
  I also want my colleagues to know that we have gone to great lengths 
in crafting this legislation to insure that Members' concerns over 
issues such as private property rights were addressed here. And they 
have been, in my opinion.
  This bill has broad bipartisan support, as was demonstrated last week 
when this same bill garnered 272 votes. Unfortunately, that was just 
short of the two-thirds required.
  Today, we have the opportunity to explore, more deeply, some of the 
issues that Members are concerned about, and the chance to make this an 
even better bill in some ways.
  I simply ask my colleagues to do right by the taxpayers of this 
country, and take advantage of one of the very few good deals that has 
come along. I have said it before, the heritage area concept is a great 
bang for the buck, and I hope that we will have the good sense to move 
forward with this bill today.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pittsburgh, PA [Mr. Coyne].

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5044, 
the American Heritage Areas Partnership Act and the en bloc amendment 
offered by Chairman Vento.
  H.R. 5044 is a bipartisan effort to help preserve our Nation's 
heritage. This legislation also provides a strict criteria for judging 
the historical significance of projects worthy of support by the U.S. 
National Park Service.
  H.R. 5044 includes authorization for the Steel Industry American 
Heritage Area which is a locally controlled effort to document and 
conserve the industrial and cultural heritage of southwestern 
Pennsylvania. The focus of this work is the Pittsburgh industrial 
district which emerged in the 19th century as a distinct industrial 
center for the production of iron and steel.
  For generations of Americans, the word ``Pittsburgh'' has evoked 
images of steel mills belching smoke and producing the basic ingredient 
of America's industrial might. Names like Carnegie and Frick became 
household names because of their role in shaping American corporate 
capitalism. Events like the Homestead strike also mark crucial moments 
in our Nation's history. The development of new industrial techniques 
in southwestern Pennsylvania's steel and steel-related industries 
resulted in Pittsburgh being known around the world as the center of 
U.S. industrial might.
  H.R. 5044 as amended by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
would support the ongoing effort to tell the story of America's growth 
as an industrial superpower to future generations. The amendment 
offered by Mr. Vento does this in a fiscally responsible manner and 
serves to protect all private property concerns in the area.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered 
by Mr. Vento.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5044.
  By allowing the Secretary of the Interior to impose land-use 
restrictions on private property within these designated heritage areas 
without providing any compensation to the affected property owners, 
this bill will lead to more abuses in the historic preservation 
process.
  I cannot understand why we are giving more control to a department 
where one of its own historic preservation officials said:

       * * * the greatest threats to historic properties, natural 
     resources, scenic values, and national parks come not from 
     Federal agencies but from private parties, doing private 
     things on private lands.

  In my own congressional district, this way of thinking is being used 
over the overwhelming opposition of surrounding counties to declare an 
entire mountain a historic district. Based on claims that it is of 
religious significance to American Indian tribes, the keeper of the 
National Register of Historic Places has decided to designate 235 
square miles and over 1,000 private parcels of land as a historic 
district.
  The area in question, better known as Mount Shasta, contains no 
physical evidence of the activities that are being designated as 
historic. The reason for the designation, I believe, is primarily to 
halt economic development in the community.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is just another Trojan horse to restrict more 
of our private property rights. Vote ``no'' on this bill and on any 
amendments that further weaken private property rights. Finally, I urge 
your ``aye'' vote on the Tauzin-Grams amendment which provides private 
property assurances.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Johnson].
  (Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I too want to offer my 
congratulations and my gratitude to the chairman for his work in 
brining this to the floor.
  You know, this has been a subject that has been discussed primarily 
from the standpoint of Federal control versus local control versus 
individual property rights. I think that is an important issue here.
  I look at it from a little different standpoint, however. This is a 
management plan for my district that has been requested where a group 
of people locally are coming to Washington seeking help for the Augusta 
Canal. They want help in restoring a very important national resource. 
We are not going down there, Washington is not going down to Augusta, 
GA, and saying, ``We want to help you.'' They are coming here asking 
for help, and they have got the plan originated and they will be 
managing it.
  What some people in this body want to do is to tell them they cannot 
do that, that the way they have been operating their zoning and land 
use for years has to be changed. That is what the amendment is going to 
say.
  This project, the Augusta Canal, has been generated for years by my 
constituents who studied the canal's historic value, developed a 
management plan, and then came to me to request that canal be 
designated a national heritage corridor.
  In 15 minutes last week Washington told them ``no,'' that they know 
better than what these people want.
  It has been pointed out in the Augusta plan there is reference to the 
possibility that zoning regulations would be modified. Well, let me 
point out that the Augusta Canal Authority, which is a local entity, 
has no authority to change the zoning regulations. The Federal 
Government has no authority to change the zoning regulations, local 
land use regulations. It is all done entirely under the procedure that 
has been there for years and years.
  What we are trying to do in some of these amendments is to change 
that, to exempt out certain pieces of property that will not be covered 
in the way it has been done before.
  What I want to say is that if we follow one of the amendments, if the 
Tauzin amendment is adopted, what you are going to do is to change the 
history of land use and allow people to opt out of land use regulation 
locally. That is not the intent of this bill.
  This is not a Federal land grab. This is an effort to help preserve 
national historic resources that are locally initiated and locally 
managed. Do not impose another Federal unfunded mandate on local 
Governments by adopting this amendment that is going to be offered.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has put it very well. The Tauzin 
amendment is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man. They are having 
trouble getting their act together in Augusta. And if you try this out, 
there will be anarchy on the part of every individual landowner, who I 
might say will use that as a basis to justify some compensation or 
payment to themselves.
  This would completely pull out the rug from the purposes and intent 
of this bill.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, it is exciting to think about the 
possible good that will be accomplished by passage of the American 
heritage areas partnership program. We can protect our heritage and at 
the same time protect private property rights.
  Let me just give you an example of what happened in the district that 
I am privileged to represent.
  Back in 1991, because of the budgetary problems, the State of New 
York was forced to close some important monuments and parks that have 
great significance and historical value in the central New York area. 
But the people responded. They would not accept it; neither would I.
  We worked together by forming committees, such as the Northern 
Frontier Project, the Oriskany Battlefield Committee, and the Friends 
of Baron von Steuben.
  On their own time these dedicated volunteers, with their own money, 
maintained these sites. But obviously that cannot keep going on into 
perpetuity.
  They did not stop there. They researched and sought more information 
about the sites and its relationship to the people. We have right now 
sort of an all-volunteer effort in the central New York area that is 
doing some magnificent thinking, reaching out to us, saying, ``Please, 
offer some help.''

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. Chairman, this bill is just the ticket. In central New York this 
is a people's project. They do it in their own time and with their own 
flavor. This authorization for heritage areas will help them bring 
their work and projects to completion, ascertain suitability for 
participation as a heritage area and provide technical assistance and 
management options for protecting their resources, sharing their legacy 
and promoting the local economy.
  I am really glad that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], the 
chairman, and the vice chairman, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] 
sought a rule on this bill so we can have this full and open 
discussion. I think it is a good bill, a modest bill, a bill that helps 
local people and communities help themselves, and what more worthy 
objective of our efforts here in Washington?
  And I look at the bill, and I say to myself, ``Look what it does. It 
authorizes matching assistance for locally initiated and managed 
American heritage areas.'' Let me stress that, locally initiated and 
managed American heritage areas, and it limits Federal funding for each 
proposal, does not write a blank check. It gives a modest contribution 
and then puts a ceiling on it, and it says, ``Let's go from there,'' 
and it protects private property rights by authorizing no Federal land 
purchases and no federally mandated zoning rules, and I think that is 
important and bears repeating. It authorizes no Federal land purchases 
and no federally mandated zoning rules, and it draws its preservation 
fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I think about the important work that so many people in 
central New York are engaged in promoting the heritage of that great 
area which played such a significant role in the development of this 
Nation, and I think that day in and day out they are working hard with 
their own time, their own resources, and they say, as my colleagues 
know, there has to be a limit, we just cannot keep going on like this 
without some assistance from Washington, and I look at this program, 
and I say, ``We have matched their needs perfectly in a very modest 
way, and it deserves our enthusiastic support.''
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen] for yielding this time to me.
  First let me say that there is no law keeping the local or State 
governments from doing any of the things called for in this bill. As 
strapped for funds as our State and local governments are, almost all 
of them are in much better shape than is our Federal Government which 
is over $4.5 trillion in debt and still losing hundreds and millions of 
dollars more each day.
  Mr. Chairman, the House made a good decision last week in rejecting 
the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program Act under suspension of 
the rules. It was a good decision because this 100-plus-page bill has 
not been subjected to the normal legislative process. It is here under 
a process which requires us to suspend our own rules. Only in the last 
few days of the session would an effort be made to avoid the normal 
markup in committee and bring such a highly controversial bill to the 
floor. Since there is no Senate companion to this bill, Mr. Chairman, 
there appears to be little chance of its enactment, and we should not 
pass it either since we need to amend it to make it the best that it 
can be.
  I would like to recount for my colleagues a little of the history of 
this bill. The American Heritage Areas Partnership Program Act was 
initially introduced on November 22, 1993. That measure was a generic 
bill which established the American heritage program, but designated no 
new heritage areas.
  On May 25, 1994, over 4 months ago, the earlier bill, H.R. 3707, 
which was cosponsored by only three Members, was ordered reported from 
the Committee on Natural Resources. By then the controversy over 
private property impacts from this bill was already mounting.
  Recognizing that the bill was in serious jeopardy, H.R. 3707 was 
tabled, and a new bill, this bill, combining the original text of H.R. 
3707, was combined with about 15 site-specific studies or designations 
around the country. H.R. 5044, this bill, was then offered under 
suspension of the rules with 29 cosponsors.
  Each of these cosponsors and each of the persons who spoke in favor 
of this measure during previous flood consideration is associated with 
one of those heritage areas which, if designated, would authorize a $10 
million Federal expenditure. I am not saying that these projects are 
unjustified, although some do appear to have more merit than others, 
but simply wish to point out to Members that there is no ground swell 
of support for this program, only for the individual projects.

  I am also curious why, if there is such strong local support for 
these designations, why do we need a new Federal entitlement program 
that will cost tens of millions of dollars annually. Local governments 
could do these things. The amendments, which will be offered today, 
will focus on the generic aspects of this bill, not the site-specific 
programs.
  With regard to the major issue of impacts on private property, it is 
hard to believe the claim that this bill will not impact private 
property values or land use. Are Members aware that a Federal boundary 
will be drawn around each heritage area? Are Members aware that the 
Secretary of the Interior will have to approve a land use plan for each 
heritage area? Are Members aware that the Secretary of the Interior 
will have a virtual veto authority over every other Federal action 
within each heritage area? Have Members seen the tens of millions of 
acres which have already been targeted for inclusion in this heritage 
area program?
  In other words, Mr. Chairman, this bill provides for the Secretary to 
approve a land use plan which could specify that agricultural lands 
would be forced to forever remain devoted to agricultural use even if 
that was not the wisest and the best use and even if it drives up the 
price of land so average citizens will have a more difficult time 
buying or building homes. Certain historic buildings will be preserved 
in perpetuity even if only a small minority of the people want it that 
way. Such decisions by the Secretary of the Interior could have 
significant impacts on property values in the heritage area.
  Some people get rich off this bill, Mr. Chairman, but at the expense 
of others. I hope the Members will support the Tauzin-Grams private 
property amendment. This amendment is supported by groups such as the 
National Association of Realtors, the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, the Home Builders, the National Cattleman's 
Association, and many others.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUNCAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentleman on an 
excellent statement and, second to correct the record, our amendment 
will not change local zoning laws. It will not affect them at all. It 
simply says that in these heritage areas there will be landowner 
consent required.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just end up by saying this. There is 
greater resentment toward the Federal Government today than at any time 
in history. According to a Washington Post focus group a couple of 
years ago, Mr. Chairman, 94 percent of the people agree with the 
statement that the Federal Government is too big and costs too much. 
They do not want us passing bills that will increase the cost, and 
size, and power of the Federal Government. They do not want us to pass 
bills like this. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5044, 
legislation to provide for the long-term preservation and 
interpretation of significant historical resources across the Nation. I 
would like to commend the chairman of the subcommittee for his 
continuous efforts to bring this bill to the floor today.
  I am particularly pleased that section 209 of the bill incorporates 
much of my legislation to establish a heritage area in Vancouver, WA, 
and I would say to some of the people across the aisle that it is 
supported by the Chamber of Commerce, supported by the downtown 
business groups, supported by the citizen groups. It has broad support 
in the area.
  Vancouver, which is located just across the Columbia River from 
Portland, OR, was at the center of the settlement and development of 
the northwest during the 19th and early 20th centuries. In a single 
360-acre area are five historic assets that chronicle the history of 
the northwest from the region's exploration by Lewis and Clark between 
1805 and 1806 to the rise of American aviation in its golden age--
between the First and Second World Wars.
  For the past 3 years I have been working with the mayor of Vancouver, 
the Park Service, and many others to establish a Federal-State-local 
partnership to preserve, restore, and coordinate the management of the 
historic area in Vancouver. Working together this partnership crafted a 
proposal, which is reflected in my bill and section 209 of H.R. 5044, 
to manage the assets, protect the historic resources, and encourage 
visitors to come to Vancouver to learn about the compelling history of 
the Pacific Northwest.
  In 1990 Congress adopted my legislation to establish a Commission to 
analyze various management options for these historic properties. The 
Commission was composed of representatives of the major entities 
interested in the area, including the National Park Service, the Army 
Corps of Engineers, the city of Vancouver, and the State of Washington. 
The Commission completed its work in April 1993, by recommending that a 
partnership be established to ensure effective, coordinated, management 
of the area. The members of the Commission agreed that management of 
the area needed to be coordinated by a federally established management 
framework based on partnership between the interested government 
entities.
  To implement the recommendations of the Commission I introduced H.R. 
4607 to protect all of the key areas and the equally significant 
historic periods and events they represent. Most importantly, by 
unifying and coordinating the management of all these historical 
assets, the bill proposes a partnership to develop the full 
educational, recreational, and historical potential of the area.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that resolution of the Pearson Airpark 
controversy--what the appropriate role of the airport should be after 
2002--is crucial to an overall cooperative management agreement for the 
area. While there is now an appreciation that Person's aviation history 
is of national significance and should be preserved, there has been 
disagreement over whether it should remain an operating general 
aviation airport.
  My own view is that it would be unconscionable to eliminate the 
aviation history represented by Pearson Airpark and its young but 
flourishing aviation museum. I am also convinced that some general 
aviation activity at Pearson is necessary to help underwrite the costs 
of maintaining the airfield, which is essential to the historic 
aviation mission. Both my legislation and the bill before us today 
follow the recommendation of the Commission that general aviation 
continue through the years 2022. Beyond that time it would take an act 
of Congress to allow general aviation to continue--a decision left to 
another generation
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5044 is about partnership. It's about local groups 
coming together to protect American heritage. It's about the Federal 
Government working cost-effectively with State and local groups. But, 
most importantly it's about protecting our Nation's history so that it 
can be enjoyed and appreciated by future generations. For those of us 
in southwest Washington, this legislation is a rare opportunity to 
preserve our past and make Vancouver the premier showcase of northwest 
history.
  I say to my colleagues, If the partners don't agree, you don't have 
anything. It's fully protected in that regard within this legislation. 
Most important for those of us in southwest Washington, this 
legislation is a rare opportunity to preserve our past and make 
Vancouver the premier showcase of Northwest history.

                              {time}  1300

  I urge my colleagues' support of this legislation.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5044. I want to let my 
colleagues know that I too have a heritage corridor study in my 
district. Contrary to what this bills proponents are saying, counties 
do not support this.
  Let me read a letter from Houston County, MN:

       While Houston County recognizes the constitutional 
     structure of American government and the necessary federal 
     role therein, any federal role in expanding its jurisdiction 
     within the boundaries of Houston County would be 
     unconstitutional, unnecessary, and counter-productive. 
     Government closest to the people is the most accountable to 
     those people it serves. Thomas Jefferson, father of The 
     Constitution, understood this concept and the Houston County 
     Board of Commissioners agree with him.

  Mr. Chairman, this bill, as currently drafted, does not protect 
private property rights and erodes the sovereignty of local 
governments. I urge my colleagues to vote against any gutting 
amendments to the Tauzin-Grams landowner's consent amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of the committee and 
the ranking member for their work on this.
  What I have heard today reminds me of the less-than-distinguished 
citizen of the little town that died. At the funeral they were waxing 
eloquent, the eulogizers, and finally the wife said, ``Sonny, go up 
there and see if that is really your Pa in the casket.''
  That is what we have here. I have been listening to all these 
statements about this bill, and I do not think it is the same bill that 
we are talking about today. I do not recognize it. Because it does not 
provide for a taking of private property. It does not allow 
encroachment on local zoning. It does not give the Federal Government 
any power in involving itself in private property rights.
  I have here just some of the letters we have received. Many of these 
are private property owners who live in the vicinity who say how 
worthwhile it is to save the historic and the recreational and the 
ecological values that this corridor would do. These are the people 
that would be affected. These are the private property owners, and they 
write supporting it. I do not have one negative letter. These are the 
people who care about this.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to point out I do not want his bill to end up in a casket either, 
whatever it looks like. If we do not want it to end up there, why not 
support an amendment that says to all those property owners who do 
consent, ``You will be joined by every other property owner, because 
consent will be required.'' What is wrong with that?
  Mr. REGULA. The substitute we will be offering would provide if there 
is any taking or any need, that the people would have to consent. But 
what you are proposing in your amendment is everybody in the 
neighborhood has to consent. There could be hundreds of thousands of 
individual property owners. If we would follow the Tauzin amendment, 
there would be no Interstate Highway System, there would be no 
Yellowstone, there would be no Yosemite, because you could not get all 
the people around to agree. How far do you go?
  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield further, there would be 
highways, there would be Yosemite, there would be parks and public 
lands, because the Constitution requires payment of the landowner in 
those cases. The landowner that does not consent gets paid.
  We are suggesting if you are not going to pay them, should you not at 
least get their consent to be part of this?
  Mr. REGULA. If they are involved, yes. We will address that when your 
amendment comes up.
  I have here every board of county commissioners involved strongly 
supporting it, mayors, little towns, big cities, strongly supporting 
it, every major newspaper in the area strongly supporting it. The major 
business groups, the Cleveland Growth Association, up and down the 
line, strongly supporting it and opposing the Tauzin amendment.
  This is a case of people wanting to do this. They are simply saying 
give us the tools, give us a helping hand, so we can preserve these 
great values.
  I received a letter from a fourth grader in South Euclid, near 
Cleveland, not in my district:

       Dear Mr. Regula, my name is Caren J. Maiden. I am asking 
     you very nicely to vote yes for the Ohio & Erie Canal 
     National Heritage Corridor Act. I hope you will think long 
     and hard on this decision. Just think, the other fourth 
     grades that come in the future might not ever learn about the 
     Ohio Canal National Heritage Corridor Act. I wanted at least 
     30 classes to learn about the Ohio & Erie Canal. P.S., I know 
     what I am talking about.

  And she certainly did. All kinds of other groups have written in 
strong support.
  The problem with the Tauzin amendment is it is a killer amendment, 
because mechanically it cannot be done. It cannot be achieved. These 
volunteer groups, the Kiwanis, the Boy Scouts, the Rotary, the 4-H 
Clubs, they cannot be involved in chasing all up and down the corridor, 
where there are literally thousands of possible property owners. If it 
is a case of this property actually being utilized for the corridor, 
that is a different matter, and that will be addressed by our 
substitute.
  Let me say to the 273 Members, we keep hearing that this bill is 
defeated. That was because of procedure. Two hundred and seventy-three 
Members, an overwhelming majority of this body, voted for the bill when 
it was up on suspension. I urge every one of those of you who did vote 
for this bill to vote again, because we are going to clarify even more 
precisely the private property rights by our substitute to the Tauzin 
amendment.
  So listen carefully on the debate on these amendments, so that we 
make sure that we are all talking about the same bill and not having a 
red herring put out there in an attempt to defeat it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself two additional minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], 
for his excellent statement and want to point out to the Members page 
30 of the bill, because we are going to be hearing a lot about the 
effect on land use regulation. The point here is that the Congress 
should not get involved in dictating what the local land use 
restrictions would be in this particular instance, because we are not 
buying the land. We should not superimpose a decision on how a county 
or a State government or local government should deal with land use 
regulations or zoning. That is in effect what some of our colleagues 
are asking us to do in terms of the amendments today. It is ironic, 
because I think very often the limits that local government places on 
the various zoning in fact enhances the land. It provides for a 
rational use, where it is residential, where it is light industrial, 
where it is something that might need to be cared for. It is the very 
hand of the local government on the land which is the essence of the 
role that they play, but some would usurp that and say that is the job 
of Congress.
   This bill in fact points out on page 30 the lack of effect on 
authority of governments:

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to modify, 
     enlarge, or diminish any authority of Federal, State, and 
     local governments to regulate any use of land as provided by 
     current law or regulation.

  That is a pretty affirmative, positive statement. It addresses the 
concerns.
  Furthermore, it says:

       Lack of Zoning or Land Use Powers of Entity.--Nothing in 
     this title shall be construed to grant powers of zoning or 
     land use to any management entity for an American Heritage 
     Area.

  This is something that is uniquely local. We ought to let the local 
governments do their job. They are asking us to do something positive, 
and at the same time you say we are going to give you a little bit of 
Federal help but make it impossible for you to do this. Imagine 
thousands of residential and other landowners in the Ohio Canal. Who 
would keep track of this, whether they approved it or disapproved it? 
It is a nightmare. No local government would accept this. They would 
reject the bill. It would be moot.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is left on both 
sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  The fact is, if Members begin to read this bill, they find out that 
what has been said is not exactly direct to the bill.
  I refer my colleagues also to page 30 which says, in effect, that 
these management entities must consult with the Secretary; i.e., 
Secretary of Interior; must cooperate with the Secretary; i.e., the 
Secretary of Interior, must conduct and support such activities that 
the Secretary agrees with and determine that there is no practical 
alternative. They must go along.
  Now, if that is not Federal control, I do not know how else we could 
state it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Let me add, contrary to what we have just heard, the bill also 
contains language that says that the top priority of the implementing 
entity is directed at adopting land use policies consistent with the 
management plans adopted and supervised by, guess who, the Secretary of 
the Interior.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that 
contribution.
  I wanted to make directly the point that this is a Federal mandate, a 
Federal land use plan, supported and directed by the Secretary of 
Interior. As we talk about these corridors, what better protection 
could we have to allow a person who gets caught in the corridor of a 
heritage area, as the gentleman has already discussed, what is to stop 
folks from walking through my property? Do I not have a right to 
protect my own private property?
  Members will, by supporting the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to point out to my colleague from Oregon that the Regula 
amendment will address this. It is a further en bloc amendment that we 
have agreed to with the minority, and other Members and sponsors of the 
bill, in order to deal with some of the concerns that he has just 
expressed.
  The point is that nothing in this bill affects the fifth amendment of 
the Constitution. That is inviolate. Those protections remain. Nothing 
in this bill affects local governments and State governments regarding 
hunting and fishing. We will make that clear. We have no intention of 
interfering, or mandating, for that matter, that these areas be open or 
closed to hunting or fishing. That is uniquely a local function.
  So I think the point is that we are finding a lot of issues being 
raised here. Most of them are not germane. The real point is the effort 
here, of course, and by all these groups that we have heard about, is 
to undo. They are opposed to the bill. They are finding another excuse 
to argue property rights. This is simply an attempt to hijack this bill 
for a different purpose. I would urge the Members to defeat and to deal 
with the reasonable amendment that will be offered by my colleague from 
Ohio.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to the gory red 
herring that was dragged up on the floor here a few moments ago by my 
good friend and colleague from the State of Louisiana. He raised the 
spector of hunters and fishermen traveling over everybody's property in 
a reckless fashion. Of course, there is nothing in this bill that would 
cause that to happen in any way whatsoever, under existing law, and 
certainly does not exist anywhere in this bill. Everything that happens 
as a result of this particular legislation on any property whatsoever 
would require the consent of the property owner. There is no additional 
regulations that are taken by the Federal Government.
  It recognizes the responsibility of land use planning at the most 
local level of government, the village, the town, the city. Those areas 
remain solely in control of local zoning practices.
  The Supreme Court decision that was mentioned, I think is very 
important for us to focus upon. Because that recognizes the inherent 
ability of the courts to understand private property rights and to 
protect them. Those rights exist currently. The courts have said so. 
They are protecting them. And this bill is precisely consistent with 
the protection of those individual property rights in accordance with 
that Supreme Court decision.
  This is a modest bill. It is a mild bill. It simply allows people to 
work together in a cooperative way to enhance the quality of the areas 
in which they live and at the same time promote our common national 
heritage.
  I hope that we will be successful in defeating these amendments which 
are designed really to gut the bill and to get on with the final 
passage of this bill which is in the best interest of the people in the 
areas here and of all the people across the country.
  Mr. RIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 
5044, the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program Act of 1994. 
While I voted against this bill when it was considered under the 
suspension of the rules, I did so to ensure that the bill was 
considered openly and to make certain that necessary amendments were 
able to be offered today and voted on by the full House.
  This legislation sets forth criteria in which partnerships consisting 
of local governments, State governments, and private, nonprofit 
organizations can access Federal funding to designate certain areas of 
land as American Heritage corridors.
  I support this concept because it takes a different approach than the 
normal top-down, big-government ``land grabs'' most private property 
owners have come to know and hate. The American Heritage Areas 
Partnerships Act provides funding to only those projects which have 
been grown in the community from the ground up. The matching funds 
provided by the Federal Government can be accessed only after the 
community and local and State officials have come together and made the 
commitment to designate an area as one of historical value to the 
community's heritage.
  One such project is moving forward in western Pennsylvania. It is 
called the Steel Heritage Center and it spans the counties of 
Allegheny, Beaver, Fayette, Greene, Washington, and Westmoreland. While 
this particular project is not inside my congressional district, I am 
nevertheless pleased that the community has come together to have it 
designated as an American Heritage Area. The fact is that Munhall, PA, 
the town in which I was born and lived the early years of my life, is 
located in the Steel Heritage Center area.
  The region being designated is well known for its heritage in making 
steel and helping make this country great. The people of the region, 
whether laborers in the steel mills or those in the community who 
supported the local mills, were of the highest caliber. They reflected 
credit upon themselves and their community. This region continues to 
display the same tradition of hard work and skill which workers 
exhibited in years past.
  Lastly, I am also pleased that the legislation clearly states that no 
provisions in the bill shall be construed to modify, enlarge, or 
diminish any authority of Federal, State, and local governments to 
regulate any use of land as provided for by current law or regulations. 
I have always worked on behalf of the rights of private property owners 
and I am pleased that the bill's crafters considered their rights as 
they moved forward with this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to again say that I am pleased to rise in 
support of this legislation.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
Young-Brewster amendment to the American Heritage Areas Partnership 
Act. Today, I speak as the Democratic cochairman of the Congressional 
Sportsmen's Caucus. The Sportsmen's Caucus is comprised of over 190 
Members of the House with common beliefs such as: Preserving and 
promoting the traditional rights of American citizens to hunt, fish, 
and pursue other outdoor activities; Insuring that America's Sportsmen 
have reasonable access to federally managed public lands to enjoy these 
outdoor pursuits; and supporting efforts to enhance multiple use 
wildlife and habitat management.
  The Young-Brewster amendment reflects these beliefs. Clarifying the 
rights of State fish and wildlife agencies to manage fish and wildlife 
on lands designated as heritage areas including regulating hunting and 
fishing. Simply put, our amendment preserves the right to continue 
hunting in areas designated as American Heritage Areas. An example of 
why this amendment is needed is a proposed heritage area running the 
entire length of the Mississippi River--an extremely important 
waterfowl hunting and management area.
  Allowing hunting to continue to occur in heritage areas, such as the 
proposed Mississippi River Heritage Area, will have unending positive 
effects on the preservation of several species native to that area. As 
you may know Mr. Speaker, of the five designated flyways, the 
Mississippi Flyway is the home to an overwhelming majority of the 
Nation's waterfowl.
  As many Members in this chamber know, our Nation's waterfowl 
population is at the highest level in recent years. The resurrection of 
this resource can be directly attributed to the dollars spent by 
American waterfowl hunters. Millions of dollars have been collected 
from hunters through the Federal and State Duck Stamp Programs, the 
Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund, and voluntary contributions through 
programs such as Ducks Unlimited.
  Federal duck stamp sales for the Mississippi Flyway represents 43 
percent of the total Federal duck stamp sales. The Mississippi Flyway 
also accounts for 45 percent of the total waterfowl harvest in the 
United States. If we allow large areas of our country such as this to 
become off limits to hunting, we will lose large percentages of the 
money collected from hunters. Allowing this to happen will only serve 
to hurt our successful conservation efforts.
  As my colleague from Alaska previously stated, past practices of the 
National Park Service regarding the designation of new lands as being 
under its jurisdiction, dictates that Congress must clarify that the 
National Park Service recognize hunting as a discretionary activity.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Young-Brewster amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in support of H.R. 5044, 
legislation which establishes an American Heritage Area Partnership 
Program within the Department of the Interior.
  The bill establishes a new method of designating and managing 
nationally important heritage areas. Specifically, H.R. 5044 creates a 
partnership with State and local governments, as well as private 
entities, to preserve these historical regions by allowing communities 
to develop and implement operation and management plans. This new 
partnership will go a long way in preserving valuable historical areas 
while limiting the Federal Government's role and future financial 
obligations.
  I am especially pleased that this legislation includes 
reauthorization for the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage 
Corridor. The bill also adds three new towns, Glocester, Smithfield, 
and Burriville into the corridor. Most importantly, the bill extends 
the Blackstone Valley commission for 7 additional years. This will 
allow the commission to continue enhancing the distinctive character 
and nationally significant resources of the corridor.
  The Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is the largest 
national park in New England, and is widely recognized as the 
birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution. It was here, at 
Slater Mill, where the first successful water-powered cotton spinning 
mill was used in 1790. This rich area best exemplifies the entire 
history of the American Industrial Revolution and the complex economic 
and social relationships of the people who lived and worked there.
  The Blackstone Valley Heritage Corridor has become an example of how 
surrounding communities can work together toward a common theme of 
protecting and promoting their area. This rich and historic national 
resource needs to be protected so that the history of the Industrial 
Revolution can be preserved for all generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to vote for passage of this 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The bill shall be considered under the 5-minute rule by section, and 
pursuant to the rule each section shall be considered as read.
  The bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule 
for a period of not to exceed 3 hours, excluding time consumed by 
recorded votes and proceedings incidental thereto.
  No amendment to the bill shall be in order unless printed in that 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in 
clause 6 of rule 23 before consideration of the bill.
  Any amendment printed in the Record by the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento] may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                               H.R. 5044

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``American 
     Heritage Areas Act of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

          TITLE I--AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Congressional findings.
Sec. 103. Statement of purpose.
Sec. 104. Definitions.
Sec. 105. American Heritage Areas Partnership Program.
Sec. 106. Feasibility studies, compacts, management plans, and early 
              actions.
Sec. 107. Management entities.
Sec. 108. Withdrawal of designation.
Sec. 109. Duties and authorities of Federal agencies.
Sec. 110. Lack of effect on land use regulation.
Sec. 111. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 112. Expiration of authorities.
Sec. 113. Report.
Sec. 114. Savings provision.

            TITLE II--DESIGNATION OF AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS

Sec. 201. American Coal Heritage Area.
Sec. 202. Augusta Canal American Heritage Area.
Sec. 203. Cane River American Heritage Area.
Sec. 204. Essex American Heritage Area.
Sec. 205. Hudson River Valley American Heritage Area.
Sec. 206. Ohio & Erie Canal American Heritage Area.
Sec. 207. Shenandoah Valley Battlefields American Heritage Area.
Sec. 208. Steel Industry American Heritage Area.
Sec. 209. Vancouver American Heritage Area.
Sec. 210. Wheeling American Heritage Area.

     TITLE III--STUDIES REGARDING POTENTIAL AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS

Sec. 301. Ohio River Corridor.
Sec. 302. Fox and Lower Wisconsin River Corridors.
Sec. 303. South Carolina Corridor.
Sec. 304. Northern Frontier.

TITLE IV--BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR AMENDMENTS

Sec. 401. Boundaries, commission, and revision of plan.
Sec. 402. Implementation of plan.
Sec. 403. Authorization of appropriations.

              TITLE V--BRAMWELL NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT

Sec. 501. Bramwell National Historic District.

 TITLE VI--SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA AMENDMENTS

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Designation of Southwestern Pennsylvania American Heritage 
              Area.
Sec. 603. Powers of the commission.
Sec. 604. Federal participation.
Sec. 605. Congressional oversight.
Sec. 606. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 607. Path of progress.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill is as follows:

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``compact'' means a compact described in 
     section 106(a)(2).
       (2) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
          TITLE I--AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``American Heritage Areas 
     Partnership Program Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 102. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) certain areas of the United States represent the 
     diversity of the national character through the interaction 
     of natural processes, distinctive landscapes, cultural 
     traditions, and economic and social forces that have combined 
     to create a particular pattern of human settlement and 
     activity;
       (2) in these areas, natural, historic, or cultural 
     resources, or some combination thereof, combine to form a 
     cohesive, nationally distinctive landscape arising from 
     patterns of human activity shaped by geography;
       (3) these areas represent the national experience through 
     the physical features that remain and the traditions that 
     have evolved in the areas;
       (4) continued use and adaptive reuses of the natural and 
     cultural fabric within these areas by people whose traditions 
     helped to shape the landscapes enhance the significance of 
     the areas;
       (5) despite existing Federal programs and existing efforts 
     by States and localities, the natural, historic, and cultural 
     resources and recreational opportunities in these areas are 
     often at risk; and
       (6) the complexity and character of these areas distinguish 
     them and call for a distinctive system of recognition, 
     protection, and partnership management.

     SEC. 103. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to recognize that the natural, historic, and cultural 
     resources and recreational opportunities of the United States 
     represent and are important to the great and diverse 
     character of the Nation, and that these resources and 
     opportunities must be guarded, preserved, and wisely managed 
     so they may be passed on to future generations;
       (2) to recognize that combinations of such resources and 
     opportunities, as they are geographically assembled and 
     thematically related, form areas that provide unique 
     frameworks for understanding the historical, cultural, and 
     natural development of the community and its surroundings;
       (3) to preserve such assemblages that are worthy of 
     national recognition, designation, and assistance, and to 
     encourage linking such resources within such areas through 
     greenways, corridors, and trails;
       (4) to encourage appropriate partnerships among Federal 
     agencies, State and local governments, nonprofit 
     organizations, and the private sector, or combinations 
     thereof, to preserve, conserve, and manage those resources 
     and opportunities, accommodate economic viability, and 
     enhance the quality of life for the present and future 
     generations of the Nation;
       (5) to authorize Federal financial and technical assistance 
     to State and local governments and private nonprofit 
     organizations, or combinations thereof, to study and promote 
     the potential for conserving and interpreting these areas; 
     and
       (6) to prescribe the process by which, and the standards 
     according to which, prospective American Heritage Areas may 
     be assessed for eligibility and included in the American 
     Heritage Areas Partnership Program established by this title.

     SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) American heritage area.--The term ``American Heritage 
     Area'' means an area so designated under this title.
       (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any 
     Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group 
     or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional 
     corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
     which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and 
     services provided by the United States to Indians because of 
     their status as Indians.
       (3) Technical assistance.--The term ``technical 
     assistance'' means any guidance, advice, help, or aid, other 
     than financial aid.
       (4) Unit of government.--The term ``unit of government'' 
     means the government of a State, a political subdivision of a 
     State, or an Indian tribe.

     SEC. 105. AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--In order to preserve nationally 
     distinctive natural, historic, and cultural resources, and to 
     provide opportunities for conservation, education, and 
     recreation through recognition of and assistance to areas 
     containing such resources, there is hereby established within 
     the Department of the Interior an American Heritage Areas 
     Partnership Program, which shall consist of American Heritage 
     Areas designated under subsection (d).
       (b) General Authority of Secretary.--In accordance with the 
     purposes of this title, the Secretary is authorized--
       (1) to evaluate, in accordance with the criteria 
     established in subsection (c), areas nominated under this 
     title for designation as American Heritage Areas;
       (2) to advise State and local governments, nonprofit 
     organizations, and other appropriate entities regarding 
     suitable methods of recognizing and preserving thematically 
     and geographically linked natural, historic, and cultural 
     resources and recreational opportunities; and
       (3) to consider any American Heritage Area, designated 
     under this or any other Act, for nomination to the World 
     Heritage List if the Secretary determines that such area 
     meets the qualifications for such nomination.
       (c) Criteria.--To be eligible for designation as an 
     American Heritage Area, an area shall meet each of the 
     following criteria:
       (1) Assemblage of resources.--The area shall be an 
     assemblage of natural, historic, or cultural resources that--
       (A) together represent distinctive aspects of American 
     heritage worthy of recognition, preservation, interpretation, 
     and continuing use; and
       (B) are best managed as such an assemblage, through 
     partnerships among public and private entities, and by 
     combining diverse and sometimes noncontiguous resources and 
     active communities.
       (2) Traditions, customs, beliefs, or folklife.--The area 
     shall reflect traditions, customs, beliefs, or folklife, or 
     some combination thereof, that are a valuable part of the 
     story of the Nation.
       (3) Conservation of natural, cultural, or historic 
     features.--The area shall provide outstanding opportunities 
     to conserve natural, cultural, or historic features, or some 
     combination thereof.
       (4) Recreational and educational opportunities.--The area 
     shall provide outstanding recreational and educational 
     opportunities.
       (5) Themes and integrity of resources.--The area shall have 
     an identifiable theme or themes, and resources important to 
     the identified theme or themes shall retain integrity capable 
     of supporting interpretation.
       (6) Support.--Residents, nonprofit organizations, other 
     private entities, and governments within the proposed area 
     shall demonstrate support for designation of the area and for 
     management of the area as appropriate for such designation.
       (7) Agreements.--The principal organization and units of 
     government supporting the designation shall be willing to 
     commit to agreements to work in partnership to implement the 
     management plan of the area.
       (8) Consistency with economic viability.--The proposal 
     shall be consistent with continued economic viability in the 
     affected communities.
       (d) Conditions for Designation.--An area may be designated 
     as an American Heritage Area only by an Act of Congress or by 
     the means provided in title II. Except as otherwise provided 
     in title II, the Congress may designate an area as an 
     American Heritage Area only after each of the following 
     conditions is met:
       (1) Submission of study and compact to secretary.--An 
     entity requesting American Heritage Area designation for the 
     area submits to the Secretary a feasibility study and compact 
     meeting the requirements of section 106(a). The comments of 
     the Governor of each State in which the proposed American 
     Heritage Area lies, or a statement by the entity that such 
     Governor has failed to comment within a reasonable time after 
     receiving the study and compact, accompanies such submittal 
     to the Secretary.
       (2) Approval and submission by secretary.--The Secretary 
     approves, pursuant to section 106(b), the feasibility study 
     and compact referred to in paragraph (1) and submits the 
     study and compact to the Congress together with any comments 
     that the Secretary deems appropriate regarding a preferred 
     action.
       (e) Relation to National Register of Historic Places.--The 
     act of designation of an American Heritage Area shall not be 
     deemed to signify that such American Heritage Area is 
     included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National 
     Register of Historic Places, as established in accordance 
     with section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 470a). Designation of an American Heritage Area 
     shall not preclude the American Heritage Area or any 
     district, site, building, structure, or object located within 
     the American Heritage Area from subsequently being nominated 
     to, or determined eligible for inclusion on, the National 
     Register.

     SEC. 106. FEASIBILITY STUDIES, COMPACTS, MANAGEMENT PLANS, 
                   AND EARLY ACTIONS.

       (a) Contents and Requirements.--
       (1) Feasibility studies.--Each feasibility study submitted 
     under this title shall include sufficient information to 
     determine whether an area has the potential to meet the 
     criteria referred to in section 105(c). Such information 
     shall include, but need not be limited to, each of the 
     following:
       (A) A description of the natural, historic, and cultural 
     resources and recreational opportunities presented by the 
     area, including an assessment of the quality and degree of 
     integrity of, the availability of public access to, and the 
     themes represented by such resources and opportunities.
       (B) An assessment of the interest of potential partners, 
     including units of government, nonprofit organizations, and 
     other private entities.
       (C) A description of tentative boundaries for an American 
     Heritage Area proposed to be established in the area.
       (D) Identification of a possible management entity for an 
     American Heritage Area proposed to be established in the 
     area.
       (2) Compacts.--(A) A compact submitted under this title 
     shall include information relating to the objectives and 
     management of an area proposed for designation as an American 
     Heritage Area. Such information shall include, but need not 
     be limited to, each of the following:
       (i) A delineation of the boundaries of the proposed 
     American Heritage Area.
       (ii) A discussion of the goals and objectives of the 
     proposed American Heritage Area, including an explanation of 
     the proposed approach to conservation and interpretation and 
     a general outline of the protection measures committed to by 
     the partners referred to in clause (iv).
       (iii) An identification and description of the management 
     entity that will administer the proposed American Heritage 
     Area.
       (iv) A list of the initial partners to be involved in 
     developing and implementing the management plan referred to 
     in paragraph (3) for the proposed American Heritage Area, and 
     a statement of the financial commitment of the partners.
       (v) A description of the role of the State or States in 
     which the proposed American Heritage Area is located.
       (B)(i) The compact shall be prepared with public 
     participation.
       (ii) Actions called for in the compact shall be likely to 
     be initiated within a reasonable time after designation of 
     the proposed American Heritage Area and shall ensure 
     effective implementation of the State and local aspects of 
     the compact.
       (3) Management plans.--A management plan submitted under 
     this title for an American Heritage Area shall present 
     comprehensive recommendations for the conservation, funding, 
     management, and development of the area. The plan shall take 
     into consideration existing State, county, and local plans 
     and involve residents, public agencies, and private 
     organizations in the area. It shall include a description of 
     the actions recommended to be taken, to protect the resources 
     of the area, by units of government and private 
     organizations. It shall specify existing and potential 
     sources of funding for the protection, management, and 
     development of the area. The plan also shall include the 
     following, as appropriate:
       (A) An inventory of the resources contained in the American 
     Heritage Area, including a list of property in the area that 
     should be preserved, restored, managed, developed, or 
     maintained because of the natural, cultural, or historic 
     significance of the property as it relates to the themes of 
     the area.
       (B) A recommendation of policies for resource management 
     that consider and detail the application of appropriate land 
     and water management techniques, including (but not limited 
     to) the development of intergovernmental cooperative 
     agreements to protect the historical, cultural, and natural 
     resources and the recreational opportunities of the area in a 
     manner consistent with the support of appropriate and 
     compatible economic viability.
       (C) A program, including plans for restoration and 
     construction, for implementation of the management plan by 
     the management entity specified in the compact referred to in 
     paragraph (2) and specific commitments, for the first 5 years 
     of operation of the plan, by the partners identified in the 
     compact.
       (D) An analysis of means by which Federal, State, and local 
     programs may best be coordinated to promote the purposes of 
     this title.
       (E) An interpretive plan for the American Heritage Area.
       (4) Early actions.--After designation of an American 
     Heritage Area but prior to approval of the management plan 
     for that area, the Secretary may provide technical and 
     financial assistance for early actions that are important to 
     the theme of the area and that protect resources that would 
     be in imminent danger of irreversible damage without such 
     early actions.
       (b) Approval and Disapproval of Compacts and Management 
     Plans.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Governors of each State in which the relevant American 
     Heritage Area, or proposed area, is located, shall approve or 
     disapprove every compact or management plan submitted under 
     this title not later than 90 days after receiving such 
     compact or management plan. Prior to approving the compact or 
     plan, the Secretary shall consult with the Advisory Council 
     on Historic Preservation in accordance with section 106 of 
     the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).
       (2) Disapproval and revisions.--If the Secretary 
     disapproves a compact or management plan submitted under this 
     title, the Secretary shall advise the submitter, in writing, 
     of the reasons for the disapproval and shall make 
     recommendations for revisions of the compact or plan. The 
     Secretary shall approve or disapprove a proposed revision to 
     such a compact or plan within 90 days after the date on which 
     the revision is submitted to the Secretary.
       (3) Amendments to management plans.--The Secretary shall 
     review substantial amendments to management plans for 
     American Heritage Areas. Funds appropriated pursuant to this 
     title may not be expended to implement such amendments until 
     the Secretary approves the amendments.

     SEC. 107. MANAGEMENT ENTITIES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Receipt of federal funds.--Management entities that are 
     designated in compacts approved under section 106(b) for 
     American Heritage Areas are authorized to receive Federal 
     funds in support of cooperative partnerships to prepare and 
     implement the management plans regarding the American 
     Heritage Areas and to otherwise perform the functions 
     contemplated in this title.
       (2) Eligibility.--To be eligible for designation as the 
     management entity of an American Heritage Area, a unit of 
     government or private nonprofit organization must possess the 
     legal ability to--
       (A) receive Federal funds for use in preparing and 
     implementing the management plan for the area;
       (B) disburse Federal funds to other units of government or 
     other organizations for use in preparing and implementing the 
     management plan;
       (C) account for all Federal funds so received or disbursed; 
     and
       (D) sign agreements with the Federal Government.
       (b) Authorities of Management Entity.--The management 
     entity of an American Heritage Area may, for purposes of 
     preparing and implementing the management plan for the area, 
     use Federal funds made available under this title--
       (1) to make grants and loans to States, political 
     subdivisions thereof, private organizations, and other 
     persons;
       (2) to enter into cooperative agreements with Federal 
     agencies; and
       (3) to hire and compensate staff.
       (c) Duties of Management Entity.--The management entity for 
     an American Heritage Area shall do each of the following:
       (1) Management plan.--The management entity shall develop, 
     and submit to the Secretary for approval, a management plan 
     described in section 106(a)(3) within 3 years after the date 
     of the designation of the area as an American Heritage Area.
       (2) Priorities.--The management entity shall give priority 
     to the implementation of actions, goals, and policies set 
     forth in the compact and management plan referred to in 
     section 106(a), including--
       (A) assisting units of government, regional planning 
     organizations, and nonprofit organizations--
       (i) in preserving the American Heritage Area;
       (ii) in establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits 
     in the area;
       (iii) in developing recreational opportunities in the area;
       (iv) in increasing public awareness of and appreciation for 
     the natural, historical, and cultural resources of the area;
       (v) in the restoration of historic buildings that are 
     located within the boundaries of the area and relate to the 
     themes of the area; and
       (vi) in ensuring that clear, consistent, and 
     environmentally appropriate signs identifying access points 
     and sites of interest are put in place throughout the area;
       (B) consistent with the goals of the management plan 
     referred to in section 106(a)(3), encouraging economic 
     viability in the affected communities by appropriate means; 
     and
       (C) encouraging local governments to adopt land-use 
     policies consistent with the management of the area and the 
     goals of the management plan referred to in section 
     106(a)(3).
       (3) Consideration of interests of local groups.--The 
     management entity shall, in developing and implementing the 
     management plan referred to in section 106(a)(3), consider 
     the interests of diverse governmental, business, and 
     nonprofit groups within the geographic area.
       (4) Public meetings.--The management entity shall conduct 
     public meetings at least quarterly regarding the 
     implementation of the management plan referred to in section 
     106(a)(3).
       (5) Submission of changes in plan.--The management entity 
     shall submit any substantial changes to the management plan 
     referred to in section 106(a)(3) (including any increase of 
     more than 20 percent in the cost estimates for implementation 
     of the management plan) to the Secretary for the approval of 
     the Secretary.
       (6) Annual report.--The management entity shall, for any 
     fiscal year in which it receives Federal funds under this 
     title or in which a loan made by the entity with Federal 
     funds under section 107(b)(1) is outstanding, submit an 
     annual report to the Secretary setting forth its 
     accomplishments, its expenses and income, and the entities to 
     which it made any loans and grants during the year for which 
     the report is made.
       (7) Cooperation with audits.--The management entity shall, 
     for any fiscal year in which it receives Federal funds under 
     this title or in which a loan made by the entity with Federal 
     funds under section 107(b)(1) is outstanding, make available 
     for audit by the Congress, the Secretary, and appropriate 
     units of government all records and other information 
     pertaining to the expenditure of such funds and any matching 
     funds, and require, for all agreements authorizing 
     expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the 
     receiving organizations make available for such audit all 
     records and other information pertaining to the expenditure 
     of such funds.
       (8) Liability for loans.--The management entity shall be 
     liable to the Federal Government for any loans that the 
     management entity makes under section 107(b)(1).
       (d) Disqualification for Federal Funding.--If a management 
     plan regarding an American Heritage Area is not submitted to 
     the Secretary as required under subsection (c)(1) within the 
     time specified in such subsection, the American Heritage Area 
     shall cease to be eligible for Federal funding under this 
     title until such a plan regarding the American Heritage Area 
     is submitted to the Secretary.
       (e) Prohibition of Acquisition of Real Property.--A 
     management entity for an American Heritage Area may not use 
     Federal funds received under this title to acquire real 
     property or interest in real property. No provision of this 
     title shall prohibit any management entity from using Federal 
     funds from other sources for their permitted purposes.
       (f) Duration of Eligibility for Financial Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--A management entity for an American 
     Heritage Area shall be eligible to receive funds appropriated 
     pursuant to this title for a 10-year period beginning on the 
     day on which the American Heritage Area is designated, except 
     as provided in paragraph (2).
       (2) Extension of eligibility.--The eligibility of a 
     management entity for funding under this title may be 
     extended, by the Secretary, for a period of not more than a 5 
     years after the 10-year period referred to in paragraph (1), 
     if--
       (A) the management entity determines that the extension is 
     necessary in order to carry out the purposes of this title 
     and notifies the Secretary of such determination not later 
     than 180 days prior to the end of the 10-year period referred 
     to in paragraph (1);
       (B) the management entity, not later than 180 days prior to 
     the end of the 10-year period referred to in paragraph (1), 
     presents to the Secretary a plan of its activities for the 
     period of the extension, including provisions for becoming 
     independent of the funds made available pursuant to this 
     title; and
       (C) the Secretary, after consulting with the Governor of 
     each State in which the American Heritage Area is located, 
     approves such extension of eligibility.
       (3) Lack of effect of extension on funding limitations.--An 
     extension provided under this subsection shall not be 
     construed as waiving any limitation on funds provided 
     pursuant to this title.

     SEC. 108. WITHDRAWAL OF DESIGNATION.

       (a) In General.--The American Heritage Area designation of 
     an area shall continue unless--
       (1) the Secretary determines that--
       (A) the American Heritage Area no longer meets the criteria 
     referred to in section 105(c);
       (B) the parties to the compact approved in relation to the 
     area under section 106(b) are not in compliance with the 
     terms of the compact;
       (C) the management entity of the area has not made 
     reasonable and appropriate progress in developing or 
     implementing the management plan approved for the area under 
     section 106(b); or
       (D) the use, condition, or development of the area is 
     incompatible with the criteria referred to in section 105(c) 
     or with the compact approved in relation to the area under 
     section 106(b); and
       (2) after making a determination referred to in paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary submits to the Congress notification that 
     the American Heritage Area designation of the area should be 
     withdrawn.
       (b) Public Hearing.--Before the Secretary makes a 
     determination referred to in subsection (a)(1) regarding an 
     American Heritage Area, the Secretary or a designee shall 
     hold a public hearing within the area.
       (c) Time of Withdrawal of Designation.--
       (1) In general.--The withdrawal of the American Heritage 
     Area designation of an area shall become final 90 legislative 
     days after the Secretary submits to the Congress the 
     notification referred to in subsection (a)(2) regarding the 
     area.
       (2) Legislative day.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term ``legislative day'' means any calendar day on which both 
     Houses of the Congress are in session.

     SEC. 109. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Duties and Authorities of Secretary.--
       (1) Grants.--The Secretary may make matching grants to 
     provide assistance regarding feasibility studies and compacts 
     described in section 106(a) and, upon request of the 
     management entity for the relevant American Heritage Area, 
     regarding management plans and early actions described in 
     section 106(a) and capital projects and improvements 
     undertaken pursuant to such management plans. The Secretary 
     may make grants under this section to units of government, 
     and, in consultation with affected units of government, to 
     private nonprofit organizations. In awarding grants, the 
     Secretary shall be guided by the criteria for eligibility for 
     designation referred in section 105(c).
       (2) Technical assistance.--(A) The Secretary may provide 
     technical assistance to units of government and private 
     nonprofit organizations regarding feasibility studies and 
     compacts described in section 106(a) and, upon request of the 
     management entity for the relevant American Heritage Area, 
     regarding management plans and early actions described in 
     section 106(a) and capital projects and improvements 
     undertaken pursuant to such management plans. In providing 
     the technical assistance, the Secretary shall be guided by 
     the criteria for eligibility for designation referred to in 
     section 105(c).
       (B) The Secretary may elect to provide all or part of the 
     technical assistance authorized by this subsection through 
     cooperative agreements with units of government and private 
     nonprofit organizations whose missions and resources can 
     contribute substantially to the purposes of this title.
       (3) Other assistance.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     deemed to prohibit the Secretary or units of government from 
     providing technical or financial assistance under any other 
     provision of law.
       (4) Priorities for assistance.--In assisting an American 
     Heritage Area, the Secretary shall give priority to actions 
     that assist in--
       (A) conserving the significant natural, historic, and 
     cultural resources which support the themes of the American 
     Heritage Area; and
       (B) providing educational, interpretive, and recreational 
     opportunities consistent with the resources and associated 
     values of the American Heritage Area.
       (5) Determinations regarding assistance.--The Secretary 
     shall decide which American Heritage Areas shall be awarded 
     technical and financial assistance and the amount of the 
     assistance. Such decisions shall be based on the relative 
     degree to which each American Heritage Area effectively 
     fulfills the objectives contained in the management plan for 
     the area, achieves the purposes of this title, and fulfills 
     the criteria referred to in section 105(c) and shall give 
     consideration to projects which provide a greater leverage of 
     Federal funds.
       (6) Non-federally owned property.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to spend Federal funds directly on nonfederally 
     owned property to further the purposes of this title, giving 
     priority to assisting units of government in appropriate 
     treatment of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 
     objects listed or eligible for listing on the National 
     Register of Historic Places.
       (7) Annual report.--The Secretary shall submit an annual 
     report to the Congress regarding the American Heritage Areas 
     Partnership Program. Each report shall include--
       (A) the number, amount, and recipients of any grants 
     provided by the Secretary under this title and the nature of 
     any technical assistance or early action provided under this 
     title;
       (B) a description of the status and condition of, and 
     Federal funding provided under this Act to, each American 
     Heritage Area;
       (C) a description of the areas nominated for the American 
     Heritage Partnership Program;
       (D) the recommendations of the Secretary regarding areas to 
     be designated by the Congress as American Heritage Areas; and
       (E) the status of the implementation of all contractual 
     agreements entered into by the Secretary under this title.
       (8) Oversight of heritage areas with expired eligibility.--
     The Secretary shall investigate, study, and continually 
     monitor the welfare of all American Heritage Areas whose 
     eligibility for Federal funding under this title has expired 
     and shall report to the Congress periodically regarding the 
     condition of such American Heritage Areas.
       (9) Provision of information.--In cooperation with other 
     Federal agencies, the Secretary shall provide the general 
     public with information regarding the location and character 
     of components of the American Heritage Areas Partnership 
     Program.
       (10) Promulgation of regulations.--The Secretary shall 
     promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out the 
     purposes of this title.
       (b) Duties of Federal Entities.--Any Federal entity 
     conducting or supporting activities directly affecting an 
     American Heritage Area, and any unit of government acting 
     pursuant to a grant of Federal funds or a Federal permit or 
     agreement and conducting or supporting such activities, 
     shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
       (1) consult with the Secretary and the management entity 
     for the American Heritage Area with respect to such 
     activities;
       (2) cooperate with the Secretary and the management entity 
     in the carrying out of the duties of the Secretary and the 
     management entity under this title, and coordinate such 
     activities with the carrying out of such duties; and
       (3) conduct or support such activities in a manner 
     consistent with the management plan for the American Heritage 
     Area unless the Federal entity or unit of government, after 
     consultation with the Secretary and the management entity, 
     determines that there is no practicable alternative.

     SEC. 110. LACK OF EFFECT ON LAND USE REGULATION.

       (a) Lack of Effect on Authority of Governments.--Nothing in 
     this title shall be construed to modify, enlarge, or diminish 
     any authority of Federal, State, and local governments to 
     regulate any use of land as provided for by current law or 
     regulation.
       (b) Lack of Zoning or Land Use Powers of Entity.--Nothing 
     in this title shall be construed to grant powers of zoning or 
     land use to any management entity for an American Heritage 
     Area.
       (c) Management Plan Availability to Local Governments.--Any 
     management plan referred to in section 106(a) and submitted 
     to the Secretary by the management entity for an American 
     Heritage Area shall be made available to the local 
     governments having jurisdiction over land use regulations 
     affecting the American Heritage Area for the use of the local 
     governments in updating their growth management plans and in 
     the event that such governments desire to amend current land 
     use legislation as they may deem appropriate and in 
     accordance with their legal authority.

     SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Feasibility Studies, Compacts, Management Plans, and 
     Early Actions.--From the amounts made available to carry out 
     the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et 
     seq.), there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary, for grants and technical assistance pursuant to 
     section 109(a) and the administration of such grants and 
     assistance, annually not more than $10,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, with the following conditions:
       (1) Percent of cost.--No grant under this title for a 
     feasibility study, compact, management plan, or early action 
     may exceed 75 percent of the cost, to the grantee, for such 
     study, compact, plan, or early action.
       (2) Studies.--The total amount of Federal funding under 
     this title for feasibility studies for a proposed American 
     Heritage Area may not exceed $100,000.
       (3) Compacts.--The total amount of Federal funding under 
     this title for compacts for a proposed American Heritage Area 
     may not exceed $150,000.
       (4) Early action grants.--The total amount of Federal 
     funding under this title for early action grants for an 
     American Heritage Area may not exceed $250,000.
       (5) Management plans.--The total amount of Federal funding 
     under this title for management plans for an American 
     Heritage Area may not exceed $150,000.
       (b) Management Entity Operations.--
       (1) Operating costs.--From the amounts made available to 
     carry out the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
     470 et seq.), there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary, for each management entity of an American Heritage 
     Area, not more than $250,000 annually for the operating costs 
     of such management entity pursuant to section 107.
       (2) Cost share.--The Federal contribution under this title 
     to the operations of any management entity of an American 
     Heritage Area shall not exceed 50 percent of the annual 
     operating costs of the entity.
       (c) Plan Implementation.--From the amounts made available 
     to carry out the National Historic Preservation Act (16 
     U.S.C. 470 et seq.), there is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary, for grants and technical assistance for the 
     implementation of management plans for designated American 
     Heritage Areas and the administration of such grants and 
     assistance, not more than $25,000,000 annually, to remain 
     available until expended, with the following conditions:
       (1) Percent of cost.--No grant under this title for 
     implementation of a management plan may exceed 50 percent of 
     the cost to the grantee of the implementation.
       (2) Percent of funding for each area.--Not more than 10 
     percent of the annual appropriation for this subsection shall 
     be made available, in any 1 year, to each American Heritage 
     Area.
       (3) Total funding for each area.--Not more than a total of 
     $10,000,000 may be made available under this subsection to 
     each American Heritage Area.
       (4) Agreements.--Any payment made under this subsection 
     shall be subject to an agreement that conversion, use, or 
     disposal of the project so assisted for purposes contrary to 
     the purposes of this title, as determined by the Secretary, 
     shall result in a right of the United States to the greater 
     of--
       (A) reimbursement of all funds made available for such 
     project; and
       (B) the proportion of the increased value of the project 
     attributable to such funds, as determined at the time of such 
     conversion, use, or disposal.
       (d) Limitation on Amounts for Technical Assistance.--The 
     amount of Federal funding made available under this section 
     for technical assistance for an American Heritage Area for a 
     fiscal year may not exceed $150,000.

     SEC. 112. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITIES.

       The authorities contained in this title shall expire on 
     September 30 of the 25th fiscal year beginning after the date 
     of the enactment of this title.

     SEC. 113. REPORT.

       The Secretary shall submit to the Congress, every 5 years 
     while the authorities contained in this title remain in 
     force, a report on the status and accomplishments of the 
     American Heritage Areas Partnership Program as a whole.

     SEC. 114. SAVINGS PROVISION.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to expand or 
     diminish any authorities contained in any law designating an 
     individual National Heritage Area or Corridor before the date 
     of the enactment of this title.
            TITLE II--DESIGNATION OF AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS

     SEC. 201. AMERICAN COAL HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the rise of American industry in the late 19th and 20th 
     centuries led to tremendous growth in the Appalachian coal 
     fields, creating an area of national historic significance in 
     terms of its contributions to the industrial revolution, 
     architecture, culture, and diversity;
       (2) within the Appalachian coal belt, the coal mined in 
     southern West Virginia and in southwestern Virginia produced 
     some of the purest and most sought-after coal in the Nation, 
     and the region associated with this coal contains a rich 
     cultural heritage;
       (3) the influx of labor needed to mine coal in this region 
     created a diverse community of African Americans from the 
     south, recent immigrants from southern and southeastern 
     Europe, Americans from northern mining areas, and native 
     Appalachians;
       (4) it is in the national interest to preserve and protect 
     physical remnants of the late 19th and early 20th century 
     rise of American industry for the education and benefit of 
     present and future generations; and
       (5) there is a need to provide assistance to the 
     preservation and promotion of the vestiges of the coal 
     heritage of Appalachia that have outstanding cultural, 
     historic, and architectural value.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--The purposes of this section are 
     to preserve and interpret, for the educational and 
     inspirational benefit of present and future generations, 
     certain lands and structures with unique and significant 
     historical and cultural values associated with the coal 
     mining heritage of southern West Virginia and southwestern 
     Virginia.
       (c) Designation.--
       (1) In general.--Upon publication by the Secretary in the 
     Federal Register of notice that a compact meeting the 
     requirements for a compact under section 106(a)(2) has been 
     approved by the Secretary under the procedures referred to in 
     section 106(b), there is hereby designated the American Coal 
     Heritage Area (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Heritage Area'').
       (2) Compact.--The Secretary may not require, as a condition 
     of approving a compact submitted pursuant to this section 
     regarding the Heritage Area, that both the State of West 
     Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia sign the compact.
       (d) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be composed of the 
     lands generally depicted on the map entitled ``Coal Industry 
     National Heritage Area'', numbered CMNHA-80,008, and dated 
     August 1994. The map shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the office of the Director of the 
     National Park Service.
       (e) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be considered 
     to be part of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     and shall be considered for all purposes, including but not 
     limited to the management plan submission requirement of 
     section 107(c)(1) and the provisions of section 108, to have 
     been designated an American Heritage Area under section 
     105(d) on the date on which the Heritage Area is designated 
     under subsection (c) of this section.

     SEC. 202. AUGUSTA CANAL AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Augusta Canal National Historic Landmark in the 
     State of Georgia, listed on the National Register of Historic 
     Places, is one of the last unspoiled and undeveloped areas in 
     the State of Georgia, has remained largely intact, and has 
     excellent water quality, beautiful rural landscapes, 
     architecturally significant mill structures and mill 
     villages, and large acreage in open space;
       (2) the beautiful rural landscapes, scenic vistas and 
     excellent water quality of the Augusta Canal contain 
     significant undeveloped recreational opportunities for people 
     throughout the United States;
       (3) the existing mill sites and other structures throughout 
     the Augusta Canal were instrumental in the development of the 
     cotton textile industry in the south;
       (4) several significant sites associated with Native 
     Americans, the American Revolution, and African-Americans are 
     located within the area; and
       (5) the Augusta Canal Authority would be an appropriate 
     management entity for an American Heritage Area established 
     in the area of the Augusta Canal.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--The purposes of this section are 
     to--
       (1) designate the Augusta Canal as an American Heritage 
     Area; and
       (2) provide a management framework to assist the State of 
     Georgia, its units of local and regional government, and 
     citizens in the development and implementation of integrated 
     cultural, historical, and recreational land resource 
     management programs in order to retain, enhance, and 
     interpret significant features of the lands, waters, historic 
     structures, and heritage of the Augusta Canal.
       (c) Designation.--Upon publication in the Federal Register 
     of notice that a compact meeting the requirements for a 
     compact under section 106(a)(2) has been approved by the 
     Secretary under the procedures referred to in section 106(b), 
     there is hereby designated the Augusta Canal American 
     Heritage Area (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Heritage Area'').
       (d) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be comprised of 
     the lands generally depicted on the map entitled ``The 
     Augusta Canal'', numbered AUCA-80,000, and dated August 1994. 
     The map shall be on file and available for public inspection 
     in the office of the Director of the National Park Service.
       (e) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be considered 
     to be part of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     and shall be considered for all purposes, including but not 
     limited to the management plan submission requirement of 
     section 107(c)(1) and the provisions of section 108, to have 
     been designated an American Heritage Area under section 
     105(d) on the date on which the Heritage Area is designated 
     under subsection (c) of this section.

     SEC. 203. CANE RIVER AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the settlement in the Natchitoches area along Cane 
     River, established in 1714, is the oldest settlement in the 
     Louisiana Purchase Territory;
       (2) the Cane River area is the locale of the development of 
     Creole culture, from the French-Spanish interactions of the 
     early 18th century to the living communities of today;
       (3) the Cane River, historically a segment of the Red 
     River, provided the focal point for early settlement in the 
     area, serving as a transportation route upon which commerce 
     and communication reached all parts of the colony;
       (4) although a number of Creole structures, sites, and 
     landscapes exist in Louisiana and elsewhere, most, unlike the 
     Cane River area, are isolated examples and lack original 
     outbuilding complexes or integrity;
       (5) the Cane River area includes a great variety of 
     historical features, with original elements, in both rural 
     and urban settings and a cultural landscape that represents 
     various aspects of Creole culture, providing the base for a 
     holistic approach to understanding the broad continuum of 
     history within the region;
       (6) the Cane River region includes the Natchitoches 
     National Historic Landmark District, composed of 
     approximately 300 publicly and privately owned properties, 4 
     other national historic landmarks, and other structures and 
     sites that may meet criteria for landmark significance 
     following further study;
       (7) historic preservation within the Cane River area has 
     greatly benefited from individuals and organizations that 
     have strived to protect their heritage and educate others 
     about their rich history; and
       (8) because of the complexity and magnitude of preservation 
     needs in the Cane River area, and the vital need for a 
     culturally sensitive approach, a partnership approach is 
     desirable for addressing the many preservation and 
     educational needs of the area.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--The purposes of this section 
     are--
       (1) to recognize the importance of the Cane River Creole 
     culture as a significant element of the cultural heritage of 
     the United States; and
       (2) to establish a Cane River American Heritage Area to be 
     undertaken in partnership with the State of Louisiana, the 
     city of Natchitoches, local communities and settlements of 
     the Cane River area, preservation organizations, and private 
     landowners, with full recognition that programs must fully 
     involve the local communities and landowners.
       (c) Designation.--In furtherance of the need to recognize 
     the value and importance of the Cane River region, upon 
     publication by the Secretary in the Federal Register of 
     notice that a compact meeting the requirements for a compact 
     under section 106(a)(2) has been approved by the Secretary 
     under the procedures referred to in section 106(b), there is 
     hereby designated the Cane River American Heritage Area 
     (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Heritage 
     Area'').
       (d) Boundaries.--
       (1) In general.--The Heritage Area shall be composed of the 
     lands encompassing--
       (A) an acre approximately 1 mile on both sides of the Cane 
     River, as depicted on the map numbered ``CARI-80,000'', and 
     dated January 1994;
       (B) the Natchitoches National Historical Landmark District;
       (C) the Los Adaes State Commemorative Area;
       (D) the Fort Jesup State Commemorative Area;
       (E) the Fort St. Jean Baptiste State Commemorative Area; 
     and
       (F) the Kate Chopin House.
       (2) Map.--The Secretary shall prepare a map of the Cane 
     River American Heritage Area, which shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the office of the Director 
     of the National Park Service.
       (e) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be considered 
     to be part of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     and shall be considered for all purposes, including but not 
     limited to the management plan submission requirement of 
     section 107(c)(1) and the provisions of section 108, to have 
     been designated an American Heritage Area under section 
     105(d) on the date on which the Heritage Area is designated 
     under subsection (c) of this section.
       (f) Management Entity.--Upon petition, the Secretary is 
     authorized to recognize a coalition consisting of the 
     following persons as the management entity, for purposes of 
     title I, for the Cane River American Heritage Area:
       (1) 1 member submitted by the mayor of Natchitoches.
       (2) 1 member submitted by the Association for the 
     Preservation of Historic Natchitoches.
       (3) 1 member submitted by the Natchitoches Historic 
     Foundation, Inc.
       (4) 2 members, with experience in and knowledge of tourism 
     in the area of the Cane River American Heritage Area, 
     submitted by local business and tourism organizations.
       (5) 1 member submitted by the Governor of the State of 
     Louisiana.
       (6) 1 member submitted by the Police Jury of Natchitoches 
     Parish in Louisiana.
       (7) 1 member submitted by the Concerned Citizens of 
     Cloutierville.
       (8) 1 member submitted by the St. Augustine Historical 
     Society.
       (9) 1 member submitted by the Black Heritage Committee.
       (10) 1 member submitted by the Los Adaes/Robeline 
     Community.
       (11) 1 member submitted by the Natchitoches Historic 
     District Commission.
       (12) 1 member submitted by the Cane River Waterway 
     Commission.
       (13) 2 members who are landowners in and residents of the 
     Cane River American Heritage Area.
       (14) 1 member, with experience and knowledge of historic 
     preservation, submitted by Museum Contents, Inc.
       (15) 1 member, with experience and knowledge of historic 
     preservation, submitted by the President of Northwestern 
     State University of Louisiana.
       (16) 1 member, with experience in and knowledge of 
     environmental, recreational, and conservation matters 
     affecting the Cane River American Heritage Area, submitted by 
     the Natchitoches Sportsmans Association and other local 
     recreational and environmental organizations.
       (17) The superintendent of the Jean Lafitte National 
     Historic Park and Preserve, or a designee.

     SEC. 204. ESSEX AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) Essex County, Massachusetts, was host to a series of 
     historic events that influenced the course of the early 
     settlement of the United States, its emergence as a maritime 
     power, and its subsequent industrial development;
       (2) the North Shore of Essex County and Merrimack River 
     valley contain examples of significant early American 
     architecture and significant Federal-period architecture, 
     many sites and buildings associated with the establishment of 
     the maritime trade in the United States, the site of the 
     witchcraft trials of 1692, the birthplace of successful iron 
     manufacture, and the establishment of the textile and leather 
     industries in and around the cities of Peabody, Beverly, 
     Lynn, Lawrence, and Haverhill;
       (3) Salem, Massachusetts, has a rich heritage as one of the 
     earliest landing sites of the English colonists, the first 
     major world harbor for the United States, and an early 
     thriving hub of American industries;
       (4) the Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site is the 
     site of the first sustained, integrated iron works in 
     Colonial America, and the technology employed at the Iron 
     Works was dispersed throughout the Colonies and was critical 
     to the development of industry and technology in America;
       (5) the Salem Maritime National Historic Site contains 
     nationally significant resources that explain the manner in 
     which the Nation was settled, its evolution into a maritime 
     power, and its development as a major industrial force, and 
     the story told at the Salem Maritime and Saugus Iron Works 
     National Historic Sites would be greatly enhanced through the 
     interpretation of significant theme-related resources in 
     Salem and Saugus and throughout Essex County;
       (6) partnerships between the private and public sectors 
     have been created and additional partnerships will be 
     encouraged to preserve the rich cultural heritage of the 
     region, which will stimulate cultural awareness and 
     preservation and economic development through tourism; and
       (7) the resident and business communities of the region 
     have formed the Essex Heritage Ad Hoc Commission for the 
     preservation, interpretation, promotion, and development of 
     the historic, cultural, and natural resources of the area and 
     are investing significant private funds and energy to develop 
     a plan to preserve the nationally significant resources of 
     Essex County.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to designate the Essex American Heritage Area in order 
     to recognize, preserve, promote, interpret, and make 
     available for the benefit of the public the historic, 
     cultural, and natural resources of the North Shore and lower 
     Merrimack River valley in Essex County, Massachusetts, which 
     encompass the 3 primary themes of the Salem Maritime National 
     Historic site and Saugus Iron Works National Historic site 
     (the histories of early settlement and industry, maritime 
     trade, and textile and leather manufacturing); and
       (2) to provide a management framework to assist the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its units of local 
     government in the development and implementation of an 
     integrated cultural, historical, and land resource management 
     program in order to retain, enhance, and interpret the 
     significant values of the lands, waters, and structures 
     located in the district.
       (c) Designation.--Upon publication by the Secretary in the 
     Federal Register of notice that a compact regarding the 
     Heritage Area and meeting the requirements for a compact 
     under section 106(a)(2) has been approved by the Secretary 
     under the procedures referred to in section 106(b), there is 
     hereby designated the Essex American Heritage Area 
     (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Heritage 
     Area''), within the county of Essex in the Commonwealth of 
     Massachusetts.
       (d) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be comprised of 
     the lands generally depicted on the map numbered NAR-51-
     80,000 and dated August 1994. The map shall be on file and 
     available for public inspection in the office of the Director 
     of the National Park Service.
       (e) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be considered 
     to be part of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     and shall be considered for all purposes, including but not 
     limited to the management plan submission requirement of 
     section 107(c)(1) and the provisions of section 108, to have 
     been designated an American Heritage Area under section 
     105(d) on the date on which the Heritage Area is designated 
     under subsection (c) of this section.

     SEC. 205. HUDSON RIVER VALLEY AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Hudson River Valley between Yonkers, New York, and 
     Troy, New York, possesses important historical, cultural, and 
     natural resources, representing themes of settlement and 
     migration, transportation, and commerce;
       (2) the Hudson River Valley played an important role in the 
     military history of the American Revolution;
       (3) the Hudson River Valley gave birth to important 
     movements in American art and architecture through the works 
     of Andrew Jackson Downing, Alexander Jackson Davis, Thomas 
     Cole, and their associates, and played a central role in the 
     recognition of the esthetic values of landscape and the 
     development of an American esthetic ideal;
       (4) the Hudson River Valley played an important role in the 
     development of the iron, textile, and collar and cuff 
     industries in the 19th century, exemplified in surviving 
     structures such as the Harmony Mills complex at Cohoes, and 
     in the development of early men's and women's labor and 
     cooperative organizations, and is home of the first women's 
     labor union in the United States and the first women's 
     secondary school in the United States;
       (5) the Hudson River Valley, in its cities and towns and 
     its rural landscapes--
       (A) displays exceptional surviving physical resources 
     illustrating these themes and the social, industrial, and 
     cultural history of the 19th and early 20th centuries; and
       (B) includes numerous national historic sites and 
     landmarks;
       (6) the Hudson River Valley is the home of the traditions 
     associated with Dutch and Huguenot settlements dating to the 
     17th and 18th centuries, was the locus of characteristic 
     American stories such as ``Rip Van Winkle'' and the ``Legend 
     of Sleepy Hollow'', and retains physical, social, and 
     cultural evidence of these traditions and the traditions of 
     other more recent ethnic and social groups;
       (7) the State of New York has established a structure, in 
     the Hudson River Greenway Communities Council and the 
     Greenway Conservancy, for the Hudson River Valley communities 
     to join together to preserve, conserve, and manage these 
     resources and to link them through trails and other means; 
     and
       (8) the Heritage Area Committee jointly established by the 
     Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council and the 
     Greenway Conservancy (agencies established by the State of 
     New York in its Hudson River Greenway Act of 1991) is 
     expected to be the management entity for an American Heritage 
     Area established in the Hudson River Valley.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--The purposes of this section 
     are--
       (1) to recognize the importance of the history and 
     resources of the Hudson River Valley to the Nation;
       (2) to assist the State of New York and the communities of 
     the Hudson River Valley in preserving and interpreting these 
     resources for the benefit of the Nation;
       (3) to maintain agricultural viability and productivity in 
     the region; and
       (4) to authorize Federal financial and technical assistance 
     to serve these purposes.
       (c) Designation.--Upon publication by the Secretary in the 
     Federal Register of notice that a compact regarding the 
     Heritage Area and meeting the requirements for a compact 
     under section 106(a)(2) has been approved by the Secretary 
     under the procedures referred to in section 106(b), there is 
     hereby designated the Hudson River Valley American Heritage 
     Area (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Heritage Area'').
       (d) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be comprised of 
     the lands generally depicted on the map entitled ``Hudson 
     River Valley National Heritage Area'', numbered P50-8002, and 
     dated August 1994. The map shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the office of the Director of the 
     National Park Service.
       (e) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be considered 
     to be part of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     and shall be considered for all purposes, including but not 
     limited to the management plan submission requirement of 
     section 107(c)(1) and the provisions of section 108, to have 
     been designated an American Heritage Area under section 
     105(d) on the date on which the Heritage Area is designated 
     under subsection (c) of this section.

     SEC. 206. OHIO & ERIE CANAL AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Ohio & Erie Canal, which opened for commercial 
     navigation in 1832, was the first inland waterway to connect 
     the Great Lakes at Lake Erie with the Gulf of Mexico via the 
     Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and was a part of a canal network 
     in Ohio that was one of the most extensive and successful 
     systems in America during a period in history when canals 
     were essential to the growth of the Nation;
       (2) the Ohio & Erie Canal spurred economic growth in the 
     State of Ohio that took the State from near bankruptcy to a 
     position as the third most economically prosperous State in 
     the Union in just 20 years;
       (3) a 4-mile section of the Ohio & Erie Canal was 
     designated a National Historic Landmark in 1966 and other 
     portions of the Ohio & Erie Canal and many associated 
     structures have been placed on the National Register of 
     Historic Places;
       (4) in 1974, 19 miles of the Ohio & Erie Canal were 
     declared nationally significant, under National Park Service 
     new area criteria, in the designation of the Cuyahoga Valley 
     National Recreation Area;
       (5) the National Park Service found the Ohio & Erie Canal 
     nationally significant in a 1975 study entitled 
     ``Suitability/Feasibility Study, Proposed Ohio & Erie 
     Canal''; and
       (6) a 1993 Special Resource Study of the Ohio & Erie Canal 
     Corridor, conducted by the National Park Service and entitled 
     ``A Route to Prosperity'', has concluded that the corridor is 
     eligible to become a National Heritage Corridor, an 
     affiliated unit of the National Park System.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--The purposes of this section 
     are--
       (1) to preserve and interpret for the educational and 
     inspirational benefit of present and future generations the 
     unique and significant contributions to the national heritage 
     of certain historic and cultural lands, waterways, and 
     structures within the 87-mile Ohio & Erie Canal Corridor 
     between Cleveland and Zoar; and
       (2) to provide a management framework to assist the State 
     of Ohio and its political subdivisions in developing and 
     implementing a management plan for the area and developing 
     policies and programs that will preserve, enhance, and 
     interpret the cultural, historical, natural, recreational, 
     and scenic resources of the corridor.
       (c) Designation.--Upon publication by the Secretary in the 
     Federal Register of notice that a compact regarding the 
     Heritage Area and meeting the requirements for a compact 
     under section 106(a)(2) has been approved by the Secretary 
     under the procedures referred to in section 106(b), there is 
     hereby designated the Ohio & Erie Canal American Heritage 
     Area (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``Heritage 
     Area'').
       (d) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be composed of the 
     lands that are generally the route of the Ohio & Erie Canal 
     from Cleveland to Zoar, Ohio, as depicted in the 1993 
     National Park Service Special Resources Study, ``A Route to 
     Prosperity''. The specific boundaries shall be those 
     specified in the management plan submitted under subsection 
     (e). The Secretary shall prepare a map of the area which 
     shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 
     office of the Director of the National Park Service.
       (e) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be considered 
     to be part of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     and shall be considered for all purposes, including but not 
     limited to the management plan submission requirement of 
     section 107(c)(1) and the provisions of section 108, to have 
     been designated an American Heritage Area under section 
     105(d) on the date on which the Heritage Area is designated 
     under subsection (c) of this section.
       (f) Management Entity.--Upon petition, the Secretary is 
     authorized to recognize a coalition consisting of the 
     following persons as the management entity, for purposes of 
     title I, for the Ohio & Erie Canal American Heritage Area:
       (1) The Superintendent of the Cuyahoga Valley National 
     Recreational Area.
       (2) 2 individuals submitted by the Governor of Ohio, who 
     shall be representatives of the Directors of the Ohio 
     Department of Natural Resources and the Ohio Historical 
     Society.
       (3) 8 individuals submitted by the county commissioners or 
     county chief executive of the Ohio counties of Cuyahoga, 
     Summit, Stark, and Tuscarawas, including--
       (A) from each county, 1 representative of the planning 
     offices of the county; and
       (B) from each county, 1 representative of a municipality in 
     the county.
       (4) 3 individuals submitted by the county or metropolitan 
     park boards of the Ohio counties of Cuyahoga, Summit, and 
     Stark.
       (5) 1 individual with knowledge and experience in the field 
     of historic preservation, submitted by the Director of the 
     National Park Service.
       (6) 1 individual with knowledge and experience in the field 
     of historic preservation, submitted by the Ohio Historic 
     Preservation Officer.
       (7) 1 individual who is a director of a convention and 
     tourism bureau within the area, submitted by the Director of 
     the Ohio Department of Travel and Tourism.
       (8) 4 individuals, who shall include 1 representative of 
     business and industry from each of the counties of Cuyahoga, 
     Summit, Stark, and Tuscarawas, submitted by the Greater 
     Cleveland Growth Association, the Akron Regional Development 
     Board, the Stark Development Board, and the Tuscarawas County 
     Chamber of Commerce.
       (g) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide to public and 
     private entities within the Heritage Area (including the 
     management entity for the Heritage Area) technical, 
     financial, development, and operational assistance. 
     Assistance provided under this subsection shall be provided 
     on a reimbursable basis through the Cuyahoga Valley National 
     Recreation Area.

     SEC. 207. SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS AMERICAN HERITAGE 
                   AREA.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) there are situated in the Shenandoah Valley in the 
     Commonwealth of Virginia the sites of several key Civil War 
     battles;
       (2) certain sites, battlefields, structures, and districts 
     in the Shenandoah Valley are collectively of national 
     significance in the history of the Civil War;
       (3) in 1990 the Congress enacted legislation directing the 
     Secretary of the Interior to prepare a comprehensive study of 
     significant sites and structures associated with Civil War 
     battles in the Shenandoah Valley;
       (4) the study, which was completed in 1992, found that many 
     of the sites within the Shenandoah Valley possess national 
     significance and retain a high degree of historical 
     integrity;
       (5) the preservation and interpretation of these sites will 
     make an important contribution to the understanding of the 
     heritage of the United States;
       (6) the preservation of Civil War sites within a regional 
     framework requires cooperation among local property owners 
     and Federal, State, and local government entities; and
       (7) partnerships between Federal, State, and local 
     governments and their regional entities, and the private 
     sector, offer the most effective opportunities for the 
     enhancement and management of the Civil War battlefields and 
     related sites in the Shenandoah Valley.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--The purposes of this section 
     are--
       (1) to preserve, conserve, and interpret the legacy of the 
     Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley;
       (2) to recognize and interpret important events and 
     geographic locations representing key Civil War battles in 
     the Shenandoah Valley, including those battlefields 
     associated with the Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson campaign of 
     1862 and the decisive campaigns of 1864;
       (3) to recognize and interpret the effect of the Civil War 
     on the civilian population of the Shenandoah Valley during 
     the war and postwar reconstruction period; and
       (4) to create partnerships among Federal, State, and local 
     governments and their regional entities, and the private 
     sector, to preserve, conserve, enhance, and interpret the 
     nationally significant battlefields and related sites 
     associated with the Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley.
       (c) Designation.--Upon publication by the Secretary in the 
     Federal Register of notice that a compact regarding the 
     Heritage Area and meeting the requirements for a compact 
     under section 106(a)(2) has been approved by the Secretary 
     under the procedures referred to in section 106(b), there is 
     hereby designated the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield American 
     Heritage Area (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Heritage Area'').
       (d) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be composed of the 
     areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia generally depicted on 
     the map entitled ``Shenandoah Valley National Heritage 
     Area'', numbered SVNHA-80,006, and dated August 1994. The map 
     shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 
     office of the Director of the National Park Service
       (e) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be considered 
     to be part of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     and shall be considered for all purposes, including but not 
     limited to the management plan submission requirement of 
     section 107(c)(1) and the provisions of section 108, to have 
     been designated an American Heritage Area under section 
     105(d) on the date on which the Heritage Area is designated 
     under subsection (c) of this section.

     SEC. 208. STEEL INDUSTRY AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the industrial and cultural heritage of southwestern 
     Pennsylvania, including the city of Pittsburgh and the 
     counties of Allegheny, Beaver, Fayette, Greene, Washington, 
     and Westmoreland, related directly to steel and steel-related 
     industries, is nationally significant;
       (2) these industries include steel-making, iron-making, 
     aluminum, specialty metals, glass, coal mining, coke 
     production, machining and foundries, transportation, and 
     electrical industries;
       (3) the industrial and cultural heritage of the steel and 
     related industries in this region includes the social history 
     and living cultural traditions of the people of the region;
       (4) the labor movement of the region played a significant 
     role in the development of the Nation, including both the 
     formation of many key unions, such as the Congress of 
     Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the United Steel Workers 
     of America (USWA), and crucial struggles to improve wages and 
     working conditions, such as the Rail Strike of 1877, the 
     Homestead Strike of 1892, and the Great Steel Strike of 1919;
       (5) there are significant examples of cultural and historic 
     resources within this 6-county region that merit the 
     involvement of the Federal Government to develop programs and 
     projects, in cooperation with the Steel Industry Heritage 
     Task Force, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and other local 
     and governmental bodies, to adequately conserve, protect, and 
     interpret this heritage for future generations while 
     providing opportunities for education and revitalization; and
       (6) the Steel Industry Heritage Task Force would be an 
     appropriate management entity for a Heritage Area established 
     in the region.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--The purposes of this section 
     are--
       (1) to foster a close working relationship between all 
     levels of government, the private sector, and the local 
     communities in the steel industry region of southwestern 
     Pennsylvania and empower the communities to conserve their 
     heritage while continuing to pursue economic opportunities; 
     and
       (2) to conserve, interpret, and develop the historical, 
     cultural, natural, and recreational resources related to the 
     industrial and cultural heritage of the 6-county steel 
     industry region of southwestern Pennsylvania.
       (c) Designation.--Upon publication by the Secretary in the 
     Federal Register of notice that a compact regarding the 
     Heritage Area and meeting the requirements for a compact 
     under section 106(a)(2) has been approved by the Secretary 
     under the procedures referred to in section 106(b), there is 
     hereby designated the Steel Industry American Heritage Area 
     (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Heritage 
     Area'').
       (d) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be composed of the 
     lands generally depicted on the map entitled ``The Steel 
     Industry American Heritage Area'', numbered SINHA-80,007, and 
     dated August 1994. The map shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the office of the Director of the 
     National Park Service.
       (e) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be considered 
     to be part of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     and shall be considered for all purposes, including but not 
     limited to the management plan submission requirement of 
     section 107(c)(1) and the provisions of section 108, to have 
     been designated an American Heritage Area under section 
     105(d) on the date on which the Heritage Area is designated 
     under subsection (c) of this section.

     SEC. 209. VANCOUVER AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the lower Columbia River basin and Vancouver, 
     Washington, have been the focal point of a number of 
     important periods, themes, and events in American history and 
     prehistory, including native settlements, westward expansion 
     of the British colonies and the United States from 1763 to 
     1898, political and military affairs from 1865 to 1939, and 
     military affairs from 1914 to 1941;
       (2) the Columbia River is the central feature around which 
     the history of the proposed Vancouver National Heritage Area 
     and the entire Pacific Northwest revolves;
       (3) the proposed Vancouver National Heritage Area is 
     located on the shores of the Columbia River, 78 miles from 
     the Pacific Ocean, and the Columbia River has been an artery 
     for communication and trade since prehistoric times;
       (4) Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, a unit of the 
     National Park System, was founded in 1825 by the Hudson Bay 
     Company and its development from 1825 to 1860 was seminal to 
     Euro-American settlement of the Northwest;
       (5) the Vancouver barracks served as the principal 
     administrative outpost of the United States Army in the 
     Pacific Northwest from 1849 until World War I, served as a 
     command post during the Native American Wars of the mid- to 
     late-19th century, and provided major facilities for support 
     of United States military ventures throughout the Pacific 
     during the Spanish American War and the 2 World Wars;
       (6) Pearson Airfield was the site of significant events in 
     the history of aviation in the Pacific Northwest, was 
     particularly prominent during the interwar period between 
     1923 and 1941, and today continues to be an important home to 
     historic aircraft and historic aviation;
       (7) the proposed Vancouver American Heritage Area contains 
     a number of discovered and unrecovered archaeological sites 
     significant to the history of North America and the growth of 
     the United States;
       (8) the proposed Vancouver American Heritage Area is 
     located close to major metropolitan areas, including 
     Portland, Tacoma, and Seattle, and is immediately adjacent to 
     Interstate 5, the major north-south interstate of the Pacific 
     Northwest; and
       (9) many Federal, State, and local government entities, as 
     well as numerous private organizations and individuals--
       (A) have expressed a desire to join forces and work 
     together in a cooperative spirit in order to preserve, 
     interpret, and enhance the cultural, recreational, and 
     educational potential of the proposed American Heritage Area;
       (B) have already demonstrated their ability to effectively 
     cooperate in the course of preparing the ``Vancouver National 
     Historical Reserve Feasibility Study and Environmental 
     Assessment'', as required by Public Law 101-523 (104 Stat. 
     2297); and
       (C) are capable of forming the continued cooperative 
     alliances needed to enter into a compact, identify a 
     management entity, and establish an appropriate management 
     plan for the proposed Vancouver American Heritage Area.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--The purposes of this section 
     are--
       (1) to preserve, enhance, and interpret the significant 
     aspects of the lands, water, structures, and history of the 
     proposed Vancouver American Heritage Area; and
       (2) to provide a partnership that will develop and 
     implement an integrated cultural, historical, recreational, 
     and educational land resource management program in order to 
     achieve these purposes.
       (c) Designation.--Upon publication by the Secretary in the 
     Federal Register of notice that a compact regarding the 
     Heritage Area and meeting the requirements for a compact 
     under section 106(a)(2) has been approved by the Secretary 
     under the procedures referred to in section 106(b), there is 
     hereby designated the Vancouver American Heritage Area 
     (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Heritage 
     Area'').
       (d) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be composed of the 
     lands generally depicted on the map entitled ``Vancouver 
     American Heritage Area'', numbered VAAM-80,001, and dated 
     August 1994. The map shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the office of the Director of the 
     National Park Service.
       (e) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be considered 
     to be part of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     and shall be considered for all purposes, including but not 
     limited to the management plan submission requirement of 
     section 107(c)(1) and the provisions of section 108, to have 
     been designated an American Heritage Area under section 
     105(d) on the date on which the Heritage Area is designated 
     under subsection (c) of this section, except that the 
     responsibilities of the management entity for the Heritage 
     Area shall not extend to those lands under the control of the 
     Department of the Interior or the Department of the Army. The 
     management entity may enter into cooperative agreements and 
     partnerships with these and other entities as appropriate to 
     further the purposes of this Act.
       (f) Pearson Airpark.--
       (1) Transition.--(A) General aviation shall cease at 
     Pearson Airpark not later than April 3, 2022, unless a 
     continuation of general aviation is expressly authorized by 
     an Act of Congress.
       (B) Not later than January 30, 2010, the management entity 
     for the Heritage Area shall submit to the Secretary a plan 
     regarding general aviation at Pearson Airpark that is 
     consistent with this section.
       (C) Not later than June 30, 2010, the Secretary shall--
       (i) approve such a plan and transmit the plan to the 
     Congress; or
       (ii) notify the Congress that no acceptable plan has been 
     submitted under subparagraph (B).
       (D) If the management entity fails to submit a plan 
     acceptable to the Secretary under subparagraph (B) before 
     June 30, 2010--
       (i) the Secretary may not provide further assistance to the 
     Heritage Area under this Act; and
       (ii) the Secretary shall prepare such a plan for submittal 
     to the Congress not later than June 30, 2011.
       (2) Historic aircraft defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``historic aircraft'' means any aircraft 
     representing aviation in World War II or earlier.
       (3) Viability and mitigation plan.--Any management plan 
     submitted to the Secretary pursuant to section 107(c)(1) and 
     subsection (e) of this section regarding the Heritage Area 
     shall include a Pearson Airpark Viability and Mitigation Plan 
     that accomplishes the following:
       (A) Identifies incentives and proposes regulations to 
     facilitate a transition from the use of Pearson Airpark from 
     predominantly general aviation to use for historic aircraft.
       (B) Establishes a program to mitigate any conflicts related 
     to the operation of Pearson Airpark and to other activities 
     within the Heritage Area. The program shall, in coordination 
     with the Federal Aviation Administration and other agencies 
     as appropriate, address, but not be limited to, 
     considerations of noise, safety, visual intrusion, and the 
     location of new facilities. Mitigation measures shall include 
     limitations on the number of air-worthy aircraft that may be 
     based at the Airpark.
       (4) Pearson airpark museum plan.--The management plan 
     submitted pursuant to section 107(c)(1) and subsection (e) of 
     this section regarding the Heritage Area shall include a 
     Pearson Airpark Museum Plan, which shall include budgetary 
     strategies by which proceeds from general aviation and other 
     sources will fund the Pearson Airpark Museum and other 
     aviation curation activities.
       (5) Mitigation measures and conditions regarding general 
     aviation.--The management plan submitted pursuant to section 
     107(c)(1) and subsection (e) of this section regarding the 
     Heritage Area shall permit general aviation at Pearson 
     Airpark to continue until April 3, 2022, subject to the 
     following conditions:
       (A) Pearson Airpark and Pearson Airpark Museum shall be 
     operated by the city of Vancouver or its designated entity. 
     Beginning on June 30, 2002, the Secretary shall require 
     payment at fair market value for any National Park Service 
     lands leased within the boundaries of the Heritage Area, 
     except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph. The 
     Secretary may enter into agreements that provide that 
     specific additional work performed or expenses paid by the 
     city of Vancouver, which the city is not otherwise obligated 
     to perform or pay under this or any other provision of law, 
     may be used, fairly valued, to reduce or offset the amount of 
     the obligation of the city to pay rent pursuant to this 
     subsection.
       (B) Not later than June 30, 2003, the city of Vancouver 
     shall remove from National Park Service property in the 
     Heritage Area all nonhistoric aviation-related buildings and 
     devices, including T-hangers and associated taxiways, except 
     buildings and devices necessary for navigation and safety.
       (C) The city of Vancouver shall not be compensated for 
     historic buildings remaining on National Park Service 
     property, but shall continue to bear liability and 
     responsibility for continued use and maintenance of these 
     structures.
       (D) No structural improvements or structural additions to 
     any structure or facility of the Pearson Airpark Museum 
     located on property of the National Park Service may be made 
     without the approval of the Secretary.
       (E) Helicopters shall not use Pearson Airpark except in 
     cases of emergency, disaster, or national security needs.

     SEC. 210. WHEELING AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) Wheeling, West Virginia, and its vicinity possess 
     important historical, cultural, and natural resources, 
     representing major heritage themes of transportation, 
     commerce, industry, and Victorian culture in the United 
     States;
       (2) the city of Wheeling played an important part in the 
     settlement of the Nation by serving as the western terminus 
     of the National Road in the early 1800's, by serving as the 
     Crossroads of America throughout the 19th century, by serving 
     as one of the few major inland ports in the United States in 
     the 19th century, and by hosting the establishment of the 
     Restored State of Virginia, and later the State of West 
     Virginia during the Civil War years;
       (3) the city of Wheeling was the first capital of the new 
     State of West Virginia, during the development and 
     maintenance of many industries crucial to the expansion of 
     the Nation, including iron, steel, and textile manufacturing, 
     boat building, glass manufacturing, and stogie and chewing 
     tobacco manufacturing, many of which are industries that 
     continue to play an important role in the Nation's economy;
       (4) the city of Wheeling has retained its national heritage 
     themes with the designations of the old custom house, now 
     Independence Hall, as a National Historic Landmark, with the 
     designation of the historic suspension bridge as a National 
     Historic Landmark, with 5 historic districts, and with many 
     individual properties in the Wheeling area listed on or 
     eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic 
     Places; and
       (5) the heritage themes and number and diversity of the 
     remaining resources of Wheeling should be appropriately 
     retained, enhanced, and interpreted for the education, 
     benefit, and inspiration of the people of the United States.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--The purposes of this section 
     are--
       (1) to recognize the special importance of the history and 
     development of the Wheeling, West Virginia, area in the 
     cultural heritage of the Nation;
       (2) to provide a framework to assist the city of Wheeling 
     and other public and private entities and individuals in the 
     appropriate preservation, enhancement, and interpretation of 
     resources in the Wheeling area that are emblematic of the 
     contributions of Wheeling to the cultural heritage of the 
     Nation; and
       (3) to allow for limited Federal, State, and local capital 
     contributions for planning and infrastructure investments to 
     create the Wheeling American Heritage Area, in partnership 
     with the State of West Virginia, the city of Wheeling, West 
     Virginia, and their designees, and to provide for an 
     economically self-sustaining American Heritage Area that will 
     not be dependent on Federal assistance beyond the initial 
     years necessary to establish the American Heritage Area.
       (c) Designation.--Upon publication by the Secretary in the 
     Federal Register of notice that a compact regarding the 
     Heritage Area and meeting the requirements for a compact 
     under section 106(a)(2) has been approved by the Secretary 
     under the procedures referred to in section 106(b), there is 
     hereby designated the Wheeling American Heritage Area 
     (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``Heritage 
     Area'') in the State of West Virginia.
       (d) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall be composed of the 
     lands generally depicted on the map entitled ``Boundary Map, 
     Wheeling American Heritage Area, West Virginia'', numbered 
     WHNA-80,005, and dated August 1994. The map shall be on file 
     and available for public inspection in the office of the 
     Director of the National Park Service.
       (e) Administration.--The Heritage Area shall be considered 
     to be part of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     and shall be considered for all purposes, including but not 
     limited to the management plan submission requirement of 
     section 107(c)(1) and the provisions of section 108, to have 
     been designated an American Heritage Area under section 
     105(d) on the date on which the Heritage Area is designated 
     under subsection (c) of this section.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section not more than--
       (A) $5,000,000 for capital projects;
       (B) $1,000,000 for planning and studies; and
       (C) $500,000 for technical assistance.
       (2) Limitations.--(A) Funds made available pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) for a capital 
     project or for planning and studies regarding a project shall 
     not exceed 50 percent of the total costs of the capital 
     project or project, respectively.
       (B) Funds made available under this section or any other 
     Federal law for the Heritage Area or the Wheeling National 
     Heritage Area (including the Wheeling project) may not exceed 
     $6,500,000 in the aggregate.
       (3) Not eligible for funds under title i.--No funds may be 
     appropriated under title I for purposes of the Heritage Area.
     TITLE III--STUDIES REGARDING POTENTIAL AMERICAN HERITAGE AREAS

     SEC. 301. OHIO RIVER CORRIDOR.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the amenities and resources of the Ohio River, which 
     flows through 6 States from its headwaters in the 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to its confluence with the 
     Mississippi River and comprises a chain of commercial, 
     industrial, historical, archaeological, natural, 
     recreational, scenic, wildlife, urban, rural, cultural, and 
     economic areas, are of major significance and importance to 
     the Nation;
       (2) the national interest is served by--
       (A) preserving, protecting, and improving such amenities 
     and resources for the benefit of the people of the United 
     States; and
       (B) improving the coordination between all levels of 
     government in the Ohio River Corridor;
       (3) the preservation, protection, and improvement of such 
     amenities and resources are failing to be fully realized 
     despite efforts by the States through which the Ohio flows, 
     political subdivisions of such States, and volunteer 
     associations and private businesses in such States;
       (4) existing Federal agency programs are offering 
     insufficient coordination to State and local planning and 
     regulatory authorities to provide for resource management and 
     economic development in a manner that is consistent with the 
     protection and public use of the amenities and resources of 
     the Corridor; and
       (5) the Federal Government should assist in the 
     coordination, preservation, and interpretation activities of 
     public and private entities with respect to the significant 
     amenities and resources associated with the Ohio River.
       (b) Study of Ohio River Corridor.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this section, the 
     Secretary shall complete a study on the suitability and 
     feasibility of designating the Ohio River corridor, from its 
     headwaters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to its 
     confluence with the Mississippi River, as an American 
     Heritage Area.
       (2) Report to congress.--On completion of the study 
     required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit a 
     report describing the results of the study to the Committee 
     on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.

     SEC. 302. FOX AND LOWER WISCONSIN RIVER CORRIDORS.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Fox-Wisconsin waterway is famous as the discovery 
     route of Marquette and Joliet;
       (2) as the connecting route between the Great Lakes and the 
     Mississippi River, the waterway was critical to the opening 
     of the Northwest Territory and served as a major artery in 
     bringing commerce to the interior of the United States and 
     providing a vital communication link for early explorers, 
     missionaries, and fur traders;
       (3) within the Fox and Lower Wisconsin River corridors are 
     an abundance of historic and archaeological sites and 
     structures representing early Native Americans, European 
     exploration, and 19th-century transportation and settlement; 
     and
       (4) the unique aspects of the waterway, from the heavily 
     developed portions of the Fox River to the pristine expanses 
     of the Lower Wisconsin River, should be studied to determine 
     the suitability and feasibility of the waterway for 
     designation as an American Heritage Area.
       (b) Study of Fox-Wisconsin River Corridors.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this section, the 
     Secretary shall complete a study on the suitability and 
     feasibility of designating the Fox and Lower Wisconsin River 
     corridors in the State of Wisconsin as an American Heritage 
     Area.
       (2) Report to congress.--On completion of the study 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit a 
     report describing the results of the study to the Committee 
     on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.

     SEC. 303. SOUTH CAROLINA CORRIDOR.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the counties of Oconee, Pickens, Anderson, Abbeville, 
     Greenwood, McCormick, Edgefield, Aiken, Barnwell, Orangeburg, 
     Bamberg, Dorchester, Colleton, and Charleston, in the State 
     of South Carolina, form a corridor, more than 250 miles in 
     length, which possesses a wide diversity of significant rare 
     plants, animals, and ecosystems, agricultural and timber 
     lands, shellfish harvesting areas, historic sites and 
     structures, and cultural and multicultural landscapes related 
     to the past and current commerce, transportation, maritime, 
     textile, agricultural, mining, cattle, pottery, and national 
     defense industries of the region, which provide significant 
     ecological, natural, tourism, recreational, timber 
     management, educational, and economic benefits;
       (2) there is a national interest in protecting, conserving, 
     restoring, promoting, and interpreting the benefits of the 
     region for the residents of, and visitors to, the corridor 
     area;
       (3) a primary responsibility for conserving, preserving, 
     protecting, and promoting the benefits of the region resides 
     with the State of South Carolina and the various local units 
     of government having jurisdiction over the corridor area; and
       (4) in view of the longstanding Federal practice of 
     assisting the States in creating, protecting, conserving, 
     preserving, and interpreting areas of significant natural and 
     cultural importance, and in view of the national significance 
     of the corridor, the Federal Government has an interest in 
     assisting the State of South Carolina, its units of local 
     government, and the private sector in fulfilling their 
     responsibilities.
       (b) Study of South Carolina Corridor.--Not later than 2 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary, acting through the National Park Service, shall 
     cooperate with the South Carolina Department of Parks, 
     Recreation, and Tourism in preparing a study on the 
     suitability and feasibility of designating the corridor 
     formed by the counties of Oconee, Pickens, Anderson, 
     Abbeville, Greenwood, McCormick, Edgefield, Aiken, Barnwell, 
     Orangeburg, Bamberg, Dorchester, Colleton, and Charleston, in 
     the State of South Carolina, as an American Heritage Area.

     SEC. 304. NORTHERN FRONTIER.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the area comprising Tryon County, in the Mohawk Valley 
     of the State of New York, and the Country of the Six Nations 
     (Iroquois Confederacy), known during the American 
     Revolutionary War period as the ``Northern Frontier'', offers 
     excellent opportunities to study a little known or understood 
     aspect of the American Revolution--the frontier experience;
       (2) the Northern Frontier territory was extremely valuable 
     to both sides of the American Revolutionary War and was 
     contested because of its geopolitical, military, 
     agricultural, transportation, and commercial attributes;
       (3) because a complex social, economic, and political 
     society was emerging on the Northern Frontier, the 
     Continental Congress established the Northern Indian 
     Department to conduct affairs there, and the English made the 
     area, and its Indian population, the centerpiece of the 
     English strategy to split the colonies;
       (4) due to the struggle to control the Northern Frontier, 
     privation and hardship were inflicted upon nearly all who 
     lived there, a diverse mix of ethnic and racial groups 
     willingly and unwillingly thrust into the struggle for 
     independence, leaving many dead, homeless, orphaned, or 
     dislocated by the end of the hostilities;
       (5) the tensions on the Northern Frontier reached such a 
     pitch that hostilities erupted, pitting neighbors, families, 
     tribes, and clans against each other, and led to a bloody, 
     savage, and destructive battle;
       (6) new interpretations and interdisciplinary studies of 
     this human drama are not only necessary, but timely because 
     of the abundant supply of assets in the area, including 
     sites, buildings, celebrations, folklore, and collections, 
     many safely preserved and many at risk; and
       (7) if these Northern Frontier assets can be thematically 
     related and portrayed for the education and enjoyment of 
     Americans and foreign visitors, an important and often 
     overlooked chapter in the heritage of the Nation will be 
     displayed for the benefit and edification of all peoples.
       (b) Study.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which funds are made available to carry out this section, the 
     Secretary shall complete a study on the suitability and 
     feasibility of designating Tryon County, in the Mohawk Valley 
     of the State of New York, and the Country of the Six Nations 
     (Iroquois Confederacy) as an American Heritage Area.
       (2) Report to congress.--On completion of the study 
     referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit a 
     report describing the results of the study to the Committee 
     on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
TITLE IV--BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 401. BOUNDARIES, COMMISSION, AND REVISION OF PLAN.

       (a) Boundaries.--Section 2(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to establish the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage 
     Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', approved 
     November 10, 1986 (Public Law 99-647; 100 Stat. 3625), is 
     amended by striking the first sentence and inserting the 
     following new sentence: ``The boundaries shall include the 
     lands and waters generally depicted on the map entitled 
     `Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Boundary 
     Map', numbered BRV-80-80,011, and dated May 2, 1993.''.
       (b) Commission Membership.--(1) Section 3 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to establish the Blackstone River Valley 
     National Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode 
     Island'', approved November 10, 1986 (Public Law 99-647; 100 
     Stat. 3625), is amended--
       (A) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Membership.--(1) The Commission shall be composed of 
     19 members, appointed as follows:
       ``(A) the Director of the National Park Service, or a 
     designee, ex officio;
       ``(B) 5 individuals appointed by the Secretary after 
     consideration of recommendations from the Governor of Rhode 
     Island;
       ``(C) 5 individuals appointed by the Secretary after 
     consideration of recommendations from the Governor of 
     Massachusetts;
       ``(D) 4 individuals appointed by the Secretary to represent 
     the interests of local government in the State of Rhode 
     Island; and
       ``(E) 4 individuals appointed by the Secretary to represent 
     the interests of local government in the State of 
     Massachusetts.
       ``(2) A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by inserting immediately before the 
     period at the end the following: ``, but may continue to 
     serve until a successor has been appointed''.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall take effect upon the expiration of 
     the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Revision of Plan.--Section 6 of the Act entitled ``An 
     Act to establish the Blackstone River Valley National 
     Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', 
     approved November 10, 1986 (Public Law 99-647; 100 Stat. 
     3625), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Revision of Plan.--(1) Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Commission 
     shall revise the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan 
     submitted under subsection (a) and shall submit the revised 
     plan to the Secretary and the Governors of Massachusetts and 
     Rhode Island for approval under the procedures referred to in 
     subsection (b). The revision shall address any change in the 
     boundaries of the Corridor that occurs after the submission 
     of the plan required by subsection (a) and shall include a 
     natural resource inventory of areas or features that should 
     be protected, restored, or managed because of the natural and 
     cultural significance of the areas or features.
       ``(2) No changes other than minor boundary revisions may be 
     made in the plan approved under subsection (b) and revised 
     under paragraph (1) of this subsection, unless the Secretary 
     approves such changes. The Secretary shall approve or 
     disapprove any proposed change in the plan, except minor 
     revisions, in accordance with subsection (b).''.
       (d) Termination of Commission.--Section 7 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to establish the Blackstone River Valley 
     National Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode 
     Island'', approved November 10, 1986 (Public Law 99-647; 100 
     Stat. 3630), is amended to read as follows:


                      ``termination of commission

       ``Sec. 7. The Commission shall terminate on December 31, 
     2003.''.

     SEC. 402. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN.

       Section 8(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', approved November 10, 1986 
     (Public Law 99-647; 100 Stat. 3630), is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Implementation.--(1) To assist in the implementation 
     of the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan, submitted 
     and revised under section 6, in a manner consistent with the 
     purposes of this Act, and to assist in the preservation and 
     restoration of structures on or eligible for inclusion on the 
     National Register of Historic Places, the Secretary is 
     authorized to provide funds for projects in the Corridor that 
     exhibit national significance or provide a wide spectrum of 
     historic, recreational, environmental, educational, or 
     interpretive opportunities, without regard to whether the 
     projects are in public or private ownership. Applications for 
     funds under this section shall be made to the Secretary 
     through the Commission. Each such application shall include 
     the recommendation of the Commission and its findings 
     regarding the manner in which the project proposed to be 
     funded will further the purposes of this Act.
       ``(2) The Commission shall not be eligible for funds under 
     this section unless it submits to the Secretary an 
     application that includes--
       ``(A) a 10-year development plan including the resource 
     protection needs and projects critical to maintaining or 
     interpreting the distinctive character of the Corridor; and
       ``(B) specific descriptions of any projects that have been 
     identified and of the participating parties, roles, cost 
     estimates, cost-sharing, or cooperative agreements necessary 
     to carry out the development plan.
       ``(3) Funds made available pursuant to this subsection for 
     any project shall not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of 
     such project.
       ``(4) In making funds available under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to projects that attract 
     greater non-Federal than Federal funding.
       ``(5) Any payment made under this subsection for the 
     purposes of conservation or restoration of real property or 
     of any structure shall be subject to an agreement--
       ``(A) to convey a conservation or preservation easement to 
     the Department of Environmental Management or to the Historic 
     Preservation Commission, as appropriate, of the State in 
     which the real property or structure is located; or
       ``(B) that upon conversion, use, or disposal of the real 
     property or structure for purposes contrary to the purposes 
     of this Act, the recipient of the payment, or the successors 
     or assigns of the recipient, shall pay to the United States 
     the greater of--
       ``(i) the total of all Federal funds made available for 
     conservation or restoration of the real property or 
     structure, reduced pro rata over the useful life of the 
     improvements funded; and
       ``(ii) the increased value attributable to such funds, as 
     determined at the time of the conversion, use, or disposal.
       ``(6) The determination that, for purposes of paragraph 
     (5)(B), a conversion, use, or disposal has been carried out 
     contrary to the purposes of this Act shall be solely within 
     the discretion of the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 403. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 10 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island'', approved November 10, 1986 
     (Public Law 99-647; 100 Stat. 3630), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``$350,000'' and 
     inserting ``$500,000''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Development Funds.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out section 8 for fiscal years 
     beginning after September 30, 1994, not more than $5,000,000 
     in the aggregate, to remain available until expended.''.
              TITLE V--BRAMWELL NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT

     SEC. 501. BRAMWELL NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the coal mining heritage of southern West Virginia is 
     of historical and cultural significance;
       (2) the town of Bramwell, West Virginia, possesses 
     remarkable and outstanding historical, cultural, and 
     architectural values relating to the coal mining heritage of 
     southern West Virginia; and
       (3) it is in the national interest to preserve the unique 
     character of the town of Bramwell, West Virginia, and to 
     enhance the historical, cultural, and architectural values 
     associated with its coal mining heritage.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--The purpose of this section is 
     to encourage the preservation, restoration, and 
     interpretation of the historical, cultural, and architectural 
     values of the town of Bramwell, West Virginia.
       (c) Designation.--In order to preserve, protect, restore, 
     and interpret the unique historical, cultural, and 
     architectural values of Bramwell, West Virginia, there is 
     hereby designated the Bramwell National Historic District 
     (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Historic 
     District''). The Historic District shall consist of the lands 
     and interest therein within the corporate limits of the town 
     of Bramwell, West Virginia.
       (d) Cooperative Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to enter into 
     cooperative agreements with the State of West Virginia, or 
     any political subdivision thereof, to further the purposes of 
     the Historic District.
       (2) Ratio of non-federal funds.--Funds authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for the purposes of this 
     subsection shall be expended in the ratio of 1 dollar of 
     Federal funds for each dollar contributed by non-Federal 
     sources. With the approval of the Secretary, any donation of 
     land, services, or goods from a non-Federal source, fairly 
     valued, may be considered as a contribution of dollars from a 
     non-Federal source for the purposes of this subsection.
       (3) Agreements regarding payments.--Any payment made by the 
     Secretary pursuant to a cooperative agreement under this 
     subsection shall be subject to an agreement that conversion, 
     use, or disposal of the project so assisted for any purpose 
     contrary to the purpose of this section, as determined by the 
     Secretary, shall result in a right of the United States to 
     the greater of--
       (A) reimbursement of all funds made available to such 
     project; or
       (B) the proportion of the increased value of the project 
     attributable to such funds, as determined at the time of the 
     conversion, use, or disposal.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out this section.
 TITLE VI--SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA AMENDMENTS

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Southwestern Pennsylvania 
     American Heritage Area Amendments Act''.

     SEC. 602. DESIGNATION OF SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN 
                   HERITAGE AREA.

       The Act entitled ``An Act to establish in the Department of 
     the Interior the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage 
     Preservation Commission, and for other purposes'', approved 
     November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 4618), is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new title:
     ``TITLE III--SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN HERITAGE AREA

     ``SEC. 301. DESIGNATION.

       ``There is hereby designated the Southwestern Pennsylvania 
     American Heritage Area, which shall be comprised of the 
     region in southwestern Pennsylvania described in section 
     101(a).

     ``SEC. 302. CLASSIFICATION.

       ``The Southwestern Pennsylvania American Heritage Area 
     shall not be considered to be an American Heritage Area for 
     purposes of the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program 
     Act of 1994 or the American Heritage Areas Partnership 
     Program established by section 105(a) of such Act.''.

     SEC. 603. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

       Section 103(h)(3) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish 
     in the Department of the Interior the Southwestern 
     Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, and for other 
     purposes'', approved November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 4618), is 
     amended by inserting ``or an appropriate private nonprofit 
     organization exempt from income taxes under section 501(c)(3) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,'' after ``public 
     agency,''.

     SEC. 604. FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.

       Section 105 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish in 
     the Department of the Interior the Southwestern Pennsylvania 
     Heritage Preservation Commission, and for other purposes'', 
     approved November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 4618), is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 105. PROCEDURES FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.

       ``(a) Revision of Comprehensive Management Plan and Scope 
     and Cost Document.--(1) The Commission shall revise, to carry 
     out this title in a manner that provides for limited Federal 
     involvement, the management plan developed before the date of 
     the enactment of this section. The Commission shall also 
     revise the scope and cost document developed before the date 
     of the enactment of this section to reflect the total cost of 
     each project proposed for approval under this section and the 
     Federal portion of such cost. Both the management plan and 
     the scope and cost document shall be submitted to the 
     Secretary for approval.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall approve or disapprove any 
     management plan or scope and cost document submitted under 
     paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after receiving such 
     plan or document. If the Secretary disapproves the submitted 
     management plan or scope and cost document, the Secretary 
     shall advise the Commission in writing of the reasons 
     therefor and shall make recommendations for revisions in the 
     plan or document. The Secretary shall approve or disapprove a 
     proposed revision to such a plan or document within 90 days 
     after the date on which the proposed revision is submitted to 
     the Secretary.
       ``(b) Loans, Grants, and Technical Assistance Using Federal 
     Funds.--The Commission may not make loans or grants involving 
     Federal funds under section 104 except as provided in this 
     subsection. The Secretary may provide a loan, a grant, or 
     technical assistance, for the purpose described in section 
     104, pursuant to an application made to the Secretary through 
     the Commission in accordance with procedures required by the 
     Secretary. Each such application shall include the findings 
     of the Commission regarding the manner in which the proposed 
     loan, grant, or technical assistance will further the purpose 
     of this Act. Each such application shall also include the 
     recommendations of the Commission regarding the proposed 
     loan, grant, or technical assistance. The Secretary may 
     approve such an application only if the Federal funds 
     provided pursuant to the application will be used in a manner 
     that is generally consistent with Federal law relating to the 
     type of project or activity to be funded, as determined by 
     the Secretary. Federal funds made available for loans or 
     grants pursuant to section 104 or this subsection may be used 
     to provide for the preservation or restoration of historic 
     properties in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each 
     project so assisted.
       ``(c) Use of Federal Funds.--(1) Federal funds made 
     available under this Act with respect to projects may be made 
     available only for projects that are consistent with the 
     Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties promulgated 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Federal funds made available under this Act after the 
     date of the enactment of this section with respect to a 
     project may be used only for planning and design with respect 
     to the project, except that such funds may be used to 
     complete construction commenced before such date regarding 
     Saltsburg Canal Park or West Overton Village.
       ``(3) The total amount of Federal assistance provided under 
     this section for a project in any fiscal year may not exceed 
     20 percent of the total amount of Federal funds made 
     available for that fiscal year for the Southwestern 
     Pennsylvania National Heritage Area.
       ``(4) Federal funds made available under this title with 
     respect to a project may not exceed 50 percent of the total 
     costs of the project. In making such funds available, the 
     Secretary shall give consideration to projects that provide a 
     greater leverage of Federal funds. Any payment made under 
     section 104 or 105 shall be subject to an agreement that 
     conversion, use, or disposal of the project so assisted for 
     any purpose contrary to the purpose of this Act, as 
     determined by the Secretary, shall result in a right of the 
     United States to the greater of--
       ``(A) compensation for all funds made available with 
     respect to such project; and
       ``(B) the proportion of the increased value of the project 
     attributable to such funds, as determined at the time of such 
     conversion, use, or disposal.
       ``(5) No Federal funds made available to carry out this Act 
     for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1995, may be 
     used to provide operational or maintenance support with 
     respect to any building, site, or structure that is not owned 
     by the Federal Government, except the Railroaders Memorial 
     Museum, Saltsburg Canal Park, and West Overton Village. Such 
     funds for the Railroaders Memorial Museum, Saltsburg Canal 
     Park, and West Overton Village may not exceed $200,000 
     annually, in the aggregate.
       ``(6) No Federal funds made available to carry out this Act 
     may be used for the construction of any visitor center, 
     interpretive center, or museum, except West Overton Village.
       ``(7) The Secretary shall approve or disapprove the use of 
     Federal funds made available pursuant to this title within 30 
     days after application for such funds by the Commission.''.

     SEC. 605. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

       Section 104(b) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish in 
     the Department of the Interior the Southwestern Pennsylvania 
     Heritage Preservation Commission, and for other purposes'', 
     approved November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 4618), is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``and to the 
     Congress'' after ``Secretary''; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``Funds made available for a fiscal year to carry out this 
     Act may not be obligated for that fiscal year until the 
     report required for the preceding fiscal year by the 
     preceding sentence is submitted to the Congress.''.

     SEC. 606. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Title I of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish in the 
     Department of the Interior the Southwestern Pennsylvania 
     Heritage Preservation Commission, and for other purposes'', 
     approved November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 4618), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     to carry out this Act the following:
       ``(1) For each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998, 
     $1,000,000 for planning and design, $1,600,000 for 
     construction, $600,000 for grants and loans, and $400,000 for 
     the operations of the Commission.
       ``(2) For that portion of fiscal year 1999 that occurs 
     before the Commission ceases to exist under section 104(e), 
     $250,000 for planning and design, $400,000 for construction, 
     $150,000 for grants and loans, and $100,000 for the 
     operations of the Commission.''.

     SEC. 607. PATH OF PROGRESS.

       Title II of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish in the 
     Department of the Interior the Southwestern Pennsylvania 
     Heritage Preservation Commission, and for other purposes'', 
     approved November 19, 1988 (102 Stat. 4618), is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By amending the heading of the title to read as 
     follows:
                    ``TITLE II--PATH OF PROGRESS''.
       (2) By amending section 201 to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 201. IDENTIFICATION OF ROUTE.

       ``In order to provide for public appreciation, education, 
     understanding, and enjoyment of certain nationally and 
     regionally significant sites in Southwestern Pennsylvania 
     which are accessible by public roads, the Secretary, with the 
     concurrence of the agency having jurisdiction over such 
     roads, may provide signs, interpretive materials, and other 
     informational devices for a vehicular tour route, commonly 
     known as the `Path of Progress Heritage Route'.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the bill?


                    amendments offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Vento:Page 12, after line 13, 
     insert the following:
       (E) An inventory of the amount of land in the area owned by 
     public, private, and private nonprofit entities, 
     respectively.
       Page 17, after line 3, insert the following:
       (4) No requirement for land use regulation as condition for 
     approval.--No provision of this title shall be construed to 
     require any change in land use regulation as a condition of 
     approval of a compact, management plan, or revision of a 
     compact or management plan by the Secretary.
       Page 26, line 2, insert ``under this section'' after 
     ``grants''.
       Page 29, line 20, strike ``directly affecting'' and insert 
     ``within''.
       Page 31, line 20, strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$8,000,000''.
       Page 33, line 15, strike ``$25,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$14,500,000''.
       Page 53, strike lines 11 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
       (d) Boundaries.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 
     (2), the Heritage Area shall be comprised of the lands 
     generally depicted on the map entitled ``Hudson River Valley 
     National Heritage Area'', numbered P50--8002, and dated 
     August 1994. The map shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the office of the Director of the 
     National Park Service.
       (2) Local agreement to inclusion.--Each of the following 
     counties, cities, and towns in the State of New York shall 
     not be included within the boundaries of the Heritage Area 
     unless the government of such county, city, or town agrees to 
     be so included and submits notification of such agreement to 
     the Secretary:
       (A) The counties of Greene and Columbia.
       (B) Any city or town within the county of Greene or 
     Columbia.
       (C) The counties of Rensselaer and Dutchess.
       (D) Any city or town (except the town of Hyde Park) within 
     the county of Rensselaer or Dutchess and located entirely 
     within the 22d Congressional District of New York.
       Page 72, line 17, strike ``additional''.
       Page 72, line 18, strike ``, which the city'' and all that 
     follows through ``provision of law,''on line 20.
       Page 72, line 23, after ``subsection'' insert the 
     following: ``, unless the city is obligated to perform the 
     work or pay the expenses under a statute other than this 
     Act''.

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendments en bloc 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, these amendments reflect agreements reached 
among a bipartisan group of House Members, the administration and other 
interested parties on certain provisions of H.R. 5044, as introduced. 
Before consideration of H.R. 5044 under suspension of the rules last 
Tuesday, several changes were made to the bill as introduced. Now that 
we are considering the legislation under a rule, I am offering those 
changes in the form of en bloc amendments.
  First, the amendment adds a requirement that the feasibility study 
required for all proposed American Heritage areas contain an inventory 
of the amount of land in the area owned by public, private, and private 
nonprofit entities respectively. American heritage areas will contain 
active communities with a variety of resources and multiple uses, and 
some have expressed concern that the Federal involvement will 
negatively impact the rights of private property owners. Because the 
feasibility study provides the basis for further action with regard to 
American heritage area designation, I believe it is appropriate to 
document the ownership patterns at this stage, and I have agreed to 
include this requirement in the legislation.
  Second, the amendment contains a provision disclaiming any 
requirement to change land-use regulation as a condition of approval of 
a compact, management plan, or a revision thereof. H.R. 5044, as 
introduced makes no changes in current authority to regulate land use. 
State and local entities already responsible for zoning and other land-
use regulations will continue to have this authority. New authorities 
have been neither provided nor anticipated as the result of enactment 
of this legislation.

  However, some remain concerned that secretarial approval of compact 
or management plans will be conditioned upon the enactment of stricter 
land-use controls in American heritage areas. This provision states 
that nothing in this title shall be so construed. While the Secretary 
will be responsible for ensuring that Federal funds are expended 
responsibly and the Federal investment in these areas is protected, 
only local and State authorities currently authorized to do so may 
require changes in land-use regulation.
  Third, the amendment changes the Federal consistency requirement to 
direct that Federal entities conducting or supporting activities within 
an American heritage area should consult with the Secretary of the 
Interior and coordinate those activities to the extent practicable. 
H.R. 5044 as introduced had provided for such consultation and 
coordination of activities directly affecting an American heritage 
area. Concerns were raised about the broad scope of this requirement in 
the bill as introduced, and I have agreed to limit the requirement to 
the boundaries of the American heritage area.
  Let me make clear at this point, that this requirement does not 
subordinate other Federal agencies to the Secretary of the Interior. 
The affected Federal entities may take such actions as they deem 
necessary regardless of the Secretary's views. This provision merely 
requires appropriate coordination to eliminate wasteful duplication of 
efforts and to minimize the impacts of action which may adversely 
affect the resources contained in the American heritage area. Our 
interest is not in ceding control of all Federal activities to the 
Secretary of the Interior or to the management entity, but in assuring 
consistency and savings in areas where more than one Federal agency is 
involved.

  Fourth, the amendment cuts the funding authorized for the American 
Heritage Areas Partnership Program. Based on estimates by the 
administration, H.R. 5044 had authorized $10 million annually for 
studies, plans, and early actions, and $25 million annually for 
development. While these funds will be drawn from an already authorized 
source, the Historic Preservation Fund, some have suggested that the 
program should be curtailed. Accordingly, I have agreed to limit the 
budget for studies, plans, and early actions to $8 million annually, 
and the budget for development to $14.5 million annually.
  Let me stress that this continues to be a modest program. The budget 
for the entire National Park Service is $1.4 billion, and we are 
authorizing $22.5 million for the 10 areas designated by this 
legislation, and these Federal dollars must be matched. This program is 
a true partnership between Federal, State, local, and private entities. 
It is cost-effective, yet provides for the preservation of significant 
national resources. These minimal amounts will be leveraged in ways 
that will save the taxpayers money while providing appropriate 
assistance.
  Fifth, the amendment addresses a particular concern with the 
designation of the Hudson River Valley American Heritage Area. I have 
worked closely with my colleague, Representative Solomon, who 
represents these areas of the Hudson River Valley, and we have agreed 
to require that political subdivisions within the counties of Greene 
and Columbia, and in certain parts of the counties of Rensselaer and 
Dutchess, must agree to be included in order to participate in the 
program.
  The American Heritage Areas Partnership Program is designed to be 
voluntary, Procedurally, local groups petition the Secretary for study 
and inclusion in the program. Local entities will manage the areas so 
designated, and there is a requirement that all Federal funding be 
matched. Neither Congress nor the administration is interested in 
requiring participation, and I am pleased that this section underscores 
that understanding.
  Finally, the amendment addresses particular concerns raised by 
Representative Unsoeld with respect to the Vancouver American Heritage 
Area. The language simply clarifies that work called for in the bill 
for the city of Vancouver to perform to improve National Park Service 
property may be among the in-kind services that the Secretary may 
permit to offset a portion of the fair market rental payments required 
of the city, under this act, for its use of Park Service land.
  To summarize, Mr. Chairman, these en bloc amendments are the result 
of negotiations with Members who had expressed concerns about several 
provisions of H.R. 5044, as introduced. I am pleased that we were able 
to work out these disagreements, and I urge support for these en bloc 
amendments which improve the legislation.

                              {time}  1320

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope Members realize we have worked a long time on 
these en bloc amendments. These are a result of work between myself and 
the chairman of the committee, and many members of the committee. I 
would hope that the Members would go along with us on this one, get 
this behind us, and let us get to some of these others.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Vento en bloc 
amendments, and commend the gentleman for some of the improvements to 
the bill that he discussed with us over the last 5 minutes.
  Let me suggest, Mr. Chairman, for example, that this amendment, like 
our own amendment, contains a provision clarifying that nothing in 
these heritage plans will mandate the modification of land use 
regulations by local authorities. Our language, which will come a 
little later, actually makes that even, if it is possible to say this 
within the English language, more clear. We will attempt to do that 
within our own version of language coming up soon. However, I commend 
the gentleman for the effort.
  Let me point out, however, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman, in an 
earlier statement, acknowledged something that I hope the House paid 
some attention to. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] mentioned that 
hundreds of landowners would be affected.
  The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] quickly jumped in and said 
thousands, and he has reiterated that point later on. What a nightmare, 
to go check with thousands of landowners to find out whether they 
should be included in one of these heritage areas that will regulate 
the use and value of their property.
  Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that the nightmare is that thousands of 
homeowners, landowners, farmers, ranchers, ordinary citizens, thousands 
of them would never be consulted to find out if they wanted to give 
their consent to be regulated in this way, if the Tauzin amendment is 
not later on adopted. The Tauzin-Grams amendment will protect that 
right to consent for those thousands of citizens who ought to be 
consulted.
  If it is a nightmare to check with them, so be it. The nightmare in 
America is when we are never consulted and our land is taken from us, 
and we never get compensated, and the Government says, ``We did not 
take your fee title away, we did not take the title away at the 
courthouse, so what are you complaining about, even though we took away 
your right to use your property, to enjoy it, and to exercise what is 
commonly understood under the Constitution to be the value in your 
property?''
  Mr. Chairman, in this bill we have a provision, in fact, that is most 
pernicious. It is a provision that says the Government cannot pay a 
landowner, and the authors tell us that is a property rights 
protection. This provision says a landowner can lose his right to use, 
he can lose his right to enjoy, and this bill says the Government is 
forbidden to pay him for the property it took from him.
  If there ever was a provision in a bill that was most pernicious, 
most damaging to property owner rights, it is that one, and believe it 
or not, the authors cited in defense of this bill it having no effect 
on property rights.
  Mr. Chairman, let me assure the Members that if thousands of their 
constituents, and the Members saw the map a moment ago, how broad these 
corridors are, if thousands of their constituents living in these 
corridors are never consulted, never given the chance to say ``Yes, we 
want in or out,'' I want to suggest that I guarantee there will be 
lawsuits flying. Everybody will have cases like Dolan versus the City 
of Tigard, where somebody is complaining that property has been taken 
without their consent and without compensation.
  I want to point out something. The fifth amendment to the 
Constitution, like most of the amendments of the Bill of Rights, 
guarantees individual protections, not Government protections. They are 
there to protect every one of us against Government action. The 
provision of the fifth amendment that says our Government cannot take 
our property, with bulldozers or regulations, cannot take it without 
compensating us, is a provision there to protect civil liberties in 
America.
  We are discussing today, Mr. Chairman, a civil right in America. We 
are discussing a civil right as sacred as speech, as the practice of 
religion, as the right of assembly and due process. Those are not my 
words, those are the words of the Supreme Court in Dolan versus the 
City of Tigard. The civil right to own property and not have the 
Government take it from you without paying for it is as important as 
those other incredibly important civil rights in America.
  Mr. Chairman, when it came time for us to protect individuals' civil 
rights in this country, this body responded. It responded during the 
great civil rights era. It responded by saying ``Every citizen, large 
and small in this society, rich and poor, has the same individual 
rights under our Constitution, and no action of government, acting for 
the best of purposes, cannot take them away from us.'' It says the 
majority cannot infringe upon the rights of the individual.
  For the good purposes of heritage protection, we cannot take people's 
property away from them without their consent or without compensation.
  As we adopt these en bloc amendments, Mr. Chairman, I again commend 
the chairman of the committee for making an effort. However, this is 
not an amendment we drew up together. The amendment we are offering, 
the Tauzin amendment, is a property rights protection amendment.
  The Tauzin-Grams amendment, if adopted, will make this bill a much 
better bill, and let me clarify the record, please. I should have hoped 
that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] had done it, but let me 
do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know what other people want to do in this 
debate. I do not want to kill this bill. I want to pass it, but I want 
to pass it with these good amendments, just as we passed the Desert 
Protection Act and the Headwaters Forest Act.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5044, the American Heritage 
Areas Partnership Program Act, a bill which establishes a procedure 
within the Department of Interior to designate and manage national 
heritage areas.
  Mr. Chairman, this measure designates 10 specified areas as American 
heritage areas, including an area located in the Hudson River Valley of 
New York. This area, the Hudson River Valley between Yonkers and Troy, 
NY, is a 150 mile corridor that is the gateway to America. Not only 
does this corridor possess invaluable scenic beauty and wondrous 
natural resources, it also retains important historical and cultural 
values indigenous to the Hudson Valley region and the origins of our 
Nation.
  The proposed legislation will not only supply national recognition of 
the importance of the Hudson River Valley as a cultural and historic 
landscape, but also provides for a region-wide management plan to 
implement important preservation, interpretive and protective measures.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?


                   AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. TRAFICANT

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 103, after line 
     10, insert the following:

                     TITLE VII--BUY AMERICAN POLICY

     SEC. 701. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

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

  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, several things before we get started. I 
want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], the chairman 
of the committee, the ranking member, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], who has been a real 
leader on this issue in Ohio, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin], and everybody involved with the bill. This is a good bill. We 
should pass it.
  Later today, Mr. Chairman, I hope to God we do not bring up the 
godawful trade treaty, GATT, but if we do, the great ambush to 
taxpayers around here, I hope the rule is defeated, and I hope the 
Speaker is listening and he pulls it from the schedule before he loses 
4 or 5 Democrat seats.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment here that the Committee on Ways and 
Means basically never really supported. I don't know what the hell they 
support. It is a little Buy American amendment that says if there is 
money to be expended, let us try and encourage that the money be 
expended on products made in our country. It does not tie anybody's 
hands.
  I also want to invite the ranking member and the chairman to my 
valley to see an area that should be, I think, designated a heritage 
area under this legislation. I think this is great for America. I am 
glad to see you taking it on.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I support the amendment he has, a Buy American amendment he wants to 
add to the legislation. I think the application of it is acceptable to 
me. I have no objection to it. I know that there was some comment 
earlier about a number of areas that are proposed as heritage areas, 
and the gentleman from Ohio has one of them. I might point out that 
every area that does end up being proposed has to be acted on by 
Congress. We intend to designate them. Nothing is going to happen by 
accident. Very often the actions of the Park Service with regards to 
historic districts or landmarks are something that is an administrative 
action that does not necessitate action by Congress. That has, of 
course, embroiled us sometimes in controversy. But the gentleman from 
Ohio has one, and has this amendment. I support the amendment. I 
certainly want to cooperate with the gentleman in terms of the 
evaluation of the Ohio valley area that he represents concerning 
heritage areas.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Utah, the distinguished 
ranking member.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened intently to the comments that he made and 
the words that he said. I have to agree with everything he said. I 
think the amendment he came up with plus his other verbiage was 
excellent. I agree with it, and I support the amendment he has come up 
with. It is well drafted, well thought out. I would urge support from 
all of us to go along with the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I thank the chairman and the ranking member.
  Let me say this, also: Today there is a vote on final passage of S. 
986, the Corinth, MS battlefield. There has been a lot of contentious 
moments around here, but it is very important to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Whitten]. I would hope that Members listening would 
realize that and look at that measure. I urge an aye vote on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendments offered by mr. tauzin

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments, en bloc and I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed 
in the Record, and that debate on my amendments and all amendments 
thereto be limited to 1 hour, with the time to be equally divided among 
myself, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Tauzin: Page 9, after line 24, 
     insert the following:
       (9) Consent of private property owners.--No privately owned 
     property shall be included within the area unless informed 
     written consent to such inclusion is submitted to the 
     management entity for the proposed American Heritage Area by 
     all of the persons who own the property.
       Page 14, line 19, after the period insert the following: 
     ``No privately owned property shall be included in such list 
     unless informed written consent to such inclusion is 
     submitted to the management entity for the area by all of the 
     persons who own the property.''
       Page 15, line 18, strike ``approval'' and insert 
     ``submission''.
       Page 16, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 2 
     and insert the following:
       (b) Approval and Disapproval of Compacts.--
       Page 16, line 7, strike ``or management plan''.
       Page 16, line 8, strike ``or''.
       Page 16, line 9, strike ``management plan''.
       Page 16, line 10, strike ``or plan''.
       Page 16, line 15, strike ``or management plan''.
       Page 16, line 19, strike ``or plan''.
       Page 16, line 21, strike ``or plan''.
       Page 16, strike line 23 and all that follows through line 3 
     on page 17.
       Page 18, beginning on line 20, strike ``for approval''.
       Page 20, line 22, strike ``for the'' and all that follows 
     through line 23 and insert a period.
       Page 19, line 22, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 20, line 2, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Page 20, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 6.
       Page 24, line 14, strike ``approved'' and insert 
     ``submitted''.
       Page 24, line 15, strike ``106(b)'' and insert 
     ``107(c)(1)''.
       Page 25, strike line 13 and all that follows through line 
     15 and insert the following:

     SEC. 109. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY.

       The duties and authorities of the Secretary under this 
     title shall include the following:
       Page 25, line 16, insert ``(A)'' after ``Grants.--''.
       Page 26, after line 4, insert the following:
       (B) The Secretary may not, as a condition of the award of a 
     grant under this section, require any recipient of such a 
     grant to enact or modify land use restrictions.
       Page 29, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 
     14 on page 30.


amendment offered by mr. regula to the amendments offered by mr. tauzin

  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the en bloc 
amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Regula to the amendments offered 
     by Mr. Tauzin: In the en bloc amendments offered by Mr. 
     Tauzin to H.R. 5044, in the amendments to section 105--
       (1) Strike ``Private Property Owners'' and insert ``Local 
     Governments'';
       (2) strike ``privately owned property'' and insert 
     ``county, city, or town''; and
       (3) strike ``area unless'' and all that follows through the 
     period and insert the following ``boundaries of the area 
     unless the government of such county, city, or town agrees to 
     be so included and submits notification of such agreement to 
     the Secretary.''
       In the en bloc amendments offered by Mr. Tauzin to H.R. 
     5044, in the amendments offered to section 106--
       (1) strike ``line 19'' and all that follows through ``own 
     the property.'' and insert the following ``strike lines 13 
     through 19 and redesignate the following subparagraphs 
     accordingly.''; and
       (2) strike ``Page 15, line 18'' and all that follows 
     through ``line 3 on page 17.''
       In the en bloc amendments offered by Mr. Tauzin to H.R. 
     5044, in the amendments to section 107, strike ``Page 18, 
     beginning'' and all that follows through ``line 23 and insert 
     a period.''
       In the en bloc amendments offered by Mr. Tauzin to H.R. 
     5044, in the amendments to section 108, strike ``Page 24, 
     line 14'' and all that follows through ``insert 
     `107(c)(1)'.''.
       In the en bloc amendments offered by Mr. Tauzin to H.R. 
     5044, in the amendments to section 109--
       )1) strike ``Page 25, strike'' and all that follows through 
     line 3; and
       (2) strike ``Page 29'' and all that follows through ``page 
     30.'' and insert the following:
       Page 30, line 3, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 30, line 7, delete ``with the'' and all that follows 
     through line 14 and insert the following. ``to minimize any 
     real or potential adverse impact on an American Heritage 
     Area.''.

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment to the amendments 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] will be recognized for 15 
minutes, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be recognized for 15 
minutes, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will be recognized 
for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. We have discussed this amendment 
previously. Let me reiterate. The amendment basically contains three 
features. The first feature is the landowner consent feature. It simply 
says in this limited area of these heritage programs that landowner's 
consent must be obtained to be covered by the area of the heritage 
protection.
  This landowner consent amendment, if adopted, if the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula] does not strike it, will in effect provide landowner 
protection in this bill so that we do not have to offer a compensation 
amendment as a backup. If this amendment is deleted from our set of 
amendments and landowner consent is not required in this bill, we will 
be offering a separate amendment later to provide for landowner 
compensation.
  The second and very important parts of the amendment provide in 
effect that the language of the bill demanding consistency with all 
other programs and in effect making it more difficult to conduct 
ordinary programs like flood control and housing programs and economic 
development programs is out of the bill. As the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] pointed out, he did amend this section but it is 
still very much present in the bill. We suggest it ought to be 
eliminated from the bill.
  Finally, the last part of our amendment deals with basically the 
authority of the Secretary to approve these regional contracts but 
limits his authority to dictate to the local heritage management 
entities the terms and conditions of the plan, in effect, guaranteeing 
more local flexibility for the plans. In short, our amendments provide 
for local authority and flexibility, it takes away this broad and 
incredible Federal grant of consistency with other Federal programs, 
and, lastly, it provides for landover consent.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will attempt to take away the 
landowner consent feature. I urge Members not to adopt the Regula 
amendment, because if it passes, we are going to then come with the 
compensation amendment as we did in the Desert Protection Act in order 
to ensure that landowners affected by regulations in this bill will 
either give their consent or be allowed to seek compensation and 
recover, as the Supreme Court in Dolan versus Tigard has clearly said 
landowners have a right under the fifth amendment of our Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the real issue here is this question of landowner 
consent. On the surface. it sounds rather innocuous. The landowner has 
to consent to be in the boundaries. As has been pointed out by the 
chairman and myself, this could involve thousands and thousands of 
parcels. Not that there is any taking, not that there is any limitation 
on their use of the land. Let us make it clear. The fact that there is 
a boundary does not impact on the landowner in any way. There is just a 
boundary out there.
  Let me point out that I have here letters from county commissioners 
and mayors. I would just like to read one which I think embodies what 
is in all of these letters. This is from the Commissioners in Stark 
County.

       This proposed legislation seems to have become a debate 
     over the issue of private property rights. As representatives 
     of county government elected representives, we are strong 
     advocates for private property rights and the rights of state 
     and local government. The Heritage Area designation, however, 
     in no way negatively impacts the rights of the local 
     jurisdictions. In fact we view this as a recognition of the 
     importance of local initiatives in these regards.
       One amendment to be offered by Congressman Tauzin as we 
     read it would impose significant extra burdens on the local 
     jurisdictions and in particular the management entity of the 
     heritage area, to the point that it would discourage 
     participation in the program. A written consent provision 
     would require that the management entity, in the case of the 
     Ohio and Erie Canal, would literally have to identify and 
     contact tens of thousands of individual property owners along 
     the 87 mile corridor, a nearly impossible task which would be 
     unnecessarily costly and time consuming.
       Another idea is the elimination of the requirement that 
     heritage areas meet professional standards, subject to 
     approval by the Secretary of the Interior. For areas such as 
     the Ohio and Erie Canal, where so much time and so many 
     resources have been invested in developing a top-notch 
     program, this proposal to dilute the Heritage Areas program 
     and its limited funding by supporting programs that would not 
     meet standards of quality, is highly undesirable.

                              {time}  1340

  It says ``we,'' and these are the commissioners speaking, up and down 
the 87 miles and the mayors and the people,

       We are strong advocates of local rights and private 
     property rights, but also strong supporters of the American 
     Heritage Areas legislation as currently drafted. We believe 
     this bill safeguards our rights while at the same time 
     affording us an opportunity to enter into a beneficial 
     partnership with the Federal Government to preserve important 
     features of our cultural heritage. The American Heritage Area 
     designation will enhance our communities in terms of economic 
     development potential and quality of life for our residents 
     and will preserve unique features of our natural and cultural 
     landscape for generations to come.

  Let me say again what is involved in the Tauzin amendment. They are 
boundaries. The boundaries do not require any taking, they do not 
impose any zoning changes, they do not limit the use of the property by 
the landowners, and to say that there would have to be consent would be 
like saying if you are going to build an interstate highway you have to 
go back perhaps 5 miles on both sides and get the consent, written 
consent of every property owner to build a highway. It would become 
impossible.
  One of the popular things we hear now is unfunded mandates. What we 
are talking about here is an even more onerous unfunded mandate because 
we are saying to the local entities that are participating in these 
heritage corridors that they shall go out, (a), identify every property 
owner within this corridor, and (b), go see that property owner and get 
written consent, I do not know exactly to do what, because we are not 
taking the property or limiting the use. I guess the written consent as 
to whether or not there ought to be a heritage corridor. I have all of 
these letters from people living on the corridor saying, ``We want 
it.''
  But the cost would be prohibitive for a group that is made up of 
volunteers, that is made up of local governments, and that is really a 
co-op effort and local initiative.
  In the substitute that I am proposing we do say to the counties to 
have this heritage corridor the counties first have to opt in because 
the local commissioners that are elected, represent the people and they 
are right there within the community. So we say OK, we want the 
counties to opt in because their cooperation is very important to the 
enhancement and development of these features in a corridor.
  In my substitute we accept a number of the Tauzin proposals because 
we are interested that in every way possible, common sense be used to 
protect local property rights. We use the Solomon language that we have 
used for the forest legacy bill suggested by our distinguished 
colleague from New York to protect his local communities under the 
forest legacy, and we give the local communities the right to opt in if 
they choose to be part of it. We have done exactly the same thing in 
the substitute, and we have tried as much as possible to accept the 
portions of the Tauzin amendment that I think make sense. But we simply 
cannot put a burden on the volunteer groups with a very limited amount 
of resources to go up and down the way, to go to the courthouse and try 
to identify these thousands and tens of thousands of properties and go 
visit each property. It would be an impossible task.
  So the thrust of the Tauzin amendment requiring the written consent 
is in effect a killer amendment. There is no practical way that these 
local groups could do that, and we do not require it. We never have on 
other items, only where there is a taking, and there is no taking, 
there is no impact on zoning, there is no impact on land use 
regulations. This bill depends entirely on local effort, local 
cooperation, and I urge the Members to support the amendment to the 
amendments so that we have a bill that does protect private property 
rights to the greatest extent possible.
  The en bloc amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento], the chairman of the subcommittee, already went a long way. As I 
said earlier to the 273 Members that supported this initially, we have 
clarified, we have gone further, reduced the amount of money and gone 
further in making it very clear that we are in no way encroaching on 
private property rights. That is a subject that should be dealt with as 
a policy matter on a separate piece of legislation. But it would be a 
tragedy to lose the ability of these 10 areas across the United States 
to enhance and develop great opportunities for their people to cause 
economic development because the quality of life would be improved, to 
preserve their historical heritage, their environmental heritage and 
provide for families and for young people and people of all ages a 
chance where they could enjoy the open spaces of their community on a 
daily basis.
  I strongly urge the Members to support the amendment to the 
amendments and reject the Tauzin amendment as such.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], for working with me on this very 
important commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Regula's substitute 
to the Tauzin-Grams amendment. While its goals are well-intentioned, it 
does not go far enough to protect the individual private property 
rights embodied in our Constitution.
  The protection of an individual's private property is one of our 
Constitution's most important rights. It is a sacred right our 
Forefathers fought to defend and today we can help to ensure that their 
efforts were not in vain.
  Having grown up on a farm and currently representing rural areas of 
Minnesota, I am fully aware of the negative impact that well-meaning 
environmental regulations on private property and their associated 
litigation have on rural Americans.
  In 1990 alone, 53,000 pages of Federal Government regulations were 
issued on the use of private property. These regulations undoubtedly 
have placed severe limitations on the use of private property, have 
substantially reduced land values in some cases, and have created 
financial worries for many rural economies. Unfortunately, H.R. 5044, 
even with the Regula substitute, continues this unfair trend by failing 
to give individual landowners the choice to opt out of a heritage area.
  The Regula substitute only gives counties, not individuals, the 
choice to opt out of an American heritage area. It guts the true 
democratic intentions of the Tauzin-Grams amendment by failing to give 
individual landowners the rights they need to protect themselves from 
what could potentially be Washington-based land use regulations.
  The Regula substitute also imposes more unfunded Federal mandates on 
local governments. Unfunded mandates cost localities an estimated $11.3 
billion in 1993 and are expected to rise to over $88 billion over the 
next 5 years. Our municipal, township, county, and State governments 
have begged Congress to stop legislating mandates without footing the 
bill--yet this is exactly what the Regula substitute does.
  As if this were not bad enough, the Regula substitute is yet another 
example of Washington imposing its Government-knows-best attitude on 
the people. It assumes that Government entities have more knowledge 
than individual landowners when it comes to managing private land 
resources.
  Instead of voting for this bad amendment, I urge my colleagues to 
support the real private property protections embodied in the Tauzin-
Grams landowner consent amendment. Unlike the Regula substitute, it 
requires the written consent of the individual landowner for his or her 
land to be included within a heritage management area.
  The Tauzin-Grams amendment is a well-balanced measure which protects 
the environment and individual private property rights, as well as the 
sovereignty of local governments. It enjoys bipartisan support and is 
endorsed by the American Farm Bureau, the National Cattleman's 
Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National 
Association of Realtors, the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses, and more.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Regula substitute and 
support real private property rights protection as outlined in the 
Tauzin-Grams landowner's consent amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall], a cosponsor of the Regula amendment.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], for his hard and persistent work 
in bringing this legislation once again to the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of the Regula/Rahall substitute 
amendment to the pending amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by our colleague, Mr. Tauzin, is 
premised on a gross misperception of what the pending legislation 
entails.
  To be clear, the pending legislation does not infringe upon the 
rights of private landowners. Nor does it infringe upon local zoning or 
land use planning decisions.
  Nobody is forcing anybody located within a proposed heritage area to 
do anything.
  Let me repeat that. This legislation does not force anybody located 
within a proposed heritage area to do anything. Plain and simple.
  As a matter of fact, the bill goes so far as to state that no Federal 
funds can be used to acquire property within a heritage area, even, I 
might add, when you have a willing seller situation.
  These are the facts. It is all set forth in the bill.
  Yet, here we go again. The so-called property rights bandwagon rolls 
on.
  It kind of reminds me of that TV commercial for a battery company 
with the rabbit mechanically marching on and on, banging on its drums, 
through every situation and every environment.
  In my view, agendas are being pursued under the banner of allegedly 
protecting the property rights of the average law abiding American 
citizen that do not have anything to do with actually protecting their 
property rights.
  And I say this because nobody's property rights would be adversely 
affected under the pending legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, the record does not support the adoption of this 
amendment, and the clear reading of what this legislation would do does 
not support the adoption of this amendment.
  I have a heritage area included in this bill. And I can guarantee you 
that there will be no infringement upon private property in southern 
West Virginia under this legislation.
  However, we find ourselves at the end of this Congress, and if you 
find that you simply have to vote for some type of amendment, the 
proper course of action to take is to vote for the pending Regula-
Rahall substitute.
  What it says is that only those properties which a county, city, or 
town has agreed to be included within the boundaries of a heritage 
area, may be included on the inventory of significant resources located 
within the heritage area.
  This action would be taken within the context of the management plans 
that are to be developed for each heritage area.
  As such, the Regula-Rahall amendment clarifies that the applicable 
unit of local government would decide which significant cultural or 
historic resources located within a heritage area are to be a 
priorities for preservation or restoration under a management plan.
  To adopt the Tauzin-Grams amendment without this perfecting amendment 
would be to strike at the very authority many localities have in this 
Nation to engage in local land use planning and zoning in order to 
protect the public health, safety and environment.
  This would be a terrible precedent to establish, is not in the public 
interest, and is not an action necessary to be taken within the context 
of this bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate a correction in the Record. Our 
amendment does not affect current local zoning regulations whatsoever, 
nor authority whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I was going to use the same rabbit as my 
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia, used, but with a little 
different context, because it is the private property owners of America 
who feel like we are being run over constantly by the same little 
rabbit, always saying the same things.
  A private property owner does not care whether it is a local 
government riding in, it does not matter whether it is the mayor or the 
President of the United States making a Government determination as to 
how in fact a private property owner's land is going to be used. Your 
arguments, I say to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], both 
of the authors of this amendment and the substitute, the argument you 
are making I happen to be involved as many of my Texas colleagues right 
now in an actual on-the-line, actual example of which nonintended 
circumstances are happening because of laws having been passed by the 
Federal Government concerning the utilization of private property.
  Now, whatever the merits of this legislation, it seems to me if it is 
as good as you contend that is, there will be no difficulty getting the 
consent of a private property owner to utilize that land if it is as 
good as you contend it to be.
  But there must be something wrong with it. One of the things that I 
think is wrong with it is I have found that every single time a 
nonproperty owner chooses to use somebody else's property, they are for 
it; they are for it, for the public good. We have laws that protect 
those. It is called eminent domain. If you are going to take someone's 
property for any use, you must compensate that individual.
  Now, that is why some of us are beating that drum, and we are going 
to continue to beat that drum, because we believe that we have passed 
far too much good-sounding legislation for all of the right reasons 
that have the wrong end effect, and the wrong end effect begins to cost 
the individual private property owner the utilization of their land or 
the value of their land.
  Yes, I feel very strongly about it. I disagree totally with this 
weakening amendment today, because we are experiencing right now in 
Texas the end effect in the Endangered Species Act of good-sounding, 
good legislation that will not affect any property owner, but it is 
literally taking thousands of dollars of value away from individuals.
  So I hope we will adopt the Tauzin-Grams amendment today. I hope we 
will do what we should be doing in all legislation, which is beginning 
to again recognize the priority and importance of individual private 
property rights, and before we take it, whether it is the mayor or the 
President, there are certain rules that we ought to follow.
  Let us not circumscribe them today.
  The CHAIRMAN. I rise in strong support of the Tauzin-Grams amendment 
to H.R. 5044, the American Heritage Partnership Act.
  H.R. 5044 would establish new Federal land-use controls for areas 
designated as heritage areas, which could severely limit the 
landowner's property rights without compensation. This bill makes a 
poor attempt to protect private property rights by prohibiting land 
acquisitions, but contradicts itself by requiring Federal agencies to 
identify and promote compatible land management activities. These 
Federal land-use plans will infringe upon property rights by 
restricting the ability of landowners to utilize property.
  Therefore, I strongly support the amendment offered by Mr. Tauzin of 
Louisiana and Mr. Grams of Minnesota that gives individual landowners 
within these heritage parks the freedom not to have their land included 
in these systems. If they do not have this option, their land will be 
subject to any land-use restrictions which would be included in the 
land-use management plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 
Among other things, the Tauzin-Grams amendment would require that 
landowners give their written consent before their lands could be 
included in an American heritage area. Furthermore, it deletes the 
language that requires, to the maximum extent possible, all Federal 
actions to be consistent with the heritage management plan, unless 
there is no other practicable alternative. This type of language has 
created many of our current problems both with the Endangered Species 
Act and with wetlands regulation. If this language is left in the bill, 
it will make it more difficult to conduct an activity in these areas 
that requires a Federal permit or any use of Federal funds.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Tauzin-Grams amendment 
and protect the rights of private property owners.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, the difference between America and 
the rest of the countries around the world is that, you know, we 
believe in the individual person in our country, and we believe in 
private property. That separates us from all of the other nations of 
the world, and certainly separates us from the other isms of the world 
and creates a freedom unknown really to most people on this globe. We 
fight to protect those very rights, the individual and private 
property.
  In this situation, we are not sure, honestly, what infringement there 
may or may not be on private property rights, because in many of these 
areas, the heritage proposed areas, the local committees have not met, 
the cities have not met, and the Secretary of the Interior has not yet 
been consulted. He will be, as you follow this bill.
  I have had personal experience here in this kind of thing on the 
Columbia River, the Columbia River Gorge. Many of you may remember 
that.
  In that situation, inholders, private property people, were 
surrounded by a corridor that extends up and down the Columbia River, a 
beautiful spot, and yet they have to have Government authorization to 
paint their houses. They cannot plant a tree on their private property 
without consent of the Government, and they certainly cannot change 
their homes or build a barn without Government consent.
  Now, there will be inholders around and inside of these heritage 
areas, and the Tauzin amendment asks only one thing, if a private 
property owner does not want in, let him out. That is a choice we have. 
We are not mandating that private property be out at all. We are asking 
that private property owners have the choice.
  It is a very simple, straightforward amendment, and I might say that, 
indeed, if all of the arguments you have heard here that, in fact, 
private property is not in peril, that zoning ordinances are not in 
peril, why not accept the amendment? It cannot hurt the bill, and it 
certainly will make a lot of people in America rest more easily at 
night, because finally they know their freedoms are intact in this 
legislation.
  So I ask you again, support the Tauzin amendment. And, by the way, I 
should set the record straight, I mentioned that the National 
Association of Counties supported the Tauzin bill. The National 
Association of Counties opposed the amendment to the Tauzin bill.

                              {time}  1400

  These are the counties that are affected, these are the counties that 
are crying about unfunded mandates; these are the counties that we all 
think we would like to support. So please vote for the Tauzin 
amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the chairman of the Committee 
on Public Works and Transportation.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. I thank the very fine chairman of the subcommittee for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the private 
property provision of the en bloc amendment, and in support of the 
Regula substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone agrees that the rights of private property 
owners must be protected and preserved. It is a concept that is 
fundamental to our Nation and is protected by the Fifth Amendment to 
the Constitution.
  The American Heritage Partnership Act does more to protect the rights 
of private property owners than any piece of legislation in recent 
memory.
  American Heritage Areas are places of national significance that 
deserve special attention and protection. But this bill gives no 
special attention or protection to any area without the express consent 
of the local community.
  Each American Heritage Area is developed in coordination with local 
and Federal governments, nonprofit organizations and the private 
sector, and funded on a 1-to-1 matching basis. All decisions on the 
management of these areas are dependent upon local approval.
  Requiring the written consent of each landowner within a proposed 
American Heritage Area is a cynical attempt to prevent the 
implementation of this legislation.
  It would be an expensive, time-consuming process that would only 
delay the needed protection for these historic areas.
  The American Heritage Protection Act and the fifth amendment to the 
Constitution ensure that the rights of all private property owners are 
protected and preserved.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Regula substitute, and to 
support the American Heritage Areas Protection Act.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out relative to the discussion of 
unfunded mandates, well, the cost of going around and collecting tens 
of thousands of signatures, how would that be funded? Who would fund 
that?
  I think the gentleman makes the point, the question is do you trust 
your local Government? Do you trust your local Government to do what 
local Governments essentially do in terms of zoning, in terms of 
regulations on land? We say we will designate an American heritage area 
in your area, but we will withdraw from you one of the key tools you 
need in order to try to protect and preserve that area; not to take 
anyone's property rights away, not to amend the fifth amendment to the 
Constitution, but then we will take it away.
  As I said to my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana, it is 
throwing an anchor at a man who is drowning. In other words, they need 
that like they need a hole in the head.
  You cannot have it both ways. That is why we need to adopt the Regula 
amendment, which maximizes the impact of responsibility of local 
Governments and permits the program to go forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] for 
his statement.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to speak in particular against the Regula amendment to the 
Tauzin amendment. The Regula amendment at its core has exactly the 
words that our friend from Minnesota just echoed in this Chamber, 
``Trust your Government,'' Trust your Government? That is what the 
Dolan family did in the city of Tigard. The government there took that 
property without paying for it and they had to go all the way to the 
Supreme Court. In fact, Mr. Dolan never survived it. His widow had to 
carry the case on.
  In case after case where Americans have trusted their Government when 
it comes to Federal regulations, they found they had to spend 10 years 
in court to get their rights adjudicated. Ask Mr. Bowles in the case of 
Bowles v. the United States Government, in Texas, who was denied the 
right to build on his subdivision lots in Brazoria County. It took him 
10 years to get the Government to recognize that they had taken his 
property. It took him 10 years for the Court of Claims to say the 
Government owed him compensation for denying him the use of his 
property.
  Trust your Government, that is the theme of the Regula amendment. It 
says that we will not seek the consent of the landowners. The Regula 
amendment would strike that from my amendment. What it will say is we 
will seek the consent of the local government. So we will let the local 
government decide whether to take your land without paying for it, just 
as they did in the city of Tigard. We will let the local government be 
the hatchet man for the Secretary of Interior, who will come in and say 
your property is covered by these regulations, whether you like it or 
not, and we will not provide any money in this bill to compensate you.
  Trust your Government? Well, Americans wrote a document called the 
U.S. Constitution. They adopted a Bill of Rights, and they adopted it 
for one reason, that we did not trust Government always to protect our 
rights, that we insisted that Government live by a covenant, 10 basic 
sacred amendments to that Constitution. They said every one of us is 
entitled to rights the Government cannot take away from us.
  Why do you think we wrote that if we trusted our Government? We wrote 
it to insure that when a criminal goes before a court he is entitled to 
due process? Is that a burden? Is it expensive? Is it troublesome? Yes. 
But due process is the sacred right of every citizen.
  When we tell people they can practice free religion in this country 
and they have free speech in this country, is it a burden? Do we like 
what they write about us in the press sometimes? I suggest many of you 
do not like what you read about us in the press lately.
  But it is a right we diligently protect under the Constitution. One 
of those rights is the basic civil right to own property in this 
country and not have the Government take it away from you and not to 
have to trust the Government in that regard.
  Now, if you trust the Government completely, you vote for the Regula 
amendment to the Tauzin amendment. If you believe not the Government 
but the landowner ought to consent to what happens to him or her and 
their personal private property in America, I suggest you reject the 
Regula amendment and adopt the Tauzin amendment.
  It is the only amendment that will perfect this bill to make sure 
that the personal civil rights to private property in America are 
adequately protected by making sure we go through, yes, the burden and 
the trouble of going around and making sure that we fill up folders, 
such as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] brought to this House 
Chamber today, and that we fill the folders up with landowners' 
consents before we begin to take their property away from them in 
derogation of the civil rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution.

  We fought some tremendous battles in this country for civil rights. 
We ought not to surrender them on this floor for heritage areas or for 
any other good purpose.
  We ought to stand up for them today, defeat the Regula amendment to 
the Tauzin amendment.
  Vote for the Tauzin amendment and stand up for that Constitution and 
that Bill of Rights and let the Government know once again in this 
renewal of our democracy that we still do not trust the Government 
completely, that we want our rights protected and guaranteed under that 
Constitution and in the law adopted by this Chamber, which is always 
supposed to represent the individual citizens of this country, not 
necessarily what Governments would like us to do on the local level.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], whose State is the cradle of private 
property rights and liberty and the personal freedoms that we cherish.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Coming from the 
State where the Boston Tea Party was held, yes, we do not like 
Government very much at all. And I do agree with one statement from the 
gentleman; I do not trust Government either. That is why we have 
specific provision in the original bill, in the Regula substitute. I do 
not trust Government.
  Opponents of this bill have said, ``Well, you don't want private 
property takings.'' So the specific language in the bill says, ``No, 
you can't use Federal money for property takings.''
  We think that answers it because I do not trust the Federal 
Government. If you give them a blank check, they are going to spend the 
money. I do not trust Government. I wanted that protection in there. 
The opponents said that they do not want the Federal Government or 
these management entities dictating zoning laws. So the language of the 
bill with the Regula substitute will say that no management entity has 
zoning power, that only the Government entities, whether it be a city, 
a town, or a county which currently has zoning power will keep that.

                              {time}  1410

  Now we do not seek to take away zoning power from local governments. 
We think they have the right to keep that power. But we specifically 
say the Federal management entity will have no zoning power, will have 
no land use power. Because I do not trust Government, I wanted that 
specific language included there as well.
  Some people have gotten up to this microphone and stated they object 
to decisions that local governments have made about land use takings, 
and they may have very legitimate gripes and disagreements with what 
local governments have done. Certainly not every local government has 
acted perhaps in the best interests of property owners. I would not 
disagree with that. But this language seeks neither to add or diminish 
the power of zoning or the power of land use from local governments. 
That is what this bill is all about.
  Let local government, the duly elected people, the people's choice 
for government officials at the local level, continue to make these 
decisions, to make these decision on zoning, to make these decisions on 
land use, and, if a property taking is desired at the local level, not 
the Federal level, but at the local level, let the locally chosen 
officials make that decision. But this language, the language of H.R. 
5044 with the Regula substitute, has that.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the 
Regula substitute and vote against the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] together with the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams]. The private property protections 
embodied in this amendment make the American Heritage Areas Partnership 
Program a better bill, pure and simple. Mr. Chairman, I say this as a 
Member who supported the bill on the suspension calendar. I know this 
may stun some of my colleagues in this Chamber, but I was persuaded to 
support H.R. 5044 last week and I plan to vote ``aye'' on final passage 
today, if this amendment passes.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I supported the Tauzin-Taylor amendment to the 
National Biological Survey Authorization this body passed earlier this 
Congress and I see this amendment as a similar tool to ensure good 
faith on the part of the Federal Government in dealing with its 
citizens living within a designated heritage area. The NBS amendment 
passed the House by an overwhelming 309 to 115 vote, and this amendment 
should do as well. Why? Because what could be more basic than the 
Federal Government seeking approval from a landowner before 
incorporating private property within the strictures of a Federal land-
use plan?

  Mr. Chairman, voluntary participation in this heritage area 
partnership program will do more to insure success in achieving the 
goals of the act than any other amendment. If landowners within the 
broadly drawn boundaries of an area are unilaterally forced to come 
within the confines of a Federal plan I think we will have created a 
recipe for revolt. Take it from someone with constituents who have to 
deal with a Federal landlord every day, the actions of the Federal 
Government--Congress and the executive branch--are the seeds of the 
sagebrush rebellion in the West, now known by the phrase ``War on the 
West.''
  Could forced participation in Federal land use plans drive property 
owners in the areas designated by this bill into their own revolt? I 
don't know why not. Even without such a heritage area partnership 
program in place, we have recently witnessed the implied threat of the 
National Park Service to do whatever was necessary to stop the Disney 
Co., from building an historic theme park near Haymarket, VA, on 
private land.
  Mr. Chairman, no matter how one may feel about the legitimacy of that 
site in Prince William County, VA, for such use, I think most Americans 
did not view it as a Federal case.
  The senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia said the Federal 
Government should butt out on the issue, and he's a nearby landowner 
who presumably didn't want the now defunct project. But, he had faith 
in the local and State regulatory process governing land-use to achieve 
the proper balance. A trust that apparently did not extend to 
bureaucrats in the Department of the Interior.
  With that thought I will finish, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to 
support the Tauzin-Grams voluntary participation amendment. Send a 
strong signal to your constituents that you support legislation to 
protect private property interests.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, either I am missing something in this 
debate or the private property arguments that are being offered up here 
are a real red herring, and I just wanted to ask the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] a couple of questions to see if I am on track 
here.
  Let us take a look, for instance, at the Hudson Valley area before 
and after the presumed designation as a heritage area. Will there be 
any impact on the rights of private property owners within that 
heritage area?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Not by virtue of the designation. The local government 
authorities remain and in fact make the decisions.
  Mr. SKAGGS. That gets to the 10th amendment argument, let us say. 
What is the difference, assuming we adopt the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] in the authority of local land use 
authorities before or after the designation of an area?
  Mr. VENTO. Well, the Regula amendment maintains the existing 
authorities of local government to make decisions as to the land use 
and zoning decisions. In fact they could have a referendum on whether 
they wanted to be in the heritage area. They could have an election 
that people could advocate it or not. They would maintain their 
control. The Tauzin amendment would allow an individual landowner to 
opt out, so you would basically have local anarchy.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I just cannot see under 
the circumstances any legitimate 5th or 10th amendment property rights 
argument to be brought to this debate. It is either ill-informed or an 
ill-intended effort to really distort the real issues presented by this 
legislation, and no amount of fulmination is going to make it 
otherwise. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not the private 
rhetorical property of any Member.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Regula] for yielding this time to me. I want to go over two quick 
questions and then make a statement in response to whether or not we 
should trust local government.
  First question is: Would private property owners lose their right 
under the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]? 
The answer is clear, and it has been discussed here at length. The 
answer is:` Absolutely no.
  Second question is: Does the bill give the Department of the Interior 
the power to control activities of other Federal agencies in heritage 
areas? The answer to that is: Unequivocally no.
  Now the question about whether or not we should trust local 
government. My answer is: Please become involved in your local 
government, in your local community, all of you, whether you trust them 
or whether you don't trust them. Go to those planning and zoning 
commission hearings and meetings and become absolutely involved.
  Listen and consider this: Do you want a toxic waste dump next to your 
property? Do you want or would you like a pornographic movie house next 
to an elementary school or next to your property? Would these two 
things next to your property devalue your property, and would you 
consider them taking some of your rights to use your property away?
  Become involved at the local level in these land use decisions. The 
local government with community's support should make the decisions 
about local zoning, not us at the Federal Government. Let us not 
sterilize the diversity in the myriad of communities throughout our 
Nation by making one clear crystal law that seems to favor some 
property owners, but not all property owners.
  I encourage strongly a vote for the Regula amendment.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo].
  (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Grams] for yielding this time to me, and I rise today in support of the 
Grams-Tauzin amendment and in opposition to the Regula amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are really talking about here today is the same 
battle that we have had in the House of Representatives and in Federal 
Government for many generations, and it is a matter of control.

                              {time}  1420

  Who is going to control local land use, who is going to control 
private property. In recent times, the emphasis has been on increased 
Federal control and decreased individual or local control, and this 
bill in and of itself is a mandate. This is a Federal mandate.
  I would like to read out of title I of the bill.

       (5) despite existing Federal programs and existing efforts 
     by States and localities, the natural, historic, and cultural 
     resources and recreational opportunities in these areas are 
     often at risk; and
       (6) the complexity and character of these areas distinguish 
     them and call for a distinctive system of recognition, 
     protection, and partnership management.

  This is in a Federal bill. This is not in a county, State, or city 
council bill. This is a Federal bill. The Federal Government is 
stepping on the toes of local government in land use control. It is 
very clear.
  I will turn to one part in the bill that involves South Carolina. It 
is on page 82 of the bill. ``A primary responsibility for conserving, 
preserving, protecting and promoting the benefits of the region resides 
with the State of South Carolina and the various local units.''
  But it also goes on to say, ``there is a national interest in 
protecting, conserving, restoring, promoting.''
  This is the Federal Government stepping in to control what happens in 
a locality. And if any locality accepts being part of a heritage area, 
they are accepting the Federal regulations that come with that. You are 
accepting those Federal regulations as part of this.
  Now, I heard a speaker earlier say it is just a boundary. It is just 
a line on a map. Well, who is deciding who is on what side of that 
boundary? It is us in passing this bill. We are deciding who are the 
have's and who are the have-not's. We are deciding as the U.S. Federal 
Government who is going to be in the heritage area and who is going to 
be outside of the heritage area.
  Now, if you did not pass this bill, there is nothing stopping a local 
county or a local city from adopting its own heritage area and 
protecting and preserving its own natural resources and its way of 
life. There is nothing stopping a local government from doing that now.
  All this does is tells the localities that they are going to accept 
the regulations that we in our infinite wisdom decided were going to be 
put down on them.
  Mr. Chairman, this whole bill is a bad idea. But the least we can do 
is protect the private property owners.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].
  (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Tauzin/Grams landowner consent amendment to H.R. 5044, the American 
Heritage Areas Partnership Act. This amendment ensures that the rights 
of private property owners will be protected and that additional 
unfunded mandates will not be passed onto State and local governments.
  In its original form, H.R. 5044 would establish heritage areas, which 
would typically be large areas of land with a central theme or resource 
which would be managed or preserved. The program would be under the 
direction of the National Park Service, but require States, local 
governments and private organizations to impose management plans on 
heritage areas in order to receive funding. Unfortunately, the bill as 
written, provides no protection for individual private property owners, 
who may lose the right to use their property.
  Proponents of H.R. 5044 proudly point to the bill's requirement that 
local governments within the heritage area voluntarily join the 
program. However, without protection for the individual property 
owners, the Federal Government has simply passed on the responsibility 
to the local governments without providing any funding. If a private 
property owner should seek compensation from a takings that occurs as a 
result of this program, the Federal Government is off the hook. The 
responsibility for compensation has been transferred to the local 
government, even though the Federal Government sets down the rules and 
regulations for the heritage areas. In fact, H.R. 5044 expressly 
forbids the use of Federal funds for compensation. Plain and simple, 
this is another unfunded mandate on local governments.
  I've just spent the entire morning in the Government Operations 
Committee which is trying to develop legislation to address the problem 
of unfunded mandates, only to find that the House is passing another 
one with H.R. 5044. We have got to stop the practice of passing the 
costs of Federal programs onto local governments. They simply cannot 
afford to absorb these costs.
  I believe that landowners should have the freedom not to have their 
land included in these heritage areas. The Tauzin-Grams amendment 
guarantees this freedom while preventing the passage of yet another 
unfunded mandate onto our local governments. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Johnson] to speak for local governments in his area.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to just make two or 
three points.
  First of all, I think it is the exact opposite point just made, 
speaking, I thought, on the side of the Tauzin amendment. This is a 
question of are we going to allow the local government to make 
application for grants under this bill, that they will be able to 
manage themselves, come up with the plan themselves. They do not have 
to under this Regula amendment. They can operate out of it. Any local 
government can. This is not forcing anything on anybody.
  Second, the Secretary may not as a condition of awarding a grant 
require any recipient to enact or modify land use regulations. And this 
even deletes the provision encouraging local governments to adopt land 
use policies consistent with the plan. So it has absolutely no mandate 
on local government.
  You know, I have followed the efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin] on property rights and voted with him most of the time, 
the most recent one being in the National Biological Survey. It is 
different. I voted for that because it required the consent of local 
property owners to give consent before a Federal agent could go on 
their property.
  This amendment is different. His amendment would tell the local 
government that if they wanted to apply for funds under this bill, they 
have to in effect change their land use process. The fifth amendment 
and the due process clause protects people from abuse in this regard, 
and no amount of rhetoric changes that.
  This is bad precedent. Are we going to now say for the Community 
Development Block Grants, when local governments come in and apply for 
Community Development Block Grants, that they have to get the consent 
of every property owner in the region that is making application? I 
think this is very bad precedent, and it changes local land use 
regulation.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in favor of the Tauzin amendment, and I stand 
strongly in opposition to the Regula amendment to the Tauzin amendment.
  I believe that the bill places a huge burden potentially on private 
property owners as regulatory authority by the Secretary of the 
Interior. I think it is a burden that is too great for the individual 
and the private property owner.
  I think the Tauzin amendment is not an unreasonable burden on local 
government. After all, I believe that it protects local control and 
authority. All it is asking for is a landowner's consent before you 
establish an American heritage protection area, and those land owners 
are to be brought in under the provisions of that American heritage 
area.
  We have heard argument today that this is going to place too heavy a 
burden on local government, implying that perhaps maybe we are dealing 
with thousands of names and, by the time they track all these down and 
get the consent, it is going to be too great a burden.
  I would point out that when it comes to tax collecting time, local 
government does not have a hard time running down their owners and 
getting in contact with them and dealing with them on important tax 
issues.

                              {time}  1430

  I also would bring up the point that if we are talking about open 
spaces and how it applies to the American Heritage Area, if we have to 
contact too many landowners that, perhaps, maybe it is inappropriate to 
set this up in an American Heritage Protection Area for the purpose of 
open space.
  But the basic question is, why do we have to provide protection to 
the private property owner?
  I see a fundamental change in the way the bureaucracy is doing 
business today as it was a number of years ago. They are assuming 
responsibility and powers and then telling the Congress, well, you deny 
us that assumption of responsibility. You tell us we cannot do it.
  I think the Tauzin amendment is very important, because it clearly 
sets limits on the Secretary of Interior so that when it comes to 
private property rights, he is not assuming more power than perhaps was 
intended by the sponsors of this particular piece of legislation. I 
think the Tauzin amendment is very appropriate. I think it provides the 
clear and obvious limits that we need to place on the Secretary of 
Interior.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], whose State is the home of the 
Minuteman, Paul Revere and liberty.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Ohio for 
yielding time to me.
  As a member of the Massachusetts state legislature for 6 years, I 
fought many private property battles in that body, and I have joined in 
many of those fights her to protect the private property rights of the 
citizens of our great country.
  I think in this case, though, that we are talking about apples and 
oranges. The Regula language maintains private property rights by 
maintaining local zoning control. The best way, in my view, to protect 
property rights is to enhance local control, not to weaken it.
  Local governments are closer to the people, and they are much more 
sensitive to these issues than are distant bureaucrats who do not live 
anywhere near where the property is located.
  The Tauzin language supersedes local control. It overrides local 
jurisdiction, and it shifts power from local authorities and local 
people to the Federal Government. That is the exact opposite of what we 
want to be doing on private property rights.
  I strongly support the Regula language. I urge its adoption. I 
strongly support the National Heritage Partnership bill, because I 
think it is a major step forward for the citizens of our country.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, someone alluded to the fact that they supported the 
Taylor amendment to the biological survey bill, but they do not want to 
support this Tauzin amendment for landowner consent. We should all ask, 
why not?
  The Taylor amendment, which passed 291 and later on by 325 votes, 
simply said that a person had to get landowner consent before Federal 
and State Government agents walked onto their property.
  What we are talking about here is not them walking onto it and 
visiting it, checking it out. We are talking here about them regulating 
it. Should we not want landowner consent here?
  If we want landowner consent before they can come visit a person and 
look at their property, would we not want landowner consent before they 
came to take it away?
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, was not the Taylor amendment on a Federal 
agency whereas here we are talking local government?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are talking about 
local government enforcing a plan approved by Secretary Babbitt of the 
U.S. Government. That is what we are talking about. We are talking 
about Federal agents and local agents in a partnership walking onto a 
person's property to take it away from them without their consent.
  All we are saying, in the Tauzin amendment, is, get landowner 
consent.
  All the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is saying, is, do not get 
landowner consent, just check with your local government.
  I suggest to Members that the people that are closer to the people of 
the country than local government are the people of this country. If we 
depend upon them and check with them once in awhile, I do not think we 
will go wrong. We ought to pass the Tauzin amendment and depend upon 
landowners to give their own consent, just as we did in the Taylor 
amendment on the biological survey.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], a former local elected official from 
Massachusetts, the center of democracy in our Nation.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we certainly practice it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just draw an interesting contrast. I came from 
local government. In fact, I was mayor of one of the largest cities in 
Massachusetts. And I happen to agree with much of what the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Condit] said earlier.
  The truth of the matter is, I have a different interpretation of what 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has done here. Let me just draw a 
contrast for the House. That contrast is this.
  You have the gentlemen from Massachusetts, Mr. Blute and Mr. 
Torkildsen, two of the more conservative members of the Massachusetts 
delegation. I would find myself generally in the middle of that 
delegation on most issues. The three of us happen to agree on this 
interpretation. We believe that it protects, as the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula] has submitted, private property rights. And that the 
proposal of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] in fact subtracts 
from the rights of people at the local level to raise certain 
questions.
  Indeed, in the end, the irony of this is that the Tauzin amendment is 
indeed unworkable, if applied as he has proposed it to all of us in 
this Chamber.
  We have a remarkable opportunity here today to once again highlight 
the historic infrastructure of this Nation. Anthony Lewis at the Times 
reminded us once again that we are quickly becoming a Nation without a 
memory. Today we can honor the memory of America. Nowhere has that been 
better honored in this Nation than in the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts. But most importantly, we can give a boost to those 
preservation groups and those historic commissions at the local level 
who, across this Nation every single day, make for a sense of living 
history.
  Before I went to local government, I was in a classroom teaching high 
school history and government. Let me tell my colleagues something, 
this legislation proposed by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] today represents no threat to 
private property rights and, indeed, if anything, enhances private 
property rights and maintains local government intact.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that in talking about the 
Regula substitute, they are stressing that this would not infringe on 
individual property rights. If it would not, why are they so strongly 
opposed to the Tauzin-Grams amendment? They say that this amendment 
would gut this bill, H.R. 5044. It would gut this bill. So by saying 
that, they admit that they are ready and willing to trample on personal 
property rights.
  They say that the Federal Government is not going to buy land or take 
land from individuals. But what this bill actually does, it says the 
Federal Government can take or it can use, it can mandate the use of 
private property for any way that the Interior Secretary deems that it 
should be used for and local governments then would have to set their 
regulations or their management plans in step with what the Interior 
Secretary says.
  So I think this amendment is a clear infringement on personal 
property rights. The Tauzin-Grams amendment would protect those rights.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] 
has expired.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] pointed 
out, this bill goes further toward providing and protecting local 
property rights than anything we have done historically. This time we 
start from the bottom up.

                              {time}  1440

  We let the local governments design what they want and submit it. 
Usually we have the Federal Government designing something for local 
government.
  In the Tauzin proposal, you have an unfunded mandate. In the Regula-
Rahall, there are no unfunded mandates. The local government is totally 
in control. A vote for Regula-Rahall is a vote for local control, it is 
a vote for local partnership.
  It is a vote for the community, for all of these volunteers, to give 
them a chance to preserve their history, to preserve their open spaces, 
their public open spaces. Let me emphasize, there is no power to take 
anything. They cannot even spend the Federal dollars if the property 
owner wanted to sell his property, it is so tightly drawn.
  It is totally local control. There is no change mandated in zoning or 
land use. We say to the communities ``You do what will serve your 
people. You are there.'' The counties have to opt in. They have to say 
``Yes, we want to go in and be part of this historic corridor.''
  In contrast, Mr. Chairman, the Tauzin amendment would deny the local 
groups the ability to preserve their heritage. It would deny them the 
ability to preserve open spaces, deny the local groups who want to 
voluntarily make a difference in their community and preserve something 
for all time, for history, for generations to come. They would no 
longer have that ability, because under the gentleman from Louisiana's 
amendment, this thing will not help, it would be so burdensome on local 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Regula-Rahall 
amendment to the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the Chair how much time 
remains.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman let me clarify the record. I was a member of local 
government in Louisiana, too. I respect local government for all the 
good it does. I am a member of the Federal Government. I respect this 
Federal Government for all the good it does.
  However, American citizens know that government can deprive them of 
their rights. That is why we wrote a Constitution and the Bill of 
Rights. That is what this fight is all about, individual rights under 
that Constitution.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, I am for heritage and living history, too. I am 
for God, apple pie, and motherhood, too, but I know a bad deal when I 
see one. Everybody complains about those of us who write laws writing 
them with too much legalese. Let me scratch the legalese here and put 
it down in its basic elements for the Members and I and for all 
Americans to hear.
  This is the deal in this bill, without the Tauzin amendment, or with 
the Regula amendment. Listen well, this is the deal, Here is the deal 
we give.
  We will regulate your property, with Secretary Babbitt's permission, 
and we will take away its use and its value, and we promise you we will 
not pay you for it. Let me say it again. We will regulate your 
property, with Secretary Babbitt's permission, and we will possibly 
take away its use and value from you, and we promise you, take our word 
for it, we will not pay you for it. That is what this says.
  I think Americans know a bad deal when they see it, too. Here is the 
deal I offer back: The Tauzin amendment says ``Only with my consent 
will you give me that great deal. Only with my consent will you take my 
property and regulate it without paying me for it.''
  I think without the Tauzin amendment, without the landowner consent 
provision in this bill, this bill is a bad deal for Americans and most 
of our constituents would not take it. Landowner consent, the Tauzin 
amendment. Please adopt it. The Regula amendment takes that landowner 
consent away. Please vote against it, and then let us pass this good 
bill.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the deal here is whether we are going to have a bill 
that is going to be workable or unworkable, reasonable or unreasonable. 
I want to credit my colleagues with great creativity and imagination, 
in conjuring up problems with regard to this.
  All of a sudden, the inability of the Federal Government to buy land 
at the local level is an abomination. It is usually the other way 
around in terms of debates I have been in.
  What this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is create anarchy, or would 
create anarchy in these heritage areas.
  I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the Members that are seeking these 
designations, and Congress would designate these areas, with the 
cooperation of local government, the Members that are in the areas that 
have these designations favor the Regula amendment. They oppose the 
Tauzin amendment, because they understand it would be unworkable.
  It would be an unfunded mandate. It would be simply unworkable, We 
would have a patchwork quilt of individual landowners that decided to 
be in or decided to be out. It would not be workable. It would destroy 
the idea and the concept that is being advanced here in terms of 
partnership.
  The question is, Mr. Chairman, should we arrogate onto ourselves, the 
Congress, this decision; in other words, should we take rights away 
from the local government with regard to these heritage areas. It would 
deny them the basic tools they need in order to do the job.
  We have had a lot of demonizing going on here. There are a lot of 
unrelated concepts being attached to this American Heritage Partnership 
Act. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest this is not the biological survey, 
it is not the property rights issue. The property rights issues are not 
involved in this.
  The Constitution remains inviolate. It is not affected. I urge the 
Members to vote for the Regula amendment. It goes as far as we can go. 
We take the good ideas that we get from the Tauzin amendment without 
killing the bill. I know it is the intention to be supportive of this, 
but there are many other groups that have the intention to destroy this 
bill, to stop this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to defeat the Tauzin 
amendment, and to favor the Regula amendment, which will be voted on 
first.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VENTO. I would ask the Chair if he would announce the rotation of 
the vote with regard to what will come first.
  The CHAIRMAN. The first vote will be the question on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] to the amendments 
offered en bloc by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. VENTO. The first vote will be on the Regula amendment with regard 
to local government rights, is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the first vote will be on the vote to 
strike the landowner consent provisions of the Tauzin amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The first vote will be on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Regula] to the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair 
announces that he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a rollcall vote by electronic device may be taken on 
the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin].
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 202, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 484]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (GA)
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--202

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bachus (AL)
     Bevill
     Blackwell
     Browder
     Callahan
     Cramer
     Fish
     Gallo
     Hilliard
     McDermott
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1507

  Messrs. POMEROY, ARCHER, FAWELL, HEFNER, GONZALEZ, BISHOP, and ROEMER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DEAL, Mr. BOUCHER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. GILMAN, and Mr. COLEMAN changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendments was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], as amended.
  The amendments en bloc, as amended, were agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. tauzin

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tauzin: Page 23, after line 24, 
     insert the following:
       (g) Protection of Private Property.--The management entity 
     for an American Heritage Area shall publish procedures to 
     ensure that the rights of owners of private property are 
     protected. Such procedures shall include an administrative 
     process to provide compensation to the owner of private 
     property if the use or value of all or any portion of the 
     private property is substantially diminished as a result of 
     the designation of the American Heritage Area or the 
     management plan for the American Heritage Area.

  Mr. TAUZIN (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 
Louisiana?

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I wanted to 
inquire as to the amendment being offered by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Louisiana. Is this the amendment printed in the Record 
that provides for a process for compensation of landowners that are 
significantly affected?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has inquired as to whether 
the amendment at the desk is the amendment providing for compensation 
to a landowner whose property has been severely or substantially 
devalued.
  Mr. VENTO. I think the word is significant.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Significantly devalued.
  Mr. VENTO. That is in the amendment, unless it is a different 
amendment that the gentleman is talking about.
  Mr. TAUZIN. As a result of the regulations, and the answer is that 
that is the amendment at the desk.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.


 amendment offered by mr. rahall to the amendment offered by mr. tauzin

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rahall to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Tauzin:
       In the amendment offered by Mr. Tauzin to page 23 of 
     section 107 of H.R. 5044, on line 5, strike ``an 
     administrative'' and all that follows through line 10 and 
     insert the following:
       a process to provide information to the owners of private 
     property with respect to obtaining just compensation due as a 
     result of a taking of private property under the Fifth 
     Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

  Mr. RAHALL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if I may 
engage the gentleman in a colloquy, I ask the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall], is this the amendment that would substitute for 
the compensation amendment, and would provide only a process to provide 
information to the landowner?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment reaffirms constitutional 
rights, I respond to the gentleman.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate, but true, that we are 
faced with a situation where this particular bill is being used as a 
vehicle to advance a certain political agenda which, while on its face 
has a populist appeal, is in reality quite dangerous to some of the 
basic foundations of the Republic.
  The pending legislation clearly provides that no Federal funds can be 
used to acquire property within a heritage area.
  Let me repeat that, because there are some who have chosen to ignore 
the clear reading of the legislation.
  The pending legislation clearly provides that no Federal funds can be 
used to acquire property within a heritage area.
  Now, with that said, I find it hard to imagine why anybody would 
offer a so-called takings amendment to allegedly protect private 
property rights.
  Moreover, we have gone so far in trying to address the concerns of 
Members like the gentleman from Louisiana as saying in this bill that 
if you own a historical property within a heritage area, and you want 
to sell if to a governmental entity to ensure its protection, you will 
not be able to do so if Federal funds are involved.
  We are throwing out the window the concept of willing buyer/willing 
seller that has served us so well over the years.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution states 
that there shall be no taking of private property by the Government 
without just compensation.
  Most of us learn this at least by the time we take our first civics 
class in school.
  And what we also know is that only the courts can decide, on a case-
by-case basis, whether a governmental action results in a takings and 
whether it is a compensable takings.
  In my view, agendas are being pursued under this takings banner that 
do not necessarily have anything to do with private property rights.
  And I say this especially within the context of the pending 
situation, where we have a bill that prohibits Federal funds from being 
used for land acquisition.
  I would suggest to my colleagues that in light of these facts, if you 
find that you simply have to vote for some type of amendment, the 
proper course of action to take is to vote for the pending Rahall-
Regula amendment.
  Our amendment provides for procedures to be put into place within a 
heritage area to ensure that the rights of private property owners are 
protected, and that they are made aware of their constitutional rights. 
I urge the adoption of this substitute amendment.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Rahall 
amendment and in support of the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, on a very close vote, as we just saw, the House agreed 
not to require the written consent of the landowner to have his 
property wrapped into these heritage areas, and the regulations on land 
use that are going to flow from them. In short, the House voted for the 
Federal Government working with the State governments and local 
governments to regulate the use and value of people's property in these 
heritage areas without their consent. If ever there was an exercise of 
eminent domain, we just exercised it in the last vote.
  Now, the Congress has provided through eminent domain, through 
easement procedures, laws to permit the Government to compensate 
landowners when the Government needed the land, needed the use of that 
property for a certain purpose. We have done that in many cases 
already.
  The amendment I have offered simply says now that if we are going to 
have a bill that says that landowners do not have to consent to have 
their property brought under these regulatory regimes, if they do not 
have to consent to the loss of the value and the use of their property, 
that the least we ought to do under the Constitution is provide a 
remedy at home for small landowners who cannot afford to go all the way 
to the Supreme Court to find out if they have a remedy in compensation.
  Now, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] offers a 
substitute to our amendment. I think it is important to look at that 
substitute very carefully. All that substitute does is to say that 
under this bill the landowner is going to be given information about 
what to do if he wants to get compensated.
  Well, you do not need an amendment to do that; all you need is a road 
map and a designation as to where the courthouse is. If all you want to 
do is to send every landowner in America to the courthouse to find out 
whether or not he can get compensated, you have relegated every 
landowner, homeowner, rancher, farmer affected by this bill to a 10-
year litigation process because that is the average right now for 
landowners contesting property right condemnations under regulatory 
takings.
  Am I exaggerating? No. Look at the record.
  Look at the case of Bowles versus the United States, a property owner 
in Texas who belonged to the Nature Conservancy, a good guy who 
actually was on a conservation committee to watch the Corps of 
Engineers that they did not overly allow development in his area.
  In 1984 he was denied the right to build on his own subdivision lot 
in a subdivision in Brazoria County, TX. When he was denied that right, 
he did what Mr. Rahall's amendment does, he went to court, 10 years 
later the court of claims here in Washington, DC, finally awarded him 
compensation for the taking of his property. It took him 10 years.
  Now, rich landowners can afford to do that, perhaps; rich companies 
can afford 10 years of litigation. Perhaps those of you who want to 
vote for Mr. Rahall's amendment because they will get information as to 
where to find the courthouse.
  But if you have in your district, if you have in your State ordinary 
property owners, farmers, ranchers, homeowners who simply own a tract 
of land in America, a parcel that is going to come under these heritage 
corridors, some as long as six countries wide and as wide as the 
Mississippi River, look at the map. If you have small landowners who 
cannot afford a 10-year trip to the Supreme Court, maybe you might be 
interested in the Tauzin amendment. Maybe you want more information, 
maybe you want a process to compensate you when the value of that 
property has been substantially diminished without your consent.

  Now, if ever there was a pernicious reading of the Constitution, it 
is the way this bill currently reads. What this bill says, if I may 
reword the fifth amendment, according to this bill, is that private 
property shall not be taken for public purposes unless it is in a 
heritage area.
  The Constitution does not have an exception. It does not say unless 
it is in a heritage area or unless it is a wetland or covered by an 
endangered species. We had this debate on the Desert Protection Act. 
The House voted overwhelmingly to make sure the landowner got 
compensated.
  I urge you, as you did in the Desert Protection Act, to recognize 
there are many small landowners in America who cannot afford a 10-year 
trip to the U.S. Supreme Court and whose justice and civil rights under 
the Constitution require us to pass a law, the Tauzin amendment, 
establishing a procedure for them to get compensated.
  This is a basic right in America. We can argue about it all day and 
all night until the chickens come home, but it is basic. If you are 
going to take somebody's property without their consent, if you are 
going to substantially deprive them of the value or the use of their 
property, then we ought to provide a compensation mechanism. If you 
want to tell every small landowner in your district that you refuse to 
do that, that you refuse to provide them a remedy in law for their 
losses, then I suggest you vote for the Rahall amendment. But if you 
want to protect private property rights, vote for the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and 
rise in opposition to the Rahall amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rahall amendment is just a pawn to try to divert 
attention from the real issue here, and that is payment for the use and 
taking of private property.
  Now, I have heard and you have all heard the argument that this bill 
now does not provide Federal funds to be used to acquire Federal 
property. That is part of the problem. What about the use of private 
property, Mr. Chairman and Members? In these heritage foundation areas 
they may well use your private property and reduce the value of it and 
therefore you have no ability of using your own private property to 
control it. So use is a very important part of this issue.
  The Tauzin amendment provides that there be compensation if your land 
is either used or diminished in value. That is as simple as it is. Do 
not hide behind the fifth amendment to the Constitution.
  Let me read to you 3 or 4 recent holdings by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  In Hadacheck versus Sebastian, a 90-percent taking, the Supreme Court 
said no taking. Euclid versus Amber, the Supreme Court said no taking. 
Seventy five percent of the value of the land was taken.
  The Keystone Coal case, where 50 percent of the value of the land was 
taken, the Supreme Court ruled no taking.
  But in the latest Supreme Court decision, Dolan decision, Dolan 
versus Tigard, which, by the way, is in the State of Oregon, the city 
of Tigard, there the city was trying to take Mr. Dolan's opportunity to 
expand his laundry because the city wanted to store grain, and an 
additional 10 percent for a bike path. The Supreme Court said, after 10 
years, said, ``No, that is a taking.'' The city of Tigard had to back 
away.
  The point remains here that if you hide behind the fifth amendment, 
you have extremely disadvantaged small people who have to spend years 
and literally thousands and millions of dollars to pick it up. What we 
are saying here, we say outright we want small people who have lost the 
use of their land, who have abused by either local government or 
Secretary Babbitt, the Secretary of Interior, they will have the right 
of compensation to restore them whole. What is wrong with that? That is 
basic private property rights. That is what we all stand for.
  Support the Tauzin amendment and vote against the Rahall amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the Rahall-Regula amendment to the 
Tauzin amendment and ask my colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  1530

  The fact of the matter is that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] sets up a radical concept in terms of how 
we ought to deal, or how local governments ought to deal, with any 
changes of value that might be attributed to some type of zoning 
activity at a local level. I want to know from the sponsor of this 
where does this procedure exist in the United States today? What local 
government has set up this particular process or procedure? What State 
government has set up this process or procedure--given this to 
bureaucrats to make these decisions about when property goes up or down 
in value without the consent of owner? Where does it exist? Where does 
it exist? Can the gentleman tell me where it exists?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. It exists in every highway department in the country 
which has an eminent domain section. Every highway department in Oregon 
has such a section.
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is not the point. 
The point is that every agency can negotiate for a willing seller, 
willing buyer. There is no eminent domain in this bill. There is no 
purchase by the Federal Government. There is no purchase necessarily by 
the local government. There is no procedure that exists 
administratively at the local or at the State level for this particular 
function. It does not exist. What this is is a wholly unique piece of 
policy to be superimposed on this bill. It is a radical concept. It is 
an unfunded mandate. If a local government opted into a heritage area, 
they would have to buy part and parcel this particular procedure for 
setting up and compensating so-called changes in significant value.
  The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is the procedure exists in law 
today, and it works pretty well in the U.S. Constitution, and that is 
why the Regula and the Rahall amendment is articulating and emphasizing 
that. It is the Constitution that these basic provisions exist in. This 
is the core of law, not something superimposed on it, some type of 
convoluted process which the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] is 
proposing here.
  This would simply undermine the effect of local governments being 
able to deal with this. This would set up an experimental program with 
no funding at the local level. How could local governments possible 
deal with this particular procedure in terms of making these 
determinations? It is unworkable. It is unfair to those local 
governments to set this up, and in the end it would render the program 
moot, and it would pull the rug out from under the program and make it 
so it would not be workable. Providing the information is a positive 
step in terms of giving property owners affected knowledge of their 
rights to pursue a course through the tried and tested State and local 
courts and through the Federal Government, ultimately even the Supreme 
Court, and I might say that the Supreme Court has not been reluctant, 
or the other courts reluctant, to in fact assert the legitimate rights 
of property owners when they have been violated, and I endorse the 
proposals and the effort that they have made to protect those property 
owners.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to be sensitive to this, and, if we need a new 
process, is this the place to develop it? Is this the place we are 
going to upset 200 years of jurisprudence by putting in place a 
procedure that is not defined, that is going to be different in every 
local jurisdiction that is impacted by this. How many administrative 
units are we going to create? What are we doing to the local 
governments? It is one thing to protect private property rights, but I 
think we ought to look before we leap, and I say to my colleagues, ``I 
think that if you look before you leap, you vote for the Rahall-Regula 
amendment and you vote against the Tauzin amendment.''
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, let me make it clear by 
saying, ``If you voted yes on the last amendment, you're a yes on this 
amendment because essentially the issue is the same,'' and let me also 
make clear that in this bill there is no public use of private property 
without compensation. This bill is for the local people to 
cooperatively and voluntarily put together these heritage corridors. 
The gentleman from Oregon gave us cases where there was a 90-percent 
taking, a 75-percent taking. Let me tell my colleagues that this is a 
zero percent taking. There is no taking, and so there is no 
relationship to what the court has done, and here it said we cannot use 
the courts. I say to my colleagues, ``I believe that you can't repeal 
the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution by making a speech here 
today.''
  Mr. Chairman, it very clearly in the Rahall-Regula amendment says, 
and let me read it:

       . . . a process to provide information with respect to the 
     owners of private property to obtaining just compensation due 
     as a result of any taking of private property as provided in 
     the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

  The point is there is no taking. There is no change in zoning. It 
simply allows local people, with support from the Federal Government of 
a dollar-for-dollar match, to develop a heritage corridor with historic 
preservation of historic areas, environmental areas. It gives people an 
opportunity to do things locally.
  And talk about unfunded mandates. Let me say to all of my colleagues 
that the Tauzin amendment would be the biggest unfunded mandate we have 
passed here in a long time because it would mandate to local 
governments, that they would be paying people that might have nothing 
to do with this, and the cost would be enormous, and, therefore, local 
governments could not, as a practical matter participate.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, ``If you're against 
unfunded mandates, you're a yes on the Rahall-Regula, and, if you 
believe in local control, you're a yes on Rahall-Regula.''
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, my friend made an eloquent, passionate 
speech, but I caught an inconsistency. Perhaps he can help me with it.
  I say to the gentleman, ``At one point in your talk you said there 
are no takings under this bill, and at another point you said that if 
my amendment passed providing for compensation for substantial takings, 
that this would be a huge cost.''
  Which is correct?
  Mr. REGULA. If there would be a taking by local government or a 
taking by anybody, there would be a cost. But the point is the 
gentleman is saying in his amendment that they have to go out to all of 
these people and provide compensation for a change in value. That is 
not a taking. The gentleman is talking about something entirely 
different. We are saying in our amendment that we protect the rights of 
the private property owner, as clearly set out in the fifth amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. The fact is that what the Tauzin amendment would do is to 
place a cost on the legitimate and bona fide powers of local 
governments to make the decisions with regard to land use. There are 
within the context of our Constitution divided and delegated powers to 
the States. The States have those rights, and within the precepts of 
the Constitution, within the precepts of what the court has determined 
to be a legitimate and police power of the State, they have certain 
powers, and they ought to be able to exercise those. They ought to be 
able to exercise them without paying a premium to someone that is set 
up under a procedure here.
  What the gentleman is doing is superimposing on local governments a 
new power, a new procedure. The gentleman from Louisiana is 
superimposing a new procedure in terms of what happens every time a 
land use changes, and the fact of the matter is that is a determination 
by the court to determine whether or not there is. But there certainly 
is zoning. There certainly are powers that the local governments have 
today, they have under this particular bill. There are certain powers 
the States have today that they have under this bill. Should they have 
to pay in order to exercise those legitimate and bona fide powers they 
have today that are recognized and not recognized in the court? And 
what this amendment intends to do and what the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin] generally intends to do is to make both the Federal 
Government pay, to make State governments pay, to make the local 
governments pay every time they exercise a land use decision. That is 
the total effect of the advocacy that is being presented here, a 
radical new vote in terms of the government's role, in terms of what it 
does with land use, what it does with property.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what is going on here, and we ought to be 
defeated. We ought to vote for and uphold the Constitution, not some 
radical interpretation.
  Mr. REGULA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, 
``If you voted `yes' on the last amendment, you vote `yes' on this 
amendment. The same issue is before us.''
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan], my colleague, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to the gentleman from Oregon who 
earlier in this debate alleged that, although prohibiting the use of 
Federal funds in this legislation for the acquisition of private 
property, as we so clearly do, he says that in essence in effect what 
we are doing is affecting the use of private property. Again I say to 
the gentleman, as I did earlier in the use of Federal funds for the 
acquisition of private property, that look what we save, three 
different occasions as far as the use of private property in this 
legislation.

                              {time}  1540

  On page 30, section (1)(a), the lack of effect on authority of 
governments, we say, ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to 
modify, enlarge, or diminish any authority of Federal, State, and local 
governments to regulate any use of land as provided for by current law 
or regulation.''
  A second area, we say, ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to 
grant powers of zoning or land use to any management entity for 
American Heritage area.''
  On a third occasion, in the Vento en bloc amendments that we already 
adopted, we say, ``No requirement for land use regulation as a 
condition for approval. No provision of this title shall be construed 
to require any change in land use regulation as a condition of approval 
of a compact management plan or revision of a compact management plan 
by the secretary.''
  So once again I say, read the legislation and see what we clearly 
prohibit in the bill already, to address the concerns of those like the 
gentleman from Louisiana.
  Finally I will say, Mr. Chairman, in a question I posed to the 
question from Louisiana, who has championed this particular concern of 
his, and again I say myself perception as it relates to this bill, what 
if we were to adopt the gentleman's language to every highway bill that 
went through this body, to every dam that we built, to every public 
works project that we were to build across this country. What if we 
were to adopt the language of the gentleman from Louisiana?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman knows, I assume, that that is the law in 
every highway bill, that when the government takes your private 
property to build a highway, you are entitled to a procedure for 
compensation, and it is an eminent domain question, and you get 
compensated. The gentleman knows the current law provides for that.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, that 
is not a taking in those particular issues. We are not talking about 
takings here in this particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield further, I suggest when the 
Government comes along and demands 10 of your acres for a highway, that 
it is a taking, and that is what it is all about. That is when you get 
paid under eminent domain. When a taking occurs here, we are suggesting 
the same thing ought to happen. You ought to get compensated, and the 
House agreed with that provision on the Desert Protection Act.
  Mr. RAHALL. Again I would say to the gentleman, there are no takings 
in this piece of legislation. If there were takings, I would totally 
agree with him. The Constitution protects us in those cases.
  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if the gentleman 
were correct that there are no potential takings in this bill, you are 
correct, that there would be no compensation required. So what is the 
harm of an amendment that says if a taking does occur, that you have a 
provision for compensation? You cannot argue there is no taking, and 
yet no need for compensation if there are takings.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. The gentleman's definition in his amendment does not 
necessarily suggest that there is a taking. It talks about, whatever it 
means, a significant diminution of the use, whatever that is. The fact 
is that flies smack into the face, and the gentleman ought to know, the 
gentleman is very learned with regard to this, it flies right into the 
face of the legitimate powers of local and State governments to 
regulate land. So this is the case. And what the gentleman seeks to do, 
and I think it is clear, is to expand the amount of liability that the 
State and local governments would have uniquely onto this heritage 
area. Not under any other.
  Now, maybe if you want to do that, that ought to be applied to 
everything in general. But why we would begin and do it in this 
instance is beyond me. So it is not a taking. Takings, if the gentleman 
will continue to yield, are protected under the fifth amendment. We say 
there are no takings, and in order to order that, we say here are the 
procedures we are going to follow. Are we going to rewrite out of whole 
cloth new law with regard to property rights here on the House floor as 
represented, as is represented by my colleague from Louisiana's effort.
  That is what this is; no more, no less.
  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield further, I beg to differ with 
my friend from Minnesota. What this gentleman is doing is in fact 
offering an amendment that parallels the decision of the Supreme Court 
in the case of Doland versus Tigard and in the case of Lucas versus the 
United States. In both of those cases, the U.S. Supreme court said that 
where a substantial loss, which is what we have here, of the use of or 
value of property, results from a regulatory taking, such as this, that 
compensation should be provided.
  What we are suggesting is that a procedure be set up for that, rather 
than requiring everybody to go to court. That is what we do in highway 
takings, that is what we do in public property takings for public 
purposes like public projects.
  So the gentleman is incorrect in saying that we have written 
something out of whole cloth. Lucas versus the United States and Doland 
versus the city of Tigard is the language we depend upon.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of times we support something based on previous 
knowledge and history of the way things work. I know in the California 
desert plan, the Government, when it takes lands, and I know the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] fought against it, the Government 
is billions and billions of dollars behind in paying for land.
  So what happens is that when a person's property is taken and goes on 
that list, the Government cannot pay for it. Then in the meantime, you 
cannot build or improve your property. So what happens? The value goes 
down. Then the Government comes in and says we want to give you fair 
market value.
  That is not right, Mr. Chairman. I talked to a judge in San Diego 
this past weekend who teaches at the University of San Diego. He said 
the Government historically tries to beat down the price of private 
property so they can get it cheaper. He also said that the courts today 
across the country of the United States are tending to fight against 
this, because it is violating private property rights of individuals. 
Basically, it is stealing their land, and that is wrong.
  I have a cousin that is in the district of the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin]. He is a Republican, a solid Republican, and he 
supports the gentleman. Let me tell you why. Because the gentleman 
fights for the property rights and the rights of his constituents and 
those across America. I take a look at the gentleman's record in that 
area, and I look at the other gentlemen as far as the taking of lands, 
such as the California desert plan, Mr. Chairman, and I happen to 
believe in the gentleman and what he is trying to do.
  I support eminent domain, but I also support the fair and equitable 
payment for land that you would own, Mr. Chairman, or I would own, or 
my mom or anybody else. And I think that when we take a look at it, I 
do not care if it is the Federal Government trying to steal my land or 
the State government trying to steal my land, or a city trying to steal 
my land. If they are going to take it under a taking, then they need to 
at least compensate me for it.
  If there is no taking in this legislation, then the Members that are 
supporting this legislation should not be afraid to stand up and say 
hey, there is no taking in this. But if it does happen, then just 
compensation will be provided. And I do not think that is wrong.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, on this point of administrative procedures, 
my understanding is that if there is a taking and we go through the 
administrative procedures, it costs an average individual about 
$250,000 and takes 10 years to resolve that. I thought I would bring 
that up and add it to the remarks of the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In the meantime, the property value goes down and the 
Government wants to give him fair compensation at the reduced level. 
That concerns me, and I would ask at least the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento] and the rest of you, if you are saying taking does not take 
place, but if it does, then I think we ought to give just compensation.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. My point is that is 
exactly what the Rahall-Regula amendment does. It refers back to the 
provisions in the Constitution. We cannot deny or suspend those rights 
by a speech on the floor, as Mr. Regula said. The problem you have to 
understand, and I hope all Members do, is that what is being proposed 
here is not legislation dealing with the takings. That issue is 
decidedly and affirmatively in the Rahall-Regula amendment. But what is 
being proposed is if there is regulation, and regulation is a 
legitimate power of the local and State government in this case, there 
is no Federal Government involvement here. This is not a corollary to 
the California desert, which the gentleman and I debated on in the 
past.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, I would say, again, I do not care 
if it is a State or even a local district. If they wanted to take my 
land, all I am asking for is just compensation. If taking is not 
involved in this, then there should be no problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Rahall amendment. Threats 
to our constitutional rights never come in announcing their intentions. 
They never come in like a whirlwind. They usually come in, they nibble 
around the edges. They never take a constitutional right head-on. They 
are like termites, Mr. Chairman. They chip away at the foundation of 
the principles on which our country was founded.
  This initiative is no different. It claims it is no threat to our 
constitutional rights. It only nibbles around the edges of the rights 
of private property owners. It chips away just a little bit at a time.
  Our Government has let loose too many of these termites on the rights 
of private property owners already, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues 
to stand up for the rights of private citizens, private landowners in 
this country, and to vote ``no'' on the Rahall amendment.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I just want to briefly also say that what the Rahall substitute would 
do to this amendment is they want the government to have the ability to 
use your property or any portion of it and that if the use happens to 
reduce its value, that they do not have to compensate the value for the 
owner for it.
  In other words, they are saying that the government or this heritage 
area should be able to take this property or not take it, just to walk 
in and use it for whatever purpose they determine. And then if it 
happens to lower the value or restrict the use by the owner, so be it, 
that they have compensation recourse.
  I would like to say that if in your own backyard in your homes, to 
the gentleman from Minnesota or the gentleman from Ohio, if the local 
government said, we want to use your backyard for a running path but we 
are not going to compensate you for it, but we will allow the public to 
run through it, would that be a similar situation as what we are asking 
for in this bill.
  I just feel that if the government is going to use it, if it is going 
to reduce the value, that there should be just compensation ordered.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if there is a taking of that property.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, no, not a taking. We just want to use it. 
That is what this bill is saying. Let us both use it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Minnesota advocate 
that anything a local government or State government made any 
modification to zoning, that they should have to have the purse out to 
pay back the money? Is that what the gentleman is advocating?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to help the gentleman in this 
area, because I have researched the law in that area. The courts have 
said that where zoning is unreasonable, where it is unreasonable, that 
you can have a taking. But only where there is a shared burden and 
benefits is a zoning law reasonable and, therefore, not a taking.
  You can have a zoning law that is not a taking, but you can have a 
zoning law that unreasonably restricts the use of property. And the 
Supreme Court has ruled in other cases that that is a taking 
compensable under law.
  We are saying here is that this Heritage Act may create such 
unreasonable takings for the benefit of the public at the expense of 
one small landowner.
  The court has said very clearly in Florida Rock and many decisions 
that when the public at large benefits by taking the use away from one 
single landowner or a small group of them, that that is a 
constitutional taking.
  Our problem is that if all of us have to go to the Supreme Court to 
find that out, what an awful, awful condition we are in in America. If 
every black child had to go to the Supreme Court to go to school in 
America, what a terrible state of mind we would be in in this country.
  We came to this legislative body and we passed a civil rights law to 
guarantee those civil rights, and the same thing ought to be true when 
it comes to civil rights of individuals in regard to property in this 
country.
  If a taking occurs, provide just compensation. If no taking occurs, 
as the gentleman claims no taking will occur, then there will be no 
compensation.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the point is that we say there is no taking. 
Apparently, there is some confusion about that. Obviously, the 
Constitution would prevail.
  Clearly, whenever there is a decision that is made, those decisions 
have to be followed by the lower courts and by the police of that local 
government. The fact here is that there is no taking in this particular 
bill.
  The point is, the gentleman is mandating that they set up a 
procedure. The gentleman is mandating in this amendment of his that 
they set up such a procedure irrespective of what takes place. To have 
it sitting there for no purpose is another waste of money, another 
unfunded mandate. I would suggest that we resist the amendment.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman 
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to read the very simple, very 
straightforward language of our amendment that the Rahall amendment 
would destroy. It simply says that the procedures shall include an 
administrative process to provide compensation to the owner of private 
property if the use or value of all or any portion of his private 
property is substantially diminished as a result of the designation of 
the American Heritage Area or the management plan for the American 
Heritage Area.
  That tracks very closely the language of the case law in this area, 
and it simply says that rather than condemning every one of us to spend 
10 years in court to find out if we have this right, that we would 
establish that as a matter of law.
  If the landowner in this process cannot establish that his property 
has been diminished in value, he will not be compensated. If he can 
make that determination, under our Constitution, he ought to, and under 
our amendment, he would be compensated. That is the clear choice before 
the House today. It was the same clear choice in the Desert Protection 
Act that 281 of my colleagues voted affirmatively for.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to briefly conclude by 
saying that every Member should put himself in the position of one of 
these property owners that would lie within this designation. Ask 
themselves if they would be willing to open the doors to their back 
gates of their property and let anybody use it for any purpose without 
compensation or just recourse.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, very briefly, to let the Members know, in the language 
of H.R. 5044, it specifically states, ``Nothing in this title shall be 
construed to grant powers of zoning or land use to any management 
entity.'' Again, ``nothing in this title shall be construed to grant 
powers of zoning or land use to any management entity.''
  Even these local management entities will have no power of zoning and 
no power of land use. The Tauzin amendment would require them to 
compensate, even though they have no such power.
  To me it just is not fair to say to a local entity, they are going to 
have to pay some specified money even though they do not have the power 
of zoning and they do not have the power of land use.
  If a local community wants to change its zoning and change its 
property values, then the local community should have to pay whatever 
money is involved in the taking, and the Rahall-Regula substitute will 
provide for that, if there is an actual taking.
  But under the bill, these management entities have no power to change 
zoning and no power to change or to require land use so they should not 
be held liable when they have no such power.
  This vote is very similar to the last vote. If Members voted yes for 
the Rahall-Regula substitute before, they should vote yes on the 
Rahall-Regula substitute again. I hope that substitute is adopted.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I guess the question I would raise, at 
least rhetorically for the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], based 
upon how successful these historic corridors have been across the 
northeast, this might be a question of some legitimacy, I wonder if the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] thinks that those who have had 
their property value enhanced by being included in historic corridor 
projects ought to compensate the government for that enhanced value?
  My argument here is that by and large, by and large, in my experience 
in totality, property values have been enhanced by the historic 
corridor projects. As one who has come from local government and one 
who was involved in zoning, which was a legitimate public purpose, and 
one who was involved in numerous land takings, I can state 
unequivocally that there is a process for settling amicably these 
issues. It is called the courts. And time and again, whether we like 
the decision that they come back with, they do a remarkable job in this 
instance of settling land use taking questions.
  There is no effort here, other than a proposal that would make for a 
more intrusive Congress in having us suggest, having us suggest that 
local government ought to check with us before they take private 
property.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
because the gentleman previously posed a rhetorical question and would 
not yield to allow me to answer it for him.
  The answer is that in no eminent domain taking is there such a 
provision for adjacent landowners to claim appreciation value.

                              {time}  1600

  In fact, Mr. Chairman, when the government comes to take your 
property for a highway purpose, the added value to your adjacent 
property is discounted in the calculations of value. That is currently 
the law.
  What we are talking about here, however, is a law that provides for 
your property to be wrapped into a management area without your 
consent, now, according to the last amendment, and without the chance 
for you to say ``I would rather not have been there, because it will 
diminish the value of my property.''
  If you have the right to consent, and your property was going to be 
elevated in value, that is one thing. However, where you do not have 
the right to say ``I don't want to be in that zoning area,'' and that 
heritage area may be six counties wide, as long as the Mississippi 
River, you ought to at least have the right to say ``If you have taken 
it without my consent, at least compensate me for what I have lost.''
  That is what the fifth amendment is all about. If we think every 
citizen ought to go to the Supreme Court to find that out, vote with 
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall]. His amendment gives 
directions to go to the court. It says ``Go find the courthouse.''
  If Members want to protect the individual small landowners of their 
district, they have to vote against the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] and vote for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  If the gentleman will continue to yield, one final point, Mr. 
Chairman. It is not the same amendment because the same fellow has his 
name on it. Do not let anybody kid you. Because the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Rahall] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] are the 
same sponsors of this amendment, it is not the same vote as the last 
vote.
  The last vote was on the issue of consent by the landowner. We 
decided we did not want to give him that consent. What this amendment 
is all about is whether, having denied him the right to consent, are we 
also going to take his property away without giving him a process for 
compensation. That is a very different issue.
  On that issue, Mr. Chairman, if Members are looking for guidance, 
look for the Tauzin amendment on the Desert Protection Act. Two hundred 
and eighty-one of the Members stood up in this Chamber and voted 
for fair compensation when property is taken by the Government for 
public purposes. That is what they Tauzin amendment is all about.

  Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I have heard different 
Members say that there is no local land use regulation in this, that 
there is no regulation in this.
  This is the bill. It is all regulation. It tells where the borders 
are, how wide, how long, what can be done. It identifies what they want 
to protect in those areas. The only out that they give the local 
government in this is, because the previous amendment passed, it says 
that local counties have to buy into it, totally ignoring the local 
private property owners and whether they want to buy into it.
  It is a Federal bill that now gives local counties or local cities 
the choice to opt out of it. It is all Federal land use regulation. 
That is what the bill is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just walk the Members through this very quickly 
as to what is going to happen. Ranchers are now going to wake up in the 
morning with a green spot on top of the map where their ranch used to 
be, and the Federal Government is now going to have adverse possession 
of their property. What they are doing is, they are regulating their 
ability to do something with their property, because if they do not 
happen to fit into the regulations that this outlines, they will not be 
allowed to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] is 
attempting to do with this amendment is to say if the Federal 
Government is taking away the value of our property with this 
legislation, they have to compensate us for it.
  Earlier in the discussion, in the debate, someone said ``There is no 
money in here to buy property.'' That is one of the biggest things that 
is wrong with this bill. If the Government wants it, buy it. Do not 
regulate them out of existence.
  We cannot afford to buy all the property that is included in this 
bill. We know we cannot afford to do it, so just say ``There is no 
money to buy it.'' If the Government wants it, pay for it. If we are 
going to take it by regulation, we have to pay the property owner for 
what we are taking.
  I have said this over and over on this floor. The Federal Government 
already owns a third of this country. What we are doing with the 
attempt is to take more property without having to pay for it. We are 
taking it by adverse possession. We are taking it by regulation, and in 
this, we are going to use the help of the local government.
  The local government can install any kind of heritage plan, heritage 
corridor, they want. They can go to any county they want to and install 
these regulations. They do not need the Federal Government to step on 
their toes and tell them what they are going to do.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the point has been made this afternoon here over and 
over again that there are no provisions in this bill whatsoever which 
would empower the Federal Government to acquire or use any private 
property whatsoever. Nothing in this bill will enable the Federal 
Government to acquire or use in any way whatsoever any private 
property.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it says ``Nothing in this title shall be 
construed to grant powers of zoning or land use to any management 
entity for an American heritage area.'' This bill makes it clear over 
and over and over again throughout its pages that the powers of zoning 
remain exclusively with the local government, with the village, the 
town, the localest level of government.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], 
and by the way, I have a great deal of respect for my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana, for what he is, what he tries 
to do in terms of property rights; I think he is to be respected and 
encouraged in that regard.
  Unfortunately, in this particular instance, he was off by just a 
little bit, because, since the bill stipulates that all the local 
powers of zoning remain with the local government, and no powers of 
zoning are in any way conveyed to the management entity or anyone else 
involved in the management of the heritage area, what the gentleman 
from Louisiana wants to do in his amendment is to require local 
governments to set up an administrative procedure for their own local 
zoning process, so that if a local government who happens to be within 
an American heritage area decides that it wants to zone an area 
residential, or it wants to keep an area around the school free of 
pornography, or pornographic bookstores, or movies, things of that 
nature, and they zone them out of existence, the effect of this 
amendment would require the local government to then set up an 
administrative procedure whereby they would have to pay the owner of 
that property not to establish a pornographic bookstore or a 
pornographic movie next to the theater pursuant to zoning regulations 
set up by the local government. That would be the practical, yes, the 
practical effect of the Tauzin amendment.
  That is why the Regula amendment to the Tauzin amendment is so 
necessary, and ought to be adopted.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that the local 
government, without this bill, has the right, power, and duty to zone 
out pornographic shops next to schools. They are doing it today. They 
have that right under the Constitution.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, that is true, Mr. Chairman. However, under the 
amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana, he would set up an 
administrative procedure which would have the effect of requiring them 
to pay the property owner for not being able to do that.
  Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield again, Mr. Chairman, the 
amendment does not affect current zoning authorities for those 
purposes. The amendment only affects the zoning authority used under 
this Federal act to create heritage areas.
  If the local government wants to zone an area, right now, if this act 
never becomes law, as it may not in the waning hours of this session, 
the local government has the right to do that now.
  this amendment would not require compensation for the exercise of 
that government authority, which currently exists without this bill.
  Mr. HINCHEY. No sir, Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that he 
is mistaken about that. He is mistaken about that, because what he does 
is say that any local government involved in an America heritage area 
would have to set up that administrative procedure, because the effect 
of the gentleman's amendment is to require that whenever any zoning 
takes place, that administrative procedure has to then follow.
  Since the only zoning that can take place has to be enacted by local 
government, the gentleman is imposing an unfunded mandate on every 
local government within the American heritage area to set up the 
administrative procedure that the gentleman wants to set up that would 
require people to be paid for not setting up pornographic bookstores 
and pornographic movies.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I am 
so glad that the gentleman has such a great respect for me that he 
would make this argument. The fact of the matter is that our amendment 
only deals with substantial diminutions of value as a result of 
designation by the American heritage area. It has nothing to do with 
pornographic bookstores next to schools, which can and should be zoned 
out of existence under current law, without respect to this statute.

  I will say it again, Mr. Chairman. My amendment does not in any way 
affect pornographic bookstores next to schools. I would appreciate it 
if the gentleman would just quit saying that.
  Mr. HINCHEY. The gentleman would have us believe that, I know, Mr. 
Chairman. The fact of the matter is that when a local government enacts 
a zoning ordinance, and that zoning ordinance then restricts that kind 
of activity in a particular neighborhood, the gentleman's amendment 
would have the effect of requiring an administrative procedure to pay 
that property owner for not setting up that obnoxious activity in that 
neighborhood.
  I am sorry to tell the gentleman that, but that is the effect of it.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there are certain comments in this hallowed Chamber 
this afternoon that bear repeating. I want to make, first, a couple of 
quick comments. The gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] said if this 
legislation passed, every ranch in the country would have a green dot 
on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if that is accurate. I respect the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]. The comment I want to make to 
the gentleman from California is that I respect his views, I respect 
his right as a property owner to own a ranch and be able to use that 
property as productively as possible, as far as his ancestors and his 
descendants want that property to be used.

                              {time}  1610

  But I would just hope that the gentleman understands what is 
beginning to happen with the precedent of this particular amendment. I 
would like to see the gentleman use that ranch from now until the end 
of time and I hope with enough rain, that ranch remains green so the 
cattle have something to eat. But I want to make a comment about the 
amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the 
precedent that it may in my judgment, actually would, set.
  Each jurisdiction in this country, a county, a town, has the right to 
have certain provisions for land use. There are residential areas, 
industrial areas, commercial areas, agricultural areas, all of these 
things. It is my judgment that under the Tauzin amendment, suppose in 
an agricultural area, a farmer decided that he wanted to use his farm 
for a rubble fill and bring in rubble or out-of-State rubble. That he 
could make--and this is not an exaggeration because it happens all 
across the country--$1 million a year bringing in rubble.
  Then the local planning commission said that you cannot use that land 
for a rubble fill. And he said that is a takings, because under my 
regular agricultural use of this land, I can only make $50,000 off of 
those acres, but it I make it a rubble fill, I can make $1 million off 
of that land, so that in clear essence is a takings because you have 
now substantially reduced the value of my property as far as my 
economic income is concerned.
  Suppose we have a residential area where someone decides that because 
of gasohol, they can now use their property in a residential area to 
set up a gasoline station and sell gas. They can make $100,000 a year 
with that gas station, with mechanic work or whatever, and the local 
jurisdiction said, ``That is zoned residential, you can't do that.'' 
But the owner says, ``You have substantially reduced the value of my 
property.''
  I want to make one other comment, and I do not want to really be an 
alarmist here and I do not want to overdo this issue because these 
things do happen around the country. They have happened in my district, 
they will happen in your district. Suppose somebody simply wants to set 
up a pornographic bookstore or they want to set up a little 
pornographic whatever and they want to put it in an area of town which 
will substantially reduce the value of somebody's restaurant, but they 
say, ``I want that bookstore because I can make a lot of money and if 
you substantially reduce the value of my property, you owe me the 
money.''
  According to this amendment in my judgment, the precedent is that we 
have just, and we will, place a mandate on local government in areas 
that we would not even begin to imagine. This amendment has nothing to 
do with land use, it has nothing to do with regulation, it has nothing 
to do with the takings. This protects the fifth amendment as has been 
described here endlessly today.
  I just want all the Members to consider the full ramifications of 
this precedent-setting amendment by the gentleman whom I have great 
respect for from the great State of Louisiana. He owns a little parcel 
of land on the Eastern Shore of Maryland from which I think he finds 
endless hours of enjoyment. I have full respect for this gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I know it has been said over and over again, but there is no taking, 
no change of zoning, no power to do that. If you are against unfunded 
mandates, vote yes on Rahall-Regula, because it prevents an unfunded 
mandate that will be required if you were to support the Tauzin 
amendment. We are trying to avoid that.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tauzin amendment and rise in 
opposition to the Rahall amendment.
  I would just like to make a point to the gentleman from Maryland who 
just finished speaking. Every one of the examples that he presented to 
the body today is a situation where there was a zoning change. What we 
are talking about here in this discussion is there is an established 
use of that particular piece of property and because of actions of the 
Federal Government, there is a potential of losing some of that use 
that that individual farmer or rancher has been relying on for years.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, he is correct in his assessment. As a former city 
councilman and someone who has spent countless hours working on local 
land-use decisions, the examples that the gentleman from Maryland 
points out are just dead-wrong, and we have gone back and forth on 
this. We come from different parts of the country and we have different 
ideas on protection of property. The point is, what they are doing to 
these properties is not telling them that they cannot put a rubble 
dump, that they cannot put a toxic waste dump, that they cannot build a 
gas station, that they cannot move in a pornographic bookstore. They 
are not telling them that they cannot do something. That is a local 
land-use decision.
  What they are doing is telling them that possibly they cannot do 
something they are doing now with their property. That is the 
difference. I think that the two arguments that were made by the two 
previous speakers about local land use and about their fears of what 
the Tauzin amendment might do are a perfect example of why they ought 
to vote against this entire bill. Because anytime the Federal 
Government gets involved in local land use, we mess it up.
  We have no business getting involved in local land use. It should be 
a local body's decision to decide whether or not they are going to put 
a rubble dump in their community, whether they are going to put a gas 
station in their community. That is a local land use decision. It is 
not up to the Federal Government.
  What this is doing with these regulations is land use.
  Mr. VENTO. They are not regulations. It is proposed law.
  Mr. POMBO. It has borders in here of where they start, where they 
stop. It has what they are trying to protect in the areas. This is the 
Federal Government getting involved with the county and the city's 
business. That is what this whole bill is about.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a good debate. I just want to correct one 
point in the record here. We are not talking about the ordinary zoning 
laws of a city, county or municipality. The Court of Appeals clearly 
said in the Florida Rock case which cited other Supreme Court decisions 
that where there is a comparable reciprocity of advantage and 
disadvantage. There is no taking in ordinary zoning laws. We are 
talking here about a law that will create large greenway networks up 
and down river systems, huge networks. We are not talking about local 
planning or zoning. We are talking about a new Federal statute to 
create new huge regionally planned land use areas in America. In these 
regionally planned huge land use areas, the notion of compensation is 
clearly defined in the Supreme Court takings law and it is one we ought 
to have in this bill.
  We are about to wrap up this debate very shortly. I want to just put 
it down to what it comes down to. It comes down to whether or not you 
want to reaffirm as you did in the Desert Protection Act that you 
believe in compensation, just compensation fully for government takings 
of private property, for regulatory takings. In the Desert Protection 
Act, 281 Members voted that way. A vote for the amendment of the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] is a vote to kill that same 
provision in this bill, because Rahall would simply provide information 
about how to go to court. That is all his amendment does. If you 
believe as you did in the Desert Protection Act that people ought to be 
compensated in a procedure whereby they get paid for the regulatory 
takings of the value of their property, the vote is no on Rahall and 
yes on the Tauzin amendment.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. UNSOELD. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a good debate. Obviously 
as Members know, I favor the Regula-Rahall amendment. I do not think 
local governments in heritage areas should have to pay to govern to 
make the decisions on zoning. They are protected by the fifth 
amendment. The Rahall-Regula amendment reiterates that. We do not need 
some sort of a new administrative procedure. What would that be?

                             {time}   1620

  What is better than the courts? Are we going to reinvent something 
here in every local government without any shape or form that is going 
to be unique in every local government? As the gentleman says, they 
already have structures to deal with where they have compensation 
issues, they already have land management offices. We do not need to 
tell them to do that. If there is an issue they need to respond to, 
they can do so. We cannot force this.
  This amendment would have a very negative effect on these areas being 
established. We want the local governments to make the decision. That 
is what this bill says. I just hope that we can vote this up and be on 
our way. This is not the California Desert, we are not creating any new 
parks, this is not creating 8 million acres of wilderness area. This is 
inherently local partnership. Can the local government be a partner, 
can the local government take some pressure off of the Park Service and 
designate some of these new areas? I think we can.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There are other 
amendments that should be offered that we are willing to accept, so if 
Members are going to use time, I would ask that we end the debate in 
about 5 minutes. I do not want to cut anybody off. But I want to inform 
the Members that there is only about 10 minutes remaining so we need to 
come to a conclusion so that the noncontroversial amendments can be 
offered.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the sponsor of the 
underlying amendment, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], has a 
laudatory objective. But the way I read it, I think it goes beyond what 
he may be intending in a couple of ways.
  No. 1, it is imposing by us Feds requirements on the local 
government. For many of us who have been saying we should be getting 
Government off the backs of local government we should not be imposing 
additional requirements on local government. The one that particularly 
bothers me, if I understand this correctly, currently if a highway is 
put through a community, the persons who give up their homes for the 
highway construction are compensated. That is a taking, and they are 
reimbursed, hopefully adequately. But the people who used to look at 
homes and are now looking at highway are not currently compensated 
under our system, and it would bankrupt the whole transportation 
system.

  But under the gentleman's amendment, as I read it, the local 
governments would be required to set up a procedure to compensate those 
whose view had been altered, and I think that this would be creating a 
whole new type of entitlement that we Feds should not be imposing on 
the local government.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. UNSOELD. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the gentlewoman 
the amendment does not impose the obligation of compensation. That is 
under the fifth amendment, under the courts. For example, the Dolan 
decision said the local government had to pay Mrs. Dolan for taking the 
greenway and the bike path. All we are saying is there ought to be a 
local procedure to do that, and I think that is fair. That is all we 
are doing.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. As I understand the partnership requirements, that can 
be achieved through the local partnership, and indeed that is the 
proper place to address this issue. I feel that although what the 
gentleman may be attempting to do and may have a legitimate purpose, I 
think that the attempt, the means of doing that goes way beyond 
anything we can contemplate today, and would open us up, and open local 
government up to such potential lawsuits that one no would dare tackle 
a heritage corridor.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. UNSOELD. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, as a sponsor, the Member that represents 
those areas that are asking for this particular amendment, if this were 
just applied to the State of Louisiana, I might be able to accept it. 
But I do not know of any place that we have that type of a problem.
  Mrs. INSOELD. My chamber of commerce is not asking for it.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Regula-Rahall amendment on 
behalf of the people that I represent in northern Ohio.
  Essentially what the Tauzin amendment would do in this case would be 
to place a liability, a potential liability, a real liability on the 
managers of the various corridors that are being proposed. In the case 
of the Ohio and Erie Canal American Heritage Area that consists of the 
Superintendent of the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, two 
individuals that have been appointed by the Governor, eight individuals 
that are appointed by county commissioners or the county chief 
executive of the counties of Cuyahoga, Summit, Stark, and Tuscarawas, 
and I happen to represent the western side of Cuyahoga County, Cuyahoga 
County has clearly stated from its planning commission, from the 
Cuyahoga County Commissioners that they are very much in favor of the 
bill as it stands, and that essentially what this amendment would do is 
eliminate their ability to go forward with the corridor.
  The reason for that is that it creates personal liability to the 
individuals on the board, it creates corporate liability for the 
county, and what that essentially means is that it kills the corridor 
area.
  My concern is that the issue here or that the real motivation here is 
to actually kill the ability to have the corridor completely. The fact 
is that right now anybody who actually had a real taking of property 
would and does have a very real, very real cause of action right now in 
State court and could pursue it that way.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has just made my point. The 
liability already exists. The person who suffers the taking under this 
bill will be able to go to the court. That exists today. The only 
difference between any amendment and the Rahall amendment is that he 
will point you to the courthouse. Our amendment will set up a procedure 
where local landowners can have that established at home without having 
to travel and litigate for 10 years. I think that is very fair.
  Mr. HOKE. Reclaiming my time, I would have to tell the gentleman in 
that case that if that is all the amendment does, then it is very easy 
to be opposed to it, because all it does is set up a new bureaucracy. 
With respect to the people that I represent and the area that we are 
talking about in Cuyahoga County, they have to travel if it is in the 
Federal courthouse, they have to travel about 5 miles to the Federal 
courthouse in Cleveland. If it is the county courthouse, they have to 
travel the same amount of miles. They are across the street from each 
other. They have no place to travel. If that is what we are doing, is 
creating this bureaucratic entity that is going to be another layer of 
bureaucracy, for heaven's sake, there is no justification whatsoever 
for doing this.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. HOKE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. My bill does not create another level of bureaucracy. It 
calls upon the local government to use its current land office, its 
current imminent domain offices to do at home on the local level what 
might be done in the court of claims up in here Washington after 10 
years of litigation. That is the only change, only difference in my 
amendment. If you want justice at home, vote for the Tauzin amendment. 
If you want to go to court for 10 years, go with Rahall.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, that is not the only thing in terms of 
setting up a new administrative panel or board. Most local governments 
are capable of dealing with that, and in fact do. But it also puts in a 
new definition of what is a property value, and that is the key here in 
terms of what is going on. That is where the court has come in and 
applied it. What the gentleman is asking is a substantial diminution of 
the right. He claims it follows the law, and if it follows the law, 
then there is no need for it again, and again it is redundant, and we 
do not need this redundancy.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said it exactly right. Tauzin 
creates a whole plethora of administrative units, big, expensive, and 
you have the local Boy Scouts, the Kiwanis Club and the Boys Club 
trying to preserve something for their children and their 
grandchildren, and instead he wants to have a huge administrative 
burden.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, most unusual debate; I was not going to get involved, 
but since everybody is talking about how you go to jail and what 
process it takes to get to jail and how supposedly Rahall is going to 
help you do all of that, I have gone through the process more than 
anybody else and been in jail more than anybody else. So I think I 
could probably, as a nonattorney, speak to what I consider to be the 
language in the bill.
  I will not yield to the venerable chairman. I am hoping not to get 
into the details of the indictment and everything.
  Page 30, section 110, ``the lack of effect on land use regulation,'' 
subsection (b), from a nonattorney, ``Lack of zoning or land use powers 
of entity. Nothing in this title shall be construed to grant powers of 
zoning or land use to any management entity for an American Heritage 
Area.''
  Now, I looked at the language. My neighbor does a great job, a Member 
of the other party, probably helped Ohio more than anybody else along 
with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], and we appreciate it, 
Chairman.
  I looked at the language in concert with the chairman, the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], and I think we are taking this 
constitutional thing a little out of context.
  The Congress of the United States is going to spend all of this time 
in the last 2 days on all of these bills talking about the 
Constitution. My God, you should be talking about the World Trade 
Organization or that God-awful trade treaty.
  I support the Regula-Rahall amendment. I support, though in 
principle, the continuing efforts of the chairman, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], but I am going to vote, because I think the 
amendment by Regula-Rahall speaks to the constitutional issues, and I 
think that the fears that are being developed are just that.
  Now, not everybody is an attorney who reads our laws, and one of the 
problems we have is interpretation. One of the things that, Congress, 
we might do is, in establishing legislative history, bring forward all 
of that dialog. The people of the United States are certainly getting 
tired of all of these attorneys, anyway.
  So I am proud to say today that I am not a member of the bar. I am 
going to try to stay out of jail. And I am going to vote for Rahall-
Regula.
  And in closing, I would hope that the Speaker of the House may be 
listening, and he will not bring forward the rule on GATT that may cost 
the Democrat candidates to lose four or five seats in the upcoming 
election. I have seen some crazy things, and I think the Democrat 
responsible for bringing GATT on the floor today is making a serious 
blunder.
  The White House is not up for election, and if Hulk Hogan cannot lift 
it and Albert Einstein cannot understand it, leave it in the closet, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], 
the venerable chairman, who wanted to try and say some nice things.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support for the 
Rahall-Regula amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment by my colleague from Louisiana and in support of the Rahall-
Regula substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to again stress that everyone agrees that the 
rights of private property owners in this country must be protected and 
preserved.
  But once again, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana is making 
a disingenuous argument. As has been pointed out time and time again, 
the American Heritage Areas Protection Act does not diminish the rights 
of private property owners--it protects them.
  This bill ensures that no decision on land management can be made 
without the express consent of the local community.
  For more than 200 years the court has protected our private property 
rights under the fifth amendment to the Constitution. The amendment by 
Mr. Tauzin would radically change our tradition by creating an 
administrative process--instead of a judicial process--to adjudicate 
takings disputes. We should not undertake such a fundamental change so 
lightly.
  The Rahall-Regula substitute, which would ensure that all landowners 
are made aware of their rights under the fifth amendment, is a good and 
fair alternative to the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. Chairman. I encourage my colleagues to support the Rahall 
substitute and support the American Heritage Areas Protection Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, how long a time does one have after a vote 
has been declared one way or another?
  The CHAIRMAN. There had been no intervening business when the 
gentleman from Louisiana, who was standing, asked for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair 
announces that he may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a rollcall vote by electronic device may be taken on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 187, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 485]

                               AYES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--187

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Bunning
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bachus (AL)
     Bevill
     Blackwell
     Browder
     Burton
     Callahan
     Carr
     Chapman
     Cramer
     Gallo
     Hilliard
     Jacobs
     Ridge
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1655

  Mr. GUNDERSON, Mr. SAXTON, and Mr. McCOLLUM changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROWLAND changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


                amendment offered by mr. young of alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
       Page 35, after line 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 115. FISHING AND HUNTING SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       (a) No Diminishment of State Authority.--The designation of 
     an American Heritage Area shall not diminish the authority of 
     the affected State or States to manage fish and wildlife, 
     including the regulation of fishing and hunting within such 
     Area.
       (b) No Conditioning of Approval and Assistance.--
     Limitations on fishing, hunting, or trapping may not be made 
     a condition for the approval of a compact or management plan, 
     the provision of assistance for early actions pursuant to 
     section 106 (a)(4), the determination of eligibility for 
     Federal funds, or the receipt, in connection with the 
     American Heritage Area status of an area, of any other form 
     of assistance from the Secretary or other Federal agencies.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (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 
Alaska?


                             point of order

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear what is being done.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair states that there has been offered a new 
amendment, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young].
  Is there objection to the dispensing of the reading of this 
amendment?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, is this the amendment that is printed in the 
Record of October 3, 1994?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it is.
  Mr. VENTO. Is this the amendment that deals with the fishing and 
hunting savings clause to be offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] and, I understand, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster]?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to dispensing with the 
reading.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska will be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, our amendment preserves the right 
of the State fish and game departments to manage fish and wildlife on 
lands designated as heritage areas which includes regulating hunting 
and fishing.
  Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] accept 
the amendment?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find out if all we have left 
is 5 minutes in total for this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, then if I take the 5 minutes, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] has no more time to talk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can divide the time, and the Chair will 
divide the time, equally between both gentlemen. The Chair will 
recognize the gentleman form Alaska [Mr. Young] for 2\1/2\ minutes and 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to divide the time 
equally between the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Chair has divided the time 
already.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the amendment also clearly states 
that Secretary Babbitt or his successors cannot require limits on 
hunting and fishing as a condition for approving any heritage area 
management plans or compacts. Furthermore, no Federal funds authorized 
by this act can be withheld because hunting is allowed on the affected 
lands.
  Without our amendment, this legislation would be silent on the 
question of hunting. As a result, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 
2.2(b) dealing with hunting on units of the National Park System would 
be the law of the land for all heritage areas.
  This regulation states, ``hunting shall be allowed in park areas 
where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory 
law.''
  It goes on to state, ``hunting may be allowed in park areas where 
such activity is specifically authorized as a discretionary activity 
under Federal statutory law if the superintendent determines that such 
activity is consistent with public safety and enjoyment, and sound 
resource management principles.''
  Our failure to authorize hunting in this legislation will either 
result in the National Park Service using their discretionary power to 
ban hunting or animal rights activists going to Federal court to stop 
it as they did with the Ozark National Scenic Riverway in Missouri 
several years ago.
  One real world example of why our amendment is needed is illustrated 
by a proposal to create a heritage area two to six counties wide 
running the entire length of the Mississippi River, over 1,200 miles 
long. This area contains one of the largest waterfowl flyways on the 
entire North American Continent and provides millions of hours of 
enjoyment for hunters all over the Nation. Without our amendment, 
hunting in this entire area could be seriously jeopardized.
  Our amendment is supported by the 3.7-million-member National Rifle 
Association. It is also strongly supported by the Safari Club 
International and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America.
  The issue is crystal clear: Do you want to allow unelected Federal 
bureaucrats in green uniforms or militant animal rights activists to 
stop you or members of your family from hunting on lands where you have 
hunted for generations? If so, then oppose our amendment.
  If you want to allow hunting, under reasonable State regulation, to 
continue on lands designated as heritage areas, then support the Young-
Brewster amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, all I have done is to extend my 
remarks. I thought my chairman had accepted the amendment. I do not 
want to argue the amendment at this time. All it does is simply 
preserve the right for the States to manage fish and game in these 
heritage areas, the same one you printed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I understand, is offered by 
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster]. I did not know if the 
gentleman wanted to speak on it or not.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the Young-Brewster amendment. I 
think the gentleman offers a very responsible amendment here aimed at 
protecting hunting. It preserves the right of our State wildlife areas 
to continue the management of wildlife, including hunting on lands 
designated as National Heritage Areas. The gentleman has crafted a very 
important piece of legislation in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment makes sense because in 
instances where enabling legislation of park units have not allowed, or 
expressly authorized, that is, hunting, anti-hunting groups have filed 
lawsuits to ban hunting on these lands. This means extensive legal 
fees. And by the preservation of the right of our State wildlife 
agencies to continue the management of this area, this amendment does 
help prevent the diversion of a lot of these monies to expensive legal 
suits.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and again rise in support.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the concern that arose here, and I respect the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Brewster] had suggested to me that this would not require hunting or 
fishing in areas that are urban. That is, the State and local laws that 
affect hunting and fishing would prevail in these instances. Because 
many of these Heritage Partnership Areas are in urbanized areas. There 
is no expectation that hunting would occur in these areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] 
for clarification on that point. It is my understanding if the State 
did not permit hunting in certain zones, because they are urban or 
because for any other reason, that this amendment would not require or 
permit hunting in those areas where hunting is not permitted today. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The State would 
still manage as they did in the past. They would not allow hunting in 
areas where it is not allowed already.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. I want to 
commend the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] for their efforts with regard to this. I also 
want to commend my colleagues for the conduct of the debate. 
Momentarily we are going to be at the point where we can pass this 
bill, an important new bill, an important new issue, and I ask all of 
my colleagues to join together in support of that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. grams

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Grams: Page 18, after line 4, 
     insert the following:
       (3) Membership.--A management entity for an American 
     Heritage Area should, to the fullest extent possible, consist 
     of diverse governmental, business, and nonprofit groups 
     within the geographic area of the American Heritage Area.

  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.
  The CHAIRMAN. There are 2 minutes left. The Chair will divide the 
time equally between the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] and the 
distinguished chair, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
improves the quality of management. My amendment simply offers 
nonbinding direction to the management entities to include 
representatives from local governments, businesses, and nonprofit 
groups, including environmental organizations, within the entity 
itself. I strongly urge adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. We 
think that this is not a harmful amendment. It may be somewhat helpful. 
We would be willing on this side to accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, this may be the last time I have 
officially to address the House of Representatives after 12 years of 
service here, and I think I am going out the way I came in, a little 
short. I had an amendment at the desk ready to be offered in proper 
order, yet the time ran out, so that my offering here to save the 
American taxpayers $50 million cannot be discussed or voted upon.
  However, I want to say, finally, that it has been a good trip. I have 
enjoyed serving in this body with you most of the time. Issues like 
this one are contentious. I will not miss the last 2 days, I guarantee 
you. But it has been a privilege to serve in the people's House. Very 
few of us have that opportunity, and I consider it an honor to be with 
you and having served with you.
  I am very optimistic about the future. I think help is on the way for 
some of us and some of our philosophy. A bill like this will never pass 
in another session of Congress. By the way, this one will not become 
law.
  So I am delighted to be here. I love the battle. I am going to 
Oregon. I will think about you once in a while, and come see you from 
time to time. Good evening.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hoyer) having assumed the chair, Mr. Menendez, 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. 5044) to 
establish the American Heritage Areas Partnership Program, and for 
other purposes, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments 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? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were 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 the third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 281, 
nays 137, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 486]

                               YEAS--281

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--137

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brooks
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chapman
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Upton
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bachus (AL)
     Bevill
     Browder
     Callahan
     Carr
     Cramer
     Gallo
     Hilliard
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Ridge
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Tucker
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1732

  Mr. CHAPMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________