[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 136 (Friday, September 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11410-H11416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              NATIONAL UNDERGROUND RAILROAD FREEDOM CENTER

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4073) to authorize the National Park Service to coordinate 
programs with, provide technical assistance to, and enter into 
cooperative agreements with, the National Underground Railroad Freedom 
Center in Cincinnati, OH, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4073

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the story of the Underground Railroad, which links 
     historical themes related to slavery, the desire for freedom, 
     inter-racial cooperation, and the African-American 
     experience, is unique and nationally significant;
       (2) elements of the story of the Underground Railroad are 
     not adequately represented and protected;
       (3) an entity to interpret and preserve the story of the 
     Underground Railroad is appropriate and necessary; and
       (4) the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in 
     Cincinnati, Ohio, has been established to commemorate 
     historic themes related to slavery, the desire for freedom, 
     inter-racial cooperation, and the African-American experience 
     and to relate these themes to the ongoing struggle for 
     freedom among men, women, and children around the world.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to recognize the importance of the Underground 
     Railroad, the sacrifices made by those in search of freedom 
     from tyranny and oppression, and the sacrifices made by those 
     who helped those individuals in search of freedom;
       (2) to encourage and assist the National Underground 
     Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, in becoming a 
     principal interpretive center of the Underground Railroad 
     experience in the United States; and
       (3) to provide a role for the Federal Government in 
     enhancing public understanding and appreciation of the 
     Underground Railroad and in preserving the many resources of 
     the Underground Railroad.

     SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF PROGRAMS; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; 
                   AFFILIATED STATUS.

       (a) Coordination of Programs.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior may coordinate the Underground Railroad interpretive 
     programs of the National Park Service with the interpretive 
     activities of the National Underground Railroad Freedom 
     Center (in this Act referred to as the ``Center''), which is 
     to be built in Cincinnati, Ohio, and is to be devoted to the 
     story of the Underground Railroad.
       (b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may provide 
     technical assistance to the Center in developing the 
     interpretative programs of the Center.
       (c) Relationship to National Park Service.--The Secretary 
     shall treat the Center as an affiliated area of the National 
     Park System.

     SEC. 4. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS; PARTNERSHIP.

       (a) Cooperative Agreements.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     may enter into cooperative agreements with the State of Ohio, 
     the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and other public or private 
     entities to provide technical assistance to the Center.

[[Page H11411]]

       (b) Partnership.--The National Park Service may work in 
     partnership with the Center in the efforts of the Center to 
     disseminate information on the Underground Railroad.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4073, a bill 
introduced by our colleague, Mr. Portman, to designate the National 
Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, OH as an affiliated 
area of the National Park System.
  The Underground Railroad was perhaps the most dramatic protest action 
against slavery in U.S. history. It was a clandestine operation that 
began during the colonial period, later became part of organized 
abolitionist activity in the 19th century, and reached its peak in the 
period 1830-1865. The story of the Underground Railroad is one of 
individual sacrifice and heroism in the efforts of enslaved people to 
reach freedom from bondage.
  In 1990, Congress passed Public Law 101-628 which directed the 
National Park Service to conduct a study of the Underground Railroad to 
determine methods for commemorating and interpreting the Underground 
Railroad. In February of this year, the administration transmitted 
their study to Congress. Among other things, the study concluded that a 
variety of partnership approaches would be most appropriate for the 
protection and interpretation of the Underground Railroad.
  One of the main routes of the Underground Railroad went through 
western Tennessee, central Kentucky and Ohio and into Canada. Along 
this route, Cincinnati was a key stopover. A private foundation in 
Cincinnati has already raised substantial funds to develop an 
interpretive center. H.R. 4073 authorizes the National Park Service to 
provide technical assistance to the Underground Railroad Freedom Center 
in Cincinnati, as an affiliated area of the National Park Service, yet 
result in no increased expenditure.
  This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. 
While the goals are laudable in terms of recognizing our historic and 
cultural experience with regards to slavery and emancipation, we do not 
know the role of Cincinnati, OH, and its role in that history.
  In fact, this has been the subject of extensive studies by the 
National Park System, and the fact is while there are many areas that 
have been touched by this phenomena of the Underground Railroad and the 
emancipation of American minorities and the African-American in this 
Nation in that incident, there is, as far as I know, no fabric that 
exists in Cincinnati. There is no reason for this legislation at this 
point.
  I think one of the major problems, with the legislation that is 
before us, Mr. Speaker, is that there have not been hearings, to my 
knowledge, on this subject in the House this session or in the past. 
This merely tries to build a center, construct a site, which would 
attract people.
  I just do not understand the basis and rationale on which this 
legislation is before the House. I first learned of it on reading the 
suspension calendar today.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just mentioned a 
point. My understanding in this legislation is that this legislation 
was introduced just 2 weeks ago, and obviously we have not had hearings 
nor markups on this bill. Yet what we are doing is we are committing 
the resources of the National Park System to assist and to help operate 
what is an interpretive center in Cincinnati, and yet the center has 
not been built. We do not know the extent of those obligations, and we 
are creating something now called an affiliated area.
  The gentleman on the other side of the aisle has very often spoken in 
the committee and on the floor about the continued spreading of the 
resources of the National Park Service, given their budgetary problems 
and the backlogs and all of the other issues they are confronted with, 
and here we are being asked to commit to something that for the moment 
does not exist, may never exist, but if it does exist, we do not know 
the extent of the commitment to which we are asking.
  Mr. Speaker, I just think that the gentleman is correct in opposing 
this legislation, since we do not even quite yet understand what the 
center is going to do. We appreciate they want to be affiliated with 
the historical events of the underground railroad, which is a proud 
moment to a sad situation in this country, but to just take this shot 
in the dark and commit us and commit the National Park Service without 
any discussion of what this truly means I think would be a mistake, and 
I thank the gentleman for yielding.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his comments.
  I understand that the study was completed in February 1996 but that 
it identified a number of Underground Railroad sites in Ohio but did 
not identify Cincinnati. The point is that this is basically an open-
end authorization for the Park Service to go in and agree to cooperate 
in a variety of ways, including construction, operation, and 
maintenance funding. This could result in obligations which would be in 
the tens of millions of dollars over a period of years, in fact, this 
legislation will result in facilitating this funding.
  I think this issue, I am sure that there are many, whether Cincinnati 
should be the central nexus of where this takes place, or other areas 
would be, I think is an open question. We know of the Underground 
Railroad activities at a time in Pennsylvania and in many other of the 
central Eastern States. So I do not know the justification for this or 
the rationale.
  I do not think we have had the benefit of reviewing the study in an 
open way in terms of questioning what is happening. I do not know the 
suitability, as I said, I do not know if there is any fabric. I regret 
I arrived on the floor late, but I do not know of any fabric that 
exists that would be accorded the type of recognition that guide the 
Park Service with regard to cultural and national resources.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman makes a 
very important point, and I hope our colleagues are listening, because 
this is, in theory, as the gentleman from Utah says, this is based upon 
a study that was done. But when we look at the study authorized by this 
Congress to discuss this issue, they come up with a list of high 
potential candidates for interpretation in association with the 
national parks.
  They come up with Farmington, CT, the First Church of Christ; they 
come up with Sumatra, FL, which was Fort Gadsden; they come up with St. 
Augustine, FL, which was the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, 
they come up with the Levi Coffin House, which is in Fountain City, IN; 
the Bishop Paul Quinn House in Richmond, IN; Harriet Tubman's 
birthplace, which is Bucktown, MD; Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged in 
Auburn, NY; the John Rankin House in Ripley, Union Township, OH; the 
John Parker House in Ripley, OH; the Mother Bethel African Methodist 
Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. PA; the Stono River Slave Rebellion 
site in Rantowles, SC; the Nat Turner Slave Revolt Historic District in 
Courtland, VA; the Rokeby House in Ferrisburg, VT.
  Nowwhere is Cincinnati, OH, suggested by this report, that this would 
be the proper place to deal with the interpretation aspects of 
commemorating the underground railroad or in association with the 
National Park Service.
  I think we have got to take that into consideration, and that is why 
we

[[Page H11412]]

would have preferred that we had a hearing in the committee. We could 
discuss this. We could list this. If the gentleman wanted to, he could 
suggest Cincinnati, OH, and we could bounce that off of the Park 
Service. But the fact of the matter is, as one goes through this 
report, there is more evidence that Canton may had more to do with this 
or Oberlin, if you will but not Cincinnati at this point, or at least 
not in this report.
  I would hope that the gentleman will withdraw bill before we head off 
in this direction and commit the National Park Service to this effort. 
Again, I would say to my colleagues, there were some 380 sites that 
were suggested, and then that was distilled down to 42 different sites. 
With all due respect, they are not in Cincinnati, OH.
  If we are going to keep the historical integrity and respect to the 
fact that we went out and funded a very large and detailed study, and 
now we are going to decide on the day before we adjourn that we are 
just going to put this in Cincinnati, OH, without any hearings, it may 
become in Cincinnati. Maybe there is a case that can be made, maybe the 
missed something. But the fact of the matter is, it should not be done 
on suspension and should not be done without hearings.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for his opposition to 
this.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the ranking 
member yielding me time, and I want to give the others that are opposed 
to this some time.
  I want to stipulate that I do not disagree with the goals in terms of 
recognition of the underground railroad, but we need to have a plan. We 
need to follow and use the information from the study.
  I understand that the gentleman from California is talking about the 
historic fabric that is in place. It does not necessarily reflect what 
the role of Cincinnati was, and the issue here is that we need to know 
what the level of this commitment is and how we are going to relate to 
the other sites.
  I think we need to provide the Park Service with more direction in 
this particular instance other than simply saying we are going to let 
you go and agree to an affiliated area in Ohio, which will not be part 
of the Park Service but could represent significant dollars and amounts 
that are invested in it.
  We should be doing partnerships like this, but my suggestion is, if 
Cincinnati wants to go ahead and construct an interpretive center in 
this and do work in this, I commend them. I think that is great. They 
may have rich history in the underground railroad. But the history as 
far as I know, as represented by the gentleman from California, that 
there is not fabric there, we do not know what the nature is, how it 
will be tied together with the other elements.
  We know there are many other competing proposals. To try to come in 
and award Cincinnati the type of recognition that this bill would do 
and directing the Park Service in this way, I think is, to say the 
least, premature. To do it this late, without hearings or without 
understanding, I would hope that we would not do this at this time. 
Therefore, I oppose the bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Again in the discussion of the historical 
sites, even in Ohio there is Toledo and Sandusky and Oberlin and 
Seville and Cleveland and Plainfield and Ashtabula and Jefferson and 
Wooster and Homeworth, Millersburg, Loudonville, McKay, Hayesville, 
Ashland, Savannah, Mt. Vernon, Utica, and Zanesville.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the issue here is 
one of suitability of this particular location as the visitor center 
that relates to all the other type of historic fabric and experience, 
in terms of our experience in terms of emancipation and the whole 
phenomenon that dealt with slavery.
  I think that this is a very important topic, one that we should sit 
down and I think that we can come to agreement on. I am very pleased as 
a matter of fact to see that there is this type of interest on both 
sides of the aisle in terms of this issue. So it should not break down 
in this way. This is an issue where we can come to agreement.
  But at this point I strongly oppose taking this action today and 
directing the Park Service to do this type of activity, and I would 
hope my colleagues would agree. This, as I said, could be tens of 
millions of dollars of commitment and the wrong direction for our 
policy.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time. I am a little surprised by the discussion. I wanted to come out 
and clarify a few points. I apologize I was not out here earlier. I did 
not know it was to be on the floor. I would hope that other supporters 
of this legislation, including the gentleman from Ohio, Lou Stokes, the 
gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, the gentleman from Louisiana, Bill 
Jefferson, the Ohio delegation in its entirety and others, will be able 
to come out on the floor to talk on it also.
  I want to go over, if I could, some of the background for the 
purposes of the gentleman from California and the gentleman from 
Minnesota just to give them a little more understanding of where we are 
and how we got here, and they try to address some of the concerns 
raised by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  This is bipartisan. This does not require any Federal funds, as the 
gentlemen know. It is an authorization simply for the Park Service to 
work with a private group that has been working with the Park Service 
in any case for the past couple of years.
  This group has indeed moved forward in a very constructive way, 
bringing in all elements of our community, as well as the entire 
country in terms of underground railroad experience, to come up with an 
Underground Railroad Freedom Center, which would be an interpretive 
center. This would not be the kind of more traditional museum one might 
think of, but instead would commemorate the underground railroad 
experience across the country, at all the sites the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] mentioned, including the sites in the greater 
Cincinnati area that he mentioned.
  The Ripley, OH, sites happen to be in my district that the gentleman 
mentioned, and Cincinnati does have a rich heritage with regard to the 
underground railroad.
  I just am amazed this Congress would oppose this type of activity. We 
are not asking for any money or any commitment from this Congress in 
terms of the tens of millions of dollars Mr. Vento talked about. We are 
talking about a wonderful partnership between the Park Service and the 
private sector to be able to move forward with this project, for which 
in the private sector has already been raised over $400,000.
  It is clearly the No. 1 project of this kind in the country. It is an 
event in our history that must be commemorated. I think it is an 
outrage it has not been commemorated. And I think it would be a slap in 
the face to these efforts and exactly the wrong way to go for us as a 
Congress now to say we are not even going to allow the Park Service to 
enjoy this affiliate status which requires no funding with this group 
that has done so much, because I think it would discourage them.
  Let me say also that this is in Cincinnati for two important reasons. 
One is, frankly, Cincinnati is way out front on it; but, second, 
Cincinnati does have a rich history and tradition with regard to the 
underground railroad. In fact, slaves from as far away as New Orleans 
and so on equated Cincinnati with the word ``freedom'' because it was 
such a center for this. The Harriet Beecher Stowe Home, of course, is 
in Cincinnati. Harriet Beecher Stowe is from Cincinnati.
  There is a lot of underground railroad archeological evidence in the 
Cincinnati area, including the sites, again, that Mr. Miller talked 
about in Ripley, OH, the Rankin House, the John Parker House, and so 
on.
  Let me also say that the Park Service has been working with us for 
over a year on this project. I know Mr. Miller reads carefully all the 
correspondence he gets from the Park Service and the acknowledgment 
letter that came with the report that he mentioned earlier specifically 
talks about Cincinnati, and let me quote from it.

[[Page H11413]]

  This is from the Park Service in February of this year, when they 
submitted the statutorily required report on the underground railroad.

       We are especially encouraged to see that the private sector 
     already has expressed a strong interest in these concepts, as 
     evidenced by substantial progress in planning for an 
     Underground Railroad freedom center to be developed by 
     private, State and local funding sources in Cincinnati, Ohio. 
     The Park Service foresees the possibility of collaborating 
     with this organization in the future to implement some of the 
     goals of this report.

  This is signed by George Frampton, Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
Wildlife and Parks, Assistant Secretary of the Department of the 
Interior.
  Again, we have worked carefully with the Park Service, not only in 
terms of this development of the underground railroad freedom center in 
Cincinnati, we have raised over $400,000 locally, all from private 
sources, not 1 Government dollar; and, importantly, we have worked 
closely with the National Park Service in coming up with this 
legislation.
  So I do not know what more to say. I think it would be exactly the 
wrong thing for this Congress not to at least acknowledge the good work 
these folks have done. And these are people from all around the 
country. Their national advisory group includes people who are from all 
the areas, I think, that Mr. Miller talked about. They have a lot of 
academic support from various places around the country.
  Again, if we look at the cosponsorship of this, it includes people 
who have been involved in this issue in the past. I hope that the 
gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, the gentleman from Ohio, Lou 
Stokes, and others will be able to come down to the floor; I happened 
to be in another meeting when I heard about this, to be able to also 
talk on behalf of this.
  Mr. Vento, I think maybe that answers some of your questions, I hope 
it does. But if the gentleman would like me to yield, maybe there are 
some other more specific ones.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time, but 
I think the gentleman has not answered the question.
  Our problem is that we cannot conduct a hearing on the House floor 
after we get no notification until we see this on the schedule this 
morning. That is where I am coming from.
  After chairing and working on these subjects for years, after putting 
these studies in place to get the information back, I have no idea of 
the validity of whether or not the gentleman is relating to what is in 
the study. That is where we are.
  It is not a question of the recognition of the underground railroad 
here. It is a question of why we are going to give this designation or 
symbolic recognition to this community. If there is no Federal money in 
it, they can go ahead and we can deal with this type of legislation 
later. In fact, I think the Park Service can give technical assistance 
without authorization.
  But there is money in this bill. It is more than a symbolic act in 
terms of what is proposed to occur here. As I attributed it, as I said, 
I know there is not much fabric here. Obviously, I understand what the 
interpretive center is, but I do not know why this, of all locations, 
should be the location. I do not know that it is recommended in the 
study.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time just for a moment. The 
gentleman was involved in the study, and I commend him for that. I had 
thought that, perhaps, because he is in constant communication with the 
Park Service, that maybe he knew more about this. They have been 
working with us for at least a solid year, not only on the concepts of 
Cincinnati, where we have looked to them for guidance all along the 
way, but also this specific legislation.
  Let me say that if this private sector group were to move forward 
without additional technical assistance and without additional guidance 
from the Park Service, then the very goals that are outlined in that 
report might not be followed as closely as the gentleman might like or 
I might like. I think this is a way, in fact, to bring to fruition the 
kinds of things that the gentleman has been supporting.
  All it says is that there will be an affiliate status with the Park 
Service. There is no money in the bill. It is an authorization to allow 
the Park Service to enter into some sort of a technical assistance, 
some sort of a guidance relationship with this group in Cincinnati that 
has done so much work.

                              {time}  1015

  Again, it is a national group. If you look at the members of the 
board, they are a national advisory group. This is a group that was 
brought together, academic experts and so on. I think what is going to 
happen is they are going to go ahead. They are going to move ahead. 
They have already raised over $400,000. They brought in the best 
experts from around the country to give them advice, did a feasibility 
study. They are going to move ahead.
  Let us be sure they move ahead with the advice of the Park Service, 
since the Park Service, because of the gentleman's good work, put so 
much time and effort into this report. I, too, wish there could be a 
hearing. I would love if there could be a hearing. There cannot be at 
this point. Yet we have this group moving ahead.
  I think this is the least we can do, to instead of slapping them and 
saying ``We discourage what you are doing,'' is to encourage what they 
are up to. I apologize for not communicating better with the gentleman 
in advance. I would have thought the Park Service would have done so. I 
hope that following this discussion we will be able to pass this 
legislation and then work more closely together.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if 
the funding could be limited to technical assistance, the issue here is 
that he is going to, he is suggesting that the Park Service may enter 
into an affiliated status with this. They may not. I think that is the 
wrong way to legislate.
  We ought to have had hearings on this. It should not be anything that 
is controversial, but we have no idea right now. If the gentleman would 
limit his funding to merely technical assistance, but there is all 
sorts of coordination of program costs. The partnership issue, in other 
words, is implying that there are going to be construction dollars and 
other types of assistance that are provided.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in the legislation 
that has anything to do with construction or anything beyond an 
affiliate status that can be worked out over time. Congress would 
always have the ability to come in an further fund this relationship.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, it provides cooperative agreements to operate 
it. It provides operating expenses.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, it does not provide operating 
expenses.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in good faith, this is the 
problem: We once had a little tiny authorization for Steamtown and now 
we could not stop it with a gun. It is costing us millions and millions 
of dollars. It is a little bit of an operation.
  Once this project is authorized, unfortunately, the history we have 
is that the best intentioned groups eventually want some Federal 
participation, subsidy, however you want to call it. This authorizes 
operating agreements. That is how we got the Kennedy Center. Pretty 
soon we were running the whole Kennedy Center, and it was supposed to 
be done by private individuals. The gentleman from Utah knows this is 
the history. We start out with a couple of sentences and we end up 
spending millions.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would love to hear 
from the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Utah, who 
have much more experience than I do, but it is very clear in this 
legislation, this involves no Federal funding. Congress could come back 
at a later date and decide that is appropriate.
  This involves a lot of private sector activity from around the 
country to support this effort. We should be encouraging that. This is 
exactly the kind of creative partnership that I think Mr. Miller and 
others who have

[[Page H11414]]

been involved with the National Park Service have been trying to 
encourage.
  I would like to yield to the chairman and see how he would compare 
this to other projects. I think the analogies that have been made are 
not right. We are not asking for Federal funds. We encourage a private 
sector effort and allowing this report that Mr. Vento and others worked 
so hard on to become implemented through an interpretive center which 
commemorates the Underground Railroad experience throughout the 
country.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Chabot]. This is in his particular district.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation 
to assist in the establishment of the National Underground Railroad 
Freedom Center in Cincinnati. And I applaud my good friend, Mr. 
Portman, for his outstanding work in helping to make this wonderful 
idea a reality.
  Cincinnati is the ideal location for a center commemorating the 
Underground Railroad and the brave men and women who risked their lives 
for the cause of freedom. As a large city located at the boundary line 
between slave and free States before the Civil War, Cincinnati became a 
major depot of the Underground Railroad. For many, many men, women, and 
children fleeing the evil bonds of slavery, Cincinnati meant freedom.
  As a life-long Cincinnatian, I am tremendously proud that the Queen 
City served as a major center of organization for the abolitionist 
movement. The city was a hub of organizations working to end slavery 
and to assist the escape to freedom of former slaves. We have a great 
tradition in Cincinnati of standing up against tyranny and government 
oppression and fighting for individual liberty. Such notable figures as 
antislavery author Harriet Beecher Stowe, Liberty Party nominee James 
Birney, Republican Party organizer and later Supreme Court Justice 
Salmon P. Chase, and many other historic opponents of slavery made 
their homes in Cincinnati.
  The people of Cincinnati enthusiastically support the National 
Underground Railroad Freedom Center. The community has mobilized behind 
this important project to create a center that honors the Underground 
Railroad, and that educates today's generations about the great 
failings and the great heroism of our past. H.R. 4073 is an important 
bill, and I am proud to join with my friend, Mr. Portman, in urging its 
passage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], is recognized to control the 
remainder of the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
understand that there is some misunderstanding with regard to what some 
of the phrases in this legislation mean. As you go through it, on page 
3, line 16, it talks about the National Park Service can work with and 
do interpretive activities. That is, of course, interpretive activities 
is what goes on at the site in terms of operating activities and 
expenses. That is how that will translate, that we can make a 
commitment to fund such activity.
  Clearly, what happens in the appropriation process is dollars get 
placed into such sites, designated very often for some of these types 
of activities, for developing the various types of materials that might 
be at that site. I mean, in essence what are doing is taking and 
committing the Park Service to this type of activity. I just think it 
is worthy of a hearing. It is worthy of a better understanding of what 
is basically a very, very important topic. We should not be in the last 
day of the session bringing up legislation. Without a clear 
understanding of the consequences--we should look before we jump.
  Whatever the intention or misunderstandings are, I was not aware of 
what was being presented here, and others were not on this side of the 
aisle aware.
  I am not surprised that there are both Democrat and Republican 
sponsors to something of this nature, but the fact is I think some of 
us have to speak up to what is going to be the expansion and 
expenditure with regard to the Park Service. I see no limitations in 
this bill in terms of what the Park Service expenditures will be.
  ``Interpretive activities'' is an open phrase. There is no limitation 
in terms of dollars in this bill. Technical assistance is another, 
interpretive programs: ``The Secretary may provide technical assistance 
and interpretive programs to the center.'' These can cost literally 
millions of dollars.
  We have a center at Harper's Ferry that has to develop some of those 
interpretive programs, some of those materials. This is a very 
expensive and worthwhile effort to do, but it is one that is very 
costly and undefined in the measure before us, the denial of cost is 
misleading.
  The relationship, of course, we are giving the Park Service 
``Arrowhead'' to this particular site in Cincinnati. That, too, I think 
is an important piece of symbolism that should not be given without 
proper consideration by the committee to this one site.
  The fact is that the Secretary can deal with the technical assistance 
without this legislation. They can provide some of the technical help. 
They do not need authorization legislation for that. But to in fact 
designate this as an affiliated area, we have to look back in the 
statutes and see what that means. What that has come to mean is that 
operating expenditures can be made at those sites. We try to resist it, 
but the history is that operating expenditures can be made at such 
sites based on the contractual, cooperative language in this measure.
  Again, of course, it talks about cooperative agreements with regard 
to technical assistance and to the function of the public or private 
entities. We do not even know who the entity is in this instance that 
we are going to deal with. In other words, I assume that there is a 
nonprofit group. I assume that it may be the city. But no one has 
stipulated that and the legislation is silent. But the fact is that we 
anticipate cooperative agreements. That will, of course, commit the 
Park Service to certain activities, as well as, I assume, those private 
parties.
  This is something that is worthy of a much closer look. I do not see 
the urgency in terms of acting on this today. If they are going to go 
ahead with it, if it has the type of merit and follows the thematic 
lines and outline of the study that was presented to us in February 
1996, I do not think that there is a problem in terms of this being 
refined and defined more exactly as to the NPS role.
  We are talking about partnerships. We are talking about cooperative 
agreements. We are talking about technical assistance. We are talking 
about interpretive activities. We are talking about interpretive 
programs and affiliation and giving the recognition to this specific 
site. These are rather significant charges and direction that we are 
giving to the Park Service, at least on a discretionary basis. And, 
frankly, I do not think that we ought to do that without having a 
better idea of the parameters of what is being involved in terms of 
dollars and resource commitment. And most importantly how this fits 
with the topic and themes within the literature and other sites.
  This is a very important topic. We have the benefit of the study. We 
ought to use it. We ought to have an open hearing on it. That has not 
occurred to date. Therefore, I resist and will oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Portman].
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me try to address the concerns once 
more and be very clear.
  This does not involve Federal funding. If we look at this legislation 
very carefully, it is all discretionary. The Secretary may coordinate, 
may enter into cooperative agreements and may work in partnership. It 
is all discretionary.
  It is ironic to me that we are going to sit here in Congress and 
oppose something that in fact will keep that good report from 
collecting dust on the shelf. This is something that will move the 
report forward.
  Here you have a private sector group representing the entire country, 
working on a coordinated basis with sites around the country. They want 
to set up an interpretive center, not a museum, to commemorate this 
experience in America's history that should have been commemorated a 
long time ago.

[[Page H11415]]

  All we are saying is, we want affiliated status to get the Park 
Service to work with us to provide technical support. It is ironic that 
we would be saying, no, we are going to stop this, it is not 
appropriate.
  I think it is a real shame. I think it is the kind of thing we should 
be doing. It is a private-sector effort to work in partnership with 
Government, not involving taxpayer funds. If Congress determines down 
the line other areas maybe should get that affiliated status, that is 
fine, too. They do not want Federal funds. That is what is so great 
about this. It is noncontroversial.
  I was led to believe that this was going to be noncontroversial in 
the committee, that we had minority-majority support. I was surprised 
to find out that that was not true. I just think it is exactly the kind 
of thing we ought to be promoting. I think it is a great effort. I 
think it is exactly the sort of thing that this Congress ought to be 
encouraging.
  I am sorry that the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis, cosponsor 
of this legislation, was not aware of this; the gentleman from Ohio, 
Lou Stokes, and so many other Members of this Congress who are strongly 
supportive of this effort cannot be here to join with us today, to 
encourage this and to say that this is exactly the way we ought to be 
going in this Congress in terms of providing for strong public-private 
partnerships.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact that is misunderstood here is while this may 
all be discretionary in the bill based on the status of the language, 
the fact is that the history of this has been that in the Committee on 
Appropriations they will place money into the appropriation designated 
for various sites. That is how we end up with hundreds of thousands of 
dollars and millions of dollars being spent on some of these sites 
which are not designated or are outside the authorizing gambit of the 
committee.
  So it is the opportunity and responsibility of the authorizing 
committee, the Committee on Resources that has charged the Park Service 
to do these studies, to use the information and to come back and try to 
guide the policy path with regard to resources, culturally important 
issues, as the Underground Railroad. We cannot wrap this up and hide 
the fact that we are proposing today an open-ended expenditure from the 
Federal treasury and authorizing the appropriators to in fact 
appropriate money, and in fact providing under technical assistance, 
where there is an open dollar amount that is given each year for the 
Park Service to use. So there are Federal dollars that are going to 
flow--taxpayer fund and we should be guided by sound policy.
  No question, this is an important topic and issue in our culture and 
history. That is why I am on my feet debating this policy path. I think 
that it is a topic that the committee ought to have dealt with, rather 
than getting up here at the last minute and putting something on the 
table and, in fact, pushing dollars in a direction without a well 
defined policy.
  I commend the folks in Cincinnati for their work, but there is no 
indication or case being made here as to the suitability of this site, 
as to the interpretation that is going to be taking place there as to 
the feasibility of this particular area. Many locations around the 
Nation may already be doing this activity or others may be better 
candidates.
  We need to ask the same questions of affiliated areas that we would 
be asking of any type of park unit that is developed, in terms of 
operating expenses, technical assistance down the road. We do not have 
those answers today, only good intentions and misunderstandings.
  This is basically an open-ended authority for the appropriators to 
put money into--a specific community. If my colleagues on the 
authorizing committee want to know how things get to be where they are, 
off track and out of sync, they just have to look at bills like this 
that are enacted open ended and out of control.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I listen to the gentleman from 
Minnesota and the gentleman from California, and it amazes me how 
anyone on that side can oppose this great project the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Portman] has brought to the floor, the underground railroad, 
part of our history. How can they protest against this? I cannot 
believe it when this is totally discretionary, totally discretionary. 
It is one of the few bills I have ever seen that really is so totally 
discretionary. It is up to the Secretary absolutely and not even the 
Congress. We just give him the authority to really do this job if he 
wishes to do so.
  Now I am a little bit concerned because as my colleagues know, I 
heard some comments on this floor as if this is the first time this has 
ever happened? Please. The gentleman from Minnesota, when he was a 
chairman of the subcommittee, I saw this happen time after time, and 
all the great merits, open ended. I see bills open ended. I do not know 
how many hundreds of bills, under his leadership, passed were open 
ended.
  One of the reasons, I would suggest respectfully, a lot of the areas 
were made into parks were open ended, and the cost to the taxpayer was 
tremendous. But this bill, and very frankly the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Portman] has done a tremendous job, actually gives so much 
discretion to the Secretary whether it should be or should not be done, 
whether the study should go forth.
  And please do not insult the underground railroad and the activity in 
the Congress by opposing, for whatever reason I do not know. This is a 
good bill. I want to compliment the gentleman. He has done an excellent 
job.
  Let us just go ahead and move it. We have spent 20 minutes on this. I 
came here a little late because of the great traffic around Washington, 
DC, and I began to listen to this, and what a charade and waste of time 
when this bill should have been up and passed out of this House.
  Recognize the importance of this great historical moment; that is all 
I am asking. And if it was the first time, I might be a little more 
concerned. I see the staff talking to them now, whispering in their ear 
as they usually do. I love these staff whispering in their ear. They 
really made great strides.
  This issue should be passed on. Let us go on to something more 
important.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would say that it is true; I have worked on hundreds of bills in 
the past, and I will tell my colleagues every one of those bills that I 
worked on had a hearing, and I did not act in those years that I did so 
on any affiliated area, none were designated and I tell my colleagues, 
I also acted to inform and be certain that the minority was aware of my 
actions and measures. They may not always have agreed, but they had 
reasonable notice of hearings and action on the issues. This bill has 
not had hearing. It is not the issue of the underground railroad, which 
my colleagues would like to make the issue; that is not the issue here.
  The issue here is how we are going to deal with this extraordinarily 
important topic in a positive reasonable way and give it the type of 
recognition and status that it deserves in terms of hearings and a 
proper policy path for the park and the Park Service and the citizens 
of Cincinnati. They deserve that. They deserve that hearing. They did 
not get it.
  Members of Congress should understand what the degree of involvement 
is going to be and how we are going to deal with this overall policy 
and issue rather than simply passing something here without necessarily 
a good understanding or a policy path as to where we are going. This is 
indeed the tail wagging the dog.
  This is the wrong way to do business, but unfortunately it has 
characterized our committee too often during this 104th Congress.
  I would just suggest that this bill because of that, not because of 
the topic, the topic is a wonderful topic that ought to be part of our 
cultural and is part of our cultural history and part of the Park 
Service and part of its cultural and historic preservation roles.

[[Page H11416]]

  That is why we authorized the study. What we are asking the advocates 
to do, to use the information that we have available to us and pick the 
best policy path rather than one that simply happens to be expedient 
because we are in a hurry to be out of here at the end of the fiscal 
year.
  This is wrong, and this bill should be defeated for that reason, 
certainly not because of the subject matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 4073.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________