[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3416-H3419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND AUTHORIZATION

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1522) to extend the authorization for the National Historic 
Preservation Fund, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1522

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

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT.

       The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 and 
     following; Public Law 89-665) is amended as follows:
       (1) In the third sentence of section 101(a)(6) (16 U.S.C. 
     470a(a)(6)) by striking ``shall review'' and inserting ``may 
     review'' and by striking ``shall determine'' and inserting 
     ``determine''.
       (2) Section 101(e)(2) (16 U.S.C. 470a(e)(2)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) The Secretary may administer grants to the National 
     Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, 
     chartered by an Act of Congress approved October 26, 1949 (63 
     Stat. 947), consistent with the purposes of its charter and 
     this Act.''.
       (3) Section 102 (16 U.S.C. 470b) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) and by 
     redesignating subsection (d), as added by section 4009(3) of 
     Public Law 102-575, as subsection (e).
       (4) Section 101(b)(1) (16 U.S.C. 470a(b)(1)) is amended by 
     adding the following at the end thereof:

     ``For purposes of subparagraph (A), the State and Indian 
     tribe shall be solely responsible for determining which 
     professional employees, are necessary to carry out the duties 
     of the State or tribe, consistent with standards developed by 
     the Secretary.''.
       (5) Section 107 (16 U.S.C. 470g) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``Sec. 107. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be 
     applicable to the White House and its grounds, the Supreme 
     Court building and its grounds, or the United States Capitol 
     and its related buildings and grounds as depicted on the map 
     entitled `Map Showing Properties Under the Jurisdiction of 
     the Architect of the Capitol' and dated November 6, 1996, 
     which shall be on file in the office of the Secretary of the 
     Interior.''.
       (6) Section 108 (16 U.S.C. 470h) is amended by striking 
     ``1997'' and inserting ``2004''.
       (7) Section 110(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 470h-2(a)(1)) is amended 
     by inserting the following before the period at the end of 
     the second sentence: ``, especially those located in central 
     business areas. When locating Federal facilities, Federal 
     agencies shall give first consideration to historic 
     properties in historic districts. If no such property is 
     operationally appropriate and economically prudent, then 
     Federal agencies shall consider other developed or 
     undeveloped sites within historic districts. Federal agencies 
     shall then consider historic properties outside of historic 
     districts, if no suitable site within a district exists. Any 
     rehabilitation or construction that is undertaken pursuant to 
     this Act must be architecturally compatible with the 
     character of the surrounding historic district or 
     properties''.
       (8) The first sentence of section 110(l) (16 U.S.C. 470h-
     2(l)) is amended by striking ``with the Council'' and 
     inserting ``pursuant to regulations issued by the Council''.
       (9) The last sentence of section 212(a) (16 U.S.C. 470t(a)) 
     is amended by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2004''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. 
Faleomavaega) 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. Speaker, H.R. 1522 is a bill introduced by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). He is to be commended for the 
hard work he has done to craft a bill that addresses needed changes in 
current law and which continues funding for a program that is 
appreciated by all Americans.
  H.R. 1522 reauthorizes the National Historic Preservation Fund 
through the year 2004. This fund has been used to protect many of our 
most cherished historical sites around the country. This bill also 
makes many changes to the National Historic Preservation Act in order 
that it can function better in protecting our priceless national 
historic treasures.
  I want to add, however, that the protection of our national 
treasures, which this bill provides, nearly did not make it to the 
floor today because of an eleventh hour concern by OMB, who suddenly 
opposed this bill, even though the agency had months and months to 
comment on it on any problems they may have had.
  Nevertheless, everyone worked hard last night to address the concerns 
of OMB, and we now have a bill which we can agree with and the 
Administration can support.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill, and the National Historic 
Preservation Fund needs to be reauthorized. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 1522.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and commend the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
National Parks and Public Lands for his leadership in the management of 
this legislation before the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1522 amends the National Historic Preservation Act 
of 1966. Through this act, historically significant buildings, sites 
and districts have been preserved, keeping America's history alive.
  The primary purpose of the bill before us today is to reauthorize the 
National Historic Preservation Fund. Monies from the fund are derived 
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and Congress set the 
authorization level at $150 million per year.
  Authorization for the fund expired on September 30th, 1997. This bill 
extends authorization of the fund through the year 2004. As I have 
stated throughout our consideration of this bill, I would prefer the 
bill end there. In fact, the bill that was first introduced or the one 
that we brought to the floor today, I would not be able to support its 
passage.
  However, the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley) brought many sides together and has put together a bill that I 
believe is worthy of our support. I do want to commend the gentleman 
from Colorado for his leadership and for his ability to

[[Page H3417]]

bring everyone together at the table and to come out with a consensus 
as we have now. He worked even this morning to address concerns raised 
by the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, even with all the changes made to the bill since its 
introduction, concerns over certain provisions still exist. In 
particular, the Office of Management and Budget is concerned with the 
provision which takes away the mandatory requirement for the Keeper of 
the Register to make a determination of whether or not his site is 
eligible to be listed on the Register of Historic Places when property 
owners oppose the designation.
  The Office of Management and Budget and the National Park Service 
fear this language could require the Keeper to act only in the most 
contentious of issues, thereby politicizing the process.
  Regardless of this language, Mr. Speaker, however, the current 
practice whereby no site is placed on the register while owners oppose 
such a designation remains intact. The statement of administration 
policy of this legislation states that the administration has no 
objection to the passage of H.R. 1522 but will work to have the 
discretionary language removed during Senate consideration of the 
legislation.
  Another provision that remains a concern to some is one that contains 
language providing that States and Indian tribes will be responsible 
for determining which professional employees are needed to carry out 
the preservation duties within their jurisdiction.
  Debate on professional standards continue within the preservation 
community, and any changes to this area I believe are best handled 
after that debate is concluded and agreement is reached.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill will also allow States and Indian tribes to 
decide which professional positions are needed to address their 
specific needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield whatever time he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the 
sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, to both the Chairman and the Ranking Member, 
I extend my appreciation for their help as we worked through this 
process and did try to bring all the groups together.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that one of the roles of government is 
the preservation of our historic values. To paraphrase one historian, 
we are unlikely to deal well with our future if we do not understand 
our past.
  Since 1966, the Historic Preservation Fund has been part of the way 
this Nation seeks to accomplish that. The bill before us today reflects 
the success and maturity of that program. Rather than a set of sweeping 
reforms, H.R. 1522 attempts to fine-tune what is a mature program.
  The bill reauthorizes the Historic Preservation Fund at its existing 
level through the year 2004. I should point out that, despite the 
authorization level, actual appropriations have never exceeded $50 
million, and, in the last 7 years, have only twice exceeded $40 
million.
  The 2004 end date is intended to bring into sync budget deadlines for 
this program, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 
budget agreement.
  The bill also makes a number of changes to reflect what is happening 
in the States.
  It reemphasizes this Congress' commitment to the rights of private 
property owners.
  It gives State and tribal historic preservation offices greater 
flexibility in the hiring of their employees.
  The provision recognizes Interior's ongoing work at developing 
standards for these employees, but gives States and tribes the right to 
make the call on what professionals they need.
  It allows the Federal Government, through the National Trust for 
Historic Preservation, to respond to emergencies such as the 
Mississippi floods of 1994.
  The bill also codifies an executive order directing government 
agencies to give consideration to the use of historic buildings in 
historic districts and central business areas.
  This is not only something Federal agencies should do as a matter of 
course, it may help blunt the erosion of downtown areas.
  The bill also contains a provision backed by strong report language 
which signals the Committee on Resources' intent that government 
agencies in Washington should honor the intent of preservation laws in 
their dealings with local preservation agencies.
  Too often, the law has been observed only as an afterthought.
  As I said, this should not be a controversial bill. There are areas 
where the involved parties simply agree to disagree. We do not agree on 
everything in it.
  But it has the backing of the Nation's five major preservation 
groups, the Preservation Action, National Trust for Historic 
Preservation, American Cultural Resources Association, National 
Alliance of Preservation Commissions, National Conference of State 
Historic Preservation Offices. So it does have a broad base of support.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close and encourage passage of this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
to me.
  First, let me say to those of you who brought this bill to the floor, 
I appreciate what you are doing and the sincerity. I am going to be the 
skunk at the picnic because I am not a fan, based upon personal 
experience, and I guess that is what we bring to the floor a lot.
  I am not a fan of the National Keeper's office, nor how it is 
conducted. Let me just say, as I unfold this tale for a second, that as 
this bill moves forward, I hope that some of my concerns will be 
incorporated in deliberations, particularly as you discuss this with 
the other body.
  Yes, the project I am about to relate to you is a controversial 
highway project. Those in the environmental community have opposed it 
assiduously for many years. Their only problem is 75 percent of 
everybody in an affected county supports it. Their problem is every 
elected official from the town council to whatever office you want to 
point to supports this project.
  So what we have done, then, over time, is we have gone through all 
the hurdles. We have gone through the executive branch. We have gone 
through the Federal Highway Administration. We have gone through the 
West Virginia Department of Transportation. We have gone through 
Federal court and won against environmentalists who want to oppose it. 
We have gone to the Congress, and the Congress has approved money. 
Every branch, I thought.
  And then who pops up just as we are going to bid? The Keeper of the 
National Historic Registry to declare a community in Hardy County, West 
Virginia, which is appropriately named, I guess, ``Old Fields'' as a 
historic district. She could have identified farm buildings and 
designated them. She did not. She made it a historic district, which 
then brings this highway project to a halt within that area.
  So I call and I say, to whom do we appeal to? I call the Secretary of 
the Interior's office. We do not know. Do I have to go back to court 
now?
  So the history of this particular situation is replete with 
bureaucratic abuse, deadlines that have been passed for review, which, 
of course, if you pass a deadline, it means your highway department and 
your contractors and your engineers cannot move forward. We have 
probably cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in simply delays by 
this delay.
  Oh, yes, yes, one other factor, the State involvement. The State 
Historic Preservation Officer, about as competent a person as I have 
met and a true professional, recommended against the Keeper taking this 
action. Then the night after the action was announced, I get a call 
from the Hardy County preservation officer who lives where, in Old 
Fields, West Virginia, who says, what is going on? We never recommended 
that this be declared a historic district.
  That is my tale.
  Mr. Speaker, to those moving this bill, I am interested in historic 
preservation, but I am not interested in historic preservation that 
denies a future.

[[Page H3418]]

 I guess what I would ask is, as we move forward we closely monitor the 
discretion that this official has. Because whether it is her office or 
her personality, and I am not sure which, but whichever one it is, 
there is clear need to put some teeth in here and to put in some 
oversight.
  I would just urge us not to move forward and to give the directive 
that you shall declare areas historic areas. I hope we would at least 
keep it at bay so we can continue to review this discretion and, when 
appropriate, abuses.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, we share the gentleman's concerns, too, and 
we want it to work. What we are trying to do with the reauthorization 
to make it work, let me just share with you the report language of what 
we intend here.
  H.R. 1522 modifies the existing Secretarial review of nominations to 
the National Historic Register as an option of appeal, rather than a 
mandatory stage in the nominating process as it currently exists, which 
speaks to what you just spoke to. This legislation intends that most of 
the decision making would take place at the State and local level, 
which is also what you want.
  Mr. WISE. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I think we share the same kind of goals. You have had a 
very bad experience with it, and I think a lot of us have. We want to 
make it work right. We do not want to throw it out, because I think it 
does have merit, but I want it to work.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, if I may say to the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), I never thought 
of either of you friends of overarching and overreaching government, so 
I am quite confident and I am pleased you are moving in that direction. 
But I think this is a situation that I would hope that, on both sides 
of the aisle, you would be looking at in your deliberations.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from West 
Virginia that his eloquent statement has been well taken. I am sure my 
good friend from the other side of the aisle, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and myself 
will definitely look into the wordage of not only the report but the 
language itself to make sure that it does not reflect the kind of 
example that you have just shared with us this afternoon.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time and his 
consideration.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
all his hard and skillful work on the bill. In a moment, I am going to 
ask the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen), if he would engage in a brief colloquy with me.
  Before I do so, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) 
and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for really quite exemplary 
work on this bill. I am aware of the balance that must be achieved here 
and how difficult a bill like this is to get through the committee 
while bearing in mind the necessary balance.
  I am, of course, a strong supporter of the Historic Preservation Act. 
I represent a historic city, a city that was born with the Nation 
itself, with much to preserve on the Federal side and on the local 
side.
  I want to thank the gentlemen, also, for the faith they have kept to 
the Congressional Accountability Act because of the way they have 
brought our own agent, the Architect of the Capitol, under the Act, 
while giving him full latitude to accomplish his job.
  As we may recall, the Congressional Accountability Act indicated that 
Congress would submit itself to the same laws as everyone else. We have 
done that and kept faith with that. We have brought ourselves into 
account with this promise in this Act.
  I want to express my appreciation to both the gentleman from Colorado 
and the gentleman from Utah for the kind consideration and the 
sensitive way in which they have dealt with the special historic 
preservation issues in the District of Columbia.
  We have had an unfortunate experience involving a historic property 
in the District of Columbia. I believe that this language will 
guarantee that that experience will not be repeated.
  I do want to say to the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman 
from Utah that we have begun to work with the Architect of the Capitol 
and so believe that he also understands the intent. But to make certain 
of that, I ask the gentleman from Utah if he would engage in a colloquy 
with me.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I am happy 
to.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. NORTON. Is it the gentleman's understanding that by restricting 
the application of the exemption in section 107 of the Act, it is the 
intent of the Congress that the Architect of the Capitol at a minimum 
give public notice to the abutters and the surrounding neighborhood 
prior to undertaking a restoration or renovation project on an historic 
building?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, that is what 
we expect, with the exceptions that are in the bill. I think we have 
covered that.
  Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the colloquy, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1522, which 
will reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Act.
  One of the many things that makes our nation great is our strong, 
collective sense of history. We teach our children from an early age 
about our past triumphs and failures and the lessons we've learned from 
them. This tradition enables America to grow better with each passing 
day: as we improve our understanding of the past, we increase our 
chances of mastering the future.
  That is why I am such a strong supporter of the National Historic 
Preservation Act, passed by Congress and signed by the President in 
1966. The Historic Preservation Act authorizes the Department of the 
Interior to manage the National Register of Historic Places, encourages 
State-level efforts to preserve these important locations, and provides 
grants and expertise to the many individuals and associations across 
America who have dedicated their lives to protecting and preserving 
these treasures.
  Mr. Speaker, my home State of Minnesota has a long legacy of historic 
preservation. Established in 1849, the Minnesota Historical Society 
preserves the history of Minnesota through a variety of activities 
while overseeing a number of libraries, collections and historic sites. 
One needs only to walk down beautiful Summit Avenue a historic district 
in Saint Paul to appreciate how interested Minnesotans are to 
preserving the jewels of our past. Indeed, since 1966, when Congress 
passed the Historic Preservation Act, the State Historic Preservation 
Office of Minnesota has inventoried more than 45,000 properties in all 
87 counties of the State. And at the end of 1996, the National Register 
of Historic Places contained more than 1,460 Minnesota listings. For 
that, the Minnesota Historical Society deserves the appreciation of not 
just Minnesotans, but all Americans.
  Our State Historic Preservation Office (S.H.P.O.) is not just the 
mansions of Summit Ave., St. Paul but the common housing and work 
places that need sound historic preservation efforts and understanding 
the culture and people means understanding where we came from. But the 
S.H.P.O. does not and can't do it alone. Congress appropriated $36 
million for the Historic Preservation Fund in 1997.
  That money provides funding for State offices like the S.H.P.O. as I 
described in Minnesota. $36 million is not nearly enough and this 
measure continues the past authorization of $150 million per year. We 
could accomplish even more with that kind of money. These dollars are 
multiplied many times over but every day we are losing historic 
fabric--our connection to our past.
  I have attached to my statement an article from the Minneapolis Star-
Tribune that details the ten most endangered historic properties in 
Minnesota this year. The properties are in urban areas such as my St. 
Paul district and rural areas in Northern Minnesota such as Itasca 
County. With additional funding, the talented and hard-working folks at 
the Minnesota Historical Society could work to acquire, protect and 
preserve these important places. Hopefully we could in future years 
meet the promise of authorization closer to the amount dedicated to 
this purpose.
  So I support this bill, Mr. Speaker. It continues and hopefully will 
build upon Congress'

[[Page H3419]]

important role in the protection of America's treasures, ensuring the 
protection of our historic legacy for future generations.

    10 Endangered Properties for '98--The Preservation Alliance of 
 Minnesota Lists Structures Threatened by Storms, Demolition or Neglect

                            (By Linda Mack)

       The entire city of St. Peter, ``ma and pa'' resorts up 
     north, boarded-up buildings at Fort Snelling and a former 
     dairy farm near Brainerd are listed among Minnesota's 10 most 
     endangered properties of 1998.
       Threatened by demolition, neglect or storm damage, the 10 
     buildings or groups of buildings have been selected by the 
     Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, a statewide nonprofit 
     membership group, to draw attention to the state's historic 
     resources and the need for their preservation.
       George Edwards, who moved to Minneapolis recently from 
     Atlanta, GA, to head the Preservation Alliance, said 
     Minnesota's endangered buildings ``face the same threats that 
     we're seeing around the country--under-appreciation of our 
     heritage, neglect and a shift in priorities.''
       Apart from the tornado-ravaged buildings of St. Peter, many 
     of which will be rebuilt, the challenge for most of the 
     communities is finding new uses for old buildings whose 
     original purpose has been lost, such as the old City Hall in 
     Nashwauk or the Hotel Lac qui Parle in Madison. Or, in the 
     case of the small resorts built in the early 20th century, 
     the key to preservation may be building a coalition of 
     historic resorts to do joint marketing. The list, said 
     Edwards, is just a start.
       The update on last year's 10 most endangered properties is 
     mixed.
       The Stillwater Bridge may have a better chance of surviving 
     because of a recent ruling by a federal judge that a new 
     bridge across the St. Croix River would adversely affect the 
     scenic riverway. Historic buildings at the University of 
     Minnesota's Twin Cities campus are being studied for reuse 
     rather than slated for demolition. The Washburn Crosby ``A'' 
     Mill on the Minneapolis riverfront has been stabilized and 
     the Utility Building next to it will be redeveloped for 
     housing. Red Wing's Washington School was demolished, but the 
     city's Central High School is being studied for reuse and is 
     still being used.
       The future of other properties on last year's list--such as 
     the Mannheimer-Goodkind House in St. Paul, the Handicraft 
     Building in downtown Minneapolis and Albert Lea's downtown 
     commercial buildings--remains uncertain.


   Department of the Dakota Buildings, Fort Snelling, Hennepin County

       Built between 1879 and 1905, the 28 buildings on 141 acres 
     of land overlooking the Minnesota River form a familiar 
     landmark near the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport, 
     but they are now mostly empty and boarded-up. Competing 
     interests of state and federal agencies have stalled 
     resolution of their future. The Minnesota Department of 
     Natural Resources is now sponsoring a re-use study. The 
     buildings were on the list of endangered buildings last year 
     as well.


                Anoka Amphitheater, Anoka, Anoka County

       This little-known but charming open air theater overlooking 
     the Mississippi River was designed by Prairie School 
     architects Purcell and Elmslie in 1914. Unused for many years 
     and in need of work, the amphitheater sits in the way of a 
     road widening planned by the Minnesota Department of 
     Transportation. The road wouldn't take the whole theater, but 
     it would lop off the back of it. Other alternatives should be 
     pursued, say preservationists, and the amphitheater kept as 
     part of a park.


            Armstrong-Quinlan House, St. Paul, Ramsey County

       The 1886 red brick Romanesque house sits in literal and 
     metaphorical limbo surrounded by parking lots on the edge of 
     downtown St. Paul. Owned by the state of Minnesota, it is a 
     lonely reminder of an earlier grand era of residential 
     buildings in downtown St. Paul. It's unlikely the 
     construction of a new hockey arena nearby will help resolve 
     its future.


         early 20th century resorts, cass county and elsewhere

       The small rustic resorts run by owner-operators grew up in 
     the early automobile era and make up a charming part of the 
     northern Minnesota landscape. But bigger, fancier resorts, 
     often with centralized operations, are the wave of the 
     future. And the rise in property values and taxes makes it 
     harder and harder for ``ma and pa'' operators to survive.


       district no 5 schoolhouse, bergen township, mcleod county

       Rural schoolhouses are fast disappearing, and this red 
     brick one built about 1910 is among the most endangered of a 
     number nominated for the list. Their original use is 
     outmoded, but they form a significant part of the rural 
     landscape.


           hotel lac qui parle, madison, lac qui parle county

       The city of Madison owns the small hotel on a downtown 
     corner and says there's no reuse. Local citizens argue the 
     building forms an important anchor to downtown's character 
     and have persuaded the city to do a structural analysis. 
     Madison has already lost one landmark, a tiny but ornate 
     Prairie School bank designed by architects Purcell and 
     Elmslie in 1913 and demolished in 1968.


              nashwauk city hall, nashwauk, itasca county

       Built in 1915, this solid and graceful civic building is 
     one of three intact city halls constructed in company towns 
     during the boom period of the western Mesabi Iron Range. But 
     the city moved out in 1977, and the building faces demolition 
     because of neglect.


              echo dairy farm, brainerd, crow wing county

       This impressive complex of high-roofed dairy barns just 
     south of Brainerd was built in the early 1920s as one of 
     Minnesota's first corporate agricultural operations and 
     operated until 1971. The city of Brainerd has bought the 
     complex for expansion of an industrial park.


  stone buildings of ottawa township, ottawa township, le sueur county

       Built during the 1850s to 1870s, seven native limestone 
     buildings--houses, churches and a town hall--form a charming 
     remnant of a Minnesota River village that was once a center 
     of stone quarrying. Their future may not be so charming: They 
     stand on land that is a prime target for an advancing silica 
     sand mining operation.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, 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. 1522, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________