[Senate Report 104-375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 599
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     104-375
_______________________________________________________________________


 
              NEW BEDFORD WHALING NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

                                _______
                                

               September 30, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 608]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 608) to establish the New Bedford Whaling 
National Historical Park in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
    The amendments are as follows:
    On page 2, line 13, strike ``and''.
    On page 2, strike lines 14 through 16 in their entirety.
    On page 2, line 14, insert:

          ``(4) during the nineteenth century, over two 
        thousand whaling voyages sailed out of New Bedford for 
        the Arctic region of Alaska, and joined Alaska Natives 
        from Barrow, Alaska and other areas in the Arctic 
        region in subsistence whaling activities; and
          ``(5) the National Park System presently contains no 
        sites commemorating whaling and its contribution to 
        American history.''.

    On page 2, line 23, strike ``local'' and insert 
``associated''.
    On page 5, after line 6, insert:

          ``(c) Related Facilities.--To ensure that the 
        contribution of Alaska Natives to the history of 
        whaling in the United States is fully recognized, the 
        Secretary shall provide--(1) financial and other 
        assistance to establish links between the New Bedford 
        Whaling National Historical Park and the North Slope 
        Borough Cultural Center, located in Barrow, Alaska; and 
        (2) to provide other appropriate assistance and funding 
        for the North Slope Borough Cultural Center.''

    On page 7, line 22, strike ``park.'' and insert ``park, and 
to carry out the activities under section 3(c).''.

                         purpose of the measure

    The purpose of S. 608 is to establish New Bedford Whaling 
National Historical Park in Massachusetts in order to preserve 
and interpret the nineteenth century whaling industry.

                          background and need

    Interest in preserving the maritime history of New Bedford, 
Massachusetts began in the 1960s. New Bedford served as the 
center of the whaling industry during its peak from 1820 to 
1860. Following the collapse of commercial whaling, the textile 
industry created another boom of New Bedford. By the early 
1960s, economic decline had caused decay of the city's historic 
waterfront. A city-sponsored urban renewal program threatened 
the entire area with demolition. In response, the Waterfront 
Historic Area League of New Bedford, Inc. (WHALE) was organized 
to preserve the waterfront area and thereby preserve the city's 
whaling history. WHALE was successful in leading a 
comprehensive program to preserve, rehabilitate and reuse 
architecturally significant buildings in the waterfront area. 
WHALE also helped establish the New Bedford National Historic 
Landmark District in 1966.
    In 1988, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Management developed a Heritage State Park master plan as part 
of revitalization initiative, in cooperation with the city of 
New Bedford. The program was intended to assist cities with 
resource protection and economic development by creating parks 
in historic urban areas. Under this program, a plan for New 
Bedford's waterfront area was developed but never implemented, 
as the State ceased funding the Heritage Park program.
    Since WHALE's initial investment in the Waterfront Historic 
District buildings, some of the most valued rehabilitated 
buildings are again showing the effects of deferred 
maintenance. Other significant buildings, bypassed in the 
earlier program, are in need of substantial rehabilitation.
    At the request of the Massachusetts delegation, including 
Senators Kennedy and Kerry, Congress appropriated funds in 1990 
for a National Park Service Special Resource Study to consider 
the feasibility of creating a national park in New Bedford. The 
study was completed by the National Park Service in November 
1993, and recommends designation of the New Bedford National 
Historic Landmark District and the National Historic Landmark 
Schooner Ernestina as a national historical park, based on the 
agency's criteria for national significance, suitability and 
feasibility. Under the designation, the National Park Service 
would plan and implement programs at the park in cooperation 
with local organizations.
    S. 608 would establish New Bedford Whaling National 
Historical Park, to be administered by the National Park 
Service. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
enter into cooperative agreements with interested entities and 
individuals to preserve, develop, and interpret the park. Non-
Federal matching requirements are outlined for cooperative 
agreements and construction, restoration, and rehabilitation of 
visitor and interpretive facilities. Real property may be 
acquired by the Secretary solely through donation.
    S. 608 is more conservative in its authorization of 
appropriations than a similar bill from the last Congress (S. 
1871): funds for construction, restoration and rehabilitation 
of visitor and interpretive facilities and signs are limited to 
$2 million, and no more than $50,000 annually may be used for 
interpretive and educational programs for the Schooner 
Ernestina.

                          legislative history

    Senators Kennedy and Kerry introduced S. 608 on March 23, 
1995. A hearing was held by the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic 
Preservation and Recreation on November 9, 1995. A similar 
bill, S. 1871, was introduced by Senators Kennedy and Gregg 
during the 103rd Congress. The Subcommittee on Public Lands, 
National Parks and Forests held a hearing on S. 1871 on August 
2, 1994. No further action was taken. Similar legislation was 
introduced in the House of Representatives through H.R. 1307 
(Frank, Blute) on March 23, 1996. The bill was referred to the 
House Resources Committee. No further action has been taken.
    The legislative language of S. 608 is included in S. 1720 
(Dole, Kennedy, Kerry), a bill to establish the Nicodemus 
National Historic Site and the New Bedford Whaling National 
Historic Landmark. S. 1720 was introduced on May 1, 1996, and 
was ordered held at the desk. S. 1720 passed the Senate on May 
2, 1996 by unanimous consent.
    At the business meeting on September 12, 1996, the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 608 
favorably reported, as amended.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open 
business session on September 12, 1996, by a unanimous voice 
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 
608, if amended as described herein.

                          committee amendment

    During the consideration of S. 608, the Committee adopted 
an amendment which would add a section to the Congressional 
findings stating that in the nineteenth century, over two 
thousand whaling voyages sailed out of New Bedford to the 
Arctic region of Alaska, and joined Alaska Natives from Barrow, 
Alaska and other areas in the Arctic region in subsistence 
whaling activities.
    The amendment would authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
to provide financial and other assistance to the North Slope 
Borough Cultural Center in Barrow, Alaska, in order to 
establish links with the historical park and to ensure that the 
contribution of Alaska Natives to the history of whaling in the 
United States is fully recognized.

                      section-by-section analysis

    Section 1(a), as amended, contains five Congressional 
findings: (1) the New Bedford National Historic Landmark 
District and associated historic sites, including the Schooner 
Ernestina are listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places; (2) New Bedford was the nineteenth century capital of 
the world's whaling industry; (3) New Bedford's historic 
resources provide opportunities for illustrating and 
interpreting the whaling industry's contributions to the 
economic, social and environmental history of the United 
States; (4) during the nineteenth century, whaling voyages 
sailed out of New Bedford for the Arctic region of Alaska, and 
joined Alaska natives in subsistence whaling activities; and 
(5) the National Park Service presently contains no sites 
commemorating whaling and its contributions to American 
history.
    Section 1(b), as amended, defines the purposes of the Act 
as helping to preserve, protect and interpret the resources 
described within the Act; collaborating with the city of New 
Bedford and associated historical, cultural and preservation 
organizations; and providing opportunities for inspirational 
and educational benefits.
    Section 2 provides definitions for terms used throughout 
the Act.
    Section 3(a) establishes New Bedford Whaling National 
Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System.
    Section 3(b)(1) defines the boundaries of the park as 
described on a map.
    Section 3(b)(2) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) to assist with the preservation and interpretation 
of specific areas in New Bedford that are not included within 
the boundaries of the park.
    Section 3(c) directs the Secretary to provide financial and 
other assistance in order to establish links between the Park 
and the North Slope Borough Cultural Center in Barrow, Alaska, 
and to provide other appropriate assistance and funding for the 
North Slope Borough Cultural Center.
    Section 4(a) directs that the Park will be administered in 
accordance with provisions of law applicable to units of the 
National Park System.
    Section 4(b)(1) authorizes the Secretary to enter into 
cooperative agreements in order to provide for the 
preservation, development and use of the Park.
    Section 4(b)(2) states that any payment made by the 
Secretary pursuant to a cooperative agreements shall be subject 
to an agreement that conversion, use or disposal of the project 
assisted by the agreement contrary to the purposes of the Act 
shall result in a right of the United States to reimbursement.
    Section 4(c)(1) directs that Federal funds be matched by 
non-Federal funds, $4 non-Federal to $1 Federal for cooperative 
agreements, and a 50-50 match for construction, restoration and 
rehabilitation.
    Section 4(c)(2) authorizes the Secretary to accept and 
utilize contributions from non-Federal sources, and states that 
any donation of property, services, or goods from a non-Federal 
source may be considered in meeting the requirement for non-
Federal matching funds.
    Section 4(d) directs that the Secretary may only acquire 
lands and interests within the park by donation.
    Section 4(e) authorizes the Secretary to accept donated 
funds, property, and services in order to carry out the Act.
    Section 5 directs the Secretary to complete a general 
management plan for the park and submit the plan to the 
appropriate Congressional Committees within two years of 
enactment.
    Section 6 authorizes appropriated sums as necessary, with 
the exceptions that not more than 2 million dollars may be 
appropriated for construction, restoration and rehabilitation 
of visitor and interpretive facilities; none of the 
appropriated funds may be used for the operation and 
maintenance of the schooner Ernestina; and not more than 
$50,000 annually of Federal funds may be used for interpretive 
and educational programs for the schooner Ernestina.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The following estimate of the cost of this measure has been 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 20, 1996.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed S. 608, a bill to establish the New Bedford Whaling 
National Historical Park in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and for 
other purposes, as reported by the Senate Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources on September 16, 1996. Assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that the 
federal government would spend about $11 million to implement 
this bill over the next five years, including $1.5 million for 
planning and development and $9.5 million for park operations 
and assistance to nonprofit organizations and other nonfederal 
parties. Additional one-time costs of $1.2 million and ongoing 
expenses of about $3 million a year would be incurred after 
2001. S. 608 would not affect direct spending or receipts; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
    S. 608 would establish the New Bedford Whaling National 
Historical Park. The park's boundaries would encompass four 
areas in or near the New Bedford National Historic Landmark 
District. The National Park Service (NPS) would be permitted to 
acquire property within the park boundaries only by donation. 
Section 4 of the bill would authorize the NPS to: (1) enter 
into cooperative agreements with interested parties for 
preservation and interpretive purposes within the park or on 
five additional sites identified by section 3, and (2) provide 
technical and financial assistance to the North Slope Borough 
Cultural Center in Barrow, Alaska for the purpose of 
interpreting the contributions to the history of whaling made 
by Alaska natives. Section 5 would require the NPS to prepare a 
general management plan for the park within two years.
    Section 6 would authorize the appropriation of whatever 
sums are necessary for annual activities such as park operation 
and maintenance and programs carried out under cooperative 
agreements, except that no appropriations could be used for 
operating or maintaining one privately owned park area (the 
Schooner Ernestina) and federal funding of interpretive 
programs aboard the vessel would be limited to $50,000 
annually. Finally, this section would limit appropriations for 
the development of interpretive and visitor facilities to $2 
million.
    CBO estimates that the NPS would spend about $0.7 million 
over the next three years to prepare a management plan for the 
park and complete other needed studies and reports on park 
resources. Over the following several years, the agency would 
spend $2 million to develop visitor facilities, which could 
include a main orientation center (and related exhibits) as 
well as a number of smaller interpretive sites. Other startup 
costs would include spending for minor restoration projects at 
the five New Bedford sites eligible for federal assistance 
under section 3. Such activities, along with local interpretive 
and educational projects and assistance to the Schooner 
Ernestina and the North Slope Borough Cultural Center, would be 
funded through cooperative agreements under section 4. CBO 
estimates that the costs of cooperative agreements would be 
about $0.4 million in 1997, rising to about $1.1 million 
annually by 1999. Annual costs to operate and maintain the park 
would be about $0.3 million in 1997 and would rise to $1.8 
million by 2001.
    The above estimates are based on information provided by 
the NPS and assume appropriation of the entire amounts 
authorized for development purposes or estimated to be 
necessary for cooperative agreements and park operations.
    the bill contains no private-sector or intergovernmental 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4) and would impose no costs on state, local, 
or tribal governments. The Secretary of the Interior would make 
some of the funds that are authorized by this bill available to 
parties--including state and local governments--that enter into 
cooperative agreements with the Secretary for operating, 
developing, and preserving resources within the park. 
Generally, the Secretary would match one dollar of federal 
funds for each four dollars of nonfederal funds; however, the 
matching rate would be one-to-one for constructing, restoring, 
and rehabilitating facilities.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah 
Reis (for federal costs) and John Patterson (for the impact on 
state and local governments).
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                   (For June E. O'Neill, Director).

                      REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out S. 608. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or 
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals 
and businesses.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the 
enactment of S. 608, as ordered reported.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    On September 13, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of 
the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting 
forth Executive agency recommendations on S. 608. These reports 
had not been received at the time the report on S. 608 was 
filed. When these reports become available, the Chairman will 
request that they be printed in the Congressional Record for 
the advice of the Senate. The testimony provided by the 
Department of the Interior at the Subcommittee hearing follows:

   Testimony of Denis P. Galvin, Associate Director for Professional 
      Services, National Park Service, Department of the Interior

    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to testify on a bill 
that would create the New Bedford Whaling National Historical 
Park in New Bedford, Massachusetts.
    We support the enactment of S. 608. We are pleased to note 
that recommendations we made regarding similar legislation 
introduced in the 103rd Congress have been incorporated into 
the current legislation. We also should note that the proposed 
new unit has been carefully studied and found to be suitable 
for addition to the National Park System.
    This legislation would establish a new unit of the National 
Park System in New Bedford, Massachusetts, the New Bedford 
Whaling National Historical Park. The proposed park would 
interpret the nationally significant story of nineteenth 
century whaling and its associated social, economic and 
environmental themes. The historical park would assure the 
preservation, protection and interpretation of the resources 
associated with the whaling era in New Bedford including its 
architecture, setting, associated archival and museum 
collections, and the Schooner Ernestina.
    The legislation calls for collaboration among the National 
Park Service, the City of New Bedford and local historical, 
cultural, and preservation organizations to further the 
purposes of the park. The Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with interested 
entities and individuals to provide for the preservation, 
interpretation, development, and use of the park. The 
legislation requires that federal funds be matched by non-
federal funds: $4 none-federal to $1 federal for cooperative 
agreements; $1 to $1 for construction, restoration and 
rehabilitation of visitor and interpretive facilities.
    In 1990, the Congress directed the NPS to undertake a 
special resource study and to consider the feasibility of 
creating a national park in New Bedford. On June 10, 1994, we 
presented to the Congress the ``New Bedford Special Resource 
Study,'' a cooperative effort by the National Park Service and 
Waterfront Historic Area League (WHALE) of New Bedford. 
Specifically, the study found that ``the New Bedford National 
Historic Landmark District and the adjacent sites represent an 
outstanding example of buildings, sites, and streets associated 
with the whaling industry, a subtheme not fully represented in 
the National Park System. The District and historic sites also 
have exceptional value in representing the theme of maritime 
history.'' The study's assessment of national significance 
concluded that ``taken together, the National Historic Landmark 
District, the National Landmark Ernestina, and the other 
historic resources present at New Bedford clearly meet the 
criteria for national significance. If the story of whaling, 
with the human themes that are rightfully embraced within it, 
is to be preserved and presented anywhere, New Bedford is the 
logical and most suitable location to do so.''
    The area reviewed in the ``New Bedford Special Resource 
Study'' comprises approximately 13 city blocks reaching from 
the waterfront westward into New Bedford's downtown. The 
resources located in that area represent a broad array of 
business, residential, and institutional structures that convey 
the importance, cultural diversity, and financial power of the 
whaling era. These structures continue to serve the needs of 
the waterfront community and the city's broader population.
    There is significant public support for the establishment 
of a National Historical Park in New Bedford. We also 
understand that there is strong commitment in the city, and 
among local historical and preservation organizations to work 
with the National Park Service to protect the resources 
associated with the whaling heritage of New Bedford. The 
presence of strong local institutions and intensive public 
interest contribute to the strength of the partnership in New 
Bedford. Local partnerships can support the National Park 
Service in educational programs, production of informational 
materials, coordination of volunteers, and other activities 
which will enhance and expand the Service's efforts.
    Mr. Chairman, we consider the New Bedford Whaling National 
Historical Park to be a valuable addition to the National Park 
System. Based on studies of the site and other research, we 
have concluded that New Bedford is the location in the United 
States possessing a concentration of resources to best 
interpret the whaling era. The proposed New Bedford Whaling 
National Historical Park is of sufficient size and 
configuration to accommodate public use. The partnership and 
cost-sharing requirements outlined in the legislation are 
important factors for ensuring local financial responsibility 
and investment. If S. 608 is enacted, funding for the proposed 
project would be contingent upon Federal budgetary constraints 
and the Administration's funding priorities.
    I appreciate the opportunity to provide the 
Administration's views on this bill. I would be happy to answer 
any questions you may have.

                        changes in existing law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no 
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 608 as 
reported.

                                
