```

[Senate Report 107-74]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 176
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     107-74

======================================================================

 
            GREAT FALLS HISTORIC DISTRICT STUDY ACT OF 2001

                                _______
                                

                October 1, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 146]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the Act (H.R. 146) to authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of 
designating the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New 
Jersey, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommends that the Act do pass.

                                purpose

    The purpose of H.R. 146 is to authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of 
designating the Great Falls Historic District in the City of 
Paterson, in Passaic County, New Jersey, as a unit of the 
National Park System.

                          background and need

    Paterson, New Jersey, was the Nation's first planned 
industrial city and contains some of the country's oldest 
textile mills. The city was originally the brainchild of 
Alexander Hamilton, who believed that the United States needed 
to reduce its dependence on foreign goods by developing its own 
industries. The 77-foot-high Great Falls provided a means to 
power the dozens of mills buildings funded by Hamilton's 
investment group, the Society of Useful Manufacturers. In the 
late 1800's, silk production became the dominant industry in 
the area, giving Paterson its nickname of ``Silk City.'' Later, 
Paterson became a pioneer in legislation opposing child labor 
and supporting workplace safety, a minimum wage, and reasonable 
working hours.
    The buildings in the city's historic district reflect 
different phases of decline and renewal typical of northern 
textile cities. Today, some structures are vacant and 
deteriorated, while others have been adaptively reused or 
continue to be used by industry. The Great Falls Historic 
District, an 89-acre core area, was listed on the National 
Register of Historic Places in 1970 and designated as a 
National Historic Landmark in 1976.
    Since 1988, the Great Falls Historic District has been 
listed as a ``Priority One Threatened National Historic 
Landmark'' in the Department of the Interior's annual report to 
Congress on such landmarks.
    There have been two Federal initiatives concerning the 
Historic District in the last decade. Public Law 102-154, the 
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 1992, appropriated $4.147 million in Urban History 
Initiative Funds for historic preservation projects that 
encourage economic development. The program has been 
successfully administered by the National Park Service under a 
cooperative agreement with the city of Paterson. Funds have 
been used for various projects, and an ethnographic study.
    In addition, Public Law 104-333, the Omnibus Parks and 
Public Lands Management Act of 1996, authorized $3.3 million in 
matching grants to develop and implement a preservation and 
interpretation plan for the Historic District, including a 
market analysis for economic development.

                          legislation history

    H.R. 146, sponsored by Representative Pascrell, was passed 
by the House of Representatives by a voice vote on May 9, 2001. 
A companion measure, S. 386,. was introduced by Senators 
Torricelli and Corzine on February 15, 2001. The Subcommittee 
on National Parks held a hearing on H.R. 146 and S. 386 on July 
17, 2001. At its business meeting on August 2,2001, the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered H.R. 146 favorably 
reported without amendment.

                      section-by-section analysis

    Section 1 designates the bill's short title, the ``Great 
Falls Historic District Study Act of 2001.''
    Section 2 (a) defines the terms ``Great Falls Historic 
District'' and the ``Secretary.''
    Subsection (b) directs that as soon as possible after funds 
are made available, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
commence a study regarding the suitability and feasibility of 
designating the Great Falls Historic District as a unit of the 
National Park System.
    Subsection (c) provides that the requirements of section 
8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to 
the study required by this section. Section 8(c) sets forth 
several requirements for national park feasibility studies, 
including providing an appropriate opportunity for public 
involvement, as well as the specific criteria that are to be 
considered.
    Subsection (d) states that the Secretary shall submit a 
report describing the results of the study to the Committee on 
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
    Section (e) authorizes the appropriation of such sums as 
are necessary to carry out this section.

                        committee recommendation

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 
open business session on August 2, 2001, by a voice vote of a 
quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 146 as 
described herein.

                   cost and budgetary considerations

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

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, August 10, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 146, the Great 
Falls Historic District Study Act of 2001.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact for this 
estimate is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                        Robert A. Sunshine,
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    H.R. 146 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
conduct a study on the suitability and feasibility of making 
the Great Falls Historic District in New Jersey a unit of the 
National Park System. The legislation would require the 
Secretary to report to the Congress on its findings within 
three years of receiving funds. Finally, the legislation would 
authorize the appropriation of whatever sums are necessary to 
conduct the study.
    Based on information from the National Park Service, CBO 
estimates that completing the require study and report would 
cost the federal government $250,000 over the next three years, 
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. H.R. 146 would 
not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures would not apply. H.R. 146 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on 
state, local, or tribal governments.
    On March 29, 2001, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 
146 as ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on 
March 28, 2001. The two versions of the legislation are 
identical, as are our cost estimates.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. 
The estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      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 H.R. 146. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing government-established standards or 
significant 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 H.R. 146.

                        executive communications

    On July 27, 2001, 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 H.R. 146. These 
reports had not been received at the time this report was 
filed. The testimony provided by the National Park Service at 
the Subcommittee hearing follows:

   Statement of John G. Parsons, Associate Regional Director, Lands, 
  Resources, and Planning, National Capital Region, Department of the 
                                Interior

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear 
before your committee to present the views of the Department of 
the Interior on S. 386 and H.R. 146, bills to authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic District in 
Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the National Park System.
    The Department of the Interior has concerns about 
conducting this study. We believe existing congressional 
legislation already offers the Historic District ample 
authorization for historic preservation projects that encourage 
compatible economic development in Paterson. We are concerned 
that such a study would serve to divert the City of Paterson 
and the National Park Service from the very real opportunities 
authorized by Congress in 1992 and 1996, opportunities that 
have yet to be fully realized. In addition, the Department will 
not necessarily request funding for the study in this or the 
next fiscal year, so as to focus available time and resources 
on completing previously authorized studies. As of now, there 
are 41 authorized studies that are pending, and we only expect 
to complete a few of those this year. If this study is 
authorized, this does not necessarily mean that the Department 
will support designation of this site as a new unit. The 
Administration is determined to eliminate the deferred 
maintenance backlog in national parks, but the costs of 
establishing and operating a new national park could divert 
funds from taking care of current responsibilities. 
Furthermore, in order to better plan for the future of our 
National Parks, we believe that any such studies should 
carefully examine the full life cycle operation and maintenance 
costs that would result from each alternative considered.
    Paterson, New Jersey has a rich history as the Nation's 
first planned industrial city as well as containing some of the 
country's oldest textile mills. In 1792, Alexander Hamilton 
formed an investment group called the Society of Useful 
Manufacturers whose funds would be used to develop a planned 
industrial city in the United States that was later to become 
Paterson. Hamilton believed that the United States needed to 
reduce its dependence on foreign goods and should instead 
develop its own industries. The industries developed in 
Paterson were powered by the 77-foot high Great Falls of the 
Passaic, and a system of water raceways that harnessed the 
power of the falls. The district originally included dozens of 
mill buildings and other manufacturing structures associated 
with the textile industry and later, the firearms, silk, and 
railroad locomotive manufacturing industries. In the latter 
half of the 1800's, silk production became the dominant 
industry and formed the basis of Paterson's most prosperous 
period, earning it the nickname ``Silk City.'' Paterson was 
also the site of historic labor unrest that focused on anti-
child labor legislation, safety in the workplace, a minimum 
wage, and reasonable working hours.
    Industrial decline in Paterson followed the general pattern 
for northern textile cities, with a major decrease in business 
during the middle third of the 20th Century. Today, the 
historic district reflects many phases of decline and renewal: 
some buildings are deteriorated and vacant, while others 
continue in industrial use or have been adaptively reused for 
housing and offices.
    Because of its significant role in the economic and 
industrial development of the United States, the 89-acre Great 
Falls of the Passaic/Society of Useful Manufacturers Historic 
District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places 
in 1970 and designated a National Historic Landmark (NHL) in 
1976. Since 1988 the District has been listed as a Priority One 
threatened National Historic Landmark in the Department of the 
Interior's annual report to Congress on NHLs. This threatened 
status is primarily based on the condition of the 7-acre site 
that formerly housed the Allied Textile Printers. This site, 
immediately below the Great Falls, has been devastated by a 
dozen fires over the last 15 years. The site was acquired by 
the City of Paterson through foreclosure in 1994 and a 
developer is currently under contract to redevelop the site.
    In the Fiscal Year 1992 Appropriations bill for the 
Department of the Interior. Congress appropriated funds for the 
New Jersey Urban History Initiative to provide funding for 
historic preservation projects that encourage economic 
development. The City of Paterson was authorized to receive 
$4.147 million in Urban History Initiative Funds to be 
administered by the NPS under a cooperative agreement with the 
City. Over the years, the National Park Service (NPS) has 
worked closely with the City to use the money to protect 
historic resources while fostering compatible economic 
development. This initiative has shown results such as funding 
projects for research, community grants, and restoration of 
historic resources. For example, Urban History Initiative Funds 
were used for an oral history project and ethnographic study 
conducted by the Library of Congress' American folklife Center. 
Funds were also used for the stabilization of the ruins of the 
Colt Gun Mill as part of a match for a New Jersey Historic 
Trust grant to the City of Paterson.
    The second major congressional initiative to support 
historic preservation opportunities in Paterson is section 510 
of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-333; 110 Stat. 4158). The Great Falls Historic 
District was authorized for $3.3 million in matching grants and 
assistance to develop and implement a preservation and 
interpretive plan for the District, and permit the development 
of a market analysis with recommendations of the economic 
development potential of the District. Yet, none of these funds 
authorized in 1996 have been appropriated.
    Although the City has committed to the raising of the 
matching funds required under the authorization, we do not 
believe that this has yet occurred. Such matching funds will be 
important because recent legislation indicates that Congress 
expects significant nonfederal matches for new units of the 
national park system containing large numbers of historic 
buildings such as the New Bedford National Historical Park and 
Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. Without this 
demonstrated local financial support for the operation and 
protection of new park units, it is probably not feasible to 
recommend their addition to the System.
    The 1996 legislation provides Paterson with the opportunity 
both to demonstrate its capacity for partnership, and to 
develop and implement a preservation program as indicators of 
its commitment and capacity.
    Our concern is that given limited resources, a special 
resource study (SRS) could divert attention from the existing 
opportunities authorized in the 1996 Act. The SRS could easily 
take years to complete, especially when considering other 
congressionally authorized studies that are competing for 
limited money available in this program. If the recommendations 
of the study were negative and no congressional action 
forthcoming, years would have passed with no preservation or 
development action.
    The National Park Service believes in the important 
historic and natural resources in the City of Paterson, and we 
believe in the capacity of the City to identify matching 
funding. There are signs this is beginning to happen. The 
breadth of activities allowed under the 1996 Act is much 
greater than those normally authorized for a national park 
unit. It is our sincere wish that the currently authorized 
preservation initiative for Paterson be allowed to proceed 
rather than being delayed by a study.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. 
This concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to 
answer any questions you or other committee members might 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 Act H.R. 146 as ordered 
reported.
```