[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 30 (Thursday, March 17, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               INTRODUCTION OF PRESIDIO PRESERVATION ACT

                                 ______


                        HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 17, 1994

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bipartisan measure 
to save the Presidio of San Francisco at no cost to the American 
taxpayers. Last October, the National Park Service released a plan to 
convert the Presidio into a park, which GAO and the National Park 
Service agreed would cost $700 million to $1.2 billion. It is a plan 
which this country and the National Park Service simply cannot afford.
  Although the National Park Service is already unable to take care of 
the lands and facilities entrusted to its care, the agency faces 
continual pressure for expansion of its responsibilities. Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area has nearly tripled in size from its original 
authorization of 23,000 acres less than 25 years ago. Golden Gate is 
currently seeking nearly $70 million for a variety of life safety 
projects, asbestos removal, historic building preservation, restroom 
improvements, and so forth. The same funding shortfall exists at other 
national parks in the State of California. For example, Sequoia 
National Park has identified a shortfall of $140 million to fix up its 
existing facilities, and Yosemite National Park needs $342 million.
  This funding shortfall exists throughout the National Park System. A 
report recently submitted to Congress documents a 37-year backlog in 
funding for major park facilities and a 26-year backlog in funding for 
previously authorized land acquisition, assuming no inflation and no 
expansion of the park system.
  National Park Service Director, Roger Kennedy recently stated, ``The 
condition of the places is in many instances genuinely desperate and 
disgusting. The physical condition of the plant is in rotten shape. The 
working condition, pay scales, and housing conditions of the 
professional park staff are a national disgrace.''
  In light of these budget realities, it is simply impossible for the 
National Park Service to take on a new project of this magnitude. Any 
funding for the Presidio can only be provided by taking funds from 
other already underfunded park areas. In additiion, it is undesirable 
to expand the mission of the Park Service to include such activities as 
medical research and international cultural affairs as currently 
proposed in the Presidio plan.

  Finally, the National Park Service has no real expertise in real 
estate management, and I believe that the best way for the Presidio 
public benefit corporation to succeed is to strip away the layers of 
Federal bureaucracy not to perpetuate them.
  Mr. Speaker, the history of this issue goes back nearly 25 years to 
1972 when a single sentence in the act establishing the Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area, Public Law 92-589, provided that if the 
Persidio were ever determined to be surplus to military needs it would 
transfer to the National Park Service. In 1989, the Presidio was placed 
on the list of bases to be closed. However, a review of the legislative 
history of that act reveals that Congress only intended for the 
National Park Service to manage the open space lands at the Presidio, 
not the developed facilities.
  Unfortunately, the enoronmental impact statement released last fall 
by the National Park Service failed to consider an alternative 
consistent with the congressional intent of Public Law 92-589, as well 
as other reasonable alternatives as required under the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  My bill is similar to the National Park Service plan in that it 
provides for most of the developed lands within the Presidio to be 
managed by a public benefit corporation. About 200 acres along the bay 
and coast, consisting of Crissy Field, Fort Point, and other open space 
lands would continue to be managed by the National Park Service.
  The major area in which my bill differs from the National Park 
Service plan is in the funding mechanism. The National Park Service 
proposes to fund their plan through a combination of rental receipts 
and taxpayer funding. For the first full year of Presidio operations, 
the National Park Service has requested over $33 million from Congress. 
My bill would fund the Presidio through a combination of rental 
receipts and the sale of the Public Health Service Hospital, golf 
course, and Letterman/LAIR complex. It is important to understand that 
the Presidio would be the most expensive park in the country, costing 
three times as much as Yosemite and more then four times as much as 
Great Smokey Mountains National park in my district.
  Importantly, my bill provides for the same level of protection of 
historic resources and open space as the National Park Service plan. 
There will be no high rise developments at the Presidio if my proposal 
is adopted.
  The choice on the floor of the House later this year will be a clear 
one. Preserve the Presidio at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars 
of taxpayer funds or preserve the Presidio at no cost to the taxpayer. 
I hope Members will join over 60 of their colleagues who have already 
agreed to support my bill.