[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 117 (Thursday, August 18, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          PROVIDING FOR MANAGEMENT OF PORTIONS OF THE PRESIDIO

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 516 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 516

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3433) to provide for the management of 
     portions of the Presidio under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of the Interior. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this 
     resolution and shall not exceed seventy-five minutes, with 
     forty-five minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources and thirty minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule 
     for a period of not to exceed three hours (excluding time 
     consumed by recorded votes and proceedings incidental 
     thereto). It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendments recommended by the Committee on 
     Ways and Means now printed in the bill and by the amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute, as modified, shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute, as modified, are waived. No amendment 
     directly or indirectly changing section 3(h)(9), section 
     3(h)(12), section 3(h)(13), or section 3(j) of the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute, as modified, shall be in 
     order. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
     as modified. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

                              {time}  1410

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). The gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Slaughter] is recognized for 1 hour.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes of 
debate time to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 516 is a modified open rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 3433, to provide for the management of 
the Presidio.
  The rule provides for 75 minutes of general debate, with 45 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the Natural Resources Committee and 
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
  The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
now printed in the bill, as modified by the Ways and Means Committee 
amendments now printed in the bill and the amendments printed in the 
report to accompany the rule, as an original bill for the purposes of 
amendment. The substitute, as modified, shall be considered as read and 
all points of order against the substitute, as modified, are waived.
  The rule is an open rule with the exception that amendments shall not 
be in order which directly or indirectly change sections 3(h)(9), 
3(h)(12), 3(h)(13), or 3(j) of the substitute. These sections, which 
are in the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee, have to do 
with budgetary and tax aspects of the bill's proposed Presidio Trust. 
It was not the intention of the Rules Committee to preclude the 
offering of substitutes when protecting these sections from amendment. 
Substitutes which do not include the establishment of the Trust will be 
in order. Alternatively, substitutes which include the specified 
sections without change in their text will also be in order.
  The rule further provides for a limit of 3 hours, excluding the time 
for votes, for consideration of the bill for amendment.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3433, the bill for which the Rules Committee has 
recommended this rule, provides a framework for the conversion of the 
Presidio from a military base to an urban national park. The Natural 
Resources Committee has carefully crafted the bill to protect the 
nationally significant natural and cultural resources of the Presidio, 
while at the same time reducing the net cost to the taxpayer through 
the generation of substantial revenues to offset the overall costs of 
operation and restoration.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this modified open rule 
so that we may proceed with consideration of the merits of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material).
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] has described, this 
rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration 
and against the substitute, as modified. I cannot support this blanket 
waiver, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot support his rule.
  A list of potential points of order that may lie against the bill and 
the substitute was made available to the Rules Committee, and it 
included budget act violations, appropriations in a legislative bill, 
and nongermane amendments. I understand that the budget problems may be 
solved, but the other rules violations still stand.
  In addition to my objection to the waivers provided by this rule, I 
am also concerned that certain sections of the bill are closed to 
amendment and that a time limitation has been established for 
consideration of the bill for amendment. A letter was sent to the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, which is signed by the minority 
leader, the Republican whip, and the ranking Republican members of the 
Natural Resources and Budget Committees, requesting a completely open 
rule. A motion was made in the Rules Committee to report an open rule, 
but this effort was defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, the Presidio has been a controversial subject from the 
start, and we have had heated debate during consideration of 
appropriation bills on this issue. I think this bill should be 
completely open to amendment without restriction or limitation. I ask 
unanimous consent to insert extraneous materials into the Record 
following my statement, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record statistics on open versus 
restrictive rules, as follows:

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           91      25         27       66         73 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Aug. 12, 1994.                                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176. (June 15, 1993).     
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).    
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 255-178 (Aug. 11, 1994).      
                                           Disclosure Act.                                                                                              
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4822: Cong.               33 (D-16; R-17).  16 (D-10; R-6)............  PQ: 247-185 A: Voice Vote (Aug.  
                                           Accountability.                                                              10, 1994).                      
H. Res. 515, Aug. 10, 1994....  O         H.R. 4908: Hydrogen Etc.       N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Research Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 516, Aug. 10, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3433: Presidio            12 (D-2; R-10)..  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Management.                                                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. 
Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I rise in strong 
opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides $25 million for a park we 
cannot afford and has no business being a national park.
  The Presidio may be a beautiful area, but it clearly does not qualify 
as a national park. It has various resources which are clearly 
unsuitable for inclusion in a park such as: a shopping mall, 
warehouses, and a Burger King. This is not exactly my vision of what 
our national park should be.
  More importantly, is the fact that we do not have the resources to be 
funding such projects at this time. As we all know, funding for the 
park service is extremely low and many of our Nation's crown jewels in 
the National Park System are not receiving the money they need to 
adequately operate.
  One of our Nation's truly magnificent jewels is Yellowstone National 
Park. Everyone knows about Yellowstone's magnificent scenery, 
outstanding geological features and incredible wildlife. It is truly 
one of our national treasures.
  What many people do not know is that Yellowstone has many problems. 
The roads throughout much of the park are in horrible shape, many of 
the buildings need repair and there are not enough rangers to 
adequately staff the area.
  What is incredible is that Yellowstone's operating budget in 1993 was 
only $17 million. The bill before us today provides $25 million for the 
Presidio.
  This simply is not right. National parks such as Yellowstone and 
Yosemite should not be underfunded at the same time we are providing 
$25 million a year for the Presidio.
  The National Park Service currently faces a 37-year backlog in 
construction funding over $5 billion and a $400 million shortfall in 
its annual operating funds at the same time we ask for an inappropriate 
park and grant $25 million a year.
  The agency needs help and does not need to be burdened with massive 
new projects that will simply stretch limited resources even further.
  The time has come for Congress to step-up and stop designating areas 
as national parks that do not belong in the system that we are unable 
to finance.
  The facts are clear Mr. Speaker, we do not need this park at the 
Presidio. We need to fund the parks we already have in the system.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, for the last 14 years I have had the 
distinct pleasure to represent the great State of Utah in this body. 
That State is well known as home of some of the most beautiful scenery 
and greatest national park areas in the country. I suspect that many 
Members have visited and most Members have heard of such great Utah 
national parks as Zion, Bryce, Arches, Canyonlands, Glen Canyon, et 
cetera. I have enjoyed many hours of family togetherness in our parks; 
camping, fishing and hiking and I continue to visit our great national 
parks every chance I get.
  In the 122 years since the establishment of the first national park, 
Yellowstone, Congress has established in this country the best park 
system in the world. While we started with great natural areas like 
Yellowstone and Yosemite, the park system was later expanded to include 
some of the most important historic sites in the country, such as 
Independence Hall and Lexington-Concord, the place where the shot was 
heard around the world. Relatively recently, Congress began to 
designate Federal parks whose primary value was recreational use.
  However, today as we survey our park system, many of us who love it 
are very concerned. We see park areas which are complete fabrications 
of history, we see local open space initiatives siphoning land 
acquisition dollars from acquiring lands necessary to protect such 
national treasures as Everglades National Park and we even see economic 
redevelopment projects masquerading as parks. Not only do these 
questionable additions to the park system whittle away at the integrity 
of the park system, but they make an already underfunded park system 
that much worse off.
  Almost every week, there are media stories about the deteriorating 
conditions in our national parks. Congress has had, for at least the 
last 10 years, clear documentation of the shortfalls facing our parks. 
Again, for the Record I will reiterate that the construction backlog in 
the National Park Service is 37 years at existing funding levels, and 
for land acquisition the backlog is 25 years at the existing funding 
levels. In the past, I have stated that the annual operational 
shortfall was about $400 million, but a recent letter signed by the 
deputy Director indicates that the annual operating shortfall may be 
closer to $800 million.
  And how has Congress responded to this crisis? What is the committee 
of primary jurisdiction doing to solve these fundamental and financial 
problems besetting this most-loved Federal agency? Literally by 
throwing its arms around every conceivable new park expansion proposal 
in sight. I ask my colleagues to remember that just the other week the 
House wisely rejected a proposal advanced by the Natural Resources 
Committee to authorize the expenditure of millions of dollars through 
establishment of the Tenement National Historic Site. Earlier this 
session, the House passed the California Desert bill, after adopting an 
amendment limiting its costs to $336 million. In all, the Natural 
Resources Committee has reported nearly $4 billion in new parks and 
public lands spending this Congress. These bills represent promises 
which this Congress is making around the country, almost none of which 
are paid for.
  On the other side of the issue, what has the Natural Resources 
Committee done to help pay for its appetite to turn everything in sight 
into a national park? This Congress has acted on two measures which had 
the potential to generate new revenue for parks. The first was a 
measure to reform the concession policies of the Park Service. Probably 
one of the most worthwhile features of that bill was a proposal to 
return additional concession revenues to the parks. Unfortunately, by 
the time the bill reached the floor, it included an amendment adopted 
by the rule which will result in even less money to parks from 
concession operations than the Natural Park Service receives today.
  The other measure before our committee to increase funds for the NPS 
is a proposal to increase entrance fees and to permit those increased 
fees to remain with the National Park Service. Vice President Gore 
claimed this initiative would generate $996 million in new funding for 
parks over 6 years. However, the measure under consideration by our 
committee is projected to generate only $20 million annually, and even 
that minimal measure has little chance of passage.

  H.R. 3433 is one of the more costly park and public land bills to be 
reported by the Natural Resources Committee this session. The proposal 
to develop a Global Center for social, cultural and environmental 
awareness at the Presidio of San Francisco is estimated to cost $1.2 
billion in construction and operations over the 15-year life of the 
National Park Service plan.
  Supporters of this measure claim that the National Park Service plan, 
as embodied in the bill before us today provides a great cost-savings 
to taxpayers. That is certainly not the case. The annual cost of 
operating the Presidio under the National Park Service plan represents 
only a 10-percent reduction in cost of operation compared to its 
operation as a military base and that is after removal of nearly \1/3\ 
of the buildings. The National Park Service plan moves tens of millions 
of dollars off-budget and requires taxpayer subsidies of bonds for the 
Presidio Global Center. In fact, the National Park Service consultant 
found it would cost the taxpayers less if not a single building was 
leased than if this legislation is implemented.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no definition of a national park written down 
in law. But, I think the American public knows a park when they see 
one. And I believe that the public is not buying the fact that the 
Presidio's hospitals, warehouses, apartment complexes, Burger King, 
bowling alleys, and pet cemetery are worthy of inclusion in the park 
system.
  The list of supporters of this measure is revealing. Basically, the 
support for this measure comes first from the bay area, which stands to 
gain financially from the expenditure of hundreds of millions of 
Federal dollars, and second from a handful of environmental groups. But 
this legislation is not an environmental issue. Rather, many of the 
environmental groups supporting this legislation have already indicated 
their interest in securing office space at the Presidio; office space 
which would be subsidized at taxpayer expense.
  The list of environmental groups which have indicated an interest in 
leasing subsidized space at the Presidio include: the Sierra Club, the 
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Fund for Animals, Greenpeace, and 
Earthwatch, to name but a few. Many of these groups already have 
offices in the bay area, but would prefer to relocate to offices 
subsidized by the American taxpayer.
  So Mr. Speaker, when the time comes for amendments, a number of 
amendments will be offered today which will reduce the responsibility 
of the Federal Government at the Presidio. I intend to offer an 
amendment to turn surplus lands at the Presidio over to the city of San 
Francisco. Opponents of my amendment will compare it to turning 
Yellowstone Park over to the town of Cody, WY. As the debate unfolds 
today, it will become clear to everyone who is not already aware that 
the Presidio is no Yellowstone. I hope this body will act with some 
restraint before serving up the billion dollar Presidio Global Center 
which is authorized in H.R. 3433.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, again I ask my colleagues to support this 
rule so that we can proceed with the merits of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). Pursuant to House Resolution 
516 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 3433.

                              {time}  1425


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3433) to provide for the management of portions of the Presidio under 
the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, with Mr. Durbin in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 516, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will be 
recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] 
will be recognized for 22\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislative 
initiative introduced by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] 
and scores of cosponsors in the House which provides for the management 
of the Presidio following the historic transfer of the installation 
from the U.S. Army to the National Park Service on October 1 of this 
year.
  The Presidio is a 1,480-acre military post located at the base of the 
Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and is literally surrounded by the 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, a unit of the National Park 
System. The Presidio was determined in 1972 to be included in the 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area by law, the assumption being, as 
the military left or needed less space, that this important cultural, 
this important historic, resource over 220 years in age, having served 
continuously as a military installation, would indeed become part of 
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a logical and consistent proposal. It is one of 
the most important historical or cultural resources in our Nation. This 
area consists of lands that have unique ecological characteristics and 
recreational opportunities. In fact, the Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area, is one of the most used national park units. It has 
more visitors than nearly any other national park unit in the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Presidio is a complex unit. About half this space is 
open space. Other parts have buildings and is developed. It has nearly 
6,000,000 square feet in 870 buildings and 1,200 housing units. It is 
an unusual responsibility for the National Park Service, and because of 
that this legislation puts in place a public benefit corporation known 
as the Presidio Trust which will have the responsibility to, in fact, 
go into adaptive leasing and utilization of these buildings and removal 
of large numbers of these buildings.
  The fact is that as a military base the Presidio costs $60 to $70 
million a year to operate. Under this legislation that figure would be 
cut at least in half, and so, as a transfer is occurring, there is a 
savings to the American public that is represented, but at the same 
time there is and has been a commitment for 22 years to move this 
resource into the care of the National Park Service.

  This legislation is must-pass legislation. In the absence of its 
passage, the preparation for nearly 5 years that has gone on with the 
National Park Service, they would be unable to exercise the 
responsibility and responsiveness to the needs that are evident to 
everyone that has looked at it and thought about it at the Presidio.

                              {time}  1430

  The bill is an unusual proposal, but it is very important to the 
community of San Francisco. They are relying upon the Federal 
Government to be a good partner after 5 years of planning. It is 
absolutely essential that we in fact provide the tools necessary for 
the National Park Service and for our Federal Government to respond to 
the needs of this important parcel of land.
  H.R. 3433 is a complex bill, which responds to a number of public 
policy goals. Many concerns have been raised, and I think most of them 
have been resolved. But some continue to advocate the abandonment of 
this area.
  It would be impossible to predict what the consequences would be if 
the Park Service or Federal Government were to try to release this 
land. It would be tied up for decades in controversy concerning the 
rezoning of it. So in fact it would have to be mothballed and sitting, 
of no use to the Federal Government.
  We expect that with the actions taken here, the Presidio will 
largely, based on a private-public partnership, pay its own way. These 
buildings that will be leased, in fact about half of the space, half of 
the 6 million square feet, half of that space has already been leased 
to the State of California and the U.S. 6th Army, which will retain a 
presence here, but, of course, in a much different mode.
  So what is left to do is fund the removal of buildings that have no 
historical significance, to deal with the housing needs and maintenance 
of this facility. The legislation before us, one of its primary 
missions is to set up this special benefit corporation.
  The decision on the designation of this area was made in 1972. What 
we are doing here 22 years later is responding and putting in place a 
rational basis in which the National Park Service, and the Department 
of the Interior, can deal with the responsibility that has been 
ordained in law, as I said, some 22 years ago.
  This bill is subject to appropriations. The Committee on Ways and 
Means made important changes to the bill. I have some concerns about 
those changes, but, nevertheless, am willing at this point to continue 
to work with them.
  The Congress will have the opportunity to hold accountable the trust, 
to hold accountable the Park Service, in terms of review of the dollars 
being spent. But we need some flexibility.
  We have all kinds of speeches in this body about public-private 
partnerships. This in fact puts in law such a partnership, provides for 
the expertise of the private sector, and the retention or attainment of 
the goals that are sought in terms of preservation of this important 
resource.
  This is the cutting edge of what is part and parcel in terms of 
historical and cultural resource management.
  I note my colleagues have complained and pointed out, and rightfully 
so, the shortfall in terms of the Park Service operating budget. But I 
would suggest to my colleagues that the answer in that is not by 
defeating an important resource like this, which I think needs to be 
addressed. But we need to in fact deal with our priorities and ask 
ourselves why the parks are not receiving the money that they have been 
assured through the land and water conservation fund or the historic 
preservation fund, and why the priorities have not changed, as there is 
overwhelming support for parks in this country, and why indeed we do 
not appropriate the proper amounts to the operating funds of these 
parks.
  In terms of trying to address some of the systems, as is being 
suggested here, does the Park Service really need 5,000 units of 
housing, when other land management agencies do not find that 
necessary? We must ask are we getting our fair share of the highway 
funding and tax dollars that are supposed to flow for roads that help 
retain and maintain and build the roads to and from and within our 
parks.
  I think there are a lot of questions, and I think very often the Park 
Service has been shortchanged in these endeavors, Mr. Chairman. But the 
answer is not in reneging on commitments we made to maintaining and 
preserving important historic resources such as the Presidio. The 
answer is in dealing with our priorities and giving the parks the 
resources they need, not by abandoning those which we are committed to 
protect.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3433 is an important legislative initiative, 
introduced by Representative Pelosi, and scores of cosponsors in this 
House, to provide for the management of the Presidio following the 
historic transfer of the installation from the U.S. Army to the 
National Park Service on October 1, 1994. The Presidio is a 1,480 acre 
military post located at the base of the Golden Gate Bridge in San 
Francisco. In 1972, Public Law 92-589, which established the Golden 
Gate National Recreation Area [GGNRA], directed that the Presidio be 
transferred to the National Park Service and administered as part of 
the GGNRA when it was determined to be excess to the Army's needs. The 
1989 Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended closure of the 
Presidio because it was excess to the Army's needs. As a result of this 
recommendation, the Army stated its intention to vacate the Presidio by 
October 1, 1994, and transfer all property to the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary of the Interior. Planning for the transition of the Presidio 
from the Army to the National Park Service has been ongoing since 1990.
  The 1,480 acres of the Presidio consists of park lands, distinctive 
historic features, unique ecological characteristics, and recreational 
opportunities. Within the Presidio boundary are significant historic 
resources representing more than 200 years of military history. The 
site has been a National Historic Landmark since 1962, recognized as a 
Spanish colonial military settlement founded in 1776 and as a U.S. Army 
post from 1846 to the present. Buildings, sites, structures, and 
objects related to Spanish, Mexican, and American military history have 
been identified as contributing to its landmark status.
  During its 200-year history the Presidio has protected commerce, 
trade, and migration into the area and has been an influence on the 
settlement and growth of the West. It has played a logistical role in 
every major U.S. military engagement since the Mexican-American War. 
The Presidio's coastal and harbor defense structures display the 
evolution of such technology from the Civil War through World War II.
  Other historical activities and events have contributed to the 
Presidio's national significance. In 1884, San Francisco National 
Cemetery was established as a resting place for soldiers and their 
families. Today it contains over 30,000 interments. In 1898, the Army 
opened its first general hospital at the post--the Letterman Facility--
which has remained at the forefront of military medical research and 
care to the present day. In the 1920's, Crissy Field, the first Army 
coastal defense airfield on the Pacific Coast, was built along San 
Francisco Bay.
  Of the total land area of the Presidio, about 700 acres are developed 
and 780 acres are open space. Within the boundaries are 870 buildings 
representing architectural styles from every major military 
construction period since 1848. The historic Presidio Forest is a 
dominant feature on the post. Designed and planted 100 years ago, it 
covers about 300 acres of the post, primarily on ridges, along 
boundaries, and at entrances.

  Geological formations, favorable climate, water resources, and open 
space have contributed to the biological diversity of the site. Ten 
rare plant communities survive within the Presidio that have 
disappeared in the rest of San Francisco. Sites throughout the Presidio 
provide views of the Pacific Ocean, the Golden Gate, the Marin 
Headlands, San Francisco Bay, and the skyline of San Francisco. The 
Presidio also contains numerous recreational resources where visitors 
hike, bike, and tour scenic trails and drives. The Presidio currently 
attracts more than 3.5 million visitors every year. Coastal attractions 
include Baker Beach and the Golden Gate Bridge, the Crissy Field 
shoreline and Golden Gate Promenade on San Francisco Bay.
  The conversion of the 1,480 acre military base into an urban national 
park presents a number of challenges. Although the National Park 
Service has inherited properties from the Department of Defense in the 
past, it has never received a property as large and complex as the 
Presidio. The Presidio's 870 buildings contain over 6 million square 
feet of interior space, 1,200 units of housing and an extensive 
infrastructure system including roads, water systems and electric 
utilities. Given the unique nature of the Presidio and its resources, 
innovative approaches and authorities will be needed to manage the 
Presidio as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. This is 
especially true in an era of increasing fiscal constraint for the 
National Park Service.
  Although the National Park Service has experience in adaptive reuse 
and historic leasing, they have never had to manage a park unit with 
such a large array of buildings, housing, and infrastructure. Early on 
in the planning process, the National Park Service recognized that 
managing the Presidio will require skills not typically held by 
National Park Service personnel including property management, leasing, 
real estate and finance. H.R. 3433 provides authority to the National 
Park Service to establish a public benefit government corporation--the 
Presidio Trust--to manage certain properties of the Presidio consistent 
with the purposes of the GGNRA and the approved general management 
plan.
  H.R. 3433 is a complex bill which responds to a number of public 
policy goals. Concerns have been expressed by Members of Congress and 
the public about the cost of the Presidio in relation to other units of 
the National Park System and the fiscal constraints facing the system 
as a whole. Concerns have also been expressed that the Presidio should 
be managed no differently than any other unit of the National Park 
System, whatever the costs may be. The Committee on Natural Resources 
was mindful of these concerns and attempted to craft legislation that 
both protects the nationally significant resources of the Presidio 
while at the same time reducing its costs to the taxpayers. The purpose 
of establishing the Presidio Trust is to have the Presidio managed in a 
unique and innovative partnership which makes use of private sector 
resources to promote the public interest.

  With regards to costs, I would note that the transfer of the Presidio 
to the National Park Service will be a significant savings to the 
Federal Government in comparison to its operation as a military base. 
The Presidio was operated by the Department of the Army at a cost of 
some $60 to $70 million a year. The Army and the Department of the 
Interior have calculated the annual cost to operate the Presidio as a 
national park to be $38 million. Thus the taxpayer will be spending 
significantly less for the operation of the Presidio by the National 
Park Service and will have an enhanced ability to enjoy its natural, 
historical and recreational resources.
  I would also note the projections of the National Park Service which 
show that the total funding needs of the Presidio will go down 
substantially over time, perhaps the only unit of the National Park 
System where this is the case. This is due to the increasing revenues 
to be derived from the leasing of Presidio buildings which are expected 
to offset the need for additional appropriated funds. The committee 
certainly understands that there are risks associated with a project of 
this magnitude. Ultimately, there is no way to predict future economic 
trends or tenant behavior or other factors which may influence the 
revenue generating capabilities of the Presidio. Professionals in the 
field of real estate management are optimistic about the Presidio's 
ability to attract a critical mass of high quality tenants. We intend 
to carefully monitor the activities of the National Park Service and 
the Presidio Trust to see if modifications in authorities are needed. I 
am aware that some concerns have been expressed about the level of 
autonomy and accountability of the Presidio Trust. As such, the bill 
clearly defines the Presidio Trust as a Government corporation subject 
to all Government laws except those specifically exempted. The Presidio 
Trust is established within the Department of the Interior, and its 
budget will be formulated through and in consultation with the 
Secretary of the Interior. The activities of the National Park Service 
and the Trust will be monitored closely by the authorizing and 
appropriations committees of Congress. The bill ensures that the 
activities of the Trust are consistent with both the purposes of the 
act establishing GGNRA and the approved general management plan. The 
Director of the National Park Service will serve on the Board of the 
Presidio Trust, as do two other Federal officials. The Secretary of the 
Interior has the authority to review major leases for consistency with 
the general management plan. The bill also contains a number of other 
provisions to increase accountability including requirements for public 
meetings and maintaining liaison with the GGNRA Advisory Commission as 
well as other financial reporting requirements.
  The bill before the House today contains amendments recommended by 
the Committee on Ways and Means. The amendments will have a significant 
impact on how the rehabilitation of the hundreds of buildings located 
on the Presidio will be financed. Rather than obtain loans through 
direct borrowing from the Treasury, which were to have been paid back 
from lease revenues, the bill now places such borrowing subject to 
appropriations. Nonetheless, this bill must move forward in order to 
place the National Park Service in a position to bring this significant 
national resource into the National Park System. For regardless of what 
we do or say here today, the Presidio will become part of the GGNRA on 
October 1, 1994.
  H.R. 3433 is an important measure which provides for the responsible 
management of the numerous nationally significant resources of the 
Presidio. I would urge Members to support the bill and resist any 
weakening amendments that may be offered.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the Presidio is one of the most 
scenic and historic areas in the Nation. Why, then, are we forcing our 
park system to shoulder the enormous costs of what will certainly be 
our most expensive acquisition yet, when we cannot make ends meet for 
other national treasures? Contained in this legislation is Government 
assistance for movie theaters and bowling alleys while at the same time 
the Park Service is complaining that it does not have adequate 
personnel to man park entrances. If that was not enough, the Park 
Service is cutting 1,200 positions this year. Staffing the Presidio 
will require 350 additional employees, making an already unacceptable 
situation worse.
  Let us look at the facts. The Park Service is faced with a 37-year, 
$5.6 billion backlog in its construction budget, a $1.2 billion 
shortfall in its land acquisition account, and a $400 million 
operations shortfall. The nearly 1,500 acre Presidio will cost an 
additional $25 million annually. By comparison, the entire 2.2 million 
acres of Yellowstone Park, unarguably more of a natural wonder than an 
old Army base, is appropriated only $17 million. Congress has decided 
that there will be no increase in money for the Park Service, so why 
are we loading this legislation on the back of a system which is 
already overwhelmed?
  As an appropriator, I have other concerns which deal with 
accountability to the American taxpayer. This bill authorizes the 
creation of a corporation within the Department of the Interior and 
grants this corporation unprecedented powers to operate simultaneously 
as both a Government and non-Government entity. This entity is not 
subject to many Federal controls. How can we authorize any entity to 
spend taxpayers' money without accountability?
  If that was not enough, the bill also inflicts Davis-Bacon 
requirements on construction projects at the Presidio. While this would 
not be any big surprise if it were a Federal construction project, the 
fact is that most of the funds for construction will be private. This 
legislation is precedent setting in that it extends Davis-Bacon rules 
and regulations to private money. Davis-Bacon is a Federal law intended 
to cover Federal projects. There is no basis whatsoever to extend these 
onerous rules and regulations to the private sector. Davis-Bacon 
requirements have been proved to add an additional 5 to 15 percent to 
construction costs for no other reason than to line the pockets of the 
unions. This is an outrage.

  Despite the fact that this park will largely benefit San Francisco 
and the State of California, this bill neither asks for, nor do the 
parties offer, any payment or assistance to alleviate the enormous 
costs. Recently, Californians rejected a referendum that would have 
approved a State bond issues to finance parks and historic sites. Of 
course, if the Federal Government wants to spend money for such 
projects, Californians have no objection whatsoever.
  Let us get in tune with what is happening here. We cannot afford to 
continue designating every historic site and environmentally fragile 
area as a national park. Those areas that we do designate, we should be 
able to adequately fund. This bill has serious flaws and I ask all 
Members to defeat it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Ravenel], a supporter of the bill.
  Mr. RAVENEL. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of this legislation. I do 
not know how many of you Members have been out there and taken a look 
at the Presidio. But it would just be unconscionable to me that this 
Congress does not take this opportunity, which could not be a rarer 
opportunity, to incorporate 1,400 acres in downtown San Francisco, 
which is so absolutely starved for open spaces, green spaces in 
particular.

                              {time}  1440

  The concept is innovative and it is a new type concept. It is going 
to be a public/private enterprise. I do not know how many of my 
colleagues have taken the trouble to read the brochure that has been 
brought out on it. It is just simply marvelous.
  After I read it, I was absolutely convinced that the bill of the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] was the right way to go. Those 
of us in Charleston, where we have 1500 acres right there on the Cooper 
River and we are in the throes now of redeveloping that property, we 
are looking very keenly at what is being done out here in the San 
Francisco area with the Presidio as a guide for us.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise in opposition to 3433, and I think we are talking about 
priorities in the National Park System. When most of us visit our 
Nation's parks, we have an idea of what we expect to see in our 
national parks.
  Here we are, we are talking about spending millions and millions of 
dollars of taxpayers' money on the presidio. Let me show colleagues 
some of the things that our money is buying.
  Right here we have the only pet cemetery in the National Park 
Service. Is that what we expect to see when we visit our Nation's 
parks? Right here we have one of two hospitals totaling 800,000 square 
feet. Again, I ask my colleagues, is this what we expect as Americans 
spending all our tax dollars on parks to see in our National Park 
System. I do not believe so.
  Let me talk about another area. We have one of two Presidio bowling 
alleys. I do not believe that the American people really want to see 
their tax dollars go for this purpose. Is this really what they had in 
mind when they were designating those dollars for pristine areas?
  Next here is some of the over 400 residences and dormitories, 
totaling 2.5 million square feet in the Presidio. I do not believe this 
is what the American people want to see in their park system.
  Right here we have the only Burger King in the National Park System. 
Again, I ask my colleagues, as American taxpayers, is this where we 
expect our tax paying dollars to be spent? I do not believe so. This is 
not what I perceive our priorities should be in the National Park 
System. I do not think the American taxpayer expects to have their 
dollars spent in this manner. They truly want to see their tax dollars 
go to parks that are going to preserve a pristine area, that is going 
to preserve the beauty of this country.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me stipulate that the Presidio is unusual and 
historic and, yes, a national treasure. But the troublesome issue with 
this bill, as it came to us, was the unlimited, direct borrowing 
authority, not subject to appropriations, that was granted specially 
and uniquely to the Presidio and to no other park in the United States 
of America.
  In order to be a national park, I looked up the criteria today. I am 
going to read two of the four requirements, which all must be met in 
order for any location to be designated a national park.
  First, an outstanding example of a particular type of resource. 
Second, possesses exceptional value or quality. The Presidio meets 
those criteria. But so do all of the other national parks in this 
country today, which are suffering, as we have just heard, from lack of 
resources to do their job, to make them suitable for public enjoyment.
  The trust that would be created uniquely for the Presidio under this 
legislation would have allowed, in effect, that trust to issue public 
debt without accountability to the budget, without accountability to 
the appropriations project. And they would do this through a unique 
creative mechanism whereby the treasury could off-budget, directly 
borrow, up to $150 million, thereby directly increasing the national 
debt.
  The basic issue of increasing the public debt through off-budget 
financing, which, in effect, creates a new entitlement program, should 
concern all of us. So in committee, I offered an amendment, which was 
adopted on a bipartisan 18 to 16 vote, to restrict any Treasury 
purchase of Presidio debt to only those amounts already appropriated 
within existing Federal spending caps. The Presidio should have to 
compete with all of the other national parks as national treasures for 
adequate funding.
  That amendment, which remains in the bill before us today, prevented 
the financing structure of the Presidio from increasing the Federal 
deficit and debt, which would be left to our children and their 
children forever, by $150 million over the next 5 years.
  If this bill is approved today, it is extremely important that we 
preserve that important financing restriction throughout the 
legislative consideration of this measure. I want to serve notice right 
now that I will personally lead the fight to eliminate any effort, 
coming back from the Senate or in a conference report, to restore the 
kind of off-budget financing for the Presidio which my amendment 
addressed.
  The Presidio is truly a beautiful place. I have been there. It will 
continue to be a beautiful place when the National Park Service takes 
it over. As I mentioned, it meets the criteria for a national park, but 
that alone is not sufficient cause to bypass the budget constraints 
that we have struggled to uphold. As beautiful as the Presidio is, I 
cannot justify leaving our children and grandchildren with more bills 
to pay for a brand new specific entitlement program, nor can I justify 
the enormous precedent this would set for funding other such projects 
outside the constraints of our budget law.
  As it stands now, the Presidio bill will compete for appropriations, 
along with every other worthy project the Members of this body want to 
see funded by Federal tax dollars. Members will have to make tough 
choices, and that is the way it should be. That is what our tax paying 
public expects of us.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to continue to try to make any of these kinds 
of programs fiscally responsible. I still question spending another 
$150 million, even though it might work under the spending caps. And I 
also question the inclusion of the Davis-Bacon Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to support the legislation that we have before us now. It was 
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means because of some unique 
financing and tax exemption provisions in here. We worked cooperatively 
with the Committee on Natural Resources, and I believe we came up with 
an acceptable arrangement.
  We want to make it very clear, though, that the bill, as reported by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, contained really an exception to 
the normal funding process. It should never be used in the future for 
any project that is or is not unique, like the Presidio.
  One of the problems we have here is that earlier Congress decided 
that the Presidio, when it ceased to be used as a military 
installation, would be made a part of the National Park Service; would 
become part of the national park system. That was probably a good 
decision because the Presidio is so unique. However, it requires so 
much funding that it would completely disrupt the rest of the Park 
Service budget, if funded in the conventional manner. The Natural 
Resources Committee arranged unique funding for the Presidio.
  In light of the Ways and Means Committee's actions, essentially, we 
expect that the managers of the Presidio Trust, when they take over, 
will organize a 501(c)(3) corporation. Any debt obligations that the 
Presidio trust may issue would be purchased only by the Department of 
the Treasury. Treasury's purchase of that debt would be limited $150 
million outstanding at any one time, and would be at the Treasury's 
discretion based on their assessment of the creditworthiness of the 
trust's projects. The Treasury would be there to ride herd over the 
501(c)(3) corporation by controlling its borrowing.

                              {time}  1450

  Additionally, any borrowing by the Presidio Trust would be fully 
subject to the customary budget process. Treasury's lending to the 
Presidio Trust would be subject to advance appropriations. It would be 
scored as the rest of the budget process is scored.
  Mr. Chairman, I think, considering the national treasure that we have 
in the Presidio, and the fact that this bill attempts to guarantee that 
the Presidio will always be available to the public as a great national 
asset, that this is the acceptable method of getting this work done.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Ways and Means wants to point out that 
we hope we will not need to do this again for any other project. That 
is the reason why we have changed the funding procedure. We recognize 
the uniqueness of this project.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
San Francisco, CA [Ms. Pelosi], the principal sponsor of this measure.
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a proud day for me to be able to come to the 
floor of this House of Representatives to talk to my colleagues about 
the Presidio of San Francisco. I urge them to support my legislation, 
which outlines a plan for cost savings to the American taxpayers that 
could, for the first time, actually reduce Federal costs for a national 
park. I am very proud of the 124 of our colleagues who have placed 
their names on this legislation as cosponsors. I am also very proud of 
the fact that I can come here today and say to my colleagues that we 
have the support of the environmental community and of the business 
community, of labor, of the academic community, and the arts. The 
League of Women Voters has lobbied on Capitol Hill for this 
legislation. I think it is very unusual that we are able to build a 
national constituency for this national park, and one that is diverse 
and ardent.
  Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank the gentleman from 
California, George Miller, Chairman of the Committee on Natural 
Resources, and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Bruce Vento, 
subcommittee chairman, who have been essential to the success of this 
legislation. They have contributed immeasurably to bringing it to the 
floor, and I appreciate their efforts. They are true champions of the 
Presidio in the tradition of Philip Burton, a colleague of so many of 
the Members here.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason that we are here today is not to see if we 
can make the Presidio a national park. We are here because the Presidio 
will become a national park. In 1972, Philip Burton, in his great 
wisdom, passed legislation designating the Presidio a national park 
when the properties were in excess of the needs of the Department of 
Commerce. Under the 1988 base closure law, the Army determined that the 
Presidio's lands were in excess of its needs, and recommended that the 
base be closed.
  Subsequent to that, Mr. Chairman, BRAC decided that a small 
contingent of the Sixth Army would remain at the Presidio, so the 
Presidio will be a park, and the Army will be a tenant of the National 
Park Service. We are proceeding with this legislation to provide the 
maximum access for the public to this magnificent area, with a minimum 
of exposure to the taxpayers.
  The Presidio will not only be a park, it will be a park for the 21st 
century, in which the concepts of environmental sustainability, 
innovative technology, and environmental education and stewardship can 
be brought to reality. H.R. 3433 would create a nonprofit, public 
benefit trust to rehabilitate, lease, and manage the bulk of Presidio 
properties, while the Park Service would be responsible for the 
traditional management of open space areas. Cost savings would be 
achieved by introducing certain private sector management techniques to 
the administration of the Presidio.
  The Presidio Trust will be a reinventing government model of private-
public sector management.
  Private sector management techniques would be combined with public 
sector control and accountability to maximize Federal spending at the 
Presidio.
  Mr. Chairman, my full statement for the Record goes into more detail 
about the participation of the private sector and involvement of the 
Presidio Council, which is a national private group, in obtaining the 
$2.5 million in paid or pro bono services of independent financial 
management experts.
  The Presidio conversion quite possibly has had the benefit of more 
outside, objective analysis than any other base closure in history. Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record a list of private 
organizations, and I referred them earlier, but I will submit that list 
for the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of this process of examining 
different models, the passage of this legislation, America will have a 
21st century national park dedicated to the stewardship of the world's 
human and physical resources through global cooperation. As a national 
park, the Presidio will build on the significance of its past to become 
one of America's most prominent and innovative urban parks.
  Mr. Chairman, there are three characteristics that I want to call to 
our colleagues' attention. The Presidio's historic attributes have been 
judged so significant that in 1962, the entire base was declared a 
national historic landmark. It is rich in military history, and I will 
submit that history for the Record.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, the post's biological diversity and rare 
ecosystems caused it to be declared the world's only urban 
international biosphere reserve. The Presidio's coastal bluffs abut the 
Nation's largest chain of marine sanctuaries.
  Third, Mr. Chairman, the Presidio is located amid some of the most 
magnificent scenery in the world. Anchoring the Golden Gate Bridge, the 
Presidio guards the rugged and strategically important confluence of 
the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
  The post is located in this unusual combination of scenic, natural, 
and historic values that caused Congress to mandate in 1972 that the 
Presidio should become the centerpiece of the Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area once it is no longer needed for military purposes.
  Now I would like to address some of the statements made by some of 
our colleagues. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area, of which the 
Presidio is part, is the most visited park in the nation, with 20 
million visitors a year.
  The Federal cost per visitor to the GGNRA and the Presidio is $2, 
while other parks can account for as much as $13 per visitor. More 
visitors come to the GGNRA each year than Yellowstone, Yosemite, and 
Grand Canyon combined. I respect those great national parks, but the 
fact is that more come to the GGNRA than all three of them combined.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from a former Secretary of the 
Interior, Secretary Hickel, who said ``Our existing national parks are 
unique, strikingly beautiful, and absolutely necessary elements of 
nature's wild systems, but they are located in areas remote from the 
less affluent members of our society. Many of our people cannot get to 
parks. Therefore, we must get parks to the people.''
  That is what the Presidio does? It is an urban park that is readily 
accessible to the people. If we are serious about reinventing and 
streamlining government, if we really want to save the taxpayers money, 
then I urge our colleagues to support my legislation.
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] showed some posters there of 
different aspects of the Presidio, and in fact what he was describing 
was the morale and recreation program of the Army.
  Yes, indeed, we do have a pet cemetery. It is managed by the Boy 
Scouts. It is an Army facility. I think it is not anything to be 
mocked, but something that is appreciated by the Army personnel who 
live at the Presidio.
  Yes, they do have bowling alleys, because that is something that the 
Army wants for its personnel. The Army will be there. The Army will be 
using those facilities.
  What we are talking about is maintaining and operating a national 
park of national and international significance, one that I say to my 
colleagues I do not ask you lightly to support. I am asking you to be 
part of something great for this country. Please vote for this 
legislation. It is a vote that you will be very proud of.
  Mr. Chairman, for the Record, I include the material referred to 
earlier:

                         Support for H.R. 3433

       Governor Wilson, State of California.
       State Assembly, California Legislature.
       Mayor Jordan, City of San Francisco.
       Board of Supervisors, City of San Francisco.
       American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
     Organizations.
       American Institute of Architects.
       American Society of Landscape Architects.
       Asian American Architects and Engineers.
       Bay Area Council.
       Bay Area Economic Forum.
       Brett Harte Terrace and Francisco Street Neighborhood 
     Association.
       Earth Island Institute.
       Environmental Defense Fund.
       Fort Mason Center.
       Friends of the Earth.
       Golden Gate National Park Association.
       Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Commission.
       Hispanic Contractors Association.
       Laborers' International Union of North America.
       League of Conservation Voters.
       League of Women Voters of California.
       League of Women Voters of San Francisco.
       League of Women Voters of the United States.
       Los Californianos.
       National Audubon Society.
       National Park System Advisory Board.
       National Parks and Conservation Association.
       National Japanese American Historical Society.
       Natural Resources Defense Council.
       Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Planning.
       North Beach Neighbors.
       People for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
       Presidio Council.
       Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors.
       San Francisco Bay Area Interfaith Coalition.
       San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
       San Francisco Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
       San Francisco Chronicle.
       San Francisco Examiner.
       San Francisco Independent.
       San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association.
       Sierra Club.
       Sierra Club of San Francisco.
       Travel Industry Association of America.
       Trust for Public Land.
       United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
       Wilderness Society.
                                  ____



                                         The Presidio Council,

                               San Francisco, CA, August 17, 1994.
       Dear Member of Congress: We are writing once again to urge 
     you to vote for H.R. 3433 when the bill comes to the Floor 
     this week.
       H.R. 3433, introduced by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, is 
     designed to create savings at the Presidio, which becomes 
     part of the national park system in October of this year. 
     Inclusion of the Presidio in the Golden Gate National 
     Recreation Area was mandated by Congress in 1972. Because the 
     park is already federal land, there will be no acquisition 
     costs associated with the Presidio's transfer to the Park 
     Service.
       The bill under consideration would not create a new park; 
     it would establish a more cost-effective management structure 
     for an existing park. The ``Presidio Trust'' that would be 
     created by the bill is expected to reduce the cost of 
     operating the park substantially by employing private sector 
     property management techniques to rehabilitate and lease 
     facilities to park tenants. Revenues from these tenants will 
     be used to offset federal costs.
       H.R. 3433 is a good government approach to managing the 
     Presidio as a national park. The bill's approach is based on 
     recommendations of a wide variety of experienced independent 
     financial and managerial experts.
       We believe H.R. 3433 would result in a magnificent national 
     park and savings for the American taxpayer. We urge you to 
     vote YES on H.R. 3433 and against any weakening amendments.
           Sincerely,
     James R. Harvey,
       Chair, Presidio Council; Chair, Transamerica Corporation.
     Toby Rosenblatt,
       Chair, Golden Gate National Park Association.
       For the Presidio Council:
       Patrick Foley, Chair and CEO, DHL Airways, Inc.
       John Bryson, Chair and CEO, Southern California Edison.
       M.J. Brodie, Former Executive Director, Pennsylvania Avenue 
     Development Corp.; Senior VP, RTKL.
       Walter A. Haas, Jr., Honorary Chair of the Board, Levi 
     Strauss & Co.
       James P. Miscoll, Vice Chairman (Ret.), Bank of America.
       Roger Heyns, President, The William and Flora Hewlett 
     Foundation, (Ret).
       Bruce Spivey, MD, President and CEO, Northwest Healthcare 
     System.
       Richard A. Clarke, Chair and CEO, Pacific Gas and Electric 
     Co.
       Virginia Smith, President Emerita, Vassar College.
       Herman Gallegos, Chair, Gallegos Institutional Investors 
     Corp.
       Gyo Obata, Chairman and CEO, Hellmuth, Obata, & Kassabaum, 
     Inc.
       John W. Gardner, Stanford Graduate School of Business and 
     former U.S. Secretary of H.E.W.
       Francis Ford Coppola, President, American Zoetrope.
       Roy Eisenhardt, Vice Chair, Presidio Council.
       John Sawhill, President and CEO, The Nature Conservancy.
       Joan Abrahamson, President, The Jefferson Institute.
       Carl Anthony, President, Earth Island Institute.
       Edward Blakely, Professor, College of Environmental Design, 
     University of California.
       Rodger Boyd, Executive Director, Economic Development, 
     Navajo Nation.
       Dr. Noel J. Brown, Director, Regional Office for North 
     America, UNEP.
       Adele Chatfield-Taylor, President, The American Academy in 
     Rome.
       Robert K. Dawson, Vice Chair, Cassidy and Associates.
       Tully M. Friedman, Hellman & Friedman.
       Jewelle Taylor Gibbs, Professor, University of California.
       William Graves, Editor, National Geographic Society.
       Antonia Hernandez, President/General Counsel, Mexican 
     American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
       Maya Lin, Architect and Designer, Vietnam Veterans 
     Memorial.
       Ellen Ramsey Sanger, Coro Foundation.
       Lucy Shapiro, Ph.D., Chair, Dept. of Developmental Biology, 
     Stanford Univ. School of Medicine.
       Mimi Silbert, President and CEO, Delancey Street 
     Foundation.
       Richard Allan Trudell, Executive Director, AILTP/American 
     Indian Resources Institute.
       Dr. Robin W. Winks, Townsend Professor and Chair, Yale 
     University.

  In 1972, Phillip Burton passed a law designating the Presidio a 
national park when its properties were no longer required by the 
Department of Defense.
  Under the 1988 base closure, the Army determined that the Presidio's 
lands were excess to its needs and recommended that the base be closed. 
In 1993, the Base Closure Commission revisited and revised their 
decision by recommending that a small contingent of the 6th Army remain 
at the Presidio. The recommendation was adopted and as a result, the 
6th Army headquarters will remain as a park partner at the Presidio. 
The remaining Army functions at the Presidio will be terminated and 
ownership of the Presidio will transfer to the National Park Service 
effective October 1, 1994.
  Cost savings would be achieved by introducing certain private-sector 
management techniques to the administration of the Presidio.
  Authorities for the Presidio Trust would include: A reinventing 
Government model of private-sector management; Relief from some of the 
regulatory burdens borne by Government agencies; A private sector skill 
base; Centralized responsibility for building upgrades; and Retention 
of revenues to continue rehabilitation of properties.
  These private sector management techniques would be combined with 
public sector control and accountability to maximize Federal savings at 
the Presidio.
  The Presidio Council, comprised of prominent professionals from the 
fields of business, finance, education, architecture and planning, 
Government and philanthropy, was formed in 1991 to provide the Park 
Service with assistance in converting the Presidio to a national park. 
In the past 3 years, the Council has obtained nearly $2.5 million in 
paid or pro bono services of independent financial and management 
experts. The list of consultants who have studies this project include 
Arthur Anderson & Co., McKinsey & Co., Keyser Marston Associates, 
Mancini-Mills and the law firm of Morrison and Foerster.
  The public benefit corporation established in H.R. 3433 is based on 
the results of this analysis. In developing the blueprint for the 
Presidio Trust, 19 public-private management models in the United 
States and Canada were studied. Specific qualities of the Presidio were 
then considered and a management model and financial strategy 
developed. The Presidio conversion quite possibly has had the benefit 
of more outside objectives analysis than any other base closure in the 
country. H.R. 3433 is the culmination of this process.
  As we consider H.R. 3433 today, steps are already underway to secure 
major tenants in order to generate needed revenues for the park. 
Negotiations are in progress to obtain an anchor tenant for the park's 
biggest income producing property--the Letterman-LAIR complex. The 
University of California, San Francisco, and the Tides Foundation are 
under active consideration for this space at the Presidio. The Presidio 
Trust must engage good tenants who will pay fair market value and 
contribute to the objectives of the park.

  The Army will remain on a limited basis as a park partner. It will 
occupy 1.8 million square feet of the Presidio's total 6 million square 
feet and contribute to park operations. Other current tenants include: 
Red Cross, FEMA, the Gorbachev Foundation, U.S. Postal Service, the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and Clean Sites.
  Altogether, the Park Service has received over 400 responses to the 
Call for Interest from individuals requesting space at the Presidio.
  The Park Service has been preparing for this transfer for almost 5 
years. Its General Management Plan for the Presidio will be finalized 
this month and an agreement will be signed between Army and Interior 
for reuse of some military facilities.
  In addition to the progress on tenants, a philanthropic plan has been 
finalized which projects a sizable contribution to the overall 
financial viability of the Presidio. Under the leadership of the Golden 
Gate National Park Association, the philanthropic community is being 
mobilized in an effort to achieve the goal of $30 million in 
contributions within the next 15 years.
  The word that most aptly characterizes the current state of affairs 
at the Presidio is ``momentum.'' As we approach the official transfer 
of the post to the Park Service, there is a solid conversion plan based 
on extensive analysis, a Park Service General Management Plan that is 
being finalized this month, an accord between the 6th U.S. Army and the 
Park Service that will maintain a limited Army presence at the park and 
will reduce Interior Department costs, a major lease for 1.3 million 
square feet of building space at Letterman/LAIR is under negotiation, 
and a philanthropic campaign is in progress. H.R. 3433, creating the 
overarching management structure, is a critical component of the 
conversion and essential to maintaining the momentum that we are now 
experiencing at the Presidio.
  At the conclusion of this conversion process, America will have a 
21st century national park dedicated to the stewardship of the world's 
human and physical resources through global cooperation. As a national 
park, the Presidio will build on the significance of its past to become 
one of America's most prominent and innovative urban parks. Its 
conversion from a military post to a national park will also 
demonstrate to America and the world the importance that we place on 
educating the future by interpreting the past.
  We will have also preserved a place unique in American history--a 
place which has blended history, architecture, biological diversity and 
scenic beauty in the national interest since it was obtained from 
Mexico in 1846.
  I am convinced of the wide range of possibilities that exist at the 
Presidio and consider this venture a challenge to our collective 
creativity. I also believe that the members of this body will meet this 
challenge and work to develop a national park that will make us proud 
of its contribution to the national system.
  The conversion of the Presidio, from post to park, on September 30 
marks an unprecedented opportunity to reshape a cultural and human-made 
resource into a world-class urban park and global center for seeking 
solutions to problems of the natural and human environments.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3433.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentlewoman who just 
spoke, and I can see that she represents her area very well. I know 
when most of us were elected to this body we came here to be fiscally 
responsible, and everybody who campaigned talked about the idea, how 
they were going to straighten up the budget. They would do everything 
in their power to live within our means.
  Our Founding Fathers gave a lot of great talks in this city about 
living within our means and not going beyond that. However, now we find 
ourselves in a huge deficit. It does not come by huge things, it comes 
by $1 million here, $1 million there, and before you know it, we have 
trillions of dollars that we are in debt.
  Mr. Chairman, we have at this particular time 368 parks. I would hope 
that Members, as they go this summer, if we get any vacation, if they 
go to some of these parks, that they go see the superintendent, take 
time to talk to the superintendent in whatever State they are in.
  Go to Yellowstone, go to Yosemite, go to Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce, 
Great Smokies, whatever it may be, and ask the superintendent, ``Do you 
have enough money to just handle the infrastructure, the roads, the 
buildings, the sewer lines, the water lines?'' He will say, ``No, we 
are falling apart.''
  We know ourselves that we have an $800 million operation shortfall. 
We are 37 years behind on our construction, and we are 25 years behind 
on our land acquisition.

                              {time}  1500

  Here we are, Mr. Chairman. We are standing here today saying to the 
people, ``Hey, we don't care about your tax-paying dollars. We're just 
going to go spend, spend, spend.'' That is the theory around here. What 
is wrong with San Francisco taking this over if they want this so bad?
  What we are creating today is a city park for San Francisco paid for 
by Government funds. I really cannot understand why the other 49 States 
want a city park or feel that that is the kind of thing that they want.
  I really feel that running pell-mell into debt for this tremendous 
amount of money does not make much sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope you would listen to this. We have a 
Secretary by the name of Bruce Babbitt. Bruce Babbitt is a very liberal 
man who believes in all of these things. But he was asked a question 
the other day regarding a Fort Wadsworth. Let me say this about Fort 
Wadsworth. Recently on the east coast, Secretary Babbitt has adopted an 
approach identical to what we have got here dealing with surplus 
military property located within the boundaries of Gateway National 
Recreation Area in New York. The facts of these 2 cases bear an uncanny 
similarity. A military base, Fort Wadsworth, entirely within the 
authorized boundary of Gateway National Recreation Area in New York 
City within the last year has been declared surplus to the needs of the 
Navy. Same as the Presidio, surplus to the needs of the Army. It also 
contains a collection of both historic and nonhistoric facilities, but 
the major difference is that the facilities at Fort Wadsworth are in 
very good condition compared to those at the Presidio. Not only is 
there a minimal development cost but the annual operating costs are 
only 25 percent of the cost of operating the Presidio.
  Keep in mind, Members watching in your offices, look at this 
comparison. However, on June 15, the Secretary of the Interior wrote to 
the Secretary of the Navy as follows:

       Increasingly in a period of severely limited resources, the 
     National Park Service must focus on protecting resources 
     directly related to the mission of the agency. After a 
     Department of the Interior review of the Fort Wadsworth 
     acquisition in early June of this year, we are extremely 
     concerned about the inappropriateness of the National Park 
     Service acquisition of facilities not directly related to 
     accomplishing its mission, and further the absence of any 
     specific appropriations or positions for the National Park 
     Service stewardship of this property.

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Utah to yield as he sees fit.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] 
is yielded an additional 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am back on the Wadsworth-Presidio 
comparison.

       Due to these concerns and the reality that funds will be 
     difficult to obtain in the foreseeable future, we simply 
     cannot afford to manage Fort Wadsworth as a National Park 
     Service site as presently configured.

  There is the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt. He takes Fort 
Wadsworth, which is in better shape than the Presidio, and says we 
cannot afford it.
  I just ask my colleagues, if we want to go ahead and dig a deeper 
hole into debt, go ahead and vote for this. I agree with the 
gentlewoman from California, it is a beautiful spot, it is an 
outstanding spot. But can we afford everything, can we buy everything 
we want? That is the reason we are in debt. I would just respectfully 
say, let us reject this particular bill and let us let the City of San 
Francisco take this.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows that unlike the 
Presidio where there was a conscious decision and an evaluation of the 
Presidio for inclusion into the National Park System and a law passed 
by the Congress to do so, in the Wadsworth situation, what you had was 
the State of New York trying to foist off onto Fort Wadsworth to 
prevent other actions from taking place with respect to the housing on 
the base that they did not want to have happen in their community. They 
were trying to use the Park Service to circumvent the law around BRAC 
and about the use of the facilities in the community. That is what was 
going on there. That had nothing to do, and the Secretary made the 
proper decision in that case.
  Mr. HANSEN. If I may respond, in 1972, the Gateway Park that was 
right there was put in the same category as the Presidio, and I think 
the gentleman can find that in the Record.
  Mr. MILLER. If the gentleman will yield further, the intent in the 
Wadsworth case was the community trying to avoid having housing opened 
up to the community generally or to the homeless or what have you. An 
entirely different intent. Nothing to do with the Park Service. I 
appreciate that Gateway is a wonderful facility.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the gentleman from Florida reclaims 
his 12 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield my time, 
for purposes of control, to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento.]
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the gentleman from Minnesota will be 
given the 12 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would just 
point out to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah that the taxpayers 
did elect us to make prudent, fiscal, responsible decisions. The fact 
of the matter is that by establishing this public-private partnership, 
Members of Congress can vote for this and in fact can save the Federal 
Government money. We can make certain that these buildings do not end 
up boarded up and shut up like some of the buildings in Gateway 
National Recreation Area. I visited that park and I would point out to 
the gentleman, they have a movie theater there, and it is boarded up. 
They have bowling alleys and they are not being used. They have housing 
units that are empty and not being used. It is a more remote area, it 
is not a complete corollary, but the point is that that is an example 
of just transferring things over to the Park Service and then not 
having anything happen with them. The problem is, what we are trying to 
do is avoid that particular situation at the Presidio. The best way to 
save the taxpayers money is to provide for this public-private 
partnership that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] is 
advocating in the legislation before us. So the idea that the military 
has built a lot of facilities that are inappropriate is hardly the 
issue. The issue is how are we going to take care of the Presidio as we 
move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii 
[Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, in the context of the general 
discussion about the Presidio, some commentary has been made by a 
couple of the Members with respect to the Davis-Bacon Act. I am sure 
everyone is familiar with it, but nonetheless, let us just go over what 
is involved here and I hope we will not have this discussion because I 
think it will only prolong and interrupt what is otherwise a discussion 
well worth pursuing. The bill's provisions with respect to the projects 
that are to be funded by the Presidio trust have in them the Davis-
Bacon standards. All that is involved in the Presidio trust for Members 
who may not be totally familiar with the legislation is as a Government 
corporation, the Presidio Trust is subject to Davis-Bacon and the 
Davis-Bacon provisions simply establish the prevailing wage standards. 
Surely with all of the photos that we saw of the various projects 
including hospitals and everything else that is in the Presidio right 
now, we would want the prevailing wage standards to be in this 
legislation. It is consistent with dozens and dozens of national park 
projects that are federally financed and federally assisted 
construction projects.
  I do hope we will not get into a side discussion at this time about 
Davis-Bacon. I think that should be saved for Labor-Education Committee 
activity.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I have twice offered 
amendments to hold down the funding for the Presidio or the conversion 
of it into a national park, not to eliminate funding but to at least 
hold it down to some reasonable level. I am not leading the charge this 
time and I have been asked about this, but let me make it clear--I am 
still very much opposed to this bill. I think it very much shortchanges 
and will be very harmful to all our other parks.
  Our other units of the national park system, some 368, in number, are 
already underfunded. The National Park Service says there is a $5.6 
billion construction backlog. There is a $1.2 billion shortfall in 
acquisition funding and a $400 million shortage in operating funding 
each year. There is a portion of the Presidio that should be protected 
as a national park. The Park Service recommended many years ago that 
roughly 20 percent along the shore, that that be protected as a park. 
Certainly I do not think anyone objects to that.

                              {time}  1510

  But to convert this entire military base into a national park, the 
General Accounting Office has estimated it could cost as much as $1.2 
billion over the course of the next 15 years. I certainly do not think 
that the Federal Government should carry this burden alone. As bad a 
shape financially as our cities are in, still they are in better 
financial shape than in our Federal Government. As bad as shape 
financially as our State governments are in, they are not in as bad a 
shape as our Federal Government. This Federal Government is over $4.5 
trillion in debt. We are still losing hundreds of millions of dollars 
each day on top of that.
  So I would say that at least the city could do some part of this, let 
the State do their share. That is why I particularly support the 
amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard]. I 
also support the amendment by my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Grams], that I think he is going to propose to put a cap on this 
spending at $25 million each year.
  The National Park Service has estimated that to operate the Presidio 
as a park could cost $45 million a year. That is three times what is 
spent each year on the Yosemite National Park, three times what is 
spent each year on the Yellowstone Park and five times the rate of 
spending at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Even if the amendment 
to cap the spending at $25 million a year is adopted, that would still 
make the Presidio the most expensive national park in this country.
  All of this is being done to protect areas that include a pet 
cemetery, a Burger King, an old bowling alley, a movie theater, many 
rundown acres of 1950's rambler-style housing, and many other things I 
do not think one would classify as national park material.
  I would say I would urge adoption of some of these amendments that 
would at least make this a little better bill, and I urge defeat of the 
overall legislation. I think as I said earlier that it would be very 
harmful to our other national park units in this country, and I thank 
the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the dean 
of the California delegation, Mr. Edwards.
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill. The Presidio is one of 
our great national treasures, not just for the West Coast, not just 
California. It is unique. Its history goes back to 1776 when the first 
Spanish forts were established, and for the entire time since then it 
has been very involved in all of the wars that the United States has 
been involved in.
  It is so unique because it is an urban park in the midst of many 
millions of people, 5 million, 6 million, 7 million people. I know the 
people from my city of San Jose, some 30 or 40 miles south of San 
Francisco, on public transit can come and do come and join the 20 
million tourists and visitors that visit this area every single year, 
as the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], author of the bill 
pointed out, more visitors than the three great parks, Yosemite, Grand 
Canyon, and Yellowstone have visitors in 1 year. I think that is 
unique. They get there on public transportation from across the bay, 
Oakland, Alameda and all of the great East Bay people, children, and 
classes can come and do come. This must not be lost. This is the only 
way that it can be handled in an economical way with the Presidio 
trust, a system, a device that has been used successfully. It is by far 
the very best way to handle this challenge and promise of the Presidio, 
which as I said earlier, is not only a State and local treasure, but a 
great national treasure.
  So I would urge an overwhelming vote for this bill and congratulate 
my colleagues from California, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Miller, the gentleman 
from Minnesota, Mr. Vento, and all those involved in this great 
enterprise.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill reluctantly for some 
reasons, but let us get some of the facts out.
  We have heard about pet cemeteries and Burger Kings and so on. Those 
were put there by the U.S. Army, the Federal Government. They are 
there. As of October 1 this land will belong to the Park Service. That 
decision has been made several years ago. So now the question is what 
do we do on October 1.
  There is 1,500 acres of prime land that title is in the U.S. Park 
Service as of October 1 with all of the warts that might be there, and 
we have to address the problem. I am concerned about the financing 
mechanism of this bill. Why? Because the Interior Appropriations 
Committee is going to be forced to take right off the top of its budget 
an amount equal to whatever the revenue bonds are that are issued 
pursuant to the authority in this bill. That means, as the gentleman 
from Utah pointed out, there will be a lot less money for the other 
parks. All of the things that he mentioned are true. There are road 
needs, there are sanitation needs, there are all kinds of needs in our 
parks.
  I would hope that when this bill goes to the other body that we try 
to find a better financing mechanism, because we have to deal with this 
problem. I think the trust is the right way to go because it gets a 
public-private partnership. Otherwise the Park Service gets the whole 
bill, and they are not going to be that good at managing all of that 
real estate.
  It is there. We have to do something with it. Hopefully we can get a 
financing mechanism that would perhaps have the revenue bonds needed to 
repair these buildings and make them leasable, guaranteed by the State 
of California and/or the city of San Francisco.
  It is not that the money will be a direct expenditure, but under the 
terms of this bill, and I do not fault the Committee on Ways and Means 
for I think it is a responsible thing to do under the circumstances. We 
have to set aside an amount equal to the revenue bonds which will 
restrict our ability to adequately fund the needs of other parks. 
Hopefully in the long term of things the revenues from these some 800 
structures will be more than enough to retire the bonds, plus interest, 
for that reason it makes a lot of sense. I think that it is a realistic 
thing that we need to do.
  The 6th Army is going to take 30 percent of the Presidio by leasing 
it back from the Park Service. So it will be used to serve the people 
by the 6th Army in meeting its needs. The hospital that is there has a 
couple of different groups interested in leasing it as a research 
facility. I think in the long term the revenues from the structures 
will more than offset the costs of rehabbing them and making them 
useful to the public generally.
  In the meantime, we will have a great addition to Golden Gate 
national recreation area that will be used by people from all over the 
United States.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his bipartisan 
support and realistic approach and the work he does in the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee. The gentleman is really a leader and a 
good ally on national parks and public land issues. I want to associate 
myself with his remarks and the desirability of dealing with the 
overall budget in terms of financing.
  I would point out that the funding for the rehabilitation of many of 
these buildings will in fact generate the revenue necessary to pay back 
the money. The idea is this can be successful, it is in San Francisco. 
Furthermore, nearly 400 of the 870 buildings that are present are 
anticipated to be demolished and taken down, so that is part of the 
process here on some of the buildings they are pointing out. I do not 
know if it is the Burger King or not, but some of the other buildings.
  With respect to the gentleman from Colorado, the veterinarian and our 
friend and colleague, he will of course address himself to the 
amendment on the pet cemetery. He has assured me that he had nothing to 
do with any of the dogs that are present in that cemetery.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I think again we need to seek an innovative 
financing system here. We have a goal I believe on both sides of 
preserving this for the public. But it is there, and we have to address 
it as is on October 1 it is ours, the National Park Service's and this 
body's. I believe we can achieve a program of innovative financing in 
the other body by working with them on this bill, and I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me the time.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  (Mr. FAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3433. I 
wish to congratulate my colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi], for the very innovative approach which has been taken in this 
legislation.
  The Presidio Trust is new and different and also the ``least-cost'' 
approach to providing for one of the most impressive urban national 
parks anywhere in this land. Today we have seen the beautiful vistas. 
Most of us have been to the area. We know how unique it is.
  This is still a rather pristine area, in some ways; 300 acres of 
historic forest, 10 rare plant communities, 11 miles of trails for 
hiking and biking.
  There is nothing wrong with having a national park that is close to 7 
to 10 million people. This is a unique opportunity, and it will be 
available to the people of this country and to the West for half the 
cost of what we were paying for it when it was a military reservation.
  Now, what the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] has done is 
put together a concept that allows for the Federal cost to decline over 
time. What we are providing for here is a method of earning income off 
the assets of the Presidio so that the taxpayers will have a lessened 
responsibility as we proceed through the next couple of decades. We do 
it in a way that, I think, deserves the support of all of us here.
  There will be continued review from Treasury, from Interior. This is 
not an open-ended, unmonitored idea. But I think it goes a long way to 
meeting the needs of people in cities who have traditionally had to 
travel long distances to get this kind of access to nature and to 
opportunities for recreation in pristine places.
  This is an augmentation of the already nationally known Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area, and it does, I think, provide for a model of 
future conversion of military facilities to public use.
  I think the gentlewoman from San Francisco deserves to be 
congratulated.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3433 creates a nonprofit Government corporation, 
the Presidio Trust, to manage Presidio properties in a more cost-
effective manner. The Presidio Trust will have a long-term leasehold 
interest in the Presidio's assets. The Trust will manage the 
rehabilitation of these properties and lease buildings to rent paying 
tenants.
  This measure is fiscally responsible in that it uses the Presidio's 
assets to help pay for management of the facility. Revenues from leases 
will be used to offset costs at the Presidio, driving operating costs 
down and reducing the need for Federal appropriations. These lease 
revenues will also be used to repay funds borrowed for the initial 
rehabilitation of the Presidio's historically significant assets.
  The bill preserves strong Federal oversight of the Trust by requiring 
annual reports and independent audits of the Trust's activities. The 
bill also mandates that the Trust adhere to the publicly supported Park 
Service Plan for the Presidio. The Trust's budget and borrowing 
authority will be subject to Interior and Treasury Department review. 
The oversight features in this bill recognize fiscal realities and 
offer a less costly, more business-like approach to managing this 
important Federal asset.
  Amazingly, the Presidio as a national park will cost less than half 
the cost of operating the Presidio as a military base. The financial 
plan projects declining Federal costs over time due to rent abatement 
and private sector support.
  Mr. Speaker, the Presidio is a unique historical treasure. The 
Presidio embodies over 200 years of military history in one location. 
It has played a logistical role in every U.S. military engagement since 
the Mexican-American war.
  I want to congratulate the bill's author, Congresswoman Pelosi, on 
her fine efforts. She has put together a bill that maximizes our 
Federal investment in the Presidio and does so in a fiscally 
responsible manner. I urge my colleagues to support the bill as brought 
to the floor by the gentlewoman from California and ask for an ``aye'' 
vote on H.R. 3433.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, as we debate whether the Federal Government should 
spend close to $1 billion in the years ahead to operate an urban park 
for the city of San Francisco, I think we should take into 
consideration some remarks made by the gentleman from the other body, 
Senator Wallop, a few weeks ago. Senator Wallop announced he would 
offer an amendment to every park bill that came through his committee 
which would defer spending on the new unit unless the Interior 
Secretary could affirm the Government had the money and really wanted 
to spend this money on a given project. He also suggested some projects 
should be delayed until the respective budgets for maintenance and 
personnel were increased.
  I think there is a lot to be said for that idea, and so apparently do 
many of Senator Wallop's colleagues in the Senate.
  Let me repeat a figure that has been bandied about in the House for 
at least the last 4 years, and that figure is that the National Park 
Service has a $6 billion maintenance backlog. A similar backlog exists 
for land acquisitions. The director of the Park Service has said Park 
Service employees are living in Third World conditions.
  Most of the reforms suggested over the past 10 years for the Park 
Service have never been implemented.
  With all of that, do we really need, or can we afford, the Presidio? 
Senator Wallop said it best, ``The Federal Government is gaining the 
reputation of being a bad neighbor, of being someone who buys up land 
left and right and cannot take care of it.'' Before we vote to approve 
this, we should give it a little more thought.
  Yes, there are parts of it that are scenic, and there are parts of it 
that are even historic. I was out there this summer, as the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi] knows. We have talked about this. I was 
out there this summer. I particularly went to the Presidio and looked 
at it, because I knew we were going to be discussing this kind of 
thing. There are parts of it that are incredibly beautiful and ought to 
be preserved as a park. But the great majority of it is composed of 
what you have heard here today. It is composed of the bowling alleys 
and the office buildings and the housing and parking lots and those 
kinds of things.
  I think we should consider giving the park to the city of San 
Francisco. It is a city park, after all. That is what it will amount 
to. I think we maybe should consider giving the beautiful parts and the 
historic parts, give it to the city of San Francisco, make a gift to 
them. But the part that has the commercial enterprises and the housing 
and so forth, let us sell that. Let us sell it to developers or whoever 
and let us get money back for that.
  We simply cannot afford this project. And this, with me--I am often 
up here making amendments to cut this or cut that out of the budget. 
But this, to me, this is not a cost-saving effort that I am making here 
today.
  Because I would love to take every dime we can make off of selling 
much of the Presidio and put it back into the Park Service to take care 
of the deficits we have within the Park Service. Even if we do not save 
a penny on the overall Park Service thing, let us put it into some of 
the jewels of our system. Let us put it into the Yosemites, the 
Yellowstones, and Grand Canyons that are going begging right now 
because we do not have the budget to actually keep it up.
  Let me quote from that great American, that great Senator from the 
State of Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, who, by the way, happens to be the 
Senate Park Subcommittee chairman. When he is talking about the 
Presidio, Senator Bumpers says, ``And in any event, the thing--
obviously this is a highly desirable thing to do, but I must confess to 
you, despite my very best efforts, I have not been able to reconcile 
myself to these costs.'' And I have to say, my friends, that I agree 
with Senator Bumpers.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr], a member of the committee.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
measure. I think those that speak in opposition to it really do not 
understand it. Because this is really best management practices.
  There are those who would say that we ought to sell this. It is 
Federal property. It might be used for purposes of a locale. That same 
concept could be used for this building. We could sell this room. It 
could be used for convention centers. This is a national asset.
  We think of the east coast; you think of New York City, and you think 
of the great Federal Statue of Liberty which is a symbol to our country 
on the east coast. The Presidio, San Francisco, is the symbol to the 
Pacific rim. It began in 1776. It has been in military ownership.
  Yes, there are a lot of buildings there, and they are out of code. 
Military does not build buildings by going before boards of supervisors 
and city councils and getting building permits. They build it their own 
way, and when it comes to using them in an area that is prone to 
earthquakes, you have to rehab those buildings. It takes money.
  The best way to do that is to set up a management structure that will 
allow the loans to be repaid through the process of leasing and selling 
and managing those buildings. That is what this bill does. This is good 
management practices. It is used in all smart activities by this 
Government and State governments.
  It would be absolutely ludicrous to defeat this bill. The best thing 
for the United States is to preserve this in public trust for public 
use under sound public-private management.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Regula].

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the Members that there is 
a trust arrangement in this plan, and it is a public-private 
arrangement. Many people in San Francisco are interested in 
contributing private funds to the trust. I think we will be surprised 
at the broad support, at least I get that feeling from talking with 
some of the leadership in San Francisco, that will exist in the city, 
in providing private money to help address this problem. In the long 
term I believe the trust should appeal to our Members because it does 
achieve a nonprofit private-sector arrangement. That is what we seek to 
accomplish.
  I think, likewise, it would generate a lot of matching funds that 
would be helpful in converting the Presidio to a very useful purpose 
for the people of this Nation.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the 
Virgin Islands [Mr. de Lugo] a member of the committee.
  Mr. de LUGO. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] for this legislation. I had the pleasure of serving in this 
House back in 1972, while Phil Burton had the great vision about the 
Presidio. At that time he had the vision to say, and to put into 
legislation, that at such time as the military would no longer need the 
Presidio, it should be turned over to the national park.
  I know a little about the Presidio. During the occupation of Japan I 
used to ship out from Fort Mason nearby and I trained at the Presidio. 
And when I went out recently for the dedication of the statue in memory 
of Phil Burton, I visited the Presidio then and I visited it again on a 
recent trip, because to me I think thank everyone who is connected with 
this legislation should be commended.
  Mr. Chairman, this shows the type of creativity that can hold 
precious resources for our people for all time. Yes, it will cost 
money; but they have put together a private-public plan here that makes 
it financially possible to retain this precious piece of property.
  As I walked in the Presidio last time down by the bay, I thought, 
``Why, Phil, you really knew what you were doing to preserve this for 
the people.''
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Minnesota, Bruce 
Vento, chairman of the subcommittee, and I commend the gentleman from 
California, George Miller, my chairman, and I want to commend those on 
the other side of aisle who support this legislation. This is a good 
bill, and I urge its support.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de LUGO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from the Virgin 
Islands. I think many words have been spoken on this floor, but I think 
the essence of what this is about has been captured by our esteemed 
colleague, Congressman de Lugo. This is like, if we had the fate of 
Central Park before us today, would we be talking about breaking it up 
and selling it? Mr. Chairman, the Presidio is in the middle of San 
Francisco, and obviously the history that it has, from early Spanish 
settlement, and the natural, cultural, and recreational resources and 
so forth are a vital and significant public asset. I would hope that my 
colleagues would recognize that and support this legislation.
  Mr. de LUGO. One of the things that impressed me the most on my 
visits to the Presidio were the numbers of visitors to this area. Not 
only American citizens but people from all over the world were visiting 
this area. This is a great piece of legislation, and I urge all of the 
Members to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3433, legislation to provide 
for the management of the Presidio, and to commend the gentlelady from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] for her efforts and dedication to the 
preservation of this most spectacular area.
  Mr. Chairman, the Presidio is an approximately 1,500-acre military 
base located at the foot of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. 
When the Golden Gate National Recreation Area was established, in 1972, 
my good friend and our former colleague, Phil Burton, recognizing the 
uniqueness and magnificence of the area, provided that if the Presidio 
was ever determined to be excess to the needs of the Army, it would be 
turned over to the National Park Service and would become a part of the 
Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
  Because of concerns that operating and repairing the Presidio would 
drain money from the other national parks, even though millions of 
dollars would be transferred from the DOD budget to the Park Service, 
H.R. 3433 would establish a public benefit corporation to manage 
certain properties at the site to generate income to support park 
operations.
  H.R. 3433, Mr. Chairman, is supported by the National Parks and 
Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, the National Audubon 
Society, the Wilderness Society, the Friends of the Earth, the National 
Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State 
Historic Preservation Officers, the AFL-CIO and several other national 
organizations.
  This is a good bill, Mr. Chairman. The gentlelady from California 
deserves our support. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this 
bill.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. DELLUMS. I thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, first of all, our former 
colleague, Phil Burton, has been referred to on a number of occasions 
during the course of this discussion and debate. He has been alluded to 
as a visionary. He was a very clear and substantive thinker. If anyone 
believes that Phil Burton did not understand exactly what he was doing, 
living in a never-never land, did not understand him. He understood it 
very clearly and unequivocally.
  Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on the 9th of August a 
notice was sent to every Member of the U.S. Congress from the 
Department of the Army office of the Secretary of the Army, laying out 
the agreement that the Department of the Army and the Department of the 
Interior announced that they had agreed upon terms and conditions by 
which the Army will retain the headquarters, 6th U.S. Army, at the 
Presidio of San Francisco to perform its defense mission while 
maximizing public use of the Presidio as an urban national park. What 
the gentlewoman from California's legislation simply seeks to do, Mr. 
Chairman, is to establish a public interest corporation to manage the 
assets there.
  Let me, in that regard, make a couple of important points. That 
corporation would have a wide range of borrowing authorities, including 
private borrowing, limited public borrowing, and the ability to 
negotiate lease terms that encourage third-party borrowing for the 
purposes of upgrading Presidio properties.
  These financial tools, Mr. Chairman, and the authority to retain 
lease revenues at the park will greatly reduce the need for Federal 
funding. I underscore that for the purpose of emphasis.
  Finally, this bill represents a new reinventing government approach 
to the management of public assets, combining private and public sector 
techniques to enhance responsiveness at lower cost to the taxpayer. 
Again, I underscore that, because a number of my colleagues have 
marched into the well speaking to the magnitude of the cost of what 
this transfer is all about. It is in this gentleman's humble opinion, 
Mr. Chairman, good government approach, it recognizes financial and 
fiscal realities, it is fiduciarily sound yet provides for the 
protection of the historic, scenic, and ecological treasure not only 
for the bay area in California, not only for this Nation, but indeed 
the world, and for the benefit of all of our people.
  For all of these reasons I urge my colleagues to enshrine and enframe 
and to put into significant frame the vision that Phil Burton had to 
make sure that we transferred this land for higher and better use, and 
that is to serve the people of our country.
  I ask my colleagues to resist the effort to diminish, to reduce, to 
significantly harm or, in any other way, compromise the legislation 
that is before us.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3433. I commend 
my colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], for 
crafting this excellent legislation.
  The district I am proud to represent, the Sixth Congressional 
District of California includes part of the Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area, which is soon to be home to the Presidio. I have 
received letter after letter from my constituents urging the House to 
ensure that the Presidio is transferred to the National Park Service in 
its entirety, and to pass H.R. 3433.
  The House recognized the national significance of the Presidio in 
1972, when it passed Phil Burton's legislation specifying that the 
Presidio would be transferred from the Department of Defense to the 
Department of Interior. The House must continue to recognize the 
significance of the Presidio, in 1994, by passing Congresswoman 
Pelosi's bill today.
  In this time of base closures, Mr. Chairman, it is important that we 
support and encourage smooth transitions from military use to peace-
time purposes. H.R. 3433 is a model for a smooth transition of the 
Presidio lands from military to peace-time purposes.
  In addition, H.R. 3433 will ensure that the Presidio is managed in a 
cost-effective manner. This bill establishes a nonprofit government 
corporation, known as the Presidio Trust, which will reduce Federal 
operating costs by aggressively recruiting tenants that will pay fair 
market rent for Presidio space. This innovative approach will result in 
a valuable national park, to be enjoyed by future generations at a 
significantly reduced cost to the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to preserve this national treasure 
and save American taxpayer dollars by passing H.R. 3433.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3433, which 
provides for the smart and sound management of the Presidio.
  As the Nation's oldest continually operated military post, the 
Presidio is a national historic landmark--it has played a logistical 
role in every U.S. military engagement since the Mexican-American War.
  This unique landmark which is at the heart of the Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area is the most visited national park in our 
Nation. It is characterized by acres of historic forest, historically 
significant buildings, a national cemetery, and scenic views.
  The Presidio will be transferred by statute from the Army to the 
National Park Service on October 1. This bill is designed to reduce the 
cost of managing the Presidio under the Park Service by creating a 
nonprofit Government corporation known as the Presidio Trust.
  The Trust would manage the rehabilitation of the Presidio's 
properties and would lease buildings to rent-paying tenants. Revenues 
from leases would be used to offset costs at the Presidio driving 
operating costs down and reducing the need for Federal appropriations. 
Lease revenues would also be used to repay funds borrowed for the 
initial rehabilitation.
  The Trust brings to the Presidio a proven successful model of public-
private partnership. It offers a less costly, business like approach to 
managing Federal properties.
  Indeed, heads of the academic and business communities which comprise 
the Presidio council have stated that the Presidio Trust is ``essential 
to the success of this * * * conversion project.''
  Mr. Chairman, the Presidio as a national park will cost less than 
half of what was spent on it as a military base. It's financial plan 
projects declining Federal costs over time due to rent abatement and 
private sector support.
  I urge my colleagues to support this smart and sensible approach to 
management and support this critical legislation.
  Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment Chairman Gibbons for 
his leadership in the Committee on Ways and Means consideration of H.R. 
3433, relating to the management of the Presidio. I also appreciate to 
concerns of Mr. Archer, for his efforts to ensure that the funding of 
the improvements to the Presidio, which are authorized by this 
legislation, are provided for in a manner that does not subject this 
important legislation to a budget point of order.
  As the result of the amendments supported by Chairman Gibbons and Mr. 
Archer, the bill before us today will allow for the orderly transfer of 
the Presidio from the Department of Defense to the Department of the 
Interior. It will also promote a unique public-private partnership 
which will allow for certain portions of the Presidio to be 
commercially developed in a manner consistent with its very special 
historical and environmental characteristics.
  While I support this effort to manage the Presidio in a way that 
takes full advantage of its public and private sector assets, I have 
been concerned with the financing approach that was originally 
proposed. In my judgment, Congress must be very careful that efforts to 
promote creative solutions to unique problems do not undermine 
established appropriations, budget, and debt management procedures. If 
such exceptions to the normal spending and borrowing procedures are 
allowed, we risk doing great damage to the system of budget discipline 
that we have established in recent years.
  As the result of the modifications to H.R. 3433 which were adopted 
during its consideration by the Committee on Ways and Means, this 
important legislation is now in compliance with all of our debt 
management rules and policies. It is my hope that this legislation will 
receive favorable consideration, and that the Presidio will become a 
vital part of our great National Park System. We also must be vigilant 
that the other body does not try to circumvent the decisions of the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
3433, a bill to create a nonprofit Government corporation to manage 
specified portions of the Presidio under the jurisdiction of the 
Secretary of the Interior.
  Most Americans do not know what the Presidio is and I have been asked 
on a number of occasions to explain not only what it is, but why I feel 
it is important to protect this national treasure.
  First established in 1776 as a military post, the Presidio's history 
reads like a page out of American history. As a military installation, 
the Presidio has played a critical role in providing for our national 
defense and international security and it is no accident that its 
history coincides with our country's emergence as a world leader.
  Now that the military has determined it no longer needs to maintain 
the Presidio as a military facility, the responsibility now falls to us 
to establish a public trust to manage the facilities of the Presidio of 
San Francisco in a manner befitting its proud history.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3433, sponsored by the gentlelady from California, 
Nancy Pelosi, will do precisely that.
  In addition to its other important provisions, H.R. 3433 will 
establish the Presidio Trust to manage the leasing, maintenance, 
rehabilitation, repair, and improvement of the property that is 
transferred to the National Park Service.
  Opponents of the Presidio have fought to sell all but 200 of its 
1,400 acres to private developers. This would not only rob our future 
generations of this magnificent resource--but the sight of condominiums 
on this site would degrade the memory of those who have proudly served 
our country at this national treasure.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentlelady from California, 
Nancy Pelosi, for sponsoring this important legislation, and also pay 
tribute to the late Philip Burton, who long ago recognized the 
importance of preserving this vital piece of American history.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3433.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 
3433 when it comes to the House this week. The bill provides a more 
cost-effective management structure for the Presidio in San Francisco, 
one of the most significant historic sites in our Nation.
  The Presidio has guarded against invasion from the Pacific since 
1776. It has played a major role in every American engagement since the 
Mexican-American War. Now, by an earlier act of Congress, the Presidio, 
a national historic landmark, is slated to become part of the Golden 
Gate National Recreation Area.
  In addition to its historic importance, the Presidio's national, 
scenic and recreational resources qualify it as a national park. It is 
an international biosphere reserve, a home for threatened species and a 
neighbor to the largest chain of marine sanctuaries in the country.
  There should be no question about the Presidio's significance to the 
United States--by now, its value is established fact.
  H.R. 3433 would enable us to protect the Presidio while saving money 
for the American taxpayer. The bill establishes a Presidio Trust with 
streamlined management and operations to manage leasing and 
rehabilitation at the Presidio. This management structure would result 
in significant savings for the Presidio over traditional park 
management.
  H.R. 3433 is responsible legislation which addresses taxpayers' 
concerns while protecting a very important national resource for the 
enjoyment of future generations. I strongly urge the Members to vote 
for H.R. 3433 and to oppose any amendments to weaken the bill.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3433, which 
includes a wage requirement provision, adopted as an amendment to the 
bill in the Committee on Natural Resources. Section 3(v) provides that 
the labor standards provisions under the Davis-Bacon Act and the 
Service Contract shall apply to the activities of the Presidio Trust. 
This new provision represents an unwarranted expansion of the 
requirements under both acts to contracts for services which are paid 
for primarily, or entirely, through private funds.
  Under the Davis-Bacon Act, contractors on construction or renovation 
projects funded by the Federal Government must pay Government mandated, 
inflated wages to laborers and mechanics employed on these projects. 
The procedures used by the Department of Labor for determining the 
wages in the area of a construction project, as well as the 
classifications of workers who receive them, favor union wage rates. 
The General Accounting Office has estimated that Davis-Bacon 
requirements increase the cost of construction projects by 5 to 15 
percent. Likewise, Davis-Bacon reduces the opportunities for the 
employment of less-skilled workers, women, and minorities.

  H.R. 3433 would expand the impact of the wage requirements to 
projects which would be funded wholly or partially through private 
sources. If only $1 of Federal funds is contributed to the project, 
Congress is going to mandate that Davis-Bacon requirements must apply. 
Under the bill, the Presidio Trust would have the flexibility to 
negotiate a lease agreement which would allow the tenant to finance the 
repair or rehabilitation of part or all of the building it is 
occupying. Clearly, in this type of situation, we are not talking about 
a Federal project where Federal mandates should apply. We are talking 
about private construction funded entirely by private sources.
  The Service Contract Act, on the other hand, sets basic labor 
standards for employees on Government contracts whose principal purpose 
is to furnish labor, such as laundry, custodial, and guard services. 
Contractors covered by this act generally must provide their employees 
with wages and fringe benefits that are at least equal to those 
prevailing in their locality, or, those contained in a collective 
bargaining agreement of the previous contractor.
  In 1983, having reviewed the application of the Service Contract in 
1978 and 1982, the GAO recommended repeal of the act. The report stated 
that the Department of Labor's principles and methods for making wage 
determinations under the Service Contract Act resulted in inaccurate, 
inflationary, and unrealistic determinations. Once a prevailing rate is 
established in a wage determination as the minimum that can be paid, it 
then becomes the floor for adjusting the wage differentials for higher 
skilled and more experienced workers in the same job class and for 
later revising that rate in future determinations. This can quickly 
escalate wages paid to service workers on Federal contracts and further 
widen the gap between the federally mandated rates on Service Contract 
Act contracts and those rates paid to private sector workers in the 
same jobs.
  Both the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act, in the years 
since their adoption, have been used to bring under Federal wage-
setting requirements, workers who do not need, and industries which do 
not require Federal regulation. In all applications, the wage 
requirements increase the cost of contracted services over what similar 
work would cost on the open market. Additionally, where the financial 
contribution by the Federal Government is minimal or nonexistent, 
Congress has no business mandating Federal wage requirements for work 
that is being funded by the private sector, the States, or other 
localities.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule for a period of debate not to exceed 3 hours.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources printed in the bill, 
modified by the amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
Means printed in the bill, and by the amendments printed in House 
Report 103-696 is considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment and is considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3433

       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 Presidio of San Francisco, located amidst the 
     incomparable scenic splendor of the Golden Gate, is one of 
     America's great natural and historic sites;
       (2) the Presidio is the oldest continually operating 
     military post in the Nation dating from 1776, and was 
     designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1962;
       (3) preservation of the cultural and historic integrity of 
     the Presidio for public use would give due recognition to its 
     significant role in the history of the United States;
       (4) the Presidio in its entirety will transfer to the 
     jurisdiction of the National Park Service on September 30, 
     1994, in accordance with Public Law 92-589;
       (5) as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
     the Presidio's outstanding natural, historic, scenic, 
     cultural and recreational resources must be managed in a 
     manner which is consistent with sound principles of land use 
     planning and management, and which protect the Presidio from 
     development and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty 
     and natural character of the area;
       (6) activities and management at the Presidio must be 
     consistent with both the Act establishing the Golden Gate 
     National Recreation Area (Public Law 92-589) and the General 
     Management Plan for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
     as amended;
       (7) the Presidio will be a global center dedicated to 
     addressing the world's most critical environmental, social, 
     and cultural challenges and a working laboratory at which 
     models of environmental sustainability shall be developed;
       (8) the Presidio, as an urban park, will be managed in a 
     manner that is responsive to the concerns of the public and 
     cognizant of its impact on the local community, and as a 
     public resource, will reflect, in both activities and 
     management, of the diversity that exists in the surrounding 
     community; and
       (9) the Presidio will be managed in an innovative public/
     private partnership that minimizes cost to the United States 
     Treasury and makes efficient use of private sector resources 
     that could be utilized in the public interest.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF ACT ESTABLISHING GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL 
                   RECREATION AREA.

       (a) Statement of Purposes.--Section 1 of the Act entitled 
     ``An Act to establish the Golden Gate National Recreation 
     Area in the State of California, and for other purposes'', 
     approved October 27, 1972 (Public Law 92-589; 86 Stat. 1299; 
     16 U.S.C. 460bb), is amended by inserting the following after 
     the second sentence: ``In addition, the Secretary may utilize 
     the resources of the Presidio of San Francisco to provide for 
     and support programs and activities that foster research, 
     education or demonstration projects, and relate to the 
     environment, energy, transportation, international affairs, 
     arts and cultural understanding, health and science.''.
       (b) Administration.--Section 4 of such Act is amended by 
     adding the following new subsection at the end thereof:
       ``(g) Interim Authority.--(1) In addition to other 
     available authorities, the Secretary may, in his discretion, 
     negotiate and enter into leases, as appropriate, with any 
     person, firm, association, organization, corporation or 
     governmental entity for the use of any property within the 
     Presidio in accordance with the General Management Plan and 
     any of the purposes set forth in section 1 of this Act. The 
     Secretary may further, in his discretion, negotiate and enter 
     into leases or other appropriate agreements with any Federal 
     agency to house employees of the agency engaged in activities 
     or programs at the Presidio.
       ``(2) In addition to other available authorities, the 
     Secretary may, in his discretion, enter into--
       ``(A) interagency permitting agreements or other 
     appropriate agreements with the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and
       ``(B) leases with the American Red Cross, to house their 
     activities and employees at the Presidio.
       ``(3) Any leases or other appropriate agreements entered 
     into under this subsection shall be subject to such 
     procedures, terms, conditions and restrictions as the 
     Secretary deems necessary. The Secretary is authorized to 
     negotiate and enter into leases or other agreements, at fair 
     market value and without regard to section 321 of chapter 314 
     of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 303b), fair market 
     value shall take into account the uses permitted by the 
     General Management Plan and this Act. The preceding sentence 
     shall not apply to any interagency permitting agreement 
     entered into between the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Defense regarding the housing of activities and employees of 
     the Sixth United States Army. For purposes of any such lease 
     or other agreements, the Secretary may adjust the rental by 
     taking into account any amounts to be expended by the lessee 
     for preservation, maintenance, restoration, improvement, 
     repair and related expenses with respect to the leased 
     properties.
       ``(4) The proceeds from leases under this subsection, and 
     from concession and other use authorizations and from other 
     services that may be provided by the recreation area under 
     this subsection shall be retained by the Secretary for 5 
     years after the date of enactment of this paragraph or until 
     the leased property is transferred to the Presidio Trust and 
     shall be available without further appropriation and used to 
     offset the costs of preservation, restoration, maintenance, 
     improvement, repair and related expenses including 
     administration of the above, incurred by the Secretary with 
     respect to Presidio properties, with the balance used to 
     offset other costs incurred by the Secretary in the 
     administration of the Presidio.
       ``(5) Each lessee of a lease entered into under this 
     subsection shall keep such records as the Secretary may 
     prescribe to enable the Secretary to determine that all terms 
     of the lease have been and are being faithfully performed. 
     The Secretary and the Comptroller General and their duly 
     authorized representatives shall, for the purpose of audit 
     and examination, have access to financial records pertinent 
     to the lease and all the terms and conditions thereof.
       ``(6) The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to 
     Congress a report on property leased under this subsection.
       ``(7) In addition to other available authorities, the 
     Secretary may, in his discretion, enter into cooperative 
     agreements and permits for any of the purposes of the 
     recreation area set out in section 1 of this Act.''.

     SEC. 3. THE PRESIDIO TRUST.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of the Interior a non-profit public benefit 
     government corporation to be known as the Presidio Trust 
     (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``Trust''). The 
     Trust shall manage, in accordance with the purposes set forth 
     in section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the State of 
     California, and for other purposes'', approved October 27, 
     1972 (Public Law 92-589; 86 Stat. 1299; 16 U.S.C. 460bb), and 
     with this Act, the leasing, maintenance, rehabilitation, 
     repair and improvement of property within the Presidio which 
     is transferred to the Trust by the Secretary of the Interior 
     (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary''). 
     The Trust may participate in the development of programs and 
     activities at the properties that have been transferred to 
     the Trust.
       (b) Transfer.--Except as provided in this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall transfer to the Trust, under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary deems appropriate, a leasehold in 
     the following properties within the Presidio under the 
     control of the Secretary: the Letterman-LAIR complex, Fort 
     Scott, Main Post, Cavalry Stables, Presidio Hill, Wherry 
     Housing, East Housing, the structures at Crissy Field, and 
     such other properties, within the Presidio as the Secretary 
     and the Trust deems appropriate. Any such property shall be 
     transferred within 60 days after a request is made by the 
     Trust. The leasehold shall be of sufficient term to enable 
     the Trust to obtain necessary and beneficial financing 
     arrangements and to carry out the purposes of this Act. The 
     Secretary may withhold transfer to the Trust of any buildings 
     necessary to house or support activities of the National Park 
     Service. The Secretary may not transfer to the Trust any 
     property irrevocably permitted to the Department of Army. The 
     Secretary shall transfer, with any transferred property, all 
     leases, concessions, licenses and other agreements affecting 
     such transferred property. The Secretary may transfer any 
     properties within the Presidio to the Trust not requested by 
     the Trust subject to terms and conditions mutually agreed to 
     by the Secretary and the Trust. All proceeds received by the 
     Presidio Trust from the leasing of properties managed by the 
     Trust within the Presidio shall be retained by the Trust 
     without further appropriation and used to offset the costs of 
     administration, preservation, restoration, operation, 
     maintenance, repair, and related expenses incurred by the 
     Trust with respect to such properties.
       (c) Board of Directors.--(1) The powers and management of 
     the Trust shall be vested in a Board of Directors consisting 
     of 13 members, as follows:
       (A) The Director of the National Park Service.
       (B) Secretary of the Army.
       (C) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (D) Ten individuals, who are not employees of the Federal 
     Government, appointed by the Secretary within 6 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, 6 of whom shall have 
     knowledge and experience in one or more of the fields of the 
     environment, energy, transportation, international affairs, 
     health, science, education, or any other such field related 
     to the activities at the Presidio; 4 of whom shall have 
     knowledge and experience in one or more of the fields of city 
     planning, finance, real estate, labor or historic 
     preservation. With respect to the 10 individuals, 5 shall 
     meet the additional requirement of possessing extensive 
     knowledge of the region in which the Presidio is located.

     Each member of the Board of Directors specified in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C) paragraph (1) may designate 
     (through written notice to the Secretary and Chairman of the 
     Board) an alternative senior official (classified as Senior 
     Executive Service) of his or her department or agency who may 
     serve on the Board in his or her stead. The Secretary of the 
     Army shall serve on the Board until such time as the Sixth 
     Army Headquarters ceases to maintain a presence at the 
     Presidio. In such an event, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     replace the Secretary of the Army on the Board.
       (d) Terms of Board Members.--Each member of the Board of 
     Directors appointed under subparagraph (D) of subsection 
     (c)(1) shall serve for a term of 5 years from the expiration 
     of his or her predecessor's term; except that the Secretary, 
     in making the initial appointments to the Board under 
     subparagraph (D), shall appoint 3 Directors to a term of 2 
     years and 3 Directors to a term of 3 years. Any vacancy on 
     the Board of Directors shall be filled in the same manner in 
     which the original appointment was made, and any member 
     appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve for the remainder of 
     the term for which his or her predecessor was appointed. Each 
     member shall continue to serve after the expiration of his or 
     her term until his or her successor is appointed. No 
     appointed director may serve more than 10 years in 
     consecutive terms.
       (e) Organization and Compensation.--(1) The Board of 
     Directors shall elect at the initial meeting a Chairman and a 
     Vice Chairman from among the members of the Board of 
     Directors. The Director of the National Park Service shall 
     serve as Chairman until such time as the Board holds such 
     election.
       (2) The Board of Directors may establish an Executive 
     Committee within the Board and other such committees within 
     the Board as it deems appropriate, and delegate such powers 
     to such committees as the Board determines appropriate to 
     carry out its functions and duties. Any such committees 
     established by the Board may meet and take action on behalf 
     of the Board between meetings to the extent the Board 
     delegates such authority. Delegations to such committees 
     shall not relieve the Board of full responsibility for the 
     carrying out of its functions and duties, and shall be 
     revocable by the Board in its exclusive judgment.
       (3) Members of the Board of Directors shall serve without 
     pay, but may be reimbursed for the actual and necessary 
     traveling and subsistence expenses incurred by them in the 
     performance of the duties of the Trust.
       (4) The Board of Directors shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman, who shall require it to meet not less often than 
     once every 6 months. A majority of the members of the Board 
     of Directors (or their designated alternates) shall 
     constitute a quorum. The Board shall hold at least one public 
     meeting per year at the Presidio at which time the Board 
     shall report on its operations, accomplishments and goals for 
     the upcoming year.
       (5) Members of the Board of Directors shall not be 
     considered Federal employees by virtue of their membership on 
     the Board, except for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act 
     and other statutes defining legal liability.
       (f) Staff.--The Board of Directors shall have the power to 
     appoint and fix the compensation and duties of an Executive 
     Director and such other officers and employees of the Trust 
     as may be necessary for the efficient administration of the 
     Trust. Officers and employees of the Trust may be appointed 
     and compensated without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and may be paid without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53, title 5, United 
     States Code (relating to classification and General Schedule 
     pay rates), except that no such officer or employee may 
     receive a salary which exceeds the salary payable to officers 
     or employees of the United States classified a level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule.
       (g) Experts and Consultants.--The Board of Directors is 
     authorized to procure the services of experts or consultants, 
     or organizations, including but not limited to urban 
     planners, architects, engineers, and appraisers.
       (h) Authorities.--In exercising its powers and duties, the 
     Trust shall act in accordance with both the approved General 
     Management Plan, as amended (hereinafter in this Act referred 
     to as the ``Plan'') and the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     establish the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the 
     State of California, and for other purposes'', approved 
     October 27, 1972 (Public Law 92-589: 86 Stat. 1299; 16 U.S.C. 
     460bb), and have the following authorities:
       (1) The Trust shall manage, maintain, improve and repair 
     those properties within the Presidio which are transferred to 
     the Trust by the Secretary.
       (2) The Trust shall publish and disseminate information and 
     make known to potential occupants, by advertisement, 
     solicitation, or other means, the availability of the 
     property within the Presidio which the Trust manages.
       (3) The Trust may prepare or cause to be prepared plans, 
     specifications, designs, and estimates of costs for the 
     rehabilitation, improvement, alteration, or repair of any 
     property managed by the Trust, and from time to time may 
     modify such plans, specifications, designs, or estimates.
       (4) The Trust may negotiate and enter into contracts, 
     including leases, cooperative agreements, or other agreements 
     with any person, firm, association, organization, 
     corporation, or governmental entity for the occupancy of any 
     property within the Presidio which the Trust manages. Such 
     leases may be entered into without regard to section 321 of 
     chapter 314 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 303b).
       (5) The Trust shall establish procedures to be used for the 
     issuance of leases and contracts under this Act.
       (6) The Trust shall establish (through easements, 
     covenants, regulations, agreements, or otherwise) such 
     restrictions, standards, and requirements as are necessary to 
     assure the maintenance, protection, and aesthetic character 
     of the property managed by the Trust.
       (7) The Trust may make commercially reasonable loans to the 
     occupants of property managed by the Trust for the 
     preservation, restoration, maintenance, or repair of such 
     property.
       (8) The Trust may provide technical assistance to the 
     occupants of property managed by the Trust, to assist such 
     occupants in making repairs or improvements to the property 
     or applying for loans under paragraph (7) of this section.
       (9) The Trust and the Secretary may solicit and the Trust 
     may accept donations of funds, property, supplies, or 
     services from individuals, foundations, corporations, and 
     other private entities, and from public entities, for the 
     purpose of carrying out its duties.
       (10) The Trust may retain any revenues from leases or other 
     agreements concerning property managed by the Trust, 
     including preexisting leases or agreements and any donations, 
     and use the proceeds without further appropriation to offset 
     any costs for any function of the Trust authorized by this 
     Act, except for those moneys transferred to the Secretary as 
     stipulated in paragraph (11).
       (11) The Secretary and the Trust shall agree on an amount 
     of revenues received by the Trust to be transferred to the 
     Secretary, to be applied by the Secretary, without further 
     appropriation or offset to appropriation, for common 
     operating and maintenance expenses at the Presidio.
       (12)(A) The Trust may not (directly or indirectly) borrow 
     funds from any source other than the Secretary of the 
     Treasury as provided in this paragraph.
       (B) Except as provided in subparagraph (F), if at any time 
     the funds available to the Trust are insufficient to enable 
     the Trust to discharge its responsibilities under this Act, 
     the Trust may issue obligations to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, but only if the Secretary of the Treasury agrees to 
     purchase such obligations after determining that the projects 
     to be funded from the proceeds thereof are credit worthy.
       (C) The aggregate amount of obligations issued under this 
     paragraph which are outstanding at any one time may not 
     exceed $150,000,000.
       (D) Obligations issued under this paragraph--
       (i) shall be in such forms and denominations, bearing such 
     maturities, and subject to such terms and conditions, as may 
     be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and
       (ii) shall bear interest at a rate determined by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration current 
     market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the 
     United States of comparable maturities.
       (E) No funds appropriated to the Trust may be used for 
     repayment of principal or interest on, or redemption of, 
     obligations issued under this paragraph.
       (F) The Secretary of the Treasury may purchase obligations 
     issued under this paragraph only to the extent provided in 
     advance in appropriation Acts.
       (13) Upon the request of the Trust, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall invest excess moneys of the Trust in public 
     debt securities with maturities suitable to the needs of the 
     Trust, as determined by the Trust, and bearing interest at 
     rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking 
     into consideration current market yields on outstanding 
     marketable obligations of the United States of comparable 
     maturity.
       (14) The Trust may enter into and perform such contracts 
     and other transactions with any person, firm, association, 
     organization, corporation or governmental entity as may be 
     necessary or appropriate to the conduct of activities 
     authorized under this Act.
       (15) The Trust may execute all instruments necessary or 
     appropriate in the exercise of any of its functions under 
     this Act, and may delegate to the Executive Director such of 
     its powers and responsibilities as it deems appropriate and 
     useful for the administration of the Trust.
       (16) The Trust may obtain by purchase, rental, donation, or 
     otherwise, such goods and services as may be needed to carry 
     out its duties. In the event of the termination of the Trust, 
     all property and unexpended funds shall be transferred to the 
     Department of the Interior, except that such funds shall only 
     be expended for the purposes of this Act.
       (17) The Trust shall procure insurance against any loss in 
     connection with the properties managed by it as is reasonable 
     and customary; and shall procure such additional insurance 
     for losses arising out of any of its authorized activities as 
     is reasonable and customary.
       (18) The Trust may sue and be sued in its name. All 
     litigation arising out of the activities of the Trust shall 
     be conducted by the Attorney General; the Trust may retain 
     private attorneys to provide advice and counsel on 
     transactional issues.
       (19) The Trust may adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws, rules, 
     and regulations governing the manner in which its business 
     may be conducted and the powers vested in it may be 
     exercised.
       (20) The Trust shall have perpetual succession.
       (21) The Trust shall have an official seal selected by the 
     Board which shall be judicially noticed.
       (22) The Trust shall have all necessary and proper powers 
     for the exercise of the authorities invested in it.
       (23) For purposes of complying with section 106 of the 
     National Historic Preservation Act, the Trust may work 
     directly with the National Park Service, the State Historic 
     Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic 
     Preservation and enter into programmatic agreements, where 
     appropriate.
       (i) Use of Federal Personnel, Facilities, and Services.--
     The Secretary and the heads of other Federal departments and 
     agencies may provide personnel, facilities, and other 
     administrative services to the Trust to assist it in carrying 
     out its duties under this Act. Furthermore, the Secretary and 
     the heads of other Federal departments and agencies may loan 
     or donate to the Trust excess or surplus personal property 
     deemed necessary for the management of the Presidio.
       (j) Taxes.--Since the exercise of the powers granted by 
     this section will be in all respects for the benefit of the 
     people, the Trust is hereby declared to be devoted to an 
     essential public and governmental function and purpose and 
     shall be exempt from all taxes and special assessments of 
     every kind of the State of California, and its political 
     subdivisions, including the City and County of San Francisco.
       (k) Volunteers.--The Secretary may accept, without regard 
     to the Civil Service classification laws, rules, or 
     regulations, the services of the Trust, the Board, and the 
     officers, and employees and consultants of the Board, without 
     compensation from the Department of the Interior, as 
     volunteers in the performance of the functions authorized 
     herein, in the manner provided for under the Volunteers in 
     the Parks Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 18g et seq.).
       (l) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall preclude 
     the Secretary from exercising any of his or her lawful powers 
     within the Presidio.
       (m) Affirmative Action.--The Trust shall ensure that 
     affirmative steps are taken, consistent with other Federal 
     law, to afford equal access and equal opportunities for 
     leases, concessions, contracts, subcontracts, and other 
     contracting and employment opportunities to minorities, 
     women, and other socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals, commensurate with local availability.
       (n) Financial Records.--The financial records of the Trust 
     shall be available for inspection by the Secretary, the 
     Inspector General of the Department of the Interior, and the 
     Comptroller General at any time and shall be audited by a 
     reputable firm of certified public accountants not less 
     frequently than once each year. Such audit shall be made 
     available to the Secretary and the Congress. The Trust shall 
     be subject to the provisions of the Government Corporation 
     Control Act (31 U.S.C. 9109 et seq.), including the budget 
     and credit provisions, except that the Trust shall submit its 
     budget through and in consultation with the Secretary.
       (o) Leasing.--In managing and leasing the properties 
     transferred to it, the Trust should consider the extent to 
     which prospective tenants maximize the contribution to the 
     implementation of the General Management Plan and to the 
     generation of revenues to offset costs of the Presidio. If 
     the Trust has difficulty securing a tenant for a property 
     under its control, it may enter into negotiation with a 
     prospective tenant whose proposed use may be inconsistent 
     with the approved General Management Plan. The Trust may not 
     enter into a lease which is inconsistent with the approved 
     General Management Plan unless the Secretary makes a finding 
     that the proposed lease will not have a detrimental effect on 
     the natural, historical, scenic and recreational values for 
     which the Golden Gate National Recreation Area was 
     established. For major leasing actions, the Trust shall 
     submit the proposed lease to the Secretary of the Interior or 
     his designee for a period of 10 working days for his review 
     of the lease for consistency with the General Management 
     Plan. Before executing the lease, the Trust shall consider 
     issues of consistency raised by the Secretary or his 
     designee.
       (p) Application of Other Laws.--(1) All general penal 
     statutes relating to the larceny, embezzlement, or conversion 
     of public moneys or property of the United States shall apply 
     to the moneys and property of the Trust.
       (2) With respect to the public or Federal contracts for the 
     acquisition of goods and services, the Trust shall be exempt 
     from the following laws and attendant regulations:
       (A) The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act 
     (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq. and 41 U.S.C. 251-260).
       (B) The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (41 U.S.C. 401 
     through 424).
       (C) Section 111 of the Act of June 30, 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     759).
       (D) The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601-612).
       (q) Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory 
     Commission.--The Trust shall maintain liaison with the Golden 
     Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Commission in matters 
     relating to the General Management Plan, and shall meet with 
     the Commission at least annually.
       (r) Reversion.--In the event of failure or default, all 
     interests and assets of the Trust shall revert to the United 
     States to be administered by the Secretary.
       (s) Report.--The Trust shall transmit to the Secretary and 
     the Congress, annually each January, a comprehensive and 
     detailed report of its operations, activities, and 
     accomplishments for the prior fiscal year. The report also 
     shall include a section that describes, in general terms, the 
     Trust's goals for the current fiscal year. The portion of the 
     report containing the audited financial statement may be 
     submitted at a later date, but no later than the first day of 
     March of such year.
       (t) Authorization of Appropriations for Presidio.--For 
     purposes of the Presidio, including the Presidio Trust, there 
     is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums 
     as may be necessary, but the aggregate of funds appropriated 
     for purposes of the Presidio (excluding the Presidio Trust) 
     under this subsection and under the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     establish the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the 
     State of California, and for other purposes'', approved 
     October 27, 1972 (Public Law 92-589; 86 Stat. 1299; 16 U.S.C. 
     460bb) may not exceed $25,000,000 in any one fiscal year. 
     Funds appropriated under this Act (other than funds 
     appropriated for operations) remain available until expended.
       (u) Separability of Provisions.--If any provisions of this 
     Act or the application thereof to any body, agency, 
     situation, or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of 
     the Act and the application of such provision to other 
     bodies, agencies, situations, or circumstances shall not be 
     affected thereby.
       (v) The provisions of the Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 
     276a et seq.; commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act), and the 
     provisions of the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351 
     et seq.), shall apply to the Corporation. All laborers and 
     mechanics employed on the construction, rehabilitation, 
     reconstruction, alteration, or repair of projects funded in 
     whole or in part by the Corporation and projects financed in 
     whole or in part by loans, grants, loan guarantees, or any 
     other assistance by the Corporation shall be paid wages at 
     rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a similar 
     character in the locality as determined by the Secretary of 
     Labor in accordance with the Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 
     276a et seq.; commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act). The 
     Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor 
     standards specified in this section, the authority and 
     functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 
     1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267) and section 2 of the Act 
     of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 276c).

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment directly or indirectly changing section 
3(h)(9), section 3(h)(12), section 3(h)(13) or section 3(j) of the 
substitute, as modified, is in order.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. vento

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as 
follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vento: Page 5, line 24, strike 
     ``The'' and all that follows through page 6, line 2.
       Page 26, Subsection 3(v), strike the work ``Corporation'' 
     wherever it appears in the subsection and insert in lieu 
     thereof the work ``Trust''.

  Mr. VENTO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The Chairman, is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I shared this amendment with the minority, 
and those interested in the bill. This amendment strikes authority of 
the Secretary to negotiate Federal agency housing for various employees 
of an agency engaged in activities or programs of the presidio. The 
amendment retains the two specific references which provides authority 
for housing for the Department of Defense, and for the Federal Energy 
Management Agency, and for the Red Cross, so there are other provisions 
in the bill that adequately meet the needs of housing. The concern here 
is that without this amendment it could end up resulting in a 
significant amount of housing resources used for other Federal 
employees. As justifiable as some may think that is, I have very 
significant concerns about that and so seek to eliminate that 
particular authority, and furthermore the amendment deals with a 
technical change when we change the management entity, the Public 
Benefit Corporation, to a trust. We left the word ``corporation,'' so 
this changes that particular phrase and is clearly technical in nature.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento] yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have looked at the amendment, we have no problem 
with it, and we accept it on this side.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ALLARD

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as 
follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Allard: Page 26, strike line 3 
     through 14 and insert the following:
       ``(t) Authorization of Appropriations for Presido.--(1) For 
     development of the recreation area within the Presidio as is 
     necessary to meet the essential administrative and resource 
     protection needs of Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
     there is authorized to be appropriated an amount not to 
     exceed the development ceiling authorized in section 6 of the 
     Act entitled ``An Act to establish the Golden Gate National 
     Recreation Area in the State of California, and for other 
     purposes,'' approved October 27, 1972 (Public Law 92-589; 86 
     Stat. 1299; 16 U.S.C. 460bb).
       ``(2) For management of lands and facilities within the 
     Presidio, there is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1995. For each fiscal year thereafter, funds 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for management 
     of visitor use programs and development of visitor use 
     facilities at the Presidio shall be expanded in the ratio of 
     $1 of Federal funds for each $1 of funds contributed by 
     State, city, and other non-Federal sources.
       ``(3) Except as provided in section 3(h)12 of this Act, no 
     funds may be appropriated for operation or development of 
     facilities within the Presidio which are not directly related 
     to the administration of Golden Gate National Recreation Area 
     or general public use programs.''.

  Mr. ALLARD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve all points of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, my amendment that is before us has several 
goals that I would like to go over with the Members of the House.
  This amendment will reduce the cost of implementing the Presidio plan 
for both the taxpayer and the National Park Service budget. It will cut 
the National Park Service cost by $200 million to $300 million over the 
15-year life of the plan. This amendment asks for a 50-50 split between 
the Federal Government and the local and State government for visitor 
use programs, operations and the development of a visitor use facility 
at the Presidio. It ensures State and local participation in the 
funding of the visitors services. It precludes the Federal Government 
from subsidizing the Presidio Global Center for Social, Cultural, 
Environmental Awareness.
  Mr. Chairman, the impact of H.R. 3433 on the Park Service will be 
staggering. The annual cost of the Presidio is greater than the 
combined total annual cost of all 30 new parks established by Congress 
since 1980. The funding allocated to the Presidio in fiscal year 1995, 
$25 million, is greater than the total increase in the operational 
funding provided to all other 367 areas managed by the National Park 
Service. The Park Service already faces an enormous backlog of 37 years 
for construction, 25 years for land acquisition, and $400 million for 
park operations.
  Now cost sharing is common at other national parks, and I would like 
to share a few examples:
  The State parks within the Federal parks like Indiana Dunes and the 
Assateague in Maryland, the State pays 100 percent of all costs.
  The Golden Gate National Recreation Area, which passed last year, the 
land acquisition of the Flagler property in this area is a 50-50 split 
between the Federal and non-Federal source.
  The Jefferson Arch, passed last Congress, lands were added to the 
park on the other side of the river in Illinois. The State of Illinois 
pays a portion of land acquisition, at least 25 percent of the 
development costs.
  The Everglades in Florida, passed in the 101st Congress, in the State 
of Florida is to contribute 50 percent of the costs for that land 
acquisition.
  Congress required the State to fully fund acquisition of such parks 
such as Shenandoah, the Great Smoky Mountains, and Mammoth Caves, and 
in this case the States paid 100 percent of the costs.
  If we look at some of the broad legislation, such as the land and 
water conservation fund, they require a Federal-State match, and it is 
a cost sharing program using a 50-50 match.
  I would like to look a little bit at who is using the park.

                              {time}  1550

  The Presidio gets an estimated number of 3.4 million visitors a year. 
As detailed in the NPS environmental impact statement on the Presidio, 
visitor use of the Presidio is almost exclusively local. According to 
the National Park Service environmental impact statement, the tourists 
that are nonlocal usually come visit the northern and western segments 
of the Presidio along the 49 mile scenic drive, which includes Fort 
Point National Historic Site that already has a $300,000 annual budget. 
The EIS states, ``Many people stop for a short time, and their focus is 
the Golden Gate Bridge and the bay, not the Presido.'' Despite the 
enormous costs of the Presidio, it ranks only 17th in visitation of 
national park areas.
  So who are the beneficiaries? Well, according to the National Park 
Service environmental impact statement, conversion of the Presidio to a 
national park area would have a positive cumulative effect on the local 
and regional economy. There will be positive effects on employment 
opportunities, income, and local businesses and tax revenues.
  Let us look at jobs and payroll. By the year 2010, more than 5,400 
jobs would be created and the annual payroll would increase by $57 
million. Total employment, construction, and other employment in the 
city would increase by 9,100 jobs, and in the region by 12,020 jobs. 
Total earnings in the city would increase by somewhere around $281 
million, and in the region by $411 million. There would be an increase 
in sales and tax revenues.
  The city of San Francisco would generate revenues from a number of 
sources. It will make over $4 million a year in taxes, property, sales, 
business, and hotel, by the year 2000. Yet H.R. 3433 has no requirement 
that the city contribute anything to the cost of taking care of the 
Presidio.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I would 
explain to my colleague the amendment or line numbers or page numbers 
are different, and that is the basis. Unless I have the amendments 
here, I will reserve points of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say I rise in opposition to the amendment. This 
really takes us back to 22 years ago.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to make sure it is clear.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I was saying I will reserve points of order 
for the benefit of my colleagues, unless I have current copies of the 
amendment. This amendment is offered on page 26. The amendment they 
shared with me was page 23, line 10. This gentleman has withdrawn his 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's reservation is not to this amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have been recognized in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I believe we 
have provided the current amendment, and if Members do not have it on 
that side, we will be glad to pass it over.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. With 
the right page numbers or the wrong page numbers, it is the wrong 
amendment at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes us back to 22 years ago, to the 
development ceiling which was appropriate, I guess, then for he GGNRA. 
This would vitiate the effect of this particular bill. This would 
undercut and negate the purposes of the bill that we have before us. It 
would limit the development of the area to $48 million. It would limit 
the annual appropriation overall to $25 million for the appropriation 
and require matching funds. We do not limit operating funds in any 
national park or require matching funds on a one-to-one match.
  Mr. Chairman, the assumption that we are making in the bill is that 
the State, the city government, the nonprofit sector, that the private 
philanthropic sector, will in fact participate significantly in the 
development and other activities for this park.
  But, nevertheless, this amendment restricts funds appropriated for 
the operation and development of facilities, those directly related to 
the administration of the GGNRA or public use programs. That would in 
essence mean that the efforts of the Presidio Trust, the public benefit 
corporation that is being moved forward here, could not use any of the 
leverage or dollars that are anticipated to be appropriated for them to 
in fact accomplish their purpose. This is, as I say, again, negating 
the effect of having a public benefit corporation.
  Now, the fact of the matter is that the public-private partnership 
cannot go forth unless we provide the resources and the flexibility for 
them to in fact invest and take the actions that are necessary to take 
down the buildings that are nondesirable, to keep and repair the 
buildings that are necessary, and will be leasable, and over half of 
which already has been leased to the State of California and to the 6th 
Army. This would in essence stop that process.
  In addition, it would unnecessarily tie the hands of the Trust from 
bringing the facilities up to code and to standards that would assure 
their being leased and reducing to the cost to the Federal Government 
of operating the Presidio.
  Further, it is patently unfair to tie the Presidio's operations to a 
development ceiling that was established over 20 years ago for a much 
smaller park unit that does not include the Presidio's nearly 1,500 
acres and nearly 900 buildings.
  Finally I would note that the bill as amended already places a dollar 
cap on the trust borrowing authority. That was by virtue of the action 
of the Committee on Ways and Means. It certainly is a development cap 
that is much different than the cap that is being proposed here.
  Mr. Chairman, it is just this type of amendment which I think has 
resulted in actually having the Federal Government spend more money. We 
are asking for a private-public partnership. But the first thing that 
happens is that Members get up on the floor and they want to renege. 
They want to renege on the ability of the national government to 
respond to or engage the private sector.
  Here you have a 5-year plan that was put forth. For 5 years, the 
National Park Service has been planning in good faith with the city of 
San Francisco, with the other entities that are interested, and with 
the private sector. And what this does is throw out this plan and start 
over with some idea, and I think a flawed idea, that is being presented 
on this floor in order to change how we are going to run the park.
  They want to have it both ways. If you want to engage in a public-
private partnership, then you have to do so in good faith. You cannot 
at the first hand abandon that particular process before it even has a 
chance to be tried. We have plenty of controls, plenty of 
accountability. This amendment is harmful and deleterious. I urge 
Members to defeat it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Allard amendments to H.R. 
3433. The amendments strike section 3(t) of the bill, which is the 
authorization of appropriations for the Presidio in its entirety and 
inserts: No. 1, limits on development of recreation area to $48 
million; No. 2, limits annual appropriation of $25 million, beginning 
in fiscal year 1996, to $1 of Federal funds for each $1 of funds 
contributed by State, city and other non-Federal sources, and No. 3, 
restricts funds appropriated for operation or development of facilities 
to those directly related to administration of GGNRA or general public 
use programs.
  Extensive studies have been done identifying rehab costs for each 
structure and area of the Presidio. To arbitrarily limit the amount of 
funding associated with rehab or the Presidio would negate the ability 
of the NPS and trust to achieve the goals and very purpose of the act. 
In addition, it would unnecessarily tie the hands of the trust from 
bringing the facilities up to code and standards that would assure 
their being leased and reducing the cost to the Federal Government of 
operating the Presidio. Further, it is patently unfair to the Presidio 
operations to a development ceiling that was established over 20 years 
ago for a much smaller park unit that did not include the Presidio's 
1,400 acres and 870 buildings. Finally, I would note that the act as 
amended already places a dollar cap on the trust's borrowing authority.
  With regards to the second amendment, the amount of funds expended by 
a local, State, or other non-Federal source on a unit of the National 
Park System cannot be used as a measuring stick as to how much Federal 
funds should be appropriated to assure the continued operation of that 
unit. Furthermore, there is no assurance that a local or State 
government will provide any funds to a unit of the National Park 
System. In this case, if the city of San Francisco or the State of 
California provided no funds in any given year to the Presidio then no 
Federal appropriation could be expended for visitor use programs or 
visitor use facilities.
  Finally, I would point out that the act already provides that all 
activities and management of the Presidio must be consistent with the 
establishment of the GGNRA, the general management plan of the GGNRA, 
and the general management plan amendments for the Presidio. Therefore, 
the third amendment restricting the use of funds is unnecessary and 
appears to be an attempt to thwart the management of the Presidio.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just merely an attempt to try and 
bring some common sense and some local participation in this park. It 
is a park that is mainly used by the local inhabitants of the area.
  I would like to share with the House some additional figures that I 
have on the cost-per-visitor to this park. I would like it to do some 
comparisons.
  The majority report states the cost of the Presidio is similar to 
that of other parks. However, when considering the actual costs of 
operating the Presidio, the number of visitors each year, we see the 
Presidio is not similar to costs in our great national parks. Rather, 
it is more than five times the cost.
  The Yosemite figures out on a per visitor basis of $4.47; the Grand 
Canyon, $2.67; Gettysburg, $2.67; Cape Cod, $.74; Rocky Mountain 
National Park, $2.53; and yet the Presidio is figured out at $7.35 per 
visitor.
  The costs of the Presidio are driven up because the Federal 
Government is having to subsidize all the tenants at the Presidio which 
have nothing to do with the mission of the National Park Service.
  The cost of construction of the Presidio is $600 million. The cost of 
operations is $40 million a year. And over 15 years, this is an 
additional $600 million, bringing the total cost to $1.2 billion.
  The cost of operating the park today is $25 million, which has 
already been provided for in the next budget year. Today the National 
Park Service is managing 150 acres of the park with the most intensive 
visitor use for only $700,000. No justification has been provided to 
this body suggesting that the cost of managing visitor use on the other 
less-visited portions of the Presidio will be five times more 
expensive.
  Finally, this amendment precludes the secretary from subsidizing 
tenants at the Presidio. This is probably the real reason that costs 
are so high. Although the National Park Service budgets are so obscure 
by smoke and mirrors, it is difficult to be certain.
  I believe that this is a common sense approach. I do not believe that 
we are asking too much by asking San Francisco to be a participant in a 
park that is used by local residents.

                              {time}  1600

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Allard amendment. Before 
talking about the contribution of the city of San Francisco, I want to 
point out that the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, of which the 
Presidio will be a part, gets visited by 20 million people per year, 
that is more than Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Grand Canyon combined, 
combined, and that the cost per visit is $2 per visit for the GGNRA.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. If we talk just about visitation, the gentlewoman's 
figures include the Golden Gate Bridge Park and all the parks in that 
area. But if we talk just about the park itself, the Presidio Park, we 
are talking about 3.4 million.
  Ms. PELOSI. It becomes a park on October 1.
  Mr. ALLARD. That Presidio area, that is what our visitation is right 
now, 3.4 million.
  Ms. PELOSI. I appreciate the gentleman's point, but we are talking 
about a park that will not come into existence until October 1 and the 
park facility, of which it is a part, receives that many visitors now. 
We anticipate that with the designation of park and all of the 
amenities and interpretations that the Park Service will be providing 
at that time, that the visitations will increase.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I just wanted to 
clarify for the record that we actually have 3.4 million visitors to 
the Presidio area itself.
  Ms. PELOSI. Again, I call to my colleague's attention that the 
gentleman is talking about what is happening now. I am, too, in terms 
of the GGNRA. When the Presidio becomes a national park, the visitation 
for both the GGNRA and its component, the Presidio, will even be 
greater than three times Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Grand Canyon. It is 
greater now but it will even be greater than those remarkable and 
incredible monuments in our country, of which we are all very proud.
  I would like to get to the point that first of all I would like to 
rise in opposition to the Allard amendment. It would, in fact, gut our 
legislation. It would undermine our attempts to have maximum use for 
the park, a magnificent park with minimum exposure and cost to the 
taxpayer. That is our goal, our responsibility for the taxpayers, what 
drives this. This is the most cost effective way to proceed. We have 
studied 19 models. We have considered every possible option.
  We are very proud of the proposal that we are putting forth. It would 
be seriously undermined by the Allard amendment.
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] mentioned in his comments, 
what is the contribution of the city. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
place in the Record a letter from the mayor of San Francisco to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], chair of the subcommittee, 
spelling out the city's commitment. It is a reiteration of what the 
mayor presented to the House subcommittee in hearings as well as the 
Senate subcommittee.
  It talks about utility services and improvements, the contributions 
from the city are pages long. Time would prevent me from reading all of 
it, but it talks about the city's role for operation and maintenance of 
the Presidio's water, electrical, and sewer systems, which could help 
reduce Presidio's operating costs. It talks about a reclaimed water 
plan to supply 1 million gallons of treated reclaimed water per day to 
meet the Presidio's irrigation needs.
  It talks about an extension of the Richmond transport project, which 
we are hoping to do, which would eliminate a sewer out fall at the 
Presidio's Baker Beach. It goes on to the cost savings involved in 
that. Talks about transit and traffic improvements, community transit 
planning process for capital and operational improvements will 
incorporate the needs of the Presidio. The city and county will pursue 
potential funding sources for increased capital, capital and operating 
costs for the Presidio. And longer range plans to extend bus, light 
rail and water taxi service to the Presidio as described in the draft 
Presidio plan.
  Talks about public safety, services, the city and county will provide 
backup assistance from our police department, fire department and 
emergency medical services, technical assistance and services for the 
Presidio, which go into great detail.
  I urge our colleagues who are concerned about this, the city's 
contribution, to make reference to the mayor's letter. The city has a 
strong commitment to do its share, but the recognition is that this is 
a national park and, therefore, we have a national responsibility as 
spelled out by the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter to which I 
referred.

                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                San Francisco, CA, March 24, 1994.
     Hon. Bruce F. Vento,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Congressman Vento, Thank you for your recent letter on 
     the conversion of the Presidio to National Park Service 
     management. On behalf of the people of the City and County of 
     San Francisco I want to thank you for your ongoing efforts to 
     preserve the Presidio of San Francisco. I truly believe that 
     the successful transformation of the Presidio from a military 
     installation to a national park will be a project that will 
     be appreciated by generations to come.
       I also want to express my strong support for H.R. 3433, the 
     legislation that would create a public benefit corporation at 
     the Presidio. I believe that this type of creative 
     legislation represents the type of partnership between the 
     public and private sector that will be necessary to make this 
     project work.
       As I stated in my testimony to the Golden Gate National 
     Recreation Area Advisory Commission on December 11, the City 
     and County of San Francisco's commitment to the 
     transformation of the Presidio to a National Park is very 
     strong. City officials and department staff have devoted 
     hundreds of hours over the past three and a half years to 
     help facilitate the smooth conversion of the Presidio and the 
     planning for its future management.
       We are very aware of the importance of reducing costs and 
     generating revenues at the Presidio. We understand the 
     difficult economic climate faced by all levels of government, 
     as San Francisco confronts continuing budget shortfalls and 
     the need to make painful cuts in City services. Despite our 
     current economic difficulties, the City and County is 
     committed to providing a range of critical services and 
     valuable technical assistance to the Presidio which will help 
     assure its successful conversion.
       Some of these contributions to the Presidio by the City and 
     County of San Francisco are described below.


                   utility services and improvements

       The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and 
     Department of Public Works are currently assisting the Park 
     Service to explore potential roles for the City in operation 
     and maintenance of the Presidio's water, electrical and sewer 
     systems which could help reduce Presidio operating costs. One 
     possibility would be for the City to assume responsibilities 
     for specific aspects of these utility systems and help 
     implement the ambitious program of conservation and resource 
     management outlined in the Plan, which includes many 
     conservation programs already in place in the City.
       The City is currently preparing a Reclaimed Water Plan 
     which includes spending approximately $25 million to supply 1 
     million gallons of treated reclaimed water per day to meet 
     the Presidio's irrigation needs. Serving the Presidio has 
     required a significant increase in the capacity of the City's 
     planned reclaimed water treatment plant and delivery system 
     to a total of 14 million gallons in flow capacity. The 
     reclaimed water will reduce the Presidio's potable water 
     demand and treatment and distribution costs and enable 
     restoration of groundwater levels and surface water flows in 
     Lobos Creek. The $25 million to serve the Presidio represents 
     over 12% of the total City project cost, which is anticipated 
     to be funded from revenue bonds and State loans to be repaid 
     through local sewer service and water rates.
       While the rate structure for reclaimed water has not yet 
     been established, it will be set at or below that of potable 
     water. Since the cost of producing reclaimed water will 
     exceed that of potable water, and the Presidio will be 
     consuming primarily reclaimed water, this reclaimed water 
     will be provided at a significant discount.
       In addition to the reclaimed water investment, the City is 
     currently constructing an extension to its Richmond Transport 
     project which will eliminate a sewer outfall at the 
     Presidio's Baker Beach. The extension, which added $2.2 
     million to the cost of designing and constructing the City's 
     Richmond Transport project, will completely eliminate the 
     possibility of wet weather sewer overflows at the beach, 
     which previously occurred roughly 40 times per year, 
     protecting the health of the public and the natural 
     environment. As with the reclaimed water, these expenditures 
     were funded with bonds repaid from local sewer service 
     charges. Additional City investments made on Presidio land as 
     part of the project include $300,000 for revegetation and a 
     restoration study of Lobos Creek and $120,000 for new 
     restroom facilities at the beach.


                    transit and traffic improvements

       The Draft Presidio Plan and EIS rely on a number of 
     extensions and realignments of existing San Francisco public 
     transit lines to increase service to the Presidio and reduce 
     the impacts of dramatic increases in Presidio visitors. We 
     will incorporate these recommendations in the San Francisco's 
     MUNI transit planning process for capital and operational 
     improvements.
       The capital costs of the recommended service extensions of 
     MUNI's 41 and 45 Union lines from the Presidio boundary to 
     the Main Post alone are estimated at $1.7 million. MUNI 
     estimates its increased operating costs for extending service 
     on the various lines serving the Presidio to be $300,000 
     annually. The City and County will pursue potential funding 
     sources for these increased capital and operating costs so 
     these Presidio transit service improvements can be made.
       The Park Service and their consultants have concluded that 
     increased express transit service between the Presidio and 
     downtown is also needed to help attract Presidio tenants. A 
     number of options to provide such service are being studied, 
     including expanding MUNI express service. The annual 
     operating cost of such additional service for the county's 
     MUNI transit service would be approximately 41 million. A 
     large portion of these operating costs are subsidized by the 
     City's general fund.
       Longer-range plans to extend bus, light-rail and water taxi 
     service to the Presidio as described in the Draft Presidio 
     Plan would require millions in capital costs and ongoing 
     operating subsidies from MUNI and other operators. The City 
     and County will continue to coordinate transportation 
     planning with the Park Service to realize plans for transit 
     improvements to serve future Presidio visitors.
       Traffic improvements to City streets and intersections near 
     the Presidio to accommodate the traffic increases projected 
     in the Plan EIS will cost the City and County an additional 
     $2.5 million, according to estimates by the Park Service.


                         public safety services

       The City and County will be providing backup assistance 
     from our Police Department, Fire Department and Emergency 
     Medical services staff to the Presidio's public safety 
     operations. We are currently exploring the potential for 
     lease of Presidio facilities by the City's police and fire 
     department. This arrangement could help preserve and upgrade 
     historic buildings while providing Park Service fire and law 
     enforcement personnel with assistance from specially trained 
     City staff and their equipment.


                   technical assistance and services

       The City will continue to provide substantial technical 
     assistance from experts in a wide range of City departments 
     to Park Service staff in reviewing infrastructure 
     requirements, overseeing toxic remediation efforts, planning 
     transportation improvements, operating facilities and utility 
     systems, projecting staffing requirements, meeting 
     environmental requirements, and numerous other areas. Over 
     the past three years this collaboration has required an 
     average of one meeting each month by the 85 designated 
     department representatives involved, at a cost of over 
     $300,000 in senior staff time. This collaboration is expected 
     to extend well into the future given the multitude of 
     operational and planning decision to be made and coordinated 
     between the two agencies.


                     other city and county services

       In addition to these services of specific value to the 
     National Park Service management of the Presidio, the 
     Presidio's residents, employees and visitors will benefit 
     from a whole range of City and County services which increase 
     the attractiveness of the Presidio as a place to live, work 
     and visit. Among City services provided to residents are 
     public schools, parks and recreation facilities, libraries 
     and public health services. Among services provided to 
     employees are child care services, transit service and City 
     street improvements and employment programs. Among services 
     provided to visitors are convention facilities and services, 
     the San Francisco International Airport, and an unparalleled 
     collection of publicly maintained tourist attractions which 
     make San Francisco a favorite destination for national and 
     international travelers. Because the Army provided many of 
     these services to Presidio employees and residents, and 
     generated far less visitor traffic than is projected under 
     Park Service management, use of these kinds of City and 
     County services and facilities by Presidio residents, 
     employees and visitors is likely to be significantly higher 
     in the future.
       I look forward to working with Congresswoman Pelosi and 
     Park Service representatives to identify opportunities for 
     revenue growth to help support both Park Service and City 
     capital and operational expenses related to the Presidio. 
     Although setting aside local revenues for Presidio services, 
     as you suggested, is constrained by both State law and the 
     City Charter, I am willing to assure City services and 
     improvements to serve the Presidio are a priority in my 
     budget proposals. We will also examine the potential for the 
     City to provide financing assistance.
       In closing, I want to reiterate the City's commitment to 
     the transfer of the Presidio to become part of the Golden 
     Gate National Recreation Area, completing the late Philip 
     Burton's vision for a great national park at the Golden Gate. 
     The 1972 federal legislation has helped to preserve for 
     public use some of the most spectacular historic and natural 
     areas in the Bay Area. The City has been a partner with GGNRA 
     in realizing the park's potential since the park's inception. 
     The City recently purchased a key parcel linking Ocean Beach 
     and Land's End with over $3 million dollars in open space 
     acquisition and sewer project funds for transfer to GGNRA. 
     This land donation was the latest of many City contributions 
     to GGNRA's necklace of waterfront open space which include 
     much of Ocean Beach and Land's End.
       We know you share our strong belief that the Presidio's 
     extraordinary historical, natural and scenic resources, 
     coupled with its accessible location, guarantee that it will 
     be a national Park of truly international significance. Its 
     preservation and successful conversion to civilian use in a 
     project which will benefit all Americans. Please let us know 
     if we can be of any further assistance to you in this 
     important effort. Thank you again for your support.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Frank M. Jordan,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that there is no 
requirement on any national park for a matching contribution in terms 
of operating funds. This is a completely unprecedented addition that 
would be placed on this unit.
  Furthermore, the Presidio itself, there is an expectation with 
regards to operation and maintenance that the projected costs that are 
in the materials that have been presented would be expected to 
decrease, down to 15 million over a period of 20 years. So that the 
actual cost would actually go down.
  So I think it is very important to recognize the commitments that 
have been made. But to mandate them would be completely unprecedented. 
I think we expected the contributions to be made, but we do not mandate 
this for any other park. It may be a new innovative thing. We ought to 
do it for each park. There is no reason to treat this particular park, 
even today the dollars that are going to GGNRA, the park portion that 
is already in the park system would have this applied to it.
  So I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for permitting me to make 
that point.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment and I rise in 
strong opposition to the amendment. I will explain myself a little bit.
  I came here on the House floor wanting to fight against the Presidio 
proceedings. I will explain why. I look at most of the Members that are 
supporting this, and I think the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi], who I have worked with and have immense respect for, has 
gotten to the tail end of the California desert plan, which most of the 
Members supporting this thing totally disagree with property rights and 
some of the other issues that we fought on the California desert plan.
  I look at base closures and I know that almost everyone in this room, 
Mr. Chairman, in base closures fought for their bases. That BRAC 
delegation looked at the value of closing a base and saving taxpayer 
dollars.
  I also know that this body has not fully funded BRAC, has become an 
immense burden on our Armed Forces, which causes the existing money 
that they have in the defense bill to be dwindled even more. I have 
talked to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  I would like to enter into a dialog with the gentlewoman, if she 
would. The reason I am for and against this, I have not made up my mind 
on how I am going to vote on this blasted thing.
  On one side of me, I know that the parks are going to have problems 
because of the funding, but yet I am told there are more people going 
into the Presidio than any other park. It looks like it ought to be 
able to pay for itself. Yet I know that we are going to tear down a lot 
of those buildings. That costs money. But yet the gentlewoman has told 
me, and I would like her to assure me, that this money is a loan and 
not a grant and will be repaid.
  I would like the gentlewoman to speak to that.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
like to back up to some of his previous remarks.
  First of all, as the gentleman knows, the Army has been a good 
neighbor to the San Francisco Bay area, to California for over 100 
years. It was with great dismay that we learned that the Army would be 
closing the Presidio. My colleague, Senator Boxer, and I, when she was 
a congresswoman, fought very hard to say to the Army, please stay, ``it 
would be more cost effective if you stay than if you leave.'' As a 
matter of fact, not one member of the BRAC commission or the base 
realignment and closing commission came to the Presidio, not one staff 
person walked the grounds.
  We think that if they had, they might have seen that the teaching 
hospital there and the mission of the 6th Army that was there, they 
might have kept the Presidio open and I would have been pleased with 
that. The mission was not eliminated but reduced at the Presidio, so 
the Army will be the major tenant, occupying 30 percent of the 
Presidio.
  That leaves the Park Service two thirds, 70 percent of the Presidio 
to maintain.
  So what we have come up with is, I think, a very cost effective way 
to protect the taxpayer. We have that interest as well as the gentleman 
has that interest. We have our credibility on the line on this.

  We have come up with a way where the Presidio Trust will be formed. 
It will not receive grants from the Federal Government. It will have 
the borrowing authority. The money borrowed will be used to rehab or 
take down facilities in order to rent these properties. It will produce 
a revenue stream which will, in turn, repay the loans and also reduce 
the cost of the Presidio to the Federal Government, because on the 
ongoing cost of maintaining the grounds. And that would be reduced over 
time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, once the loan is paid off, would the 
dollars from the residents and constituents coming into the park be 
used to pay for the park itself once the loan is paid off?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
according to our plan, as the loans are paid off, then the operating 
cost of the Presidio would then be reduced as well by the funds that we 
will have coming in. But once we pay off our loans, we are in a whole 
other arena. That is about 10, 12, 13 years from now.

                              {time}  1610

  At that time, all of the costs to the taxpayer will be reduced, even 
beyond--we see the Presidio becoming a park as drastically reducing the 
cost to the taxpayer immediately, but once we pay off the loans and we 
have a revenue stream coming in and we pay back the loans, then the 
costs will even go down further than they are now.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Does the gentlewoman have an estimate of when that 
loan will be repaid, based on the revenue coming into the park?
  Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the fact is the 
more authority that the Congress--we will be able to do this most 
expeditiously to the extent that Congress will enable us to. That is 
why this legislation is so important. To the extent that we are able to 
invest in rehab and tearing down of properties and bringing tenants on 
and producing a revenue stream, then we can reduce it faster. I would 
imagine that in 15 years we will be at that point.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, I still have not made up my mind 
on the vote on this thing, but I think we need to support national 
parks. However, I also look, as I said, at the California desert plan, 
in which the extremes were used and extreme arguments, and what little 
bit of my negative feeling carries over to this thing because of what 
we went through in the California desert plan.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that the membership focus on 
what is taking place here today. We have an opportunity with the 
passage of this legislation to react to a situation that is forced upon 
us already because of current law.
  That is a decision made by the Congress of the United States in 1972 
that, should the Army vacate the Presidio, it would become part of the 
national park system of this country. It is clearly, as people on both 
sides of the aisle have said, worthy of that designation, and deserves 
that designation. That is going to happen. The Army has concluded its 
negotiations. It is reserving a small portion for itself, and the rest 
of it is to be turned over to the park system.
  Anticipating that, Mr. Chairman, for the last 5 years--for the last 5 
years the Park Service has undertaken a study to determine how they can 
absorb the Presidio into the system. A private and public effort has 
been made to see how we could do that in the least costly fashion.
  The principles that are being used here are to minimize the public 
exposure and maximize the private exposure for the renovation and the 
conversion of the Presidio from an Army base to a park and to some 
commercial development that will support the park on an ongoing basis. 
That has involved the leading citizens of San Francisco, leaders in the 
financial community, banks, insurance companies, and others that have 
lent their time, lent their staffs, their computers, to try to figure 
out how to do this.
  What they have come up with is now what the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] has presented to our committee, passed by our 
committee, where we had this same amendment and some of the other 
amendments, all of which were determined by the Park Service to be more 
expensive than the way the committee and the people of San Francisco, 
the Park Service, and the private sector determined this should be 
done.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the choice, to pass the committee bill and 
transfer this property and utilize this property as a national park in 
the most cost-efficient way possible. As Ms. Pelosi just said in 
response to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the point 
here is to borrow some money to do some up-front venture capitalism, 
some infrastructure work.
  We have many, many people who are interested in being tenants in that 
limited part of the park where we are going to have that kind of 
development, because of the preexistence of these buildings and the 
opportunity to help pay for this park. Then, Mr. Chairman, we will use 
the receipts from that development to help defray the cost of this 
park.
  If we choose any of the other alternatives that will be presented 
here today, either in this amendment or in the other amendments, they 
all become more expensive, because the city of San Francisco is not 
going to take this as a city park, because it is a national park.
  If the National Park System gets this property without this 
authority, we will start simply cocooning these buildings, boarding up 
these buildings, and they will start to deteriorate, and the expenses 
will go on with no visible means of supporting those expenses. Mr. 
Speaker, in that case we will lose the opportunity to form a public and 
a private venture to support the rest of the park system for the 
utilization and the enjoyment of millions of Americans and citizens 
from around the world.

  The gentleman talks about the people who visit The Presidio. I dare 
say that most people do not believe that they have public access to the 
Presidio today if they are not on official Army business. Most people 
do not realize that there is a great ability of the public to utilize 
that Army base even today, as an Army base. They do not go there. They 
do not go there because there is a guardhouse and a sign and restricted 
hours of use, the whole thing. Let us not compare it as an Army base to 
how it is going to be as a park.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say on this notion of local 
contribution, the city of San Francisco is going to be contributing 
tens of millions of dollars, some in one-time cases for infrastructure 
work in response to the Presidio becoming a park, and millions of 
dollars on an ongoing basis to provide the services, police, fire 
protection, health, all of those kinds of services, that we do not ask 
Estes Park to provide to Colorado. No, we provide fire protection for 
the people living in Estes Park, outside, as part of the national 
parks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 4 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. The point is what the gentleman says he 
wants to be done, no other park in the country is required to have that 
burden placed upon them. We do not ask the citizens of New York to 
cost-share the cost of the Statue of Liberty. This is a national park. 
It happens to be an urban national park. The people in urban centers 
ought to be able to enjoy that experience, especially when they have an 
asset the caliber of that.
  The point, however, is this: That I appreciate that there are a lot 
of good ideas floating around on the floor today with some of the 
amendments, but none of them make this a less costly venture for the 
Federal taxpayer. It makes it a different venture, a different kind of 
venture. None of them make it less expensive for the taxpayer than the 
committee bill.
  This was not chosen by me as chairman of this committee. This effort 
was not chosen by Ms. Pelosi or the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Vento, or anyone else. This was chosen by the Park Service, along with 
a public panel, to make a determination about what was the best and the 
most effective way to get this park up and running, and to be able to 
sustain it on a long-term basis.
  The way that that could be done, Mr. Chairman, was with this plan to 
try to maximize the private participation to the extent that is 
consistent with this designation as a national park, and the values 
that the national park designation brings to this park and to the 
expectations of the citizens of this country.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify for the record 
that the city of Estes Park is outside of the Rocky Mountain National 
Park. The Rocky Mountain National Park provides their services. The 
Estes Park city provides their services as far as sewer and water and 
police protection.
  It just seems to me that if there is a concern about the cost of 
government and what is happening in that area, we ought to just 
privatize it. The Burger King, let them own the property and pay the 
taxes. It benefits the local school districts, it helps the local 
taxes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, the whole point is, 
ordinarily that would be fine. The fact is we are looking like a smart 
landlord. People always come up to you in your townhall business and 
say, ``Why don't you run it like a business?''
  We are trying to use those business principles. That is why we asked 
the business community of San Francisco and people across this country 
to donate their time, to donate their understanding of real estate, to 
develop this trust, because the Park Service does not have the 
capability or the expertise to do this, so we could start thinking 
smart on behalf of our taxpayers, so we could use the revenues of the 
Burger King as the landlord in that portion of the park to defray the 
expenses in the rest of the park, to get these other buildings up to 
code where necessary, to tear some down that will make part of the park 
more attractive, to do all of that, to think smart, instead of just 
thinking inherit this, inherit this as a burden of the Federal 
Government.

                              {time}  1620

  We have gone out and tried to share this. This is a very, very 
Republican plan--a very Republican plan, in the context of trying to 
utilize the business community.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. The Republican plan does not include government ownership 
of business.
  Mr. MILLER of California. If I may reclaim my time, there is no 
support for a Republican plan that says you are going to sell off the 
national parks. Let us not put a different burden on the Presidio 
National Park than we would put on any other park. If the gentleman 
wants to put it to a debate in Colorado about selling off Rocky 
Mountain Park, he wants to let the citizens of Boulder and Estes Park 
and Denver who enjoy that, and he talks about the fact they use the 
park to a great extent, he is right, they do. The citizens of Colorado 
use it to a greater extent than anyone else.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the citizens of Utah use the 
national parks in Utah to a greater extent than do citizens in Colorado 
and in California use their parks. So let us not use rhetoric to try to 
denigrate what is taking place here with one of the most incredible 
assets in this country and a decision that was already made by this 
Congress to make this a national park.
  This amendment should be defeated because it simply guts the ability 
to incorporate the private sector into the financing and the support of 
this park. It guts the ability of the Park Service to hold on to the 
remaining part, and it leaves us with simply sort of an old military 
ghost town. That is not what this bill is about and that is not what 
should be allowed to take place.
  All of this borrowing, all of this has to be screened by the 
Secretary of the Treasury. It has limitations on it because we are 
trying to encourage the private sector to participate.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Two questions. One, to your knowledge is there any other 
park where a portion of the operating cost is paid by another level of 
government than the Federal Government?
  Mr. MILLER of California. There are local communities that contribute 
to the purchase of land for the park. They sometimes contribute 
services, but as a condition of that park existing, would we require 
that contribution, no. But we use those same things throughout the 
country, where we try to get people to help us.
  Mr. REGULA. The second question. The trust arrangement which I think 
will be a unique arrangement to move the private sector into a position 
of responsibility here that has not been historically the case. Would 
that be correct?
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is exactly the case. I appreciate the 
remarks the gentleman made earlier. This is sort of ground-breaking in 
terms of how the Park Service has developed the park, the involvement 
of the private sector. We have witnessed as taxpayers who have been 
taken to the cleaners sometimes because of bad deals the Park Service 
made on concession contracts and what have you. We are trying to redo 
that policy. Now we are trying to redo this one, where we can take the 
best of the private sector and the protection of public ownership for 
the assets of the park and combine those.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I think there are going to be 
three or four amendments here, but let me just say, none of them make 
it less expensive for the Federal taxpayer to maintain this park, to 
protect this park, and to open it up to the citizens of this country 
and to the citizens of the world. The view that is over here of the 
bridge and the Presidio is one of the most famous views in the entire 
world. We have an opportunity with a very unique, first time-ever 
public-private partnership to maintain that for the future generations 
of this country.
  We ought to reject this amendment and the other amendments that will 
be offered to this bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, one point I want to make in response to the question of 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is that the proposal that we have 
put forth, we wrote with the Treasury Department in terms of the 
borrowing power and the rest and signed off on by OMB. Although it is 
an innovative and fresh approach, public-private cooperation and the 
rest, it is not in a vacuum, it was with the cooperation of the 
Treasury Department and OMB that we brought this legislation to the 
committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Finally, if Members are concerned that 
somehow San Francisco is getting a free ride, they are welcome to 
examine the letter from the mayor that outlines millions of dollars 
that San Francisco is going to have to expend on behalf of the 
utilization of this park by all of our citizens, all of our 
constituents, that that is what the city has committed itself to do. We 
should reject the Allard amendment and reject the other amendments to 
make this a more expensive effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit four letters for the Record regarding 
consideration of H.R. 3433, as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 1994.
     Hon. William D. Ford,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor; House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Ford: Thank your for your letter dated July 
     27, 1994 regarding HR 3433, a bill to provide for the 
     management of the Presidio by the Secretary of the Interior.
       As noted in your letter, Section 3(v) of the legislation as 
     reported by the Committee on Natural Resources provides that 
     the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act apply to the 
     activities of the Presidio Trust. I recognize that the 
     Committee on Education and Labor has jurisdiction over 
     matters pertaining to the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service 
     Contract Act. I understand that your decision not to seek 
     action on HR 3433 does not waive your right to jurisdiction 
     over section 3(v) of the bill, as reported, nor does it 
     hinder your right to pursue conferees on that section, should 
     a conference committee convene.
       I will request that our exchange of letters on this matter 
     be printed in the Congressional Record during the floor 
     consideration of HR 3433.
       Thank you for your Committee's cooperation in this matter 
     which will expedite the consideration of this legislation by 
     the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                    George Miller,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Education and Labor,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1994.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This week the House of Representatives 
     is scheduled to consider H.R. 3433, a bill to provide for the 
     management of the area known as the Presidio by the Secretary 
     of the Interior. Section 3(v) of the proposed legislation, 
     which was adopted at full Committee markup, provides that the 
     Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act shall apply to 
     construction contracts at the Presidio which are federally 
     assisted.
       The scope of coverage of the Davis-Bacon Act and the 
     Service Contract Act are matters which are within the Rule X 
     Jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor. The 
     Committee, however, has no objection to the language of the 
     amendment of these issues which was adopted at the full 
     Committee markup. Accordingly, the Committee on Education and 
     Labor has no reason to take action with regard to H.R. 3433. 
     Our decision to forego action should not be construed as a 
     waiver of the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. We would 
     appreciate it if this letter and your response could be 
     printed in the Congressional Record with the debate on H.R. 
     3433.
       With kind regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                  William D. Ford,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works and 
           Transportation,
                                  Washington, DC, August 18, 1994.
     Hon. George Miller,
     Chair, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear George: It is my understanding that H.R. 3433, to 
     provide for the management of the Presidio under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, is to be 
     considered by the House in the near future. It is also my 
     understanding that the bill, as reported, contains a 
     provision that affects matters under the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Public Works and Transportation and that did not 
     come to our attention until well after the report on the bill 
     was filed.
       While we recognize that any claim we have to sequential 
     referral is no longer timely, we are concerned that our 
     jurisdiction regarding this bill be protected. Specifically 
     the bill would in Section 3(h)(4) authorize the Presidio 
     trust to negotiate and enter into leases ``without regard to 
     section 321 of chapter 314 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 
     U.S.C. 303b).'' Pursuant to Rule X, clause 1(p), our 
     Committee enjoys jurisdiction over this provision of law. 
     There may be other provisions in the bill which are also 
     under our jurisdiction.
       Therefore we would appreciate your acknowledging our 
     jurisdiction regarding this bill. We also reserve our right 
     to pursue conferees on the bill. Lastly, we request that you 
     include our exchange of correspondence on this matter in the 
     Congressional Record during debate on the bill.
       Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely yours,

                                             Norman Y. Mineta,

                                               Chair, Committee on
                                  Public Works and Transportation.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                  Washington, DC, August 18, 1994.
     Hon. Norman Y. Mineta,
     Chair, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chair: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     consideration of HR 3433, to provide for the management of 
     the Presidio under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
     Interior.
       I acknowledge your Committee's jurisdiction over section 
     3(h)(4) of the bill and any other program of the bill which 
     may be under your jurisdiction. I also recognize your right 
     to pursue conferees on the bill.
       I thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and will 
     gladly include our exchange of correspondence in the Record 
     during general debate on the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                    George Miller,
                            Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise, in opposition to the Allard 
amendment and in support of H.R. 3433--a bill to provide for efficient 
and effective management of the Presidio.
  Mr. Chairman, the Presidio Army Base in San Francisco is one of our 
Nation's most significant historic sites.
  Designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1962, the Presidio 
holds the distinction of being the oldest continually operating 
military base in the country.
  The base was established by the Spanish in 1776, was later controlled 
by Mexico, and came under the command of the United States in 1846. It 
also holds special significance for Americans of Japanese ancestry.
  It was at Crissy Field that the U.S. military started the Military 
Intelligence Service Language School, just prior to our entry into the 
Second World War.
  The Japanese-American instructors and students at the school were to 
play a crucial role in our ability to fight the war in the Pacific. 
General McArthur's Chief of Intelligence estimated that their efforts 
shortened the war by as much as 2 years.
  The Presidio trust--established by this legislation--will ensure that 
the precious natural, cultural, and historic resources at the Presidio 
are managed in the proper way.
  H.R. 3433 will streamline the operations of the Presidio. It will 
transfer operation of the Presidio from the Park Service to a Public 
Benefit Corporation and is projected to save the Federal Government 
millions of dollars.
  The Presidio is a national treasure that must be preserved. I urge my 
colleagues to suppport sound management of the Presidio and support 
H.R. 3433, and to vote ``no'' on the Allard amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a record vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 244, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 409]

                               AYES--171

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Barton
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Bonior
     Brewster
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Cooper
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Klein
     Lantos
     McDade
     Moran
     Owens
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Sisisky
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Washington

                              {time}  1648

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Barton for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

  Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. KIM, and Mrs. SCHROEDER changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. TRAFICANT

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

                              {time}  1650

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 25, after line 13, add the following new sections:

     SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH BUY AMERICAN ACT.

       No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be expended 
     by an entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the 
     assistance the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 
     of the Act of March 3, 1993 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly 
     known as the ``Buy American Act'').

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.

     SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CONTRACTS.

       If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal 
     agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with 
     the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the 
     United States that is not made in the United States, such 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in section 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a Buy American amendment. It 
provides for a notice to those who would receive funds under the act, 
and encourages them to buy American-made products. It is similar to the 
other amendments passed on the floor.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, offering buy American amendments is a 
standard procedure for me.
  The Traficant amendment to H.R. 3433, The Presidio Management bill, 
is composed of three subsections. The first subsection simply ensures 
compliance with the buy American Act of 1933, by requiring a contract 
recipient under H.R. 3433 or to comply with sections 2 through 4 of buy 
American Act. The second subsection would provide for a notice to be 
sent to a recipient of funding under H.R. 3433. The notice expresses 
that it is the sense of Congress to encourage all recipients of funding 
to purchase American-made equipment and products. The third subsection 
in the Traficant amendment prohibits the fraudulent use of made in 
America labels on any products or equipment purchased through 
contractual agreements or funding under this Act or amendments made by 
this Act.
  Entities in violation of the fraudulent label section would be 
ineligible to bid for contracts.
  I believe that it is imperative that buy American measures, such as 
this one, be incorporated into all bills that reach the House floor for 
consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their continued support.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. I think it is 
applicable to this bill. I do not anticipate any problems with it.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the ranking minority Member, the gentleman 
from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have examined the amendment, we have no problem with 
it, and we accept it on the minority side.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                    amendment offered by mr. clinger

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Clinger: In section 3(h), amend 
     paragraphs (4) and (5) to read as follows:
       (4)(A) The Trust may negotiate and enter into agreements, 
     including contracts, leases, and cooperative agreements, with 
     any person (including any governmental entity) for the 
     occupancy of any property within the Presidio which the Trust 
     manages.
       (B) Agreements under this paragraph shall be subject to 
     procedures established by the Secretary under paragraph (5).
       (C) Agreements under this paragraph may be entered into 
     without regard to section 321 of the Act of June 30, 1932 (40 
     U.S.C. 303b).
       (5) The Secretary shall establish procedures for agreements 
     under paragraph (4), including a requirement that in entering 
     into such agreements the Trust shall obtain such competition 
     as is practicable in the circumstances.
       In section 3(p), amend paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       (2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     Federal laws and regulations governing procurement by Federal 
     agencies shall apply to the Trust.
       (B) The Secretary may authorize the Trust, in exercising 
     authority under section 303(g) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 253(g)) 
     relating to simplified purchase procedures, to use as the 
     dollar limit of each purchase or contract under that 
     subsection an amount which does not exceed $500,000.
       (C) The Secretary may authorize the Trust, in carrying out 
     the requirement of section 18 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) to furnish to the 
     Secretary of Commerce for publication notices of proposed 
     procurement actions, to use as the applicable dollar 
     threshold for each expected procurement an amount which does 
     not exceed $1,000,000.
       In section 3(i), in the second sentence, strike ``donate'' 
     and insert ``transfer''.

  Mr. CLINGER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to H.R. 3433 as 
reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. The bill establishes a 
Government corporation called the Presidio Trust within the Interior 
Department for the management of the numerous properties that are part 
of the Presidio. But it provides authority for the trust to be exempt 
from major Federal procurement laws. The special circumstances that 
would face the trust in disposing of leasehold interests in many 
buildings at the Presidio and in procuring property and services 
required in the management activities have been cited by the bill's 
proponents as justification for these sweeping exemptions.
  But these exemptions go too far. Adequate justification has not been 
made for such a separation from current procurement controls.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would provide flexibility to the trust in 
out leasing building space and in contracting for goods and services 
and yet would maintain much of the current law.
  With regard to the outleasing of space in Government's buildings, my 
amendment would set a standard of obtaining such competition as is 
feasible in the circumstances.
  In addition, my amendment would relax certain provisions of Federal 
procurement statutes in order to expedite the making of awards. Current 
law provides for simplified acquisition procedures to promote 
efficiency and economy in contracting and to avoid unnecessary burdens 
for agencies and contractors. The law provides a ceiling of $25,000 for 
purchases under this authority. My amendment would permit the trust to 
use these simplified acquisition procedures for each contract under 
$500,000 and would reduce certain other administrative requirements 
with respect to purchases under $1,000,000. These are very sizable 
steps.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Government Operations, which has 
jurisdiction over matters relating to Government procurement, must be 
vigilant in ensuring the basic integrity of Federal procurement laws 
and regulations in order to protect the taxpayers' dollars. As the 
ranking minority member of that committee, I believe the flexibility 
afforded by my amendment maintains that basic integrity yet properly 
recognizes the unusual, one-time need that establishment of the trust 
is intended to address. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. I think the improvements are 
workable improvements to the procurement provisions. I understand the 
gentleman's concerns, and I think that these improvements 
satisfactorily resolve them and give some necessary flexibility to the 
trust corporation.
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his statement.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have looked at this amendment. We feel it is a good 
amendment. We find it is interesting that this is the very thing we 
raised in our dissenting views. So we are glad to see the gentleman 
carried it out so that it becomes part of this bill. We felt all along 
that it should be, and we accept the amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his 
support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. grams

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Grams:
       Page 26, line 12, strike ``year.'' and insert the 
     following: ``year, which amount may not be adjusted upward 
     for inflation before the end of fiscal year 2009.''.
       Page 26, after line 14, insert the following: Of such 
     aggregate amount, not more than the following amounts may be 
     made available for operations for the fiscal year indicated:
       (1) $24,100,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (2) $20,400,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (3) $19,100,000 for fiscal year 1998.
       (4) $16,500,000 for fiscal year 1999.
       (5) $16,100,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       (6) $15,900,000 for fiscal year 2001.
       (7) $14,300,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       (8) $12,600,000 for fiscal year 2003.
       (9) $12,400,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       (10) $12,600,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       (11) $12,700,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (12) $12,600,000 for fiscal year 2007.
       (13) $12,500,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (14) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.

  Mr. GRAMS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, polls show that the American people are 
rapidly losing faith in the integrity of their Government. This 
phenomenon is triggered by the results of people for years hearing one 
thing from their elected officials and then finding out later that they 
have been deceived.
  There is no area of Government where this problem is as prevalent as 
it is on issues related to congressional budgeting. Only recently have 
American taxpayers been alerted to the fact that the budgets they see 
are not what they seem. Congress has played too many tricks, too many 
gimmicks and covered up their actions for too long.
  It is time to change the way Congress and Federal agencies prepare 
their budget. This House made a step in the right direction by 
rejecting the use of inflated baselines in the budget process. But now 
just one week later we have a bill before us which does just that, 
contrary to what its supporters may claim.
  The language in H.R. 3433 claims that the aggregate level of funding 
for the Presidio will be capped at $25 million per year. Yet the 
conference report accompanying this bill would enable the National Park 
Service to adjust this cap upward for inflation.

                              {time}  1700

  Assuming a minimum 3 percent annual inflation rate, Mr. Chairman, 
this legislation would allow the Park Service to spend $40 million or 
more by the year 2009, if they choose to do so while claiming to cap 
such spending at $25 million. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this clever 
piece of legislation is not intended simply to fool the American 
people. It is also intended to fool us, the elected Representatives of 
the people.
  Then another budget gimmick contained in this legislation is one we 
have seen before, and that is the so-called $25 million cap is an 
aggregate figure comprising of both operating expenses and repair/
rehabilitation costs. Now in the past standard operating procedures 
have been to low-ball the operating expenses and then to use other 
sources of funding to cover repair/rehab costs, and that includes 
funding from other parks. Now this little budget trick has resulted in 
annual operating shortfalls for parks in all 50 States, and it has 
meant that the Park Service has to return to this Congress for 
supplemental appropriations to cover the shortfalls. Now that is pretty 
clever because it is one thing to ask for more money for one park which 
affects one congressional district and one Member of Congress, but to 
compound these shortfalls so they affect every State in the Union, that 
is something only the Federal Government can do, and it is called 
abusive budget practices, and it must come to an end.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment today would do just that. It establishes 
specific caps for operating expenses of the Presidio at the levels 
estimated, estimated for the National Park Service. In other words, it 
holds the Park Service's feet to the fire by making them live by their 
own numbers. If 25, 15, or 13 million is all they said they will need 
for operating expenses in any given year, that is all they will 
receive, and this change is not without precedent. Just 3 weeks ago a 
similar amendment was adopted by the House to the California Desert 
Protection Act. There is no reason why we should not adopt this same 
policy today.
  My amendment would also prohibit the use of upward inflationary 
adjustments for the management of the Presidio, and in doing so it 
would put an end to the budget gimmickry in this bill, and it would 
show the American people that what they see is what they will get, and 
that is honest budgeting for a change, and I realize this may be a new 
concept here in Washington, but it is the way the Federal Government 
should conduct its business, and under my amendment it is how it will 
be doing so in the future, at least for this portion of the NPS.
  Now for the sake of honesty in congressional budgeting I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment today, and by doing so we will 
begin the process of restoring the American people's faith in their 
elected officials, a difficult----
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman referred to the conference 
committee report. Does the gentleman mean the committee report?
  Mr. GRAMS. That is right.
  Mr. VENTO. I would point out to the gentleman the bill provides for 
no inflationary increase. The committee report talks about 1994 
dollars. The gentleman said there is an inflationary increase, that 
would lead this to be $40 million in annual costs. Could the gentleman 
explain what he means by that? There is no inflationary factor in the 
bill or in the committee report. Could the gentleman point out those 
specific provisions in the bill or in the committee that he is 
referring to?
  Mr. GRAMS. Yes. It is on page 24 of the committee report, section 3t 
which says: ``authorizes appropriations of no more than $25 million 
annually.''
  But then it goes on, if one reads down a couple of lines. It says: 
``The ceiling refers to 1994 dollars, and it does not apply to the 
Golden Gate National Recreational Area----''
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield further, would the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. GRAMS. Yes.
  Mr. VENTO. Well, that reference is, of course, to the Presidio. Does 
the gentleman understand that there are two entities that we are 
dealing here, the Presidio and the Golden Gate National Recreational 
Area?
  Mr. GRAMS. That is correct.
  Mr. VENTO. And that there is no limitation on the Golden Gate 
National Recreational Area? Now does the gentleman understand that?
  Mr. GRAMS. That is correct.
  Mr. VENTO. And that under the park enabling laws that we do not have 
operating ceilings in any of our national parks; does the gentleman 
understand that?
  Mr. GRAMS. But this is asked for specifically in this bill----
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield further, I will be happy to 
ask for additional time, if the gentleman needs it, but I would just 
point out there is a development ceiling in this bill, there is an 
operating ceiling in this bill to the Presidio.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, Mr. Grams was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I 
would just point out that whatever the other differences the gentleman 
and I or others may have with regard to this, I just want to point out 
that the $25 million development in operating ceiling is absolute to 
the Presidio, that there is no suggestion that somehow there is a $40 
million ceiling with regard to the Presidio, that is not correct. There 
are separate provisions in here for the Golden Gate National 
Recreational Area.
  So the policy we have before us is in the bill to put a development 
and operating ceiling on the Presidio.
  Mr. GRAMS. What we want to make very clear is that where some of the 
budget gimmickry comes into because what we are talking about is the 
bill specifically says: this would be capped at $25 million a year, 
including operating expenses and rehab as well, and what we are saying 
is that in the bill, if this is to be even a friendly amendment----
  Mr. VENTO. Well, if the gentleman would yield----
  Mr. GRAMS. Go ahead; I will yield.
  Mr. VENTO. Yes, the bill, of course, does it. I would agree to that. 
Obviously the gentleman then goes off in a different direction with 
regards to policy. At least at the starting point there ought to be no 
difference in terms of view with regard to it, but there are other 
provisions to the gentleman's amendment. His amendment then takes this 
ceiling down in a descending order without any adjustment for inflation 
to $12.5 million by the year 2008 and then begins going back up, I 
guess, for the year 2009 and beyond.
  Mr. GRAMS. These are just the operating expenses, and these are the 
expenses that the Park Service asked for in the bill that was approved, 
and what we are saying is we would just like to hold the National Park 
Service's feet to the fire and say:

       If this is what you asked for in the bill, these are the 
     numbers that you have requested, we're just saying that we 
     want to put these numbers or clarify the amendment to ensure 
     that operating expenses will not exceed these dollars and 
     will not eat into the capital or rehab expenditures in the 
     future over the period of these 15 years.

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I would say that to my colleague from 
Minnesota that the Park Service did not request a limitation on its 
operating expenses with regard to Presidio. It did, Mr. Chairman, 
specifically project what the cost would be, but these are merely that. 
They are projections.
  Mr. Chairman, they did not seek that type of limit. As I said, and I 
would call my colleague's attention to it, that in fact there are not 
operating limitations on park units across the Nation, even those that 
have relatively high operating costs, such as the Steamtown National 
Historic Site in Scranton, and others do not have these limitations. 
The fact is that they have to come before the Appropriations committee 
each year. The budgets, which include the operating budget for the 
National Park System, they make actual recommendations on that. The 
reason the Committee placed a limitation on the Presidio is to make 
certain that we do have limitations on this.
  The committee has already anticipated this and put on an operating 
and development ceiling on the Presidio because we are concerned about 
the costs of this particular project. What Mr. Grams is attempting to 
do here is absolutely unique, and, of course, what it does is put into 
a straitjacket the limitations that would be put on place in terms of 
operating the Presidio. We do not know. There may be exceptional 
expenses from one year to another. One year the operating expenses may 
go down, but there may be other activities or expenses that increase in 
a different year.
  So, while it is, I think, important to recognize the descending costs 
as the leases and other types of private and public partnership 
activities benefit the Presidio take place. As they get a greater flow 
of revenue, it is quite likely that they will be able to reduce these 
costs, but because this amendment offers no flexibility, no opportunity 
to deal with the various problems, the various challenges that may 
arise, I am forced to oppose this amendment.

                              {time}  1710

  I understand the gentleman's concern and those that might share it 
with him. But this makes it impossible by tying the Park Service's 
hands. The Committee on Appropriations each year brings before the 
House an overall operating budget for over 300 national parks that we 
have. We have not got this type of limit on the St. Croix, or on the 
Mississippi, or on any other park, because it comes before the Congress 
each year. And we need to have that flexibility to deal with the types 
of problems that they face. The bill already has a limitation, and that 
is unprecedented.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota,
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, what this does is set into law that they do 
not have to be accountable for the budget. They can overspend and come 
back to Congress and ask for further funding.
  I would just like to point out in the closing minutes here that when 
you call for flexibility and to give the Park Service the flexibility, 
that is fine. But what we are talking about, mainly, or what usually 
happens, is that flexibility results in more dollars being asked from 
the taxpayers to supplement a budget that has gone over budget. We are 
trying to put into the law a friendly amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's friendly amendment and assistance here. But the effect of 
this is to severely limit and tie the Park Service's hands. Most other 
parks do not have an operating ceiling. We put a ceiling in this bill 
because we are concerned about passing this responsibility to the 
National Park Service. So the gentleman fails to understand the nature 
of the limitations that already are present in the bill.
  The fact is here that the amendment's type of limitation simply is 
not desirable or workable. Every year this comes before the Congress. 
We can make decisions on what parks receive. Some parks receive or need 
more or less operating expenses because of unforeseen events that 
occur, in Yellowstone when they had the fire. They may have other types 
of problems.
  I am not talking about construction. We have an overall ceiling on 
this park because of the nature of the work and what is going on. To 
further restrict this is unworkable in terms of what the gentleman is 
proposing, and that is why I oppose the amendment. I think the 
gentleman has a solution in search of a problem. There is no problem 
yet, and you are trying to solve it. This is the sort of micro-
management that results in mismanagement of a park and mismanagement 
and destruction of the private-public partnership which this 
legislation tries to establish.
  So the gentleman really has a faulty policy amendment, and I urge a 
rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard all afternoon about how this 
public-private partnership will save funds. All day we have been 
hearing about the projections that would make the park cost-effective. 
Now we have got a reversal on our hands. I hope the body realizes this. 
Now we want got to reject the same assumptions and estimates that we 
have supported all day.
  I remain unconvinced in that regard. However, I strongly support this 
amendment because it does hold the National Park Service accountable to 
the claims that the costs will do down.
  Here is the brochure they talk about about this area, and the exact 
figures that are in here are in the gentleman's amendment. So all we 
are saying is they have said, look, we can do it for that amount. We 
stand up and tell the Congress we can do it. And now all we are saying 
is let us freeze that into law. If you can say you can do it, put your 
money where your mouth is.
  So I support the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  Mr. GRAMS. What this does, the way the bill is written, it allows a 
big door for a bus to be driven through. We can appreciate the 
flexibility that one park needs at a certain time or all the parks 
need. But when we set an overall budget, what we have allowed the Park 
Service to do is abuse this budget by taking money from one fund to 
another, from present operating funds to rehabilitation funds, from one 
park to another park. Then they can come back after draining these 
funds in excess and ask for a supplemental appropriation.
  I can appreciate what the gentleman mentioned about disasters or 
extra dollars needed, but we do have supplemental bills that also pay 
for that. So to say this is coming out of the park budget is not true.
  Again, this is not without precedent. Three weeks ago a similar 
amendment was adopted by this House dealing with the California Desert 
Protection Act. We should close the loophole. If we are going to have 
an overall budget that the National Park Service says they can live by, 
we should make them live by this budget.
  This amendment just corrects some of the technical amendments.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, what we did in the California desert is not what we 
have here. That was an aggregate ceiling. This amendment puts a year-
by-year operating ceiling. It would point out that what did in 
California was put an aggregate ceiling on the operating and 
development costs. We did not put a year-by-year operating ceiling in 
place. So this is a step further. We already have an operating ceiling 
in the bill. That has already been addressed.
  The ceiling, of course, prevents the moving of any additional money 
into the park. You cannot spend beyond the $25 million ceiling. The 
appropriators may appropriate less. I think that is likely to happen. 
It is unprecedented to put this type of limitation on a year-by-year 
basis.
  I would further point out to my colleague from Utah, while that is in 
the plan based on the number of leases and the revenue flows, much of 
that is uncertain as to how readily that plan and how fully the 
objectives will be accomplished. I would point out that the National 
Park Service and the Department of the Interior did not request those 
dollar amounts in each of those years. That was simply an extrapolated 
number that may or may not be achieved in a given year.
  I think they are reasonable, but I do not think they are likely. You 
would have to have a lot more flexibility if you are trying to show a 
general reduction in the operating expenses over that period of time.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, with the time remaining, I would like to ask 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] to answer one quick question. 
How can you account for shortfalls in operating budgets in all 50 
States of the National Park Service? In Minnesota alone, in your 
district alone, it is $1.2 million in shortfalls in operating expenses, 
this year alone.
  Now, you take that in all 50 States. If we do not start putting a cap 
on this and stop this runaway spending, how are we going to bring the 
National Park Service budget under control, without allowing them to 
come back to this Congress in all 50 States, putting more pressure to 
supplement this money, and ask for a supplemental appropriations bill?
  This calls out a real need for my amendment, when you look at a 
shortfall in every State of the Union. I think it is time to put a cap 
on this and make sure the National Park Service lives up to what they 
state.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would just point out the wish-list of the park superintendents with 
regard to what they would like with regard to operating dollars is not 
necessarily a valid shortfall, first of all. I think those numbers, I 
am sure the gentleman from Minnesota, my colleague, if he had the 
responsibility to go through them, would not fund every request of a 
superintendent or of a park.
  I would admit that I think there are problems in meeting park needs, 
but they are not necessarily related to the lack of or the need of a 
ceiling with regard to the Presidio or those parks. I think the 
gentleman is adding together applies and pineapples in terms of trying 
to come up with a solution.
  This is a solution in such of a problem. There is no problem. The 
ceiling is already on this park. No other parks have that type of 
ceiling. We think it is necessary because we want to send a message to 
the private-public partnership. We want it to function, and this 
amendment will effectively vitiate the ability of the private-public 
partnership to function.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to redirect the debate to the essence of the 
legislation that we have before us. Obviously there are budgeting 
problems in the National Park Service.

                              {time}  1720

  I think it would be a real mistake to use the errors and difficulties 
of the overall system and try to adjust them in this pending 
legislation. All of us have put forth many requests for funding for our 
national parks that have not been able to be satisfied by the Congress. 
But the point is that the Congress does meet in appropriations 
committees each year and they can decide as to what the priorities 
ought to be.
  In this instance, we are embarking upon a new project, upon a new 
proposal which is coming to pass on October 1, 1994: the creation of a 
whole new park addition to the Golden Gate Natural Recreation Area.
  It seems to me we ought to give the parties that have brought forth 
this idea a chance for success. We are being preached at constantly 
about the importance of a public/private partnership in all of these 
huge enterprises and endeavors for the public good. This is not a park 
for San Francisco. This is a park for the enjoyment of all of the 
people of the United States.
  It is a national park, and it is one where we do not have to spend 
one additional cent for the acquisition of lands. It is in a gorgeous, 
beautiful area, where already millions of people come to visit.
  Now, when the Presidio will be open as part of a national park, there 
will be tens of millions of people that will come to enjoy its 
beautiful setting, its historic place of over 200 years as a military 
site.
  We have to trust in the analysis that has been poured over the last 4 
years by private and public individuals in coming forth with this 
public/private venture, their estimates of the kinds of investments 
that will be forthcoming to make this into a productive, profitable 
venture in the National Park System.
  It is unique. It is remarkable. It is visionary. And we ought to 
really stand up and applaud the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] for coming forth with this bold idea which captures the 
sentiment of the people and the Congress of the current moment, that 
the private sector ought to be enlisted to come forth to help us save 
these great areas for the national public to enjoy.
  We should not put any kind of hamstrings and restrictions on the 
possibility of this park to grow, to be able the private sector, to use 
the charitable contributions that are going to be forthcoming, to allow 
it to flow with whatever the estimates are. Estimates of the national 
park should not be engaged in some ironclad provision in legislation. 
Those are estimates based upon economics, upon the flow of generosity, 
of a huge amount of considerations that may not be as predicted in 
these reports on a year-to-year basis.

  Therefore, I urge this body not to adopt this straitjacket, not to 
adopt these restrictions and to allow the private/public partnership 
that we are engaging for the first time in the history of the National 
Park Service to be able to come forth with the evolution of a beautiful 
park which will be to the great credit of the United States.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I am not here to argue about the beauty of 
this park or what we want to accomplish under this bill. What we are 
arguing is that we have to be responsible for the taxpayers. And we 
have said this is what we are going to do for this many dollars.
  The gentlewoman is standing there and arguing that no matter what the 
cost, that we have to go ahead. The taxpayers will write us a blank 
check. I do not think that is fair. Let us hold the feet to the fire. 
Let us live within the budget that the gentlewoman or this bill asks 
for.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point is 
that the legislation does an unusual thing. It puts a limit on the 
annual authorizations at $25 million. It seems to me that is more than 
good faith on the part of the committee, given the limitations of our 
budget situation and our deficit problem. It has taken that into 
consideration. And going beyond that, it has embraced the idea of a 
Presidio trust, which will bring in charitable contributions and engage 
the private sector into the development of what I believe will be one 
of the most beautiful, most visited national parks on the west coast, 
to the great tribute of the taxpayers and the people of this country.
  I urge that this amendment be defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 227, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 410]

                               AYES--190

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Barton
     Bliley
     Bonior
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Cooper
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Klein
     Lantos
     McDade
     Moran
     Owens
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Sisisky
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Washington

                             {time}   1743

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Barton for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama, Mr. HEFLEY, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I thank the Chair for presiding over this debate today, and I think 
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller]; the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento]; and the ranking member, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen] for his courtesy in the debate today.
  There is a saying attached to the Presidio, Mr. Chairman, that a shot 
has never been fired in anger form the Presidio and I think that that 
has carried over into this debate today. As different as our opinions 
are on the subject, I want to thank the minority for their courtesy in 
the course of the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I sought recognition to acknowledge the fact that one 
of our colleagues is not present today and that is Tom Lantos, with 
whom I share representation of the city of San Francisco and who has 
worked very hard on this Presidio issue. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lantos], as Members know, has had surgery, he is resting well, he 
is a strong supporter of the Presidio and he sends his support to us 
today.
  In closing, I want to say that I hope that many of our colleagues 
will visit us at the Presidio, to visit the African-American Buffalo 
Soldier exhibit, to visit the Presidio and its Spanish heritage, to 
visit the magnificent ecological place that it is.
  In closing, in addition to thanking the chairman and the ranking 
members, I want to acknowledge the hard work of Judy Lemons, John 
Lawrence, Rick Healy, Mark Trautwein, Sandy Scott, and Michael Yaki.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McNulty) having assumed the chair, Mr. Durbin, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3433) to 
provide for the management of portions of the Presidio under the 
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to House 
Resolution 516, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245, 
noes 168, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 411]

                               AYES--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--168

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Barton
     Bliley
     Clement
     Collins (IL)
     Cooper
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Hall (OH)
     Houghton
     Klein
     Lantos
     Livingston
     McDade
     Moran
     Owens
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Sisisky
     Slattery
     Sundquist
     Washington

                              {time}  1815

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Barton against.

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________