[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 197 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14281-H14288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 NATIONAL PARK AND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEMS FREEDOM ACT OF 1995

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2677) to require the Secretary of the Interior to 
accept from a State donations of services of State employees to 
perform, in a period of Government budgetary shutdown, otherwise 

[[Page H14282]]
authorized functions in any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
or the National Park System, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2677

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Park and National 
     Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCEPT 
                   STATE DONATIONS OF STATE EMPLOYEE SERVICES.

       (a) Requirement.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the Secretary shall accept from any State 
     donations of services of qualified State employees to perform 
     in a Unit, in a period of Government budgetary shutdown, 
     functions otherwise authorized to be performed by Department 
     of Interior personnel.
       (b) Limitations.--An employee of a State may perform 
     functions under this section only within areas of a Unit that 
     are located in the State.
       (c) Exclusion From Treatment as Federal Employees.--A State 
     employee who performs functions under this section shall not 
     be treated as a Federal employee for purposes of any Federal 
     law relating to pay or benefits for Federal employees.
       (d) Anti-Deficiency Act Not Applicable.--Section 1341(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code, shall not apply with respect to 
     the acceptance of services of, and the performance of 
     functions by, qualified State employees under this section.
       (e) Definitions.--In the section--
       (1) the term ``Government budgetary shutdown'' means a 
     period during which there are no amounts available for the 
     operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the 
     National Park System, because of--
       (A) a failure to enact an annual appropriations bill for 
     the period for the Department of the Interior; and
       (B) a failure to enact a bill (or joint resolution) 
     continuing the availability of appropriations for the 
     Department of the Interior for a temporary period pending the 
     enactment of such an annual appropriations bill;
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior; and
       (3) the term ``Unit'' means a unit of--
       (A) the National Wildlife Refuge System, or
       (B) the National Park System.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] each 
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate this legislation 
has to be on the floor, and I say has to be on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, last month's partial Government shutdown effectively 
closed the entire National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge 
System. For the first time in the history that I can remember, in 24 
years, this has occurred. In the process it locked out thousands of 
visitors who had paid for the parks and paid for the refuges, hundreds 
that had paid for the refuges, supported by the hunters, fishermen, and 
bird watchers seeking to enjoy our parks and refuges, by an action of 
the Secretary of the Interior, by in fact saying the nonessential 
workers had to go home so we had to shut it down. If they were 
nonessential then, what are they today?
  To prevent the closure of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona 
Governor Fife Symington made a commonsense proposal which would have 
allowed the park to operate during a shutdown with State employees. 
Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected by the Interior Department. So 
visitors from around the world and across the country who came to see 
the Grand Canyon were locked out.

                              {time}  1615

  Arizona was not alone in its effort to keep Federal lands open to the 
public. As the gentlewoman from Arkansas will soon tell you, her State 
and Mississippi had an agreement with the regional director of Fish and 
Wildlife to operate certain refuges during the shutdown.
  I want to stress this, refuges are managed by the States today, under 
the agreement with the Department of the Interior. But this agreement 
was rejected by the department's lawyers in the District of Columbia 
under the direction of Secretary Babbitt.
  In a bipartisan effort to help States in an effort to keep the 
national parks and refuges open during the Government shutdown, I 
introduced H.R. 2677, the National Parks and National Wildlife System 
Freedom Act; this bill merely requires the Interior Department to 
accept, not require, but for them to accept the services of qualified 
State employees to operate parks and refuges during a Government 
shutdown. My bill is very similar to H.R. 2706, introduced by the 
gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], which limited itself to 
continuing hunting programs on refuges. This bill has no budget impact, 
since the States would be supplying funds to operate the parks and 
refuges.
  Moreover, this bill is voluntary for the States. States do not have 
to do this. This is not a requirement. But when a State steps forward 
and says, ``Yes, we can, in the case of a shutdown,'' when the 
Secretary for the first time in history shut down refuges, when a State 
comes forward and says, ``We will because we already set the bag limit, 
we already set the take, we already set the season, we already set the 
species. We will operate these refuges.''
  The bill does not address the issues of liability, which you will 
hear later. The State employees are stepping into the shoes of Federal 
employees of allowing our States who normally operate the parks and 
refuges, and, as a result, the standard liability rules will apply. By 
the way, when was the last time there was any lawsuit against the 
Federal Government in a refuge or a park? I hope someone will answer 
that. I cannot remember it, nor have I seen it; in fact, if it occurs, 
it does come to my mind maybe we ought to put something else on the 
endangered species, and that would possibly be the legal profession.
  We will hear from some in the minority who are concerned about the 
expedited process or procedures used to bring this bill to the floor 
today. I do have some sympathy with that. The full Committee on 
Resources held a 2\1/2\ hour hearing on this bill about last week with 
the minority members participating very actively. Because of the sense 
of urgency involved to get this bill to the House and Senate before a 
possible, and I say possible, Government shutdown in 4 days, it is 
imperative this bill be on the floor no later than today. As a result, 
no markup was held.

  Under the rules, we can bring the bills to the floor and allow our 
States to keep the parks and refuges open and require the expedited 
process to be used.
  The bill has bipartisan support. It has been endorsed by the Western 
Governors' Association, which passed a resolution of support. It is 
also supported by the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus.
  This is a commonsense proposal to help prevent our constituents from 
being locked out of parks and refuges during future Government 
shutdowns.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, if I may say, this bill would not be necessary if this 
Secretary of the Interior had acted accordingly. Yes, sometimes we have 
shut down our monuments. Yes, we have shut down some of our parks. When 
a Governor steps forward and says because of the State activity because 
of the deadlock between the President and the Congress, let us have the 
opportunity, but more offensive to me is when a State now has the 
authority to manage fish and wildlife on a refuge to have one person, 
one person to say all nonessential employees go home, we are going to 
shut down these refuges regardless of what the State has done in the 
past. This legislation is voluntary. It just requires the Secretary to 
accept a proposal from the State official as is offered to the 
Secretary of the Interior.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and as the chairman 
knows, I have given him some support 

[[Page H14283]]
lately, but not this time. This is a bad bill.
  Mr. Speaker, why do thousands of Americans visit our national parks 
every year? The answer is because they appreciate and treasure our 
parks. Last year 270,000 Americans came to our parks. And why do those 
thousands of Americans appreciate our parks? The reason is because they 
are successfully managed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to correct a statement. You said, 
270,000?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. That is correct, 270 million.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There you go, 270 million.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I thank the gentleman.
  This just reinforces my point. Why is the park so successfully 
managed? And the reason is because we have trained and experienced 
employees of the National Park Service who dedicate their lives to 
maintaining our parks.
  So why are we here considering a bill which would entrust our parks 
to individuals who do not have the training or the skills necessary to 
manage a national park? Because some, and I will not say everyone on 
the other side, are rushing legislation to draw attention away from the 
fact that they are planning to force another Government shutdown.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is well intentioned. But it is going to leave 
our parks in the hands of individuals who lack training, who lack 
experience, lack the day-to-day knowledge of how to run our parks.
  I have just as many hunters and fishermen as my colleague does, and I 
have not heard from them about the necessity of this dramatic 
legislation that we are considering today. Temporary State employees 
who may work hard in other areas of expertise are simply not going to 
possess the knowledge of national park regulations and management 
policies necessary to safely maintain our parks.
  The bill also raises many questions, such as who is going to accept 
liability for any accidents or damage to the parks? The fact is this 
bill is being brought under suspension without the apparent approval of 
the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and 
without properly going through the legislative process. Unless the 
other side has proof of mismanagement within the National Park Service, 
then there really is not any reason to fix what is not broken.
  It is also interesting to see some of my colleagues who have been 
pushing for a park closure commission now all of a sudden wanting to 
try to keep them open.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this is a bad exercise and a bad 
excuse to shut down the Government. The only way to keep our parks open 
is for the Congress to strip the Interior appropriations bill from the 
unnecessary riders so the President can sign the bill. Only then will 
the employees of the National Park Service be able to use their 
expertise to properly manage our parks and keep them open.

  Mr. Speaker, let us look at some of the attributes in this bill, one 
of the provisions. While one Governor is eager to assume management of 
certain national parks, most State park systems are facing severe 
budget shortfalls. Even on a temporary basis, assuming management of 
national parks could cripple State park systems as the administration 
testified.
  This bill leaves many management and liability questions unaddressed. 
Loose ends could jeopardize visitor safety, impair resource protection, 
which in the long run would likely create more problems than the bill 
seeks to solve. This proposed transfer which I understand is temporary, 
is consistent with the long-term agenda of some who have advocated 
giving management authority of public lands to State and local 
entities. This is a principle embodied in H.R. 260, a bill to create a 
national parks closure commission.
  There are nationally significant resources which should not be 
managed on an ad hoc basis in times of budgetary pressure.
  Last, here are some alternatives. What do we do about H.R. 2677 as 
alternatives? Why do not we all work with the administration to 
reclassify as essential those National Park Service employees necessary 
to ensure normal operations at all of our 369 national park areas? Why 
do we not pass a short-term continuing resolution to fund the 
Department of Interior until after New Year's Day, and last, break the 
current impasse, take those riders out, and enact H.R. 1977 as we 
usually do, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996?
  My chairman has been on a roll on some good bills lately, but on this 
one he is not on a roll, and I would urge defeat of this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I may suggest one thing. The President will have a chance to sign an 
appropriation bill very soon this week. If he vetoes that bill, that 
means that the parks will not be open. By the way, I say this, this has 
not happened before. Yes, in some of the monuments, and the refuges are 
what really concern me the most when the State manages them. This is an 
example of this administration, the arrogance of this administration, 
mismanaging the parks that the taxpayers pay for.
  As far as who can do it and who cannot do it, I will put up any State 
park against the Federal parks right now and how they are run. In fact, 
in California the one park that is being run right is the Redwoods 
State Park in California, not the National Redwood Park we made at a 
cost of $1.4 billion. It is poorly attended, poorly managed, poorly 
visited.
  All we are saying, though, if, in fact, this would happen again, 
there can be differences of opinion between the Congress of the United 
States and the President of the United States. But no Secretary of the 
Interior should deprive any taxpayer the ability to visit that which he 
paid for because they have decided by the will and whim of any one 
individual that they are going to shut it down. In fact, they shut down 
concessionaire stands on the Smokey Ridge over here. They shut them 
down when the concessionaires themselves had a binding contract. They 
had people come in and said, ``You will shut down.'' It was Gestapo 
tactics from the very get go.
  This bill will stop the Secretary and this administration when the 
State says, ``We can do it, we will do it, we will pay for it. We are 
liable, and we are going to keep it open for the American people.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2677, I am 
pleased that the House is having an opportunity to debate the merits of 
the National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act.
  Since coming to Congress in 1984, I have proudly represented New 
Jersey's Third Congressional District, which includes the 40,000 acres 
of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.
  This refuge, which is predominantly an estuarine marsh habitat, is 
one of the finest in our Nation, and over the years the size of this 
refuge has increased because of broad public support. Men and women in 
my district have provided the financial resources to protect this 
barrier island ecosystem and to acquire the upland forest and fields 
that have enhanced the biodiversity of the refuge. In addition, 
thousands of my constituents have enjoyed hunting and fishing on lands 
that comprise the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge for 
generations.
  Tuesday, November 14, was a bad day for America and for every person 
who wanted to visit a national park or national wildlife refuge unit. 
While my preference would be to complete action on an appropriations 
bill for the Department of the Interior, there must be a fail-safe or 
stop-gap procedure in place to avoid another public lands meltdown.
  In my judgment, it was ludicrous that the Department of the Interior 
was unable or unwilling to accept the offer of Governor Symington to 
keep the Grand Canyon open by using State National Guard troops.
  Mr. Speaker, this was just one example of where various State 
officials expressed willingness to operate our National Parks and 
Refuges with State employees. Sadly, these offers were rejected.
  H.R. 2677 would provide a fail-safe measure and it would help to 
ensure 

[[Page H14284]]
that the gates to the Edwin B. Forsythe are never again padlocked and 
shut in the faces of those Americans who paid for these lands with 
their hard-earned tax dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the National Parks and 
National Wildlife Refuge Systems Freedom Act.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support the purposes behind H.R. 2677. 
What we experienced in November is not a new phenomenon and there 
should be a set contingency arrangement for the management of our 
natural resources should the doors of the Federal Government again 
close due to the lack of appropriated funds.
  I have been involved in the issue because, when the Government shut 
its doors in November, many of my constituents were refused entrance 
into the wildlife refuges for a prescheduled deer hunt.
  Hunting is one of Arkansas' favorite family pastimes. People take 
time off work and families plan vacations around hunting trips. Prior 
to the recent shutdown, refuge managers had scheduled deer hunts at two 
Arkansas refuges. Hunters in my district went through an extremely 
competitive permit process, paid $12.50 for each permit, took days off 
from work, drove up to 6 hours, only to be turned away at the gates of 
the refuges. Needless to say, the budget crisis in Washington was not 
of their choosing and they were not happy about the results.
  Weeks before the actual shutdown, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
worked with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission on an agreement to 
allow State employees to volunteer their services on the Federal 
wildlife refuges. This agreement was signed and ready to implement in 
the event of a Federal Government shutdown. However, days before the 
actual shutdown, the Interior Department determined that this agreement 
violated the Antideficiency Act and would not be allowed to go into 
effect.
  I introduced a more narrow bill to reflect a more concise arrangement 
between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arkansas Game and Fish 
Commission. My bill would mandate a prior agreement between the Federal 
and State governments before the State could take over the management 
of hunting on wildlife refuges. The agreement mandated in my bill would 
ensure that State employees volunteering their services had proper 
safety training, knowledge of the terrain, knowledge of and adherence 
to Federal regulations, and ability to protect individuals and the 
natural resources.
  I believe that shutting down the Government is a poor way of running 
a government or business. Americans who pay their taxes and play by the 
rules should expect their Federal Government to function properly and 
perform services that people rely on. They shouldn't be punished for 
Congress' inability to conduct its housekeeping chores. This bill only 
takes care of a small portion of the impacts arising from a Federal 
Government shutdown. However, this approach makes sense because there 
are currently such arrangements where the States manage Federal lands 
and historically, the Federal and State governments work closely 
together in setting hunting seasons.
  I understand that we need to move quickly to resolve these issues if 
we are facing another potential shutdown on December 15. As I believe 
that there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved to 
ensure safety and the protection of our natural resources, I look 
forward to working with the chairman, the Senate, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission on this issue and 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent the 19th District in California, and in that 
district is included Yosemite National Park, Kings and Sequoia National 
Parks. I understand the magnitude of balancing a budget and coming to 
shutdowns and agreements, where we have really got to get our act 
together fiscally and budgetarily.
  What I do not agree with is when innocent citizens are caught in the 
way of a government shutdown, such as the communities of Oakhurst, 
Aubury, Three Rivers, and Mariposa, those communities whose interests 
depend heavily on tourism generated by these national parks. It is for 
that reason that I support this bill.
  Those involved in government, those that hang their hat on 
government, government employees, this body, those people are the ones 
that should suffer the consequences of a Federal Government unable to 
function and unable to come to agreements on a 7-year balanced budget 
scored by CBO; not people in small communities whose economies thrive 
on open national parks. It is for that reason I support this bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is an 
innocent sounding bill. Why can we not do something like leave the 
parks and the wildlife refuges open when we do not pass the 
appropriation measure and have them signed into law.
  Well, if we do not pass the measure, it has profound impacts. There 
is not the funding available under the Constitution to in fact fund 
these functions of Government. Now, I am a little confused today, 
because in this instance, the new majority, the Republicans, are 
attempting to cover up and smooth over the problems that the parks and 
the wildlife refuges are not open under the funding lapse and we will 
not be able to hunt in them. As a hunter, I am sure that I would be 
concerned if I had that tag for that deer in Arkansas. I would want to 
participate and hunt. I understand that particular problem.
  But, on the other hand, they want to smooth over that problem, but 
later today, under the debt ceiling legislation that is to be passed, 
they want to shut the Government down completely. They want to force 
Secretary Rubin into relinquishing borrowing authority that he lawfully 
exercises.
  I am confused. What do you want? Do you want to shut the Government 
down or do you want to keep it open? The fact of the matter is you 
could answer this particular problem for this park and hunting issue by 
stripping out all the extraneous riders from the Interior 
appropriation, the special interest provisions for the mining industry, 
for the grazing industry, taking out the rules and regulations and the 
Tongass timber issues in southeast Alaska, which are holding that bill 
up, and send it to the President without that controversy, come to a 
compromise and pass and enact it.
  You have not done that yet. The G.O.P. hasn't taken step one. That is 
the reason we are here, nearly 3 months after the date this bill should 
have been enacted. It is not enacted, and now, we are going to go 
through this hokey process of trying to suggest that everything will 
really run just as it is supposed to without funding, because we can 
enlist the States to run the parks and the wildlife refuges and you can 
go hunting if you want to, because the Governor from Arizona, for 
example, is going to be able to operate the park or the refuge.
  What happens when someone gets in the Colorado River and they are on 
the wrong side and the Governor from Utah is not involved with his 
personnel? This bill does not make it possible to respond. This bill 
does not work. You have not answered the anti-deficiency questions. You 
have waived that law. You are fundamentally undercutting the authority 
and the ability of Congress in terms of controlling the purse strings.
  Is that really what this Congress wants to do? I understand the good 
intention and the practical problems that some of my colleagues are 
having, but that just underlines the importance of funding. We ought to 
keep the pressure on to pass the Interior appropriation bill. We ought 
not to use this as just one more opportunity to gratuitously beat up on 
Federal employees, 

[[Page H14285]]
on Park Service employees, on the rangers and stewards of these public 
lands, such as I heard at last week's hearing.
  The issue H.R. 2677 had one day of hearing, after little notice with 
regard to it, and suggesting we have over 400 park personnel in the 
Grand Canyon to operate it. The entire State of Arizona has 200 Park 
Service employees. How are they going to run the Grand Canyon? Not very 
well, I am afraid. The suggestion then is that we do not need those 400 
Federal employees to operate the Grand Canyon, that somehow they are 
not doing their job or any State could do this and we do not need the 
Federal Government.
  That is what this is all about. This is just a political game, a 
charade we are playing here, with I think a very important issue, the 
budget, and something very dear to the hearts of the American people, 
our parks and wildlife refugees. This bill actually creates more 
problems than it solves. It reminds me of my experience of being pushed 
off a deep drop off in a lake by a friend who then prevented my 
drowning and was hailed a hero. Thanks, but no thanks with that 
swimming experience or this legislation.

  The Republican leadership is advancing this bill, H.R. 2677, as a 
solution to a self-imposed problem due to skewed priorities. The 
Interior appropriations bill still is not approved 10 weeks after the 
start of the fiscal year, hence no funding for the park and wildlife 
refuge operation. If the Republican majority had done its job and 
drafted a sound appropriation measure without giveaways to the grazing, 
timber and mining industries, with funds for essential programs we 
would not be in this crisis situation without funding to keep our 
national parks and refuges open during a Federal shutdown and we would 
not be considering H.R. 2677 today. Just symbolically opening the 
Washington Monument or Grand Canyon won't solve the budget problem.
  Not only should this bill be unnecessary, it fails to address many 
practical issues. I do not question the good intentions of most States 
or the sincerity of State employees who are willing to do what they can 
in a difficult situation; however, managing the Washington Monument, 
Yellowstone, Grand Canyon or any of our parks requires expertise that 
cannot be acquired on an ad hoc, emergency basis. I was Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands for 10 years 
and certainly I would like to see the parks open for people to enjoy. 
However, when our National Parks are open, the public and common sense 
demand that we ensure adequate public safety and adequate protection of 
the natural and cultural resources within the unit. H.R. 2677 
guarantees neither.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a shining example of what is wrong with the 
104th Congress. The Resources Committee held one hearing on two bills, 
on short notice last Friday when most Members had plans and had left 
for their districts. There was no markup session and we have had no 
opportunity to offer amendments or refine the measure. Such a process 
makes a mockery of the legislative process. In addition, by pushing 
this bill through without proper deliberation, the new majority seems 
to imply that government shutdowns will be the norm. The Congress, 
rather than placing a band aid on the problem, ought to be busy working 
to avert the injury by enacting the regular appropriation measure or if 
we fail in that, a continuing resolution to avert the problem.
  Are we going to have to enact a series of separate measures for all 
Federal programs short of funds, for Social Security claims to be 
processed, and another for passport services, and many others until we 
have hundreds of laws for every possible contingency resulting from 
preventable Federal shutdowns? We could replicate the entire Federal 
code for funding shortfalls and contract out the services to the States 
in toto. Mr. Speaker, our Nation faces serious budget constraints, 
declining incomes and security for working people, and many grave 
concerns. This measure, H.R. 2677, is make-work legislating, creating 
additional problems just so we can solve them with bills like the one 
before us today. I urge the defeat of H.R. 2677. We should reaffirm our 
support for a host of laws already on the books.

  This measure, beyond the misguided and misdirected congressional 
focus, could have profound impact on the legislative branch of the 
Federal Government. H.R. 2677 provides a blueprint and an engraved 
invitation for the executive to sidestep congressional authority to 
control spending, the purse strings, and the land use policy of the 
Federal Government. Ironically, Congress has always been very careful 
to guard land use policy as well, avoiding the frequent requests for 
administrative flexibility. Congress and its committees have properly 
asserted an effective role in land use questions and most certainly in 
the designation and operation of our crown jewels, the park units.
  This measure, H.R. 2677, undercuts and weakens congressional control 
of the funding and budget control. In weeks past, the Republican 
majority has loudly protested Secretary of Treasury Rubin's authority 
to borrow and finance from specific accounts to avert default and 
expand the debt ceiling borrowing capacity of the Federal Government. 
My question is what way do you want it? Do you want to take away the 
power of the executive branch on debt ceiling and existing borrowing 
authority or expand the ability of the executive to avoid the shutdown 
of the Federal non-exempt entities?
  Congress is moving onto a slippery slope when it begins to move land 
use functions to the States. Frankly, this Congress has just defeated 
studies, policy measures, even to consider changing the management 
authority and designation of parks, H.R. 260. Now we are about to back 
into an ad hoc assumption by States of selected National Park 
management, especially parks that would not even be considered for a 
change of management.
  This year our Committee on Resources has repeatedly held hearings and 
heard proposals to strip National Park designation from our parks. 
Beyond these events, repeated proposals have been introduced to force 
the Federal Government to transfer public domain lands or prevent the 
Federal Government from asserting its rights as regards such Federal 
lands.
  Repeatedly as the issues are raised and become instantly 
controversial, the Republican majority denies any involvement. But just 
the reading of the hearing record from this measure reflects the 
radical and extreme views espoused by my colleagues. It is the true and 
factual source of many of these assertions that engender such serious 
concern.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill solves no problem. In fact, it is a detour on 
the path to a solution. It needlessly distracts and is harmful to the 
interests and prerogatives of Congress. It is certain to raise yet more 
controversy and misunderstandings. H.R. 2677 is a waste of energy and 
time when we should be resolving our problems of appropriations, not 
concocting schemes to shroud them within. This lack of funding cannot 
be wished away or solved without real funding. Let's defeat this bill 
and get back to work.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2677. It seems to me 
this is a common sense bill that the American people are crying out for 
and we hear such silliness here on the floor. The National Parks and 
National Wildlife Refuge System Freedom Act of 1995 addressed a simple 
problem, but a problem that can be very severe.
  In my State of Arizona, during the last shutdown, we had a tragedy, 
actually we had many tragedies. People who make their livelihood off 
the national park were devastated. People would who wanted to visit one 
of the 7 Wonders of the World, the Grand Canyon, were told they could 
not do so. And why were they told that? They were told that because the 
premise is that unless you have a Federal employee employed by the 
Federal Government standing at your side, you cannot enjoy, indeed, the 
Federal Government will prohibit you from enjoying the grandeur of the 
Grand Canyon.
  There is nothing more absurd in my lifetime than that notion. The 
shutdown of the Grand Canyon National Park was itself politics that 
hurt the American people. At no time in the history of this Nation 
should politics or 

[[Page H14286]]
political posturing be allowed to injure the American people as they 
did in that shutdown.
  Yet let me bring you a statistic. In the 32 times that the Government 
has shut down in the last 2 decades, the National Park Service has not 
once told a private concessionaire that it had to leech the park. Now, 
ask yourself why did it do it this time? Why did the Government insist 
that this time concessionaires in private parks must leave the park? I 
submit to you it was political posturing.
  When we asked in the hearing held last Friday the Federal Department 
of Interior officials the answer to that, their answer was a 
fascinating one. It was that well, if the shutdown had lasted only 2 
days, one could fudge the Anti-deficiency Act. But if it lasted 3 days, 
one could not.
  Now, I asked them to find and their lawyers to find the language in 
the Anti-deficiency Act which says you can fudge a shutdown for 2 or 3 
days, but you cannot fudge it for 3 or 4 days. They could not do it.
  There is a tragedy here, a tragedy of arrogance, arrogance at the 
Federal level. The notion which we have heard on the floor today that 
the American people should be denied the right and visitors from across 
this Nation and visitors from around this world who have traveled 
thousands of miles to visit the Grand Canyon, indeed, one of the 7 
Wonders of the World, should be sent away because a Federal bureaucrat 
is not there to stand beside them as they stand at Mather Point and try 
to absorb the beauty of the Grand Canyon.
  The Governor of my State, Governor Symington, came forward with a 
simple, common sense idea. He said while you all posture in Washington, 
let me in the State of Arizona run that park. I take great umbrage at 
the words said on this floor moments ago that the State of Arizona 
could not run the park well because it has only 200 employees. Such 
arrogance at the Federal level is offensive. This bill should pass. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  The previous speaker, of course, talks about arrogance, he talks 
about posturing, he talks about politics. In 5 seconds we could 
preclude all of that happening by a simple continuing resolution that 
says the Republican leadership has not been able to do the job of 
passing appropriation bills. But we will pass a continuing resolution.
  We did it very briefly when you decided it was time to do it. We did 
it very briefly the time before that when you decided to do it. This 
whole business of shutting down parks and anything else is political 
posturing. I called it terrorist tactics, as you may recall, 
previously. The fact of the matter is I rise in opposition to this 
legislation which would allow State employees to replace Federal 
employees during any future Government shutdowns.
  While I hope the Republican leadership will not force us into another 
shutdown, I ask that they stop pretending that shutdowns affect only 
those programs you do not like. If we like them, well, we ought to fund 
them. If we do not like them, clearly the State officials in Arizona 
were concerned about the impact of the closure of the Grand Canyon. I 
think all of us would agree with that.
  On a lesser scale, officials in my own State were concerned about the 
impact of closure of Green Belt National Park, Catoctin Mountain Park, 
Fort McHenry and the Smithsonian, which had an obvious impact on 
tourism in the Maryland suburbs. The Speaker and the leadership would 
like the American people to think that these national assets can keep 
going even while they close down the Government, the parts they do not 
like.
  Last week in the Subcommittee on Civil Service, Social Security 
Commissioner Chater was questioned about why she did not retain more 
employees to keep critical services moving ahead. My Republican friends 
must learn you cannot have it both ways. You cannot deliberately shut 
down the Government and then use backdoor methods to keep open agencies 
in operation that happen to be especially popular.
  In addition to raising a number of serious legal and management 
questions, this legislation is yet another attack on Federal workers. 
While many of our parks rely on volunteer help, it is outrageous to 
suggest that State workers with many other duties to fulfill can 
instantly qualify to manage our parks and national wildlife refuges.
  The Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in my district is renowned for 
its work with endangered species. I do not believe any volunteer, 
frankly, without training could come in and operate it. If the 
leadership is serious about keeping our parks open, if the leadership 
is serious about keeping our parks open, they ought to do what they 
should have done by October 1, pass the appropriation bills that the 
President can accept. If the Republicans are serious about keeping 
Social Security functioning, they ought to pass a Labor-Health 
appropriations measure that the President can sign.
  Today is December 12 and the leadership has not even brought a bill 
to the floor in the Senate on this issue. Some 50,000 employees, they 
are not national parks, but they are people who need programs to make 
sure that they have housing, make sure that they can eat, make sure 
their kids can get Head Start programs and other things that may not be 
as important as seeing the 7th Wonder of the World, but they are 
important to some.

                              {time}  1645

  I urge the House to reject this measure and keep the pressure on the 
Republican leadership to take their responsibilities seriously. Do not 
shut down Government.
  Bob Dole said we ought not to do it, and he is right. And it will 
take 5 seconds. A unanimous consent to do a continuing resolution to 
continue the in-existence continuing resolution offered by the 
Republican leadership just days ago and say that it will go until 
January 26 or 30. Five seconds and this problem would be eliminated.
  Why does it exist? Political posturing.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, before I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, to say that we 
have just heard one of the most partisan presentations for a subject 
the gentleman knows nothing about.
  It is very, very disturbing to me that before this, this was a debate 
about refuges and parks and the ability to keep them open to the 
taxpayer. And it disturbs me, as I have said before, that I have been 
here long enough to remember before we had these television cameras. If 
Members want to play the television, that is fine, but we are trying to 
solve a problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Shadegg].
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to briefly respond to the 
remarks we have just heard. The notion that is posited here that this 
is a one-sided problem, that, indeed, only one party can be blamed for 
the budgetary impasse that we have before the Nation right now, nothing 
could be further from the truth.
  The simple truth lies in the words which were used. Pass a bill the 
President can accept. It is a simple proposition. No measure passes 
this Congress without the votes to pass it, but it does not become law 
until the President also signs. The budget impasse we face today is of 
equal burden and falls upon both parties.
  I have a discussion with my staffers when I hire them. There are two 
kinds of people in the world, those who look for ways to solve problems 
and those who look for excuses why they cannot be solved. What we have 
heard today is that there is an acknowledged problem. We have a budget 
impasse. The other side of the aisle says here are excuses why we 
cannot solve the problem. Our side says we can find a solution. This 
bill is the solution.
  I simply want to add a dimension of the problem. This is a letter 
written by Susan Morley of Flagstaff, Arizona. It details how her 
husband died in 1992 of cancer at the age of 41. He asked his ashes to 
distributed at Ribbon Falls in the Grand Canyon, and then there was 
scheduled this year a family reunion of their entire family from across 
the Nation to visit Ribbon Falls in his memory. They were denied the 
right to do that, and she details in here her 13-year-old crying 
because she could not 

[[Page H14287]]
go to Ribbon Falls to celebrate her father's passing and his memory 
because of the Federal Government shutdown.
  There is a way to solve this problem and not to look for excuses. It 
is in this bill. I urge its passage.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My purpose was not to be partisan in presentation, as is alleged by 
the chairman, my good friend, the chairman of the committee. My purpose 
was to say that there is a very simple way to get out of this perceived 
problem, and that is to say, yes, we have differences, they are 
substantive differences, and we are debating them, and we will go on 
debating them for probably weeks to come because there is substantial 
disagreement within your party and between the President and the 
Congress. The simple way to do it is to say we do not intend to shut 
down the parks or other aspects of Government. The fact of the matter 
is, we are going to operate Government while we debate these issues.
  I would say to the gentleman that that was my point. I think it is a 
valid point on this bill and others like it that seek to accept certain 
portions as opposed to making sure that the Government continues to 
operate.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, this is not the solution, this is a coverup 
in terms of what the real solution is. The real solution is passing the 
Interior appropriations bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, how much time do the parties have 
left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] has 2\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have reserved the right to close, 
I believe, but I yield myself such time as I may consume to suggest if 
the gentleman had reached his point and not added all the little 
adjectives to it, I would have been much happier.
  I will not disagree with some of the things he says, but I would 
suggest when he brings in the other appropriations bills, brings my 
leadership into question, when this is a two-party street, why did the 
gentleman not mention the President? That is all I suggested.
  It means a great deal to me that we solve this problem of refuges and 
parks. And I hope on that side of the aisle, I hope Members understand 
if they vote against this bill what they are doing. It is not my fault, 
it may not be my colleagues' fault, but we are allowing the Secretary 
for the first time in history to deprive our taxpayers of the 
utilization of our refuges and parks, and tell me that is not 
political.
  When Secretary Babbitt will run down and campaign in every district 
that has a Republican, and he has done that, and I have that 
documented, that is politics. I am tired of politics on this floor. I 
want to keep the parks open and the refuges open, because that is the 
taxpayer's right.
  If my colleagues want to play politics, we will play politics. But 
let us leave this part of it out. This is for the parks and the 
refuges.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Grand Canyon was not closed because of the failure 
of the budgetary process. the Grand Canyon was closed because the 
Republican party, which numbers 234 in this House, has not passed an 
appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior. And the fact of 
the matter is, that bill was to be passed on October 1 and it is 
December 12 and it still has not passed. They brought it to the House 
twice and it was rejected on a bipartisan basis, overwhelmingly 
rejected because of its extreme nature.
  The Republicans are looking for someone to point a finger at and 
someone to blame. They ought to take some personal responsibility. They 
have failed to pass the appropriations bill. If the appropriations bill 
was passed, then the Grand Canyon would be treated by those other 
agencies of the Federal Government whose bills were passed and they 
were not affected by the shutdown. But the Republicans have failed and 
now they want to blame somebody. They are not going to get away with 
it.
  Pass the appropriations bill and pass a bill that, yes, is acceptable 
to the President of the United States and to the people of this 
country. That is not what the Republicans have been serving up on the 
floor of this House, and that is why they have been repudiated twice. 
Because the people of this country are not going to sacrifice these 
resources so that the Republicans can open them up some emergency 
basis.
  Mr. Speaker, I know it is a cliche, but we often talk about the 
defendant that killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy 
of the court because he was an orphan. The Republicans here have failed 
to deliver a bill in a timely fashion. The fact is they have failed, I 
believe, to deliver every appropriations bill in a timely fashion for, 
I believe, the first time in modern history in this Congress. And the 
fact of the matter is that is why the Government was shut down. That is 
separate from the budgetary process.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, we did not have a continuing 
resolution because the Republican leader, the Speaker of the House, 
threw a tantrum, and that tantrum resulted in tens of thousands of 
Federal employees being thrown out of work, and millions of Americans 
being disappointed, whether they were trying to bury their family in 
veterans cemeteries or at Ribbon Falls. But that happened for a single 
reason; because the Republican majority in this House failed to meet 
the mandates of the laws. It is just that simple. It is just that 
simple.

  If the budget talks collapse tomorrow or the next day or next year, 
if the Republicans pass the appropriations bill, then those people will 
not be disappointed and those people will not be punished who are 
employees and those who wish to take advantage of the services of the 
Federal Government. So they have cooked up this bill. They have cooked 
up this bill to cover this trail. This is dragging the tree limbs 
behind the horse so maybe the people who are following this will not 
know where they are going. They know exactly where they are going.
  The Republicans are planning to shut down the Government again. They 
are anticipating it, which suggests maybe the good faith bargaining 
everybody talks about is not taking place, and at the same time they 
are trying to cover up for the mistakes they made in the past. They 
were so excited to shut down the Federal Government, they did it 
prematurely. They did it before there was any controversy. But they 
went ahead and shut it down, and the American people said what the hell 
are they doing. This does not make sense. We have not even arrived at 
the point where we have a serious controversy.
  So now they are coming back from that position that they found was so 
unpopular with the American public, and now they are trying to pretend 
they are doing something to deal with it. The Republicans can deal with 
this. Pass the Interior appropriations bill. But if the Republicans are 
going to load it up, as they have in the past, with a lot of provisions 
to destroy the forest and destroy the wild lands of this country, it 
will not be acceptable, and the President is not going to sign it, and 
they will, again, have enabled people to shut down the Government of 
this country because of their own failures to meet their deadlines and 
to meet the guidelines and the laws of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the only reason we are here today with H.R. 2677 is that 
the Republican majority failed to do its job and pass an acceptable 
appropriations bill to fund our national parks and wildlife refuges.
  The majority has twice failed to generate sufficient votes to pass 
its own Interior bill. And now, to cover the tracks of that failure, 
they have cooked up this specious and absurd piece of legislation. Let 
us be clear: This bill is nothing but camouflage to conceal the 
Republican leadership's failure to do its job.
  H.R. 2766 has been titled the ``National Park and Wildlife Refuge 
Systems Freedom Act of 1995''. This bill does not free our national 
parks or refuges from anything. Instead, it raises more concerns than 
it answers, and it places our parks, and our citizens, at great risk.
  Which parks or refuges would be opened in the event of a Government 
shut-down?

[[Page H14288]]

  What services would be provided?
  Who would be liable to accidents to visitors or damage to resources? 
Governor Symington of Arizona tells us he thinks Federal taxpayers 
should indemnify States for damages and injuries caused when States 
operate Federal facilities. An interesting feature of the new 
federalism!
  If you are serious seeking the answers to these and other questions 
about this hastily developed bill, do not look to the Committee on 
Resources. We have held one, perfunctory hearing, on a day when the 
House was not even in session; multiple questions about the bill went 
unanswered. We held no subcommittee mark up; no full committee mark up; 
there is no report on this bill.
  And today, the House is being given no opportunity to amend this bill 
to address the many concerns and criticisms that have been raised about 
it.
  H.R. 2677 is really a pretty poor solution to the Republican failure 
to provide an appropriations bill to fund our national parks and 
wildlife refuges. If you were really serious about this problem, we 
would be better off passing a law declaring all national park and 
wildlife refuge employees as emergency employees for the duration of a 
shutdown. Instead, you are going to have States determine what parks 
and refuges are open in a shutdown and what services will be provided. 
I note Governor Symington's offer to assist with Grand Canyon National 
Park, but what about Saguaro National Park, Petrified Forest National 
Park, or any of the 17 other national park units in Arizona? The 
Governor did not answer that one.
  Let me tell you what this bill is really about.
  It is not about keeping the parks open, because it is so poorly 
drafted and ill-conceived that no one seriously believes it is going to 
become law. It is polemics, not policy.
  No, what this bill is about is the Republican leadership, who 
demanded that it be prematurely brought to the floor this week, wanting 
to immunize itself against charges that it shut down the national parks 
again because Republicans cannot figure out how to pass an Interior 
appropriations bill. And this bill is a little insurance policy, so 
they can go home and tell their disappointed constituents: ``Oh, I 
didn't vote to close the parks. Those nasty Democrats did because they 
refused to pass H.R. 2677.''
  But the Republicans know, and the American people know, this bill 
could not become law in time for the possible shut-down this week, and 
so there is really no rush. It should be given much fuller 
consideration.
  And last, let me mention that many of those who are promoting this 
bill are also advocates for turning over Federal lands, including 
protected national parks, to the States so that miners, loggers, and 
others can exploit them free from the management policies developed on 
behalf of all Americans by past Congresses.
  H.R. 2677 has been conceived as a first step towards the dismantling 
of our parks, refuges, wilderness areas and other Federal lands. And 
that is exactly how passage of H.R. 2677 will be interpreted by its 
supporters.
  Do not let the Republicans play dangerous political games with our 
national parks! Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2677.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to say that the gentleman that just spoke voted twice to 
recommit the bill. We brought a bill to the floor, an appropriations 
bill that could pass, to send to the President, and then if he vetoed 
it, we would know really where the differences lie. But the gentleman 
was in the minority. He was in the minority. And this House has not 
done its job because the minority says they know what is best for the 
majority.
  The minority will have an opportunity this week to vote on the same 
bill. Hopefully, it will pass and it will go to the President and he 
will probably veto it. Then that is in his ballpark. But the big thing 
right now is, again, I want to stress that for the first time in 
history this Secretary, the arrogance of this individual, has taken 
away the rights of the American people.
  All this bill does is say if a State wishes to do so, in the case of 
a conflict between the Congress and the President of the United States, 
they, in fact, can offer their services to keep these areas open for 
the general public.
  Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, and correct the gentleman from 
California, that in 1987 the majority on that side passed, for a full 
year, 13 continuing resolutions for all 12 months for all 13 agencies. 
Do not tell me about the law. In fact, in 1974, when Mr. Carter was 
running around here, 1975 and 1976, in that period of time, 1978, I 
cannot remember all the years he has been there, each time they, in 
fact, passed continuing resolutions. They never met the time frame.
  I have heard this argument again and again about the Republican party 
not doing this. The Democrats have failed miserably, and in the 
meantime put us $6 trillion in debt.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
bill before us. This bill would temporarily place the management of 
national parks and wildlife refuges under State control, and it raise 
several concerns. First, as author of the underlying legislation for 
the National Wildlife Refuge System, I have long opposed any giveaways 
in Federal authority to the States.
  These lands belong to the people of the United States--not any one 
State, and they must be managed according to the purposes established 
through Federal legislation.
  Second, as a long-time hunter, I, too, wish to see the refuges remain 
open. There is a simple way to achieve this, and one which the majority 
has twice failed to do by bringing an appropriations bill to this floor 
which is so extreme that it cannot pass. The Interior appropriations 
bill is over 2 months late.
  Third, there are unresolved questions about the liability and other 
matters when the Federal Government hands over the keys of these 
treasures to the States.
  The majority is right! It is irresponsible to close down our national 
parks and the refuge system. It is a shame that we are facing a second 
Government shutdown later this week because the majority is unable to 
pass a reasonable funding bill for parks and refuges.
  Now I must say that I have the most respect for the chairman of the 
Resources Committee, with whom I have worked diligently to assemble a 
bill which will make improvements in our Refuge System. H.R. 2677 is 
bad legislation which goes against those things which Chairman Young 
and I are trying to achieve with legislative reforms to improve our 
refuges, and does so to try to carve out exemptions for hunters.
  As a hunter, I want refuges open. As a legislator, I want good 
legislation for our refuge system. H.R. 2677 might be good politics, 
but it is terrible policy. I urge defeat of this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Alaska 
[Mr. Young] that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 
2677, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.