[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 140 (Wednesday, October 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12157-S12158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE OMNIBUS PARKS BILL

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we ought to come together on this omnibus 
parks bill that is so important to 41 States. It seems to me that when 
the House sent us over a bill which passed virtually unanimously--I 
think it had four or five or six opposing votes--that was a statement 
that the controversial projects were dropped from the parks bill.
  If Republicans and Democrats in the House could come together on a 
parks bill, my goodness, why cannot we bring it up here and get it 
done? The majority leader says he wants to get it done. I have no 
reason at all to doubt that. But I must say, Mr. President, that I 
understand the rules of the Senate. I know it is in his hands to bring 
this bill before the U.S. Senate. He has chosen not to do that. If he 
had brought this bill up like he did the FAA bill, we could have filed 
a cloture motion. Mr. President, I daresay we would have had 70, 80, 
maybe 90 votes in favor of bringing debate to a close and passing that 
parks bill.
  How do I know this? Well, for one, I have spoken to most of my 
colleagues individually. I know that every single Democratic Senator is 
in favor of this bill, and I know that the vast majority of Republican 
Senators are in favor of this bill.

  Forty-one States. Alabama has two important parks projects in the 
bill, a historic trail designation and funding for a historic black 
college. Alaska has 10 projects included in this bill. Arizona has 
four. Arkansas has two. California has 17. Colorado has nine. Florida 
has one. Georgia has two, Hawaii has one. Idaho has five. Illinois has 
two. Kansas has two, including the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, 
which is so important to the Senators from Kansas. Louisiana; Maryland; 
Massachusetts has four. Michigan has one; Mississippi two; Missouri 
one; Montana two; New Hampshire two; New Jersey two, and one of those 
is Sterling Forest, which is so important to make that land purchase.
  New Mexico has five. I have spoken to both Senators from New Mexico, 
one a Democrat, one a Republican. They are most anxious to get this 
parks bill passed. New York has two projects. Ohio has one. Oklahoma 
has one. Oregon has eight. Pennsylvania has two; one each in Rhode 
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas; four in Utah, including the 
Snowbasin exchange, the Sand Hollow exchange, the Zion Park exchange, 
and a ski fees proposal. Virginia three; Washington State has three. 
West Virginia has one. Wisconsin has one. Wyoming has three.
  Then there are several others, including Martin Luther King Memorial; 
American battlefield protection, which is so key; Japanese-American 
Patriot Memorial, and some very important national park agreements.
  Mr. President, no one could ever stand up here and say that this bill 
is perfect. I daresay no bill is perfect. It may only be perfect to the 
bill's author. But in this case, so many people worked on this bill. In 
many cases it took 2 years to get some of these provisions together.
  Why am I so concerned? We have the Presidio in San Francisco, a 
former military base with an extraordinary history. We want to set up a 
nonprofit public trust corporation to ensure that this magnificent 
sight becomes a jewel in the National Park System. We know we can do it 
with this trust. If we do not have this trust, we are going to have to 
do everything we can to have vision to make this work. But we know, 
just as the Pennsylvania Avenue rehabilitation took a trust, that a 
trust would be able to really do this job for the Presidio.
  We have other things in here for California that I worked on, bills 
that I wrote for Manzanar which would preserve the very dark history of 
the days where our Japanese-American friends were placed into camps, 
internment camps during World War II. We want to preserve the history 
because we learn from history.
  This bill is strongly supported by everyone in the House and in the 
Senate. We have a very important provision in here for the Cleveland 
National Forest. So we have many things in our State.
  But I truly am not here simply because of what is in this bill for 
California, although clearly it is very important to our State. This 
bill is an excellent bill. It came over from the House with tremendous 
bipartisan support. There is no reason why we should not be voting on 
this bill.
  The majority leader knows the rules, knows if he had brought it up, 
we could have filed cloture, we could have had the vote, and we would 
have had the bill.
  He has chosen instead to say, I want to do this by unanimous consent. 
Well, that runs a bit of a risk, Mr. President, because just one 
Senator, in even an anonymous fashion, could object to this entire 
package. I just, frankly, do not think that is fair. Too much work has 
gone in, too much sweat, too many tears, too many expectations, too 
much work to allow, it seems to me, one Senator to stop this bill.
  Now, I am hopeful that we can get every single Republican to support 
this bill. As I say, as far as I know, the vast majority do. I just 
want to say to those who would consider objecting to this bill because 
something they wanted did not get in it, the beauty of the legislative 
process is that you live to fight another day.
  Now, this year I have been most fortunate in being able to accomplish 
a lot of my agenda. I am most appreciative of everyone, both in my 
State and on the committees here, who helped me do that on both sides 
of the aisle. I am most fortunate. It has been very productive for me. 
If this goes down, this will be a harsh loss to me, but I can truly say 
we will fight again. Why should 41 States be deprived of this bill? We 
have the votes here to do it. We should have seen the bill brought up. 
We should have had our vote. This bill should be on the way to the 
President.
  Now, it can still happen by unanimous consent, but if one Senator 
takes a position that he or she is going to say, ``I didn't get 
everything I wanted; I only got a few things for my State; I didn't get 
everything, therefore I am going to object,'' if one Senator does that, 
that is a harsh thing to do. I want to keep reminding the Senate about 
this. I know I will sound like a broken record, but that is a harsh 
thing to do.
  For many years I have been working on an ocean sanctuary bill--
started 14 years ago--to not allow the Federal waters off the coast of 
California to have additional oil drilling off that coast because of 
its dangers. I have a tremendous amount of support. Yet,

[[Page S12158]]

there are some who believe that the oil industry should have their 
rights to do this, no matter what the consequence, and have blocked me 
from doing it. Now, I could stamp my foot and say I will object to 
every single bill that comes through here unless I get my way.
  Another area on the environment I am working on is to make sure 
children are protected so that when health and safety laws are written, 
we take into account the vulnerability of our children, of our pregnant 
women, of our fragile senior citizens.
  Now, I could hold up every bill that comes up and say, I didn't get 
my way and I'm not going to let anything go through here by unanimous 
consent because I think children should be protected. Let me tell you, 
I will fight for the children, I will fight for their safety, and I 
will fight every day that I live, but I also understand in the U.S. 
Senate where people come with different viewpoints there is a time when 
you come together on a bill that may not have every single thing you 
want.
  Mr. President, this is the moment, this is the time. We could have a 
unanimous consent request made right now to pass the bill that was 
passed in the House, no changes. We are going to live for another day. 
Yes, a few of us will not be here next year, but as Senator Bradley has 
said, a lot of us will be, and there will be new people and a new parks 
bill and there will be a new day. But this parks bill that has all of 
these important items in it, not the least of which is the Sterling 
Forest in New Jersey and so many other important parks, it is 
incredible to me that we cannot resolve this.
  One of the things I have been trying to do along with some of my 
colleagues--the Senators from New Jersey have been helpful, the 
majority leader, the Democratic leader, the White House--we have been 
trying to see if there is some way, without adding anything to this 
bill--because it is very tenuous and it was sent over in a certain form 
and we should pass it--some way to take care of some noncontroversial 
issues that do not involve our forests and do not involve our wetlands 
and do not involve the kinds of things we must keep out of this bill. 
We are working on that.

  We are working to give respect to every Senator so that every Senator 
knows there is another day and this administration has respect for 
those Senators who may not agree with everything in this bill. That is 
what we are trying to do, to show good faith and a recognition that not 
every Senator is happy.
  Mr. President, since the majority leader has decided not to call this 
bill up and he has tied our hands and we cannot file a cloture motion 
and we cannot vote on this, and we are losing time--if he insists on 
that particular procedure, which is his call to make, no one else could 
make the call for him, since the majority leader has set his course and 
has said, ``I want a parks bill, but I am not bringing the bill up, but 
we will do this by unanimous consent,'' if that is the case, then let 
us come together in the spirit of the closing days of this Congress, in 
the spirit of the extraordinary Senators who are leaving this U.S. 
Senate who have fought hard, very hard, for items in this bill, whether 
it is Senator Bradley, Senator Kassebaum, just to name a couple, let us 
come together and without a problem pass this bill and not come to the 
floor saying, ``Well, we want to add more things to this bill.''
  Yes, we are ending this Congress, but we are coming back in January. 
We can do many of the things, especially if there is good will and we 
are not taking up very controversial matters that have been, yes, 
purposely kept out of this package. We cannot put them back in this 
package. It is not going to fly. Not everybody got what they want in 
this package. Not everybody will be thrilled with this package.
  As I stand here in the waning hours of this Congress, we have an 
opportunity to leave here with a parks bill that has not included 
controversial provisions in it, that will not include controversial 
provisions in it, but reaches out into this country, into rural areas, 
urban areas, into the most beautiful parts of this country, into those 
parts of this country where the beautiful parts are diminishing, and we 
must reserve them. We can leave this Congress and feel so good that we 
reached across party lines and passed this bill. If they can do it in 
the House with a few dissenting votes, we should be able to do it in 
this U.S. Senate.
  I intend to keep the Senate apprised of this issue as often as I have 
updates.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________