[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17680-17681]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3632) to revise the boundaries of the Golden Gate National 
Recreation Area, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3632

       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 ``Golden Gate National 
     Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO THE GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION 
                   AREA.

       Section 2(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish the 
     Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the State of 
     California, and for other purposes'' (16 U.S.C. 460bb-1(a)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     recreation area shall also include the lands generally 
     depicted on the map entitled `Additions to Golden Gate 
     National Recreation Area', numbered NPS-80,076, and dated 
     July 2000/PWR-PLRPC.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-
Barcelo) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3632 expands the boundaries of the Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area to include 12 parcels of additional land. Most 
of the parcels are south of San Francisco near the City of Pacifica, 
California, and total approximately 1,200 acres.
  Mr. Speaker, although the introduced legislation included numerous 
other parcels of land to be included within the boundary expansion, I 
have worked with my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
who introduced this measure and agreed that those private property 
owners who have expressed desire not to be in this legislation are now 
excluded.
  This amended bill reflects this agreement, and we have only included 
those parcels which wish to be included within the expanded recreation 
area of the boundaries.
  Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
for the good work he has done on this, and I urge all of my colleagues 
to support H.R. 3632, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3632 is a bill introduced by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos). As introduced, it would have expanded the 
boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in California by 
adding 20 parcels of land totalling approximately 1,216 acres.
  The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is one of the largest urban 
parks in the world. The lands proposed for addition to the park have 
been reviewed through various National Park Service planning processes 
and have been found to be suitable and desirable additions to the park.

                              {time}  1530

  We, along with the administration and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) have supported H.R. 3632 as introduced.
  However, the Committee on Resources adopted an amendment to insert a 
new boundary map that deletes from the original proposal any parcel 
where the landowner has not affirmatively agreed to be in the park 
boundary. We believe this change weakens the legislation. The change 
made by the committee will preclude the National Park Service from 
acquiring the deleted parcels, all of which have been found suitable 
and desirable additions to the park, from their owners if they wish to 
sell in future. Such a change will necessitate coming back and getting 
legislative authority in each instance where an affected landowner 
wishes to sell to the National Park Service. However, we also recognize 
the lands that would still be added to the park by the amended bill are 
extremely important addition, and, thus, while we would prefer passage 
of the bill as introduced, we support H.R. 3632, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am here briefly to rise and to thank my 
friend, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young); the ranking member, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller); the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and 
Public Lands subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), who 
have been so enormously helpful and supportive of my legislation; and 
the

[[Page 17681]]

ranking member, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero-Barcelo).
  The legislation I am here to say a few words about is H.R. 3632, 
which expands GGNRA in three counties. It will add immeasurably to the 
value of this most important area, adding approximately 900 acres in 
San Mateo, San Francisco and Marin Counties to the existing GGNRA park 
land.
  It is supported powerfully by local government. A significant portion 
of the lands are donated without any cost to the Federal Government. 
The Department of Interior and the National Park Service strongly 
support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to urge all of my colleagues to vote for this and 
thank them for approving this legislation.
  In the interest of time, I ask that the full text of my statement be 
included in the Record at this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the Resources Committee 
who have been supportive of my legislation, H.R. 3632 the Golden Gate 
National Recreation Boundary Adjustment Act--Resources Committee 
Chairman Mr. Young of Alaska and the Ranking Member of the Resources 
Committee, my fellow Californian, Mr. Miller. I also want to thank the 
Chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee Mr. Hansen of Utah who has 
been particularly cooperative in working with me on this legislation. 
The Ranking Member of the National Parks Subcommittee, Mr. Romero-
Barcelo of Puerto Rico, has also been most supportive.
  I also want to express my thanks to my neighbors and colleagues from 
California who have a particular interest in this legislation and who 
have worked closely with me for the passage of this legislation--
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Congresswoman Lynn 
Woolsey of Marin County. H.R. 3632 includes areas that are in their 
Congressional Districts, and I appreciate working together with them on 
this bill.
  The entire bipartisan Bay Area congressional delegation are 
cosponsors of this legislation, and I thank them all for their support.
  I also want to thank Chris Walker of my staff for his excellent 
efforts on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) was 
established in 1972 to protect important natural and cultural resources 
in the San Francisco Bay area. The park is located in the city of San 
Francisco and in Marin and San Mateo Counties, and it presently 
encompasses 76,000 acres of land and water.
  The legislation we are considering today--H.R. 3632, the Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act--revises the 
authorized boundaries of the GGNRA to include approximately 1,000 acres 
of land in San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of San Francisco. 
The approximately 900 acres of lands in San Mateo County which will be 
added to the park are adjacent to existing GGNRA lands and will connect 
existing park lands to nearby headlands, beaches and trails along the 
Pacific Ocean.
  Inclusion of these lands will improve public access to existing park 
areas, trails and beaches. It also will improve access to the historic 
Portola Expedition Discovery Site, the ``Plymouth Rock of the West,'' 
which is the site from which San Francisco Bay was first seen by 
European explorers in the 18th century. H.R. 3632 also authorizes the 
inclusion of approximately 100 acres of land in Marin County known as 
``Marincrest,'' and approximately 2 acres of land in the City of San 
Francisco.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation has the strong and enthusiastic support 
of local government leaders in the Bay Area. The Pacifica City Council 
and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors have adopted resolutions 
supporting inclusion of these lands to the GGNRA. The Main County Open 
Space District adopted a resolution supporting inclusion of Marincrest 
into the GGNRA. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has also adopted 
a resolution supporting passage of the bill.
  The U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Park Service 
have also expressed their strong support of H.R. 3632. In 1988, a 
congressionally-authorized boundary study by the National Park Service 
identified 15 tracts of land totaling 1,057 acres of lands in San Maeto 
County that would be logical additions to the park. The Park Service 
study concluded that these additional lands would preserve significant 
natural, scenic and recreational resources and would establish a park 
boundary that is more logical, recognizable and easier to manage. The 
Department of the Interior and the National Park Service officially 
expressed support for this legislation in a hearing before the National 
Parks Subcommittee of the Resources Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, one element of this legislation that is particularly 
important is that a substantial portion of the lands to be included in 
the GGNRA will be donated without cost to the Federal Government by the 
local community and private land trusts and conservation groups. Major 
donated parcels in San Mateo County include Cattle Hill (261 acres), 
San Pedro Point (246 acres) and Milagra Ridge (30 acres). In Marin 
County, the Trust for Public Lands has agreed to donate half the value 
of the 96-acre Marincrest property. The two parcels in San Francisco 
will also be donated.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide permanent protection for 
these stunning and critical natural areas. Adding this land to the 
GGNRA will preserve it for future generations and make existing areas 
of the park more accessible for all. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting the adoption of H.R. 3632.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3632 to expand the 
boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I would like to 
thank my colleagues, Chairman Don Young, Subcommittee Chairman Jim 
Hansen, and Ranking Member George Miller, for their support of this 
bill and for ensuring its consideration on the floor today.
  As a cosponsor with Representatives Lantos and Woolsey, I would like 
my colleagues to know that the Golden Gate National Recreation Area is 
a vital part of the community and culture in the Bay Area. Not only is 
it the home of the Presidio, Muir Woods, the Marin Headlands and 
Alcatraz Island, the GGNRA is the largest urban national park in the 
world hosting over 19 million visitors a year, the largest visitation 
of any national park. The park offers visitors a variety of activities 
from hiking, camping, biking to educational and cultural programs.
  H.R. 3632 is modeled after recommendations from a study by the 
National Park Service to evaluate the desirability of adding lands in 
Pacifica to the GGNRA. In addition, H.R. 3632 would expand the Golden 
Gate National Recreation Area to include 1,300 acres adjacent to the 
existing, including three areas in Marin County, one area in San Mateo 
County, and a coastline area in San Francisco. The boundary expansion 
will allow visitors better access to the existing areas of the park and 
will insure more efficient management of the natural resources in the 
park.
  This legislation has gained large support from the local communities 
in the Bay Area, the State of California, the National Park Service and 
has the support of the entire Bay Area Congressional delegation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3632.
  Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3632, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________