[House Report 107-513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-513
======================================================================
JOHN MUIR NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT
_______
June 18, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3942]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 3942) to adjust the boundary of the John Muir National
Historic Site, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 3942 is to adjust the boundary of the
John Muir National Historic Site, and for other purposes.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
On August 31, 1964, the John Muir National Historic Site
(NHS), located in Martinez, California, became a Unit of the
National Park System. The 344 acre NHS preserves the 14 room
mansion and surrounding property where naturalist John Muir
lived from 1890 to his death in 1914.
In 1988, the city of Martinez, California, donated a 3.3
acre parcel of land to the John Muir National Historic Site. In
1991, the General Management Plan (GMP) for the NHS proposed
that the acquired land be developed as a 32-car/2-bus visitor
parking area and a site of the new Park maintenance facility.
In 1994, a boundary survey was conducted by the National Park
Service (NPS) where it was discovered that the donated parcel
did not include all of the land between Franklin Canyon Road
and the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, where the
parking lot was proposed. A small triangle of land (approx. 0.2
acres/9500 sq. ft) was found not to be part of the parcel
donated by the city of Martinez. In fact, the NPS found that no
one was listed with the County tax assessor parcel number, and
thus no taxes had been collected or paid on the 0.2 acres since
the 1960's.
Without issuance of clear title for the 0.2 acre parcel,
development cannot precede on the parking lot expansion and
maintenance facility. H.R. 3942 would simply allow for the
acquisition and clear title of the 0.2 acre parcel of land by
the NPS so that the parking facility may be built.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 3942 was introduced on March 12, 2002, by Congressman
George Miller (D-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands. On May 7, 2002,
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On May 22, 2002,
the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. By
unanimous consent, the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation and Public Lands was discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 3942. No amendments were offered and the
bill was then ordered favorably reported by unanimous consent
to the House of Representatives.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not
apply.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2002.
Hon. James V. Hansen,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3942, the John
Muir National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah
Reis (for federal costs), Marjorie Miller (for the state and
local impact), and Lauren Marks (for the private-sector
impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 3942--John Muir National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act
H.R. 3942 would adjust the boundary of the John Muir
National Historic Site and authorize the National Park Service
(NPS) to acquire the added 0.2-acre parcel of land by purchase,
donation, or exchange. Based on information provided by the
NPS, we expect the agency to condemn the small tract to
establish its current ownership, which is unknown. Depending on
the outcome of the condemnation proceeding, CBO expects that
the NPS would then: (1) annex the property without further cost
to the government (if no owner is located), (2) accept donation
of the tract (if the owner is another government agency), or
(3) purchase the property (if a private owner is located). In
any event, CBO estimates that the cost of acquiring the
property (including legal expenses) would be less than $50,000,
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
H.R. 3942 would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. The bill
may contain an intergovernmental or private-sector mandate as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO
estimates that the costs of any such mandate would not be
significant and would fall well below the thresholds
established in UMRA. The thresholds in 2002 are $58 million and
$115 million per year, respectively, for intergovernmental and
private-sector mandates, adjusted annually for inflation.
Because the owner of the 0.2 acres cannot be found,
condemnation may be the only course of action for the NPS to
gain title. CBO has generally found that when legislation is
expected to result in condemnation of property, it contains a
mandate. However, because in this case the NPS cannot identify
the current owner of the parcel, CBO cannot determine whether
this mandate would fall on a government, on the private sector,
or on both. In any event, based on information provided by the
NPS, CBO estimates that the value of the property is less than
$50,000.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Deborah Reis
(for federal costs), Marjorie Miller (for the state and local
impact), and Lauren Marks (for the private-sector impact). The
estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.