(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-398
MUSCLE SHOALS NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY ACT OF 2001
April 11, 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. 2628]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 2628) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
a study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing the
Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area in Alabama, 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. 2628 is to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility
of establishing the Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area in
Alabama, and for other purposes.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The City of Muscle Shoals and the surrounding area of
Northwest Alabama has played an integral part in shaping many
aspects of Alabama and Southern culture. It has been the site
of numerous work projects, historical and cultural education,
and artistic expression. It is the birthplace of the Tennessee
Valley Authority--the first piece of New Deal legislation--and
home to a number of historic trails, including the Natchez
Trail at the Tennessee River, the Andrew Jackson Road, and the
Trail of Tears. It also includes Henry Ford's utopian 75Mile
City, which inspired Frank Lloyd Wright's Broadacre City. The
area has also spawned regional expressions in music, home
crafts, and domestic architecture.
H.R. 2628 would help determine if the proposed Muscle
Shoals National Heritage Area would tie these assets together
to protect natural and cultural resources of national
significance, create a high-quality visitor experience,
establish a coherent regional identity, and create an
opportunity for region-wide interpretation of its diverse
populations and cultural history.
H.R. 2628 was introduced on July 25, 2001, by Congressman
Robert ``Bud'' Cramer (D-AL). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands.
On February 7, 2002, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
bill. On March 7, 2002, the Subcommittee met to mark up the
bill. No amendments were offered and the bill was ordered
favorably reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On
March 20, 2002, the Full Resources Committee met to consider
the bill. No amendments were offered and the bill was ordered
favorably reported by unanimous consent to the House of
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
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
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 22, 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. 2628, the Muscle
Shoals National Heritage Area Study Act of 2001.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact for this
estimate is Deborah Reis.
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
H.R. 2628--Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area Study Act of 2001
H.R. 2628 would require the National Park Service (NPS) to
study an area of northern Alabama to determine the suitability
and feasibility of establishing it as a National Heritage Area.
The legislation would require the agency to report to the
Congress on its findings within three years of receiving
funding for the study.
Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates
that completing the required study and report would cost the
federal government $250,000 over the next three to four years,
assuming the availability of appropriated funds. H.R. 2628
would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-
as-you-go procedures would not apply. The bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
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
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing