PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-430
======================================================================
WACO MAMMOTH NATIONAL MONUMENT ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2011
_______
April 16, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1545]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1545) to establish the Waco Mammoth National
Monument in the State of Texas, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Waco Mammoth National Monument
Establishment Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Waco Mammoth Site area is located near the confluence
of the Brazos River and the Bosque River in central Texas, near
the city of Waco;
(2) after the discovery of bones emerging from eroding creek
banks leading to the uncovering of portions of 5 mammoths,
Baylor University began investigating the site in 1978;
(3) several additional mammoth remains have been uncovered
making the site the largest known concentration of mammoths
dying from the same event;
(4) the mammoth discoveries have received international
attention; and
(5) Baylor University and the city of Waco, Texas, have been
working together--
(A) to protect the site; and
(B) to develop further research and educational
opportunities at the site.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Waco, Texas.
(2) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means the
management plan for the Monument prepared under section
5(c)(1).
(3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Proposed
Boundary Waco-Mammoth National Monument'', numbered T21/80,000,
and dated April 2009.
(4) Monument.--The term ``Monument'' means the Waco Mammoth
National Monument established by section 4(a).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Texas.
(7) University.--The term ``University'' means Baylor
University in the State.
SEC. 4. WACO MAMMOTH NATIONAL MONUMENT, TEXAS.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the State, as a unit of
the National Park System, the Waco Mammoth National Monument, as
generally depicted on the map.
(b) Availability of Map.--The map shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park
Service.
SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF MONUMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the Monument in
accordance with--
(1) this Act; and
(2) any cooperative agreements entered into under subsection
(b)(1).
(b) Authorities of Secretary.--
(1) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative management agreements with the University and the
City, in accordance with section 3(l) of Public Law 91-383 (16
U.S.C. 1a-2(l)).
(2) Acquisition of land.--The Secretary may acquire by
donation only from the City any land or interest in land owned
by the City within the proposed boundary of the Monument.
(c) General Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the
University and the City, shall complete a general management
plan for the Monument.
(2) Inclusions.--The management plan shall include, at a
minimum--
(A) measures for the preservation of the resources of
the Monument;
(B) requirements for the type and extent of
development and use of the Monument;
(C) identification of the capacity of the Monument
for accommodating visitors; and
(D) opportunities for involvement by the University,
City, State, and other local and national entities in--
(i) developing educational programs for the
Monument; and
(ii) developing and supporting the Monument.
(d) Prohibition of Use of Federal Funds.--No Federal funds may be
used to pay the costs of--
(1) carrying out a cooperative agreement under subsection
(b)(1);
(2) acquiring land for inclusion in the Monument under
subsection (b)(2);
(3) developing a visitor center for the Monument;
(4) operating or maintaining the Monument;
(5) constructing exhibits for the Monument; or
(6) developing the general management plan under subsection
(c).
(e) Use of Non-Federal Funds.--Non-Federal funds may be used to pay
any costs that may be incurred by the Secretary or the National Park
Service in carrying out this section.
(f) Effect on Eligibility for Financial Assistance.--Nothing in this
Act affects the eligibility of the Monument for Federal grants or other
forms of financial assistance that the Monument would have been
eligible to apply for had National Park System status not been
conferred to the Monument under this Act.
(g) Termination of National Park System Status.--
(1) In general.--Designation of the Monument as a unit of the
National Park System shall terminate if the Secretary
determines that Federal funds are required to operate and
maintain the Monument.
(2) Reversion.--If the designation of the Monument as a unit
of the National Park System is terminated under paragraph (1),
any land acquired by the Secretary from the City under
subsection (b)(2) shall revert to the City.
(h) Private Property Protection.--No private property may be made
part of the Monument without the written consent of the owner of that
private property.
SEC. 6. NO BUFFER ZONES.
Nothing in this Act, the establishment of national monument, or the
management plan shall be construed create buffer zones outside of the
national monument. That an activity or use can be seen or heard from
within the Monument shall not preclude the conduct of that activity or
use outside the Monument.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 1545, as ordered reported, is to
establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument in the State of
Texas.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Currently the City of Waco, Texas, and Baylor University
jointly own a 109-acre site that contains the largest known
concentration of mammoths dying from the same event. The
mammoth remains were first discovered in 1978 and since then,
Baylor University has been the lead investigator of the
remains. The 109 acres were acquired over the past two decades
from private donations and from buying parcels of land as they
became available. The site is located near the center of Waco
and is surrounded by agricultural lands, housing developments,
the Brazos and the Bosque Rivers, and some additional lands
owned by the University and the City of Waco.
This legislation would designate the 109-acre site a
national monument and would direct the National Park Service
(NPS) to administer the site, and to enter into cooperative
agreements. However, the 109 acres would not immediately
transfer to NPS, but it may later acquire them by donation.
The legislation is unique because it establishes a new unit
of the Park System, but prohibits the use of federal funds and
requires a management plan to be developed with Baylor
University and the City of Waco. The Waco community has
demonstrated an ability to manage the site, but anticipates
that the partnership with NPS will contribute to the
preservation and exposure of the resource.
During markup of the bill, the Natural Resources Committee
adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Bill Flores (R-TX)
to protect private property rights. The amendment clarifies
that NPS can only acquire property through donation, and that
no property can be included in the boundary of the monument
without written consent of the owner. Finally, the amendment
adds language to prevent the creation of buffer zones around
the monument, thus protecting uses outside the boundaries from
being impeded by NPS interference.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 1545 was introduced on April 14, 2011, by Congressman
Bill Flores (R-TX). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. On June 14, 2011,
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On November 17,
2011, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill.
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Bill Flores
offered amendment designated .991 to the bill; the amendment
was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
offered amendment designated .040 to the bill; the amendment
was not adopted by a bipartisan roll call vote of 15 to 28, as
follows:
The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported
to the House of Representatives by voice vote.
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 Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) 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)(2)(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. 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:
H.R. 1545--Waco Mammoth National Monument Establishment Act of 2011
H.R. 1545 would establish the Waco Mammoth National
Monument in Texas. The legislation would prohibit the use of
federal funds to implement the bill, and the site's designation
as a unit of the National Park System would terminate if the
Secretary of the Interior determines that federal funds are
required to operate and maintain the monument. The legislation
would authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to acquire land
for the monument by donation. H.R. 1545 also would require the
NPS to prepare a management plan for the monument within three
years of enactment of the legislation. Enacting H.R. 1545 could
affect direct spending if funds for the monument's operation
are donated and spent by the NPS; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net impact
in direct spending would be insignificant. Enacting the bill
would not affect revenues.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that about 5 acres of land
owned by the city of Waco would be donated to the NPS within
the next three years; the remainder of the approximately 110-
acre site would remain in nonfederal ownership. We further
assume that other costs to develop visitor facilities within
the monument--an estimated $8 million--would be borne by the
city or other nonfederal entities.
Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates
that implementing H.R. 1545 would cost $1 million over the next
three years and about $400,000 a year thereafter. The $1
million would be used to develop a management plan and to
establish the site as a national monument. Beginning in 2015,
$400,000 would be needed for the federal share of annual
operating costs. The bill's prohibition on the use of federal
funds for operations would require that those costs be financed
through nonfederal sources. If nonfederal funds do not become
available to implement the legislation, ownership of the site
would revert back to the city of Waco, and the site would
terminate as a unit of the National Park System. In any event,
CBO estimates that the legislation would have an insignificant
impact on the federal budget.
H.R. 1545 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 Martin von
Gnechten. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of 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. Enacting H.R. 1545
could affect direct spending if funds for the monument's
operation are donated and spent by the NPS; therefore, pay-as-
you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net
impact in direct spending would be insignificant. Enacting the
bill would not affect revenues.
Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates
that implementing H.R. 1545 would cost $1 million over the next
three years and about $400,000 a year thereafter. The $1
million would be used to develop a management plan and to
establish the site as a national monument. Beginning in 2015,
$400,000 would be needed for the federal share of annual
operating costs. The bill's prohibition on the use of federal
funds for operations would require that those costs be financed
through nonfederal sources. If nonfederal funds do not become
available to implement the legislation, ownership of the site
would revert back to the city of Waco, and the site would
terminate as a unit of the National Park System. In any event,
CBO estimates that the legislation would have an insignificant
impact on the federal budget.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill, as ordered reported, is to establish
the Waco Mammoth National Monument in the State of Texas.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
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.
DISSENTING VIEWS
The 107th Congress authorized a Special Resources Study,
conducted by the National Park Service, to assess various
options for the long-term management of the Waco Mammoth site.
The study was transmitted to Congress in 2008 and found the
site was suitable and feasible as a unit of the National Park
System. The study concluded that a partnership, including the
City of Waco and Baylor University, and led by the National
Park Service, would be the most effective and efficient
management strategy for the site.
Last Congress, legislation (H.R. 1376) implementing the
study recommendations and sponsored by then-Representative Chet
Edwards (D-TX), passed the House under suspension of the rules
by a vote of 308 to 74, with 85 Republicans voting in favor of
the measure.
Rather than building on that progress this Congress, the
Majority has insisted on taking an enormous step backward. H.R.
1545 would still designate the site as a national monument and
unit of the National Park System, but drops specific reference
to the applicability of laws governing units of the National
Park System, requires that any new land for the monument be
donated by the City, rather than purchased or exchanged, and
specifically prohibits the use of any federal funds for
management or operation of the site. Finally, H.R. 1545
requires that, if the Secretary determines federal funds are
required to operate the monument, its designation as a unit of
the National Park System shall terminate and any land acquired
by the Secretary revert to the City.
Given that the legislation designates the site as a unit of
the National Park System, a prohibition on federal funding for
the monument is nonsensical, as is the idea that the monument's
status as a unit of the National Park System could be turned
off or on like a switch. Democrats offered the text of the
legislation approved overwhelmingly by the House during the
previous Congress as a substitute but the amendment was
defeated on a largely party line vote.
The Majority is attempting to appear supportive of a new
national park while working behind the scenes to cripple the
unit. The debilitating changes Republicans have made to this
once-popular bill demonstrate that the Majority is more
committed to defunding the National Park System than expanding
it.
Edward Markey.
Rush Holt.
Madeleine Bordallo.
John Garamendi.
Grace Napolitano.
Niki Tsongas.
Dale E. Kildee.
Gregorio Sablan.
Ben Lujan.
Raul Grijalva.