Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

114th Congress    }                                     {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                     {      114-688


                         FORT ONTARIO STUDY ACT


 July 14, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4202]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 4202) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
to conduct a special resource study of Fort Ontario in the 
State of New York, 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. 4202 is to authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to conduct a special resource study of Fort 
Ontario in the State of New York.


    H.R. 4202 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
initiate a special resource study of Fort Ontario, a military 
installation in Oswego, New York. In the study, the Secretary 
of the Interior will evaluate the site's national significance, 
determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Fort 
Ontario as a unit of the National Park System, and consider 
other alternatives for preservation, protection, and 
interpretation of the lands by Federal, State, or local 
governmental entities, or private and nonprofit organizations.
    Fort Ontario was originally built by the British in 1755 to 
protect the area around the east end of Lake Ontario. Located 
at the mouth of the Oswego River in Oswego, New York, Fort 
Ontario directly overlooks the shores of Lake Ontario. In 1756, 
the French Army destroyed the fort, also known as the ``Fort of 
the Six Nations.'' In 1759, the British built a much stronger 
and larger fort on the same site.
    During the American Revolution, the British abandoned Fort 
Ontario, and in 1778 American troops destroyed the fort. 
Despite the surrender at Yorktown in 1781, the British 
reoccupied Oswego in 1782 and rebuilt Fort Ontario for the 
third time. The British held it until 1796 before finally 
turning it over to the United States.
    During the War of 1812, British forces captured and 
destroyed the fort. After a period of abandonment, new 
construction started in part due to tensions with Great Britain 
as well as to check smuggling activities between Canada and the 
United States. Construction of a fourth Fort Ontario commenced 
in 1839, amidst tensions arising from Canada's Patriot War. 
Later, amid fears of British intervention in the Civil War, the 
United States upgraded defenses of the fort in 1860.
    Fort Ontario later served as a training post from 1903 to 
1905, a hospital camp during World War I, and a training 
installation for military police and anti-aircraft units in 
World War II. Additionally, from August 1944 to February 1946, 
Fort Ontario operated as the nation's only emergency refugee 
shelter during World War II and housed approximately 982 
refugees, predominantly of Jewish descent.
    After nearly two hundred years of active military use, the 
United States Army abandoned the fort in 1946 and transferred 
it to the State of New York. In 1953, Fort Ontario opened as a 
New York state historic site. The fort was added to the 
National Register of Historic Places in 1970 and remains open 
to the public today.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 4202 was introduced on December 9, 2015, by 
Congressman John Katko (R-NY). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands. On May 24, 2016, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On June 14, 2016, the 
Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The 
Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments 
were offered and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the 
House of Representatives by unanimous consent on June 15, 2016.


    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.


    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:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 30, 2016.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4202, the Fort 
Ontario Study Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Marin 
                                                        Keith Hall.

H.R. 4202--Fort Ontario Study Act

    H.R. 4202 would require the National Park Service (NPS) to 
conduct a special resource study of Fort Ontario, a state 
historic site in Oswego, New York. (Fort Ontario was used 
during the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and 
the War of 1812.) The study would determine whether the site 
meets NPS criteria for inclusion in the National Park System. 
Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates that 
implementing the legislation would cost about $250,000; such 
spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated 
    Enacting H.R. 4202 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 4202 would not increase net direct 
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 
10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    H.R. 4202 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Marin Burnett. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, 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 spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditure. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO), implementing H.R. 4202 would cost about 
$250,000, subject to appropriation. CBO estimates that the bill 
``would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits 
in any of the four consecutive 10 year periods beginning in 
    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 is to authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct a special resource study of Fort Ontario in 
the State of New York.

                           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.

                       COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

    Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that 
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any 
specific rule-making proceedings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.


    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    This bill makes no changes to existing law.