[House Report 104-28]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                             Rept. 104-28
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     Part 2
_______________________________________________________________________


 
         FORT CARSON-PINON CANYON MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL ACT

                                _______


 February, 14, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Spence, from the Committee on National Security, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 256]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
    The Committee on National Security, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 256) to withdraw and reserve certain public 
lands and minerals within the State of Colorado for military 
uses, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that 
the bill do pass.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 256 is to withdraw and reserve certain 
public lands and mineral rights within the state of Colorado 
for military purposes. The bill would withdraw for military 
purposes 3,133.02 acres of public lands and 11,415.16 acres of 
federally owned minerals located within the existing Fort 
Carson Military Reservation; and 2,517.12 acres of surface land 
and 130,139 acres of minerals at the associated Pinon Canyon 
Maneuver Site, both in Colorado.
    The Secretary of the Army would be given management 
responsibility of the lands withdrawn for military purposes. 
The Secretary of the Interior would be given management 
responsibility for all other purposes. Not later than five 
years after enactment, the Secretary of the Army, with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, would develop a 
plan for the management of such lands. To implement the 
management plan a memorandum of understanding would be entered 
into by the Secretaries of the Army and Interior that could be 
amended by agreement of both Secretaries.
    Every five years, the Secretaries would be required to 
determine which lands are suitable, if any, for opening for 
mining, mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral material 
disposal. The Secretary of the Interior would publish a notice 
in the Federal Register listing the lands determined suitable 
and specifying the opening date.
    The bill provides that the United States shall be held 
harmless and not liable for injuries or damages arising out of 
any such mining, mineral activity, or geothermal leasing 
activity conducted on the Fort Carson Reservation or the Pinon 
Canyon Maneuver Site. It further provides for indemnification 
of the United States for any costs, fees, damages, or other 
liabilities incurred as a result of such activities.
    All hunting, fishing, and trapping on the withdrawn and 
reserved lands would be conducted in accordance with state law 
under the provisions of section 2671 of title 10, United States 
Code.
    Consistent with the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 
(Public Law 99-606), the withdrawal would terminate 15 years 
after enactment. Procedures would also be set up for renewal or 
relinquishment of the reserved and withdrawn lands upon 
termination.
    The bill also provides for decontamination of the withdrawn 
land, both during the period of withdrawal and upon 
relinquishment of the lands by the Department of the Army. It 
further establishes procedures to be followed in the event that 
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army 
conclude that it is not practicable or economically feasible 
for any or all of the lands to be decontaminated.
    The bill also would amend Public Law 99-606 to allow the 
Secretary of the military department concerned to utilize sand, 
gravel, or similar mineral or material resources for on-site 
construction needs for lands withdrawn under that Act. The same 
authority is provided by this bill for lands withdrawn herein.
                               Background

    Before 1958, withdrawals of public lands for military 
purposes were accomplished through administrative actions. 
Since enactment of the ``Engle Act'' (Public Law 85-337), a 
peacetime military withdrawal exceeding 5,000 acres of public 
lands can be accomplished only through congressional action.
    The Fort Carson Military Reservation, located in El Paso, 
Pueblo, and Teller Counties, Colorado, has been used by the 
Army since 1942 and was permanently withdrawn prior to 
enactment of the Engle Act. H.R. 256 would withdraw an 
additional 3,133.02 acres of public lands and 11,415.16 acres 
of federally owned mineral rights within this reservation.
    The Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, located in Las Animas 
County, Colorado, is a newer facility established in 1981 
primarily by acquisition of privately-owned land. H.R. 256 
would withdraw 2,517.12 acres of surface land and 130,139 acres 
of federally owned mineral rights.
    The principal use of Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon lands is 
mechanized training at battalion and brigade levels. The Fort 
Carson land would be used primarily for military maneuvering, 
training, and weapons firing; the Pinon Canyon lands would be 
used for maneuvering and training but not weapons firing.
    The Pinon Canyon lands, and all the mineral interests 
covered by the bill, were covered by a temporary withdrawal 
pending legislation. During the 102d Congress and 103d 
Congress, the House passed essentially identical legislation. 
Action was not completed before sine die adjournment in either 
Congress.

                          Legislative History

    H.R. 256 was introduced by Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO) on 
January 4, 1995, and was referred to the Committee on National 
Security and, in addition, to the Committee on Resources. On 
January 18, 1995 the Committee on Resources considered H.R. 
256, and a markup session was held. The bill was ordered to be 
reported by the yeas and nays (42-0).
    On January 31, 1995 the Committee on National Security 
considered H.R. 256 and, by voice vote, unanimously agreed to 
favorably report H.R. 256, without amendment, to the House.
    Legislation essentially identical to H.R. 256 passed the 
House of Representatives in the 102d Congress (H.R. 4404). On 
July 2, 1992 the Military Installations and Facilities 
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee considered 
the bill and adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
by voice vote. The Committee on Armed Services approved H.R. 
4404, as amended, by voice vote on August 4, 1992. The House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 4404 on August 10, 1992. In the 
103d Congress similar legislation was again introduced (H.R. 
194). On May 5, 1993 the Committee on Armed Services approved 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 194 
incorporating the amendments adopted by the Committee on 
Natural Resources. The committee subsequently agreed by voice 
vote to favorably report H.R. 194, as amended, to the House. On 
May 11, 1994 H.R. 194 passed the House of Representatives as 
amended by a voice vote.

                         Departmental Position

    The committee understands the Department of Defense 
supports H.R. 256.

                           Committee Position

    The Committee on National Security, on January 31, 1995, a 
quorum being present, approved H.R. 256, without amendment, by 
voice vote.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate 
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted 
pursuant to section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
is as follows:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, February 3, 1995.
Hon. Floyd D. Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 256, the Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Military Lands 
Withdrawal Act, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 
National Security on January 31, 1995. CBO estimates that 
implementation of H.R. 256 would cost the federal government 
$300,000 in the two years after enactment. The government could 
collect some additional rental and royalty payments, which 
would affect direct spending, but any such collections are 
likely to be negligible. Because enactment of the bill could 
affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
    Subject to valid existing rights, H.R. 256 would withdraw 
from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws 
5,650 acres of public land and 141,554 acres of federally owned 
minerals in the Fort Carson Military Reservation and Pinon 
Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado. In addition, the bill would 
reserve the withdrawn lands for use by the Secretary of the 
Army. The Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
the Interior, would be required to develop and implement a land 
management plan for the two military installations. In general, 
the Secretary of the Interior would manage all mineral 
resources. Finally, the bill would establish procedures to be 
carried out when the land withdrawal expires.
    The land management plan would be the only additional 
responsibility required of the federal government by H.R. 256. 
Based on information from the Army, we estimate that the 
development of the plan would cost about $300,000 in the two 
years after enactment. After the plan is completed, the federal 
government could receive additional rental and royalty payments 
as the result of leasing and mining activities. (No new mining 
operation can be established under current law.) Information 
from the Bureau of Land Management, however, indicates that the 
mineral resource potential of the land is minimal and that the 
budgetary effect of allowing mining activities would be 
insignificant.
    Enactment of H.R. 256 would not affect the budgets of state 
and local governments.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Theresa 
Gullo.
            Sincerely,
                                      Robert D. Reischauer,
                                                          Director.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    The committee generally concurs with the estimate as 
contained in the report of the Congressional Budget Office.

                       Inflation Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the committee concludes that the bill 
would have no significant inflationary impact.
                           Oversight Findings

    With reference to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, this legislation results from 
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the 
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
    With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, this legislation does not 
include any new budget, spending, or credit authority, nor does 
it provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or 
expenditures.
    With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the committee has not received 
a report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 256.

                            Roll Call Votes

    In accordance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the record of roll call 
votes taken with respect to H.R. 256 is appended to this 
report.
    Final passage of H.R. 256 passed by voice vote.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                 MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL ACT OF 1986

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT OF WITHDRAWN LANDS.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (f) Additional Military Uses.--(1) * * *
    (2) Subject to valid existing rights, the Secretary of the 
military department concerned may utilize sand, gravel, or 
similar mineral or material resources when the use of such 
resources is required for construction needs on the respective 
lands withdrawn by this Act.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 9. DELEGABILITY.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Interior.--The functions of the Secretary of the 
Interior under this title may be delegated, except that an 
order described in section [7(f)] 8(f) may be approved and 
signed only by the Secretary of the Interior, the Under 
Secretary of the Interior, or an Assistant Secretary of the 
Department of the Interior.
          * * * * * * *