[House Report 104-866]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-866
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                        MINERAL KING ACT OF 1996

                                _______
                                

October 3, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3534]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3534) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to renew 
certain permits in the Mineral King Addition of the Sequoia 
National Park and to protect historic and cultural resources in 
that National Park, 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 section 3 of the bill.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 3534 is to extend the existing law 
authorizing the National Park Service to continue to issue 
special use permits to cabin owners at Mineral King in Sequoia 
National Park after the death of the current permittee of 
record.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    There is no accurate count of persons living within areas 
designated by Congress as units of the national park system, 
either on private property or on federally-owned property. For 
example, at one point at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 
there were over 700 hundred use and occupancy agreements at 
that park alone.
    Individuals currently reside inside parks under three basic 
sets of conditions. The first is on private property within the 
park boundary which has not yet been acquired by the federal 
government. The second is when property has been acquired by 
the federal government under terms of a use and occupancy 
agreement. The third is when the federal government permits 
persons to reside on federal lands.
    Since 1972, acquisition of federal lands has been guided by 
the Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act. That law generally 
provides for the government to authorize the lease back of an 
improved residence which has been acquired for up to 25 years 
or the life of the occupant, depending on any limitations 
contained in the specific authorizing statute. For example, if 
the federal government is acquiring the area for road 
construction purposes, the resident would typically not be 
offered a life time estate. The homeowner pays for this 
extended use of the property through a reduction in the 
purchase price paid by the government. These persons have a 
property right which is reflected as a use and occupancy 
agreement. Such use of the property can be bought and sold.
    Some persons have claimed that in the 1970s, when the 
federal government was acquiring extensive lands for park 
purposes, some of the acquisition was heavy-handed. There has 
been testimony that some residents may not have been fully 
advised of their rights, and there were a number of bitter land 
acquisition disputes across the park system. Congress has 
addressed this issue at least once before, when an Act was 
passed which permitted residents of Minute Man National 
Historic Park to extend their original use and occupancy 
agreements (Public Law 102-488).
    The history of the National Park Service permitting persons 
to use park lands for residential purposes is less clear. 
Typically these situations arise due to prevailing conditions 
at the time of park establishment. However, there has been a 
wide discrepancy among parks with regard to how any generic 
authority is interpreted. Some park superintendents claim they 
have no authority to permit such non-park residential use of 
the land, while others have seen no problem with the issuance 
of special use permits for residential purposes.
    Mineral King was U.S. Forest Service land added to Sequoia-
Kings Canyon National Park in the 1970s to prevent Disney from 
developing a ski area. When the land was added, there were a 
number of residents within the addition: both persons who owned 
their property and persons who occupied cabins under a special 
use permit from the Forest Service. The legislation 
establishing the area stated that such ``special use'' permits 
would only be issued to the owner or lessee of record at the 
time. Now, nearly 20 years after enactment of the original law, 
some original owners have died and their heirs are seeking to 
continue their permits.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 3534 was introduced on May 23, 1996, by Congressman 
George P. Radanovich (R-CA). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands. On November 
14, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2528, a bill 
which is similar in content to H.R. 3534. On June 13, 1996, the 
Subcommittee met to mark up H.R. 3534. The bill was adopted by 
voice vote. The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the 
Full Committee in the presence of a quorum. On July 17, 1996, 
the Full Resources Committee met to consider H.R. 3534. 
Congressman Bill Richardson (D-NM) offered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute; it failed by a rollcall vote of 8 to 
25, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Members                Yeas      Nays     Present        Members         Yeas      Nays     Present 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Young (Chairman)...........  ........        X   .........  Mr. Miller.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Tauzin.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Markey.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Hansen.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Rahall.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Saxton.....................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Vento........  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Gallegly...................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Kildee.......        X   ........  .........
Mr. Duncan.....................        X   ........  .........  Mr. Williams.....  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Hefley.....................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Gejdenson....  ........        X   .........
Mr. Doolittle..................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Richardson...        X   ........  .........
Mr. Allard.....................  ........        X   .........  Mr. DeFazio......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Gilchrest..................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Faleomavaega.  ........        X   .........
Mr. Calvert....................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Johnson......        X   ........  .........
Mr. Pombo......................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Abercrombie..  ........        X   .........
Mr. Torkildsen.................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Studds.......  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Hayworth...................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Ortiz........  ........        X   .........
Mr. Cremeans...................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Pickett......  ........        X   .........
Mrs. Cubin.....................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Pallone......        X   ........  .........
Mr. Cooley.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Dooley.......  ........        X   .........
Mrs. Chenoweth.................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Romero-              X   ........  .........
                                                                 Barcelo.                                       
Mrs. Smith.....................  ........  ........  .........  Mr. Hinchey......        X   ........  .........
Mr. Radanovich.................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Underwood....  ........  ........  .........
Mr. Jones......................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Farr.........  ........        X   .........
Mr. Thornberry.................  ........        X   .........  Mr. Kennedy......        X   ........  .........
Mr. Hastings...................  ........        X   .........                                                  
Mr. Metcalf....................  ........        X   .........                                                  
Mr. Longley....................  ........  ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Shadegg....................  ........  ........  .........                                                  
Mr. Ensign.....................  ........        X   .........                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressman Richardson then offered an amendment to delete 
section 3 of the bill; it was adopted by voice vote. The bill 
as amended was then ordered favorably reported to the House of 
Representatives, in the presence of a quorum.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

                         Section 1. Short Title

    Section 1 provides the short title of the bill.

  section 2. renewal of certain historic cabin permits in the mineral 
               king addition of the sequoia national park

    Section 2 amends the 1978 statute adding the Mineral King 
area to Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park by specifically 
authorizing the National Park Service to issue cabin leases to 
the heirs of the original permittees of record until the death 
of the last permittee of record. It is not clear whether the 
National Park Service has such generic authority, although a 
number of park superintendents are currently permitting such 
residential use.
    The language of the bill requires permittees to pay fair 
market value for such use, and specifically provides for 
protection of park resources and termination of the use if 
lands are needed for other purposes. The legislation provides 
that the Secretary of the Interior must have the funds to 
implement the alternative use, rather than simply prepare a 
plan calling for such use. The Committee does not believe that 
these persons should be forced out of their cabins until the 
alternative use is a reality.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the 
enactment of H.R. 3534 will have no significant inflationary 
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national 
economy.

                        Cost of the Legislation

    Clause 7(a) 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 
H.R. 3534. However, clause 7(d) 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 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                     Compliance With House Rule XI

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R. 
3534 does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in tax expenditures. 
Additional revenues of less than $10,000 a year could be 
generated under the bill from reissued special-use permits, of 
which one-third could be spent without further appropriation to 
administer the special-use permits.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and 
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 3534.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of 
rule XI 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 H.R. 
3534 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 26, 1996.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 3534, the Mineral King Act of 1996, as ordered 
reported by the House Committee on Resources on July 17, 1996. 
We estimate that enacting this bill would have no significant 
effect on the federal budget. H.R. 3534 could affect direct 
spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. 
However, any such effect would be less than $10,000 annually 
over the next five years.
    H.R. 3534 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
review or extend certain special-use permits or leases for 
cabins in the Mineral King addition of the Sequoia National 
Park. At present, the National Park Service (NPS) may only 
issue these five-year permits to the original property owner or 
lessee of record at the time that the agency assumed 
jurisdiction of the Mineral King area from the Forest Service. 
The bill would allow any heirs of the original permittees or 
lessees to continue to use the cabins under renewed permits 
until the last original permittee of record dies. The heirs 
would be required to pay annual fees in the same manner as 
current permittees.
    Based on information provided by the NPS, we estimate that 
fewer than ten special-use permits would be reissued over the 
next five as a result of this legislation. At current annual 
fee levels, the NPS would collect a total of less than $10,000 
a year from the new permittees. About one-third of the amounts 
collected would be spent without further appropriation to 
administer the special-use permits.
    H.R. 3534 contains no private-sector or intergovernmental 
mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4 and would impose no 
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 3534 contains no unfunded mandates.

         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 (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

      SECTION 314 OF THE NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION ACT OF 1978

        addition of mineral king valley to sequoia national park

    Sec. 314. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (d)(1) * * *
    (2)(A) Except in the case of a lease or permit which the 
Secretary determines to be incompatible with the administration 
of the park pursuant to this section, any lease or permit on 
Federal land within the area added to the park under this 
section which is in effect immediately before the enactment of 
this Act shall continue in effect pursuant to its terms and 
conditions following the expansion of the park under this 
section.
          * * * * * * *
    (C)(i) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), until the 
date of the death of the last cabin permittee of record on the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary may renew or 
extend permits or leases continued under subparagraph (A) or 
(B) to the heirs of lessees or permittees (including heirs to 
whom such leases or permits have been renewed or extended) who 
have died prior to the enactment of this subparagraph or may 
die after its enactment in the same manner (including by 
requiring the payment of annual fees based on fair market 
value) as leases or permits may be renewed or extended under 
subparagraph (b), unless--
          (I) the permit or lease is incompatible with the 
        protection of the parks resources; or
          (II) the land occupied under the leases or permit 
        will be used for some other park purpose in accordance 
        with the comprehensive management plan prepared under 
        subsection (e), and the Secretary has available 
        sufficient funds to carry out such use.
    (ii) For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term 
``heirs'' means--
          (I) those family members of the deceased permittee or 
        lessee, designated by the permittee or lessee, in a 
        manner prescribed by the Secretary, as heirs eligible 
        for renewals or extensions under this subparagraph, and
          (II) in the absence of such designation, those family 
        members of the deceased permittee or lease who are 
        entitled to inherit the estate of the permittee or 
        lessee.
          * * * * * * *
           DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE BILL RICHARDSON

    At its heart, H.R. 3534 would authorize private individuals 
to have the exclusive use of publicly-owned national park land 
for years to come. The bill would also change the clear terms 
of language previously enacted into law. These private 
individuals want a second bite of the apple. From the viewpoint 
they want to continue the deal they had for as long as they can 
and force the abandonment of the phasing out of private permits 
in the Sequoia National Park. From both a procedural and public 
policy standpoint, this is not an action I believe we should be 
embarking on.
    H.R. 3534 is special interest legislation for the select 
few at the expense of the many. Contrary to some assertions 
being made, this is not an eviction. The 1978 law is very clear 
that permits could be renewed only to permittees of record as 
of that date. Permittees have signed 3 permit extentions 
knowing full well that such permits could not be passed on. If 
anyone is being evicted here it is the public, the over 20,000 
people who visit this area each summer and are denied full use 
of the area all because of the special benefit afforded a 
select 67 permittees.
    We have been told that we should extend this special 
privilege to the heirs, otherwise abandoned cabins will sit 
empty and pose a hazard and an eyesore. Well if these cabins 
are a hazard and an eyesore it is because of the actions of the 
permittees themselves. It has come to my attention that cabin 
permits include a requirement that once the permit has lapsed 
the permittee is to remove the cabin and return the site to its 
natural condition. Instead, what is happening is that 
permittees are violating the terms of the permit and abandoning 
the cabins, leaving it to the National Park Service to clean up 
the mess.
    We have also heard proponents say that they are making this 
authority to extend the permits discretionary and requiring 
fair market value. However, the bill goes on to tie the 
National Park Service's hand in making a determination not to 
renew. Worse, the bill reopens the issue for any permit that 
has expired in the last 18 years. Frankly, this bill is a bad 
attempt to punt on an issue for the next 35 or more years, at 
which time a future Congress can expect these same permittees' 
heirs back asking for another extention.
    H.R. 3534 is not in the public's interest and should be 
rejected.
                                                   Bill Richardson.