[House Report 105-676]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-676
_______________________________________________________________________


 
 EXTENSION OF ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR COMMISSION

                                _______
                                

 August 5, 1998.--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

                        [To accompany H.R. 1042]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1042) to amend the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage 
Corridor Act of 1984 to extend the Illinois and Michigan Canal 
Heritage Corridor Commission, 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 out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF COMMISSION.

    (a) Extension.--Section 111(a) of the Illinois and Michigan Canal 
National Heritage Corridor Act of 1984 (98 Stat. 1456; 16 U.S.C. 461 
note) is amended by striking ``ten'' and inserting ``20''.
    (b) Repeal of Extension Authority.--Section 111 of such Act (16 
U.S.C. 461 note) is further amended--
          (1) by striking ``(a) Termination.--''; and
          (2) by repealing subsection (b).

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 1042 is to amend the Illinois and 
Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor Act of 1984 to extend the 
Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor Commission.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor 
was established by Congress in 1984 (Public Law 98-398). The 
Corridor was established to protect the historical significance 
and promote the recreational possibilities of the Illinois and 
Michigan Canal. This legislation was the first ``partnership 
park'' of its kind and is now a model for such parks across the 
Nation. The Corridor stretches 100 miles across Illinois, from 
Chicago to LaSalle/Peru, and encompasses 450 square miles. Its 
rich heritage and recreational opportunities attract many 
visitors to the area, and it is of great historical 
significance to the State of Illinois and the United States.
    The Illinois and Michigan Canal, built from 1836 to 1848, 
transformed the City of Chicago from a backwater trading 
settlement into a bustling commercial hub and the gateway to 
the American West. The canal, which linked Lake Michigan with 
the Illinois River in downstate Illinois, made it possible to 
ship cargo from the Atlantic Ocean through the Great Lakes to 
the Mississippi River and down to the Gulf of Mexico.
    Public Law 98-398 also created a Commission, which 
coordinates the efforts and resources of federal, state, and 
local entities. It has a permanent authorization for $250,000 
per fiscal year. Since its creation, the Commission has made 
significant progress along the Corridor in terms of economic 
development, environmental restoration, and recreational 
projects. H.R. 1042 would extend the Commission until the year 
2004. H.R. 1042 was amended at to retire the Commission 
established by Public Law 98-398 after the five-year extension 
granted by this bill.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 1042 was introduced on March 12, 1997, by Congressman 
William Lipinski (D-IL). The bill was referred to the Committee 
on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
National Parks and Public Lands. On May 21, 1998, the 
Subcommittee met to consider H.R. 1042. An amendment, which 
retires the Commission after the extension provided by the 
bill, was offered by Congressman James V. Hansen (R-UT) and 
adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was ordered 
favorably reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On July 
22, 1998, the Full Resources Committee met to consider H.R. 
1042. No further amendments were offered and the bill, as 
amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of 
Representatives by voice vote.

            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.

                  Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    The advisory commission reauthorized in H.R. 1042 is an 
existing advisory committee and its duties could not be 
performed by one or more agencies or by enlarging the mandate 
of an existing advisory committee.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority 
to enact H.R. 1042.

                        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. 1042. 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. 
1042 does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    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. 1042.
    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. 
1042 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 30, 1998.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1042, a bill to 
amend the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage Corridor Act of 
1984 to extend the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage 
Corridor Commission.
    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.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

H.R. 1042.--A bill to amend the Illinois and Michigan Canal Heritage 
        Corridor Act of 1984 to extend the Illinois and Michigan Canal 
        Heritage Corridor Commission

    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 1042 would cost the federal 
government a total of $1 million over the 2000-2003 period. The 
bill would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, 
pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 1042 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would have no significant 
impact on the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
    H.R. 1042 would extend the Illinois and Michigan Canal 
National Heritage Corridor Commission through August 2004. The 
commission, which is scheduled to expire in August 1999, is 
authorized to receive an appropriation of $250,000 each year 
throughout its existence. (In recent years, the annual 
appropriation to the commission has been $238,000.)
    The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was 
approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1042 contains no unfunded mandates and has no 
significant effect on state, local, or tribal governments.

         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 italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

   SECTION 111 OF THE ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL NATIONAL HERITAGE 
                          CORRIDOR ACT OF 1984

                       termination of commission

    Sec. 111. [(a) Termination.--]Except as provided in 
subsection (b), the Commission shall terminate on the day 
occurring [ten] 20 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    [(b) Extension.--The Commission may extend the life of the 
Commission for a period of not more than five years beginning 
on the day referred to in subsection (a) if, not later than one 
hundred and eighty days before such day--
          [(1) the Commission determines such extension is 
        necessary in order for the Commission to carry out the 
        purpose of this title;
          [(2) the Commission submits such proposed extension 
        to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the 
        House of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy 
        and Natural Resources of the Senate; and
          [(3) the Governor and the Secretary each approve such 
        extension.]

                                
