[Senate Report 105-398]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 626
105th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     105-398
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                    FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT

                                _______
                                

  October 9 (legislative day, October 2), 1998.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 2239]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 2239) to revise the boundary of Fort 
Matanzas National Monument, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                         purpose of the measure

    The purpose of S. 2239 is to expand the boundary of Fort 
Matanzas National Monument in the State of Florida by 
approximately 70 acres.

                          background and need

    Fort Matanzas National Monument was established by 
Presidential Proclamation in 1924 (No. 1713, 43 Stat. 1968). S. 
2239 would adjust the boundary of Fort Matanzas National 
Monument in the State of Florida by approximately 70 acres. Two 
tracts of land, which are currently adjacent to the park's 
boundary, were donated to the United States in 1963 and 1965. 
At that time, no attempt was made to include these tracts 
within the park's boundary.
    The third tract of land was intended to be donated to the 
park in the 1920's but was left off the original park boundary 
map. Since the 1920 this 1.6 acre tract has been managed as 
part of the Monument.
    S. 2239 would include the three tracts within the boundary 
of Fort Matanzas National Monument.

                          legislative history

    S. 2239 was introduced June 26, 1998 by Senator Murkowski, 
at the request of the administration, and referred to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Subcommittee on 
National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation held a 
hearing on S. 2239 on September 17, 1998.
    At its business meeting on September 24, 1998, the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 2239, 
favorably reported.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open 
business session on September 24, 1998, by a unanimous voice 
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 
2239, as described herein.

                           summary of s. 2239

    S. 2239 revises the boundary of Fort Matanzas National 
Monument in the State of Florida by adding three tracts of land 
totaling approximately 70 acres. The boundary adjustments are 
depicted on the map entitled Fort Matanzas National Monument, 
numbered 347/80004, and dated February 1991. The Secretary is 
authorized to acquire the lands by donation, purchase, transfer 
or exchange. The lands will be administered as part of Fort 
Matanzas National Monument and will be subject to the laws that 
are applicable to the monument.

                   cost and budgetary considerations

    The following estimate of costs of this measure has been 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, October 1, 1998.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2239, a bill to 
revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument.
    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.
    Enclosure.

               Congressional budget office cost estimate

S. 2239--A bill to revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National 
        Monument

    S. 2239 would expand the boundary of Fort Matanzas National 
Monument to include three additional parcels of land totaling 
about 70 acres. The bill would authorize the National Park 
Service (NPS) to acquire the additional acreage by purchase, 
donation, transfer, or exchange.
    Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates 
that implementing S. 2239 would have no significant effect on 
the federal budget. The bill would not affect direct spending 
or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
apply. S. 2239 contains no intergovernmental mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not 
affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
    CBO estimates that to implement the bill the NPS would 
incur only minor expenses typically associated with boundary 
revisions, such as the costs of surveying and mapping. We 
expect that the NPS would not have to purchase any of the lands 
added to the boundary of Fort Matanzas by S. 2239 because even 
though this land was never officially included in the monument, 
the NPS has held and managed all three parcels for many years. 
Two of the three parcels were donated to the government during 
the 1920s and 1960s, and the third parcel was intended for 
donation, but was inadvertently omitted from the legal 
description of a large parcel of land donated during the 1920s. 
The agency could incur legal expenses to establish clear title 
to that parcel, but CBO estimates that such expenses would not 
add significantly to the total cost of implementing the 
legislation because it is unlikely that anyone would contest 
the government's claim of ownership to the 1.6-acre site. 
Finally, because the NPS already manages the three parcels, CBO 
estimates that the agency would not incur any additional 
operating or maintenance costs as a result of the boundary 
revision.
    The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was 
approved by Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                      regulatory impact evaluation

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out S. 2239. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing Government-established standards of 
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals 
and businesses.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from 
enactment of S. 2239, as ordered reported.

                        executive communications

    S. 2239 was introduced at the request of the 
Administration. On February 23, 1998, the Department of the 
Interior transmitted a letter to the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee requesting that the bill be introduced and 
passed. A copy of the letter, and the testimony of the National 
Park Service follows:

                            Department of Interior,
                                   Office of the Secretary,
                                 Washington, DC, February 23, 1998.
Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is a draft of a bill, ``to 
revise the boundary of Fort Matanazas National Monument, and 
for other purposes.'' Also enclosed is a section-by-section 
analysis of the bill. We recommend that the bill be introduced, 
referred to the appropriate committee for consideration, and 
enacted.
    The enclosed bill would revise the boundary of Fort 
Matanzas National Monument in Florida to clarify long-standing 
boundary and acquisition issues involving a total of 
approximately 70 acres. The first issue involves two tracts of 
land, 01-102 and 01-103 which are currently adjacent to the 
park's boundary. These two tracts were donated to the United 
States in 1963 and 1965. At the time of the donations, no 
attempt was made to seek authority to include these tracts 
within the park's boundary.
    The second issue involves Tract 01-107, which was 
originally intended to be donated as part of Tract 01-102 on 
January 1, 1965. However, a regional Solicitor's opinion of 
September 14, 1984, indicated that an error in the legal 
description omitted this tract and the United States does not 
hold title to this parcel.
    The purpose of this bill is to include the three tracts 
within the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument. This 
would ensure that the National Park Service could legally 
protect the resources on the tracts and ensure visitor safety.
    The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
is no objection to the enactment of the enclosed draft 
legislation from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program.
            Sincerely,
                                      Donald Barry,
                             Acting Assistant Secretary for
                                       Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

 Statement of Destry Jarvis, Assistant Director for External Affairs, 
           National Park Service, Department of the Interior

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the 
Department of the Interior's views on S. 2239, a bill to revise 
the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for other 
purposes. We strongly support S. 2239 which involves no cost 
and corrects long-standing technical problems with the park's 
boundary.
    The Administration submitted a proposal to Congress on 
February 25, 1998, to address this issue. Senator Murkowski 
introduced the legislation as S. 2239 on June 26, 1998 and the 
language is identical to our proposal. The bill would resolve 
long-standing boundary and acquisition issues involving three 
tracts of land, totaling approximately 70 acres. This action is 
consistent with the 1996 Statement of Management, which stems 
from the monument's 1982 General Management Plan.
    In 1963 and 1965, the Johnson family donated to the United 
States two tracts of land adjacent to monument grounds. 
Although this land was donated to the United States, no 
legislative authority existed then, or now exists, to make 
these tracts part of Fort Matanzas National Monument. No 
attempt at the time nor since then has been made, to include 
these beachfront tracts within the monument's boundary.
    A third tract described in the bill was originally intended 
for donation to the United State, but was erroneously omitted 
from the legal description of a larger parcel of donated land. 
Although the United States does not hold title to this tract, 
the St. Johns County tax assessor regards it as Federal 
property. Again, no authority existed nor now exists to include 
it within the boundary of the monument. The National Park 
Service will seek to clear title once it is included within the 
monument's boundary. To the best of our knowledge, this bill 
would adversely affect no private landowners.
    The Presidential Proclamation of October 24, 1924, 
established the Fort Matanzas National Monument in St. Johns 
County, Florida. The purpose of the monument is to preserve the 
rehabilitated Spanish fortification named Fort Matanzas, and 
interpret for the visiting public the architectural, political, 
military, and social history of the fortification, including 
armament, organizational operations, supply, and individual and 
collective personnel.
    The inclusion of these three tracts within the boundary of 
Fort Matanzas National Monument would ensure that the National 
Park Service could legally protect the resources on the tracts 
and ensure visitor safety.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks.

                        changes in existing law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no 
changes in existing law are made by S. 2239, as ordered 
reported.