[House Report 107-317]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 107-317
======================================================================
DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO STUDY THE SUITABILITY AND
FEASIBILITY OF DESIGNATING THE WACO MAMMOTH SITE AREA IN WACO, TEXAS,
AS A UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
December 5, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1925]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1925) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study
the suitability and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth
Site Area in Waco, Texas, as a unit of the National Park
System, 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 all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT REGARDING WACO MAMMOTH SITE AREA.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the
State of Texas, the city of Waco, and other appropriate organizations,
shall carry out a special resource study regarding the national
significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating the Waco
Mammoth Site Area located in the city of Waco, Texas, as a unit of the
National Park System.
(b) Study Process and Completion.--Section 8(c) of Public Law 91-
383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of
the study required by this section.
(c) Submission of Study Results.--Not later than 3 years after
funds are first made available for this section, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report describing the results of the study.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 1925 is to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of
designating the Waco Mammoth Site Area in Waco, Texas, as a
unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Located near the confluence of the Brazos and the Bosque
rivers, in Waco, Texas, the Waco Mammoth Site Area, is an area
discovered by a University of Baylor staff member investigating
a report by local residents of bones eroding from a creek bank
nearby. By 1997, the bones of twenty-two Columbian mammoths,
warm weather cousins to the woolly mammoth, were unearthed.
Excavation and research continues but many of the remains are
now in storage. The amount of mammoth remains make the Waco
Mammoth Site Area the largest known concentration of a single
herd of mammoths dying from the same event.
This legislation would authorize the National Park Service
to study the Waco Mammoth Site Area's suitability for inclusion
as a unit of the National Park System.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 1925 was introduced on May 21, 2001, by Congressman
Chet Edwards (D-TX) and referred to the Committee on Resources.
On May 30, 2001, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands. On October 4,
2001, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On November
15, 2001, the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. Congressman
George Radanovich (R-CA) offered an amendment in the nature of
a substitute that made two changes to the original text. First,
it specified that the study of the Mammoth Area Site will be a
special resource study to determine the national significance,
suitability, and feasibility of adding the Mammoth Site to the
National Park System. Second, it directed the Secretary to
submit the study to the House Committee on Resources and the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee no later than
three years after funds are made available, as opposed to six
months as stated in the original bill. The amendment was
adopted by unanimous consent. The bill, as amended, was then
forwarded to the Full Committee by unanimous consent. On
November 28, 2001, the Full Resources Committee met to consider
the bill. No amendments were offered and the bill was then
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by
unanimous consent.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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 Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
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 this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation.--Clause 3(d)(2) 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)(3)(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.
2. 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 budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives.--This bill
does not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not
apply.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.--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, December 3, 2001.
Hon. James V. Hansen,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1925, a bill to
direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability
and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth Site Area in
Waco, Texas, as a unit of the National Park System.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact for this
estimate is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 1925--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating the Waco Mammoth
Site Area in Waco, Texas, as a unit of the National Park System
H.R. 1925 would require the National Park Service (NPS) to
conduct a study on the suitability and feasibility of making
the Waco Mammoth Site Area in Texas a unit of the National Park
System. The legislation would require the agency to report to
the Congress on its findings within three years of receiving
funds for the study.
Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates
that completing the required study and report would cost the
federal government $300,000 over the next three years, assuming
availability of appropriated funds. H.R. 1925 would not affect
direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply. The bill contains no
intergovernmental or prvate-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
The estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.