[House Report 107-513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-513

======================================================================



 
        JOHN MUIR NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

 June 18, 2002.--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. 3942]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3942) to adjust the boundary of the John Muir National 
Historic Site, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend 
that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 3942 is to adjust the boundary of the 
John Muir National Historic Site, and for other purposes.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    On August 31, 1964, the John Muir National Historic Site 
(NHS), located in Martinez, California, became a Unit of the 
National Park System. The 344 acre NHS preserves the 14 room 
mansion and surrounding property where naturalist John Muir 
lived from 1890 to his death in 1914.
    In 1988, the city of Martinez, California, donated a 3.3 
acre parcel of land to the John Muir National Historic Site. In 
1991, the General Management Plan (GMP) for the NHS proposed 
that the acquired land be developed as a 32-car/2-bus visitor 
parking area and a site of the new Park maintenance facility. 
In 1994, a boundary survey was conducted by the National Park 
Service (NPS) where it was discovered that the donated parcel 
did not include all of the land between Franklin Canyon Road 
and the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, where the 
parking lot was proposed. A small triangle of land (approx. 0.2 
acres/9500 sq. ft) was found not to be part of the parcel 
donated by the city of Martinez. In fact, the NPS found that no 
one was listed with the County tax assessor parcel number, and 
thus no taxes had been collected or paid on the 0.2 acres since 
the 1960's.
    Without issuance of clear title for the 0.2 acre parcel, 
development cannot precede on the parking lot expansion and 
maintenance facility. H.R. 3942 would simply allow for the 
acquisition and clear title of the 0.2 acre parcel of land by 
the NPS so that the parking facility may be built.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 3942 was introduced on March 12, 2002, by Congressman 
George Miller (D-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands. On May 7, 2002, 
the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On May 22, 2002, 
the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. By 
unanimous consent, the Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Recreation and Public Lands was discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 3942. No amendments were offered and the 
bill was then ordered favorably reported by unanimous consent 
to the House of Representatives.

            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 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants 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, June 14, 2002.
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. 3942, the John 
Muir National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah 
Reis (for federal costs), Marjorie Miller (for the state and 
local impact), and Lauren Marks (for the private-sector 
impact).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3942--John Muir National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act

    H.R. 3942 would adjust the boundary of the John Muir 
National Historic Site and authorize the National Park Service 
(NPS) to acquire the added 0.2-acre parcel of land by purchase, 
donation, or exchange. Based on information provided by the 
NPS, we expect the agency to condemn the small tract to 
establish its current ownership, which is unknown. Depending on 
the outcome of the condemnation proceeding, CBO expects that 
the NPS would then: (1) annex the property without further cost 
to the government (if no owner is located), (2) accept donation 
of the tract (if the owner is another government agency), or 
(3) purchase the property (if a private owner is located). In 
any event, CBO estimates that the cost of acquiring the 
property (including legal expenses) would be less than $50,000, 
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
    H.R. 3942 would not affect direct spending or receipts; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. The bill 
may contain an intergovernmental or private-sector mandate as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO 
estimates that the costs of any such mandate would not be 
significant and would fall well below the thresholds 
established in UMRA. The thresholds in 2002 are $58 million and 
$115 million per year, respectively, for intergovernmental and 
private-sector mandates, adjusted annually for inflation.
    Because the owner of the 0.2 acres cannot be found, 
condemnation may be the only course of action for the NPS to 
gain title. CBO has generally found that when legislation is 
expected to result in condemnation of property, it contains a 
mandate. However, because in this case the NPS cannot identify 
the current owner of the parcel, CBO cannot determine whether 
this mandate would fall on a government, on the private sector, 
or on both. In any event, based on information provided by the 
NPS, CBO estimates that the value of the property is less than 
$50,000.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Deborah Reis 
(for federal costs), Marjorie Miller (for the state and local 
impact), and Lauren Marks (for the private-sector impact). 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.

                                  
