[House Report 111-310]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    111-310

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



 
     SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY EXPANSION AND STUDY ACT OF 2009

                                _______
                                

October 21, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Rahall, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 715]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 715) to expand the boundary of Saguaro National 
Park, to study additional land for future adjustments to the 
boundary of the Park, 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. 715 is to expand the boundary of 
Saguaro National Park, to study additional land for future 
adjustments to the boundary of the Park, and for other 
purposes.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    President Herbert Hoover established Saguaro National 
Monument in 1933 by proclamation. The 63,500-acre monument, 
centered on Rincon Mountain east of Tucson, Arizona, was 
created due to ``outstanding scientific interest because of the 
exceptional growth thereon of various species of cacti, 
including the so-called giant cactus.''
    In 1961, President John F. Kennedy added to the national 
monument (also by proclamation) a separate area west of Tucson, 
the Tucson Mountain District, to protect its ``remarkable 
display of relatively undisturbed lower Sonoran desert 
vegetation, including a saguaro stand which equals or surpasses 
saguaro stands elsewhere in the Nation.''
    Congress adjusted the boundaries of the monument in 1976 
(P.L. 94-578) and added more land to both districts in 1991 
(P.L. 102-61) and 1994 (P.L. 103-364); the 1994 legislation 
also changed the designation of the unit from national monument 
to national park. The park currently encompasses 91,440 acres.
    Directly between the park's two districts lies the city of 
Tucson, which is growing rapidly. Subdivisions and other 
development drawing ever nearer to both Rincon Mountain and 
Tucson Mountain threaten to isolate park lands, block wildlife 
corridors, and eliminate riparian areas near the park.
    H.R. 715 would expand the boundary of the park to allow the 
acquisition of three parcels totaling 674.41 acres adjacent to 
the Rincon Mountain District, and eight parcels totaling 300.18 
acres adjacent to the Tucson Mountain District. All of the 
landowners have expressed their willingness to sell or donate 
their property.
    The parcels located along the southern boundary of the 
Rincon Mountain District include three miles of Rincon Creek, 
which flows through the only riparian hardwood forest in the 
park and provides habitat for rare species such as gray hawks, 
yellow-bill cuckoos, giant spotted whiptail lizards, and 
lowland leopard frogs.
    The proposed additions to the Tucson Mountain District will 
protect wildlife corridors (and may aid the area's dwindling 
mountain lion population) and protect park viewsheds.
    In addition, H.R. 715 directs the NPS to study lands 
adjacent to the park to determine whether further boundary 
adjustments are warranted. The study would consider not only 
lands that might be suitable for inclusion in the park, but 
also examine properties that were included inside the park 
boundary in earlier additions but which have not been acquired. 
Some of those parcels have been developed in the interim, and 
the study would determine whether such properties should be 
excluded from the park.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 715 was introduced January 27, 2009 by National Parks, 
Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Raul Grijalva 
(D-AZ). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural 
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
    On March 3, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 
bill. Representatives of the Department of the Interior and the 
Tucson office of the National Parks Conservation Association 
testified in favor of the legislation.
    On July 9, 2009, the National Parks, Forests and Public 
Lands Subcommittee was discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 715 and the full Natural Resources Committee met to 
consider the bill. Subcommittee Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R-
UT) offered an amendment regarding law enforcement ``within the 
boundaries, buffer zone, viewscape or soundscape of the park.'' 
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 yeas 
and 22 nays, as follows:


    Representative Bishop then offered an amendment to delete 
language in current law that allows the Secretary of the 
Interior to acquire land by eminent domain if the Secretary 
determines that the land is being developed, or is proposed to 
be developed in a manner which is detrimental to the integrity 
of the park. The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call 
vote of 19 yeas and 24 nays, as follows:


    The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House 
of Representatives by voice vote.

            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 Natural 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. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill is to expand the boundary of Saguaro 
National Park, to study additional land for future adjustments 
to the boundary of the Park, and for other purposes.
    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:

H.R. 715--Saguaro National Park Boundary Expansion and Study Act of 
        2009

    H.R. 715 would expand the boundaries of the Saguaro 
National Park in Arizona by about 975 acres. The bill also 
would require the National Park Service (NPS), which manages 
the park, to conduct a study to identify other property that 
should be included in future boundary adjustments.
    Based on information provided by the NPS and assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 715 would cost the federal government about 
$30 million over the next five years. Most of that amount would 
be used to acquire the proposed acreage, assuming all 11 
properties in the acquisition area were purchased rather than 
acquired by exchange or donation. (The NPS may be able to 
acquire some parcels by donation; if so, total costs would be 
lower.) We estimate that the cost of developing and 
administering the added acreage would not be significant. 
Enacting the legislation would not affect revenues or direct 
spending.
    H.R. 715 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    If the Secretary of the Interior acquires any of the 
property within the expansion area by means of condemnation, 
H.R. 715 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in 
UMRA. The cost of the mandate would be equal to the value of 
the property. Since that aggregate value is about $30 million, 
the cost of the mandate, if imposed, would fall well below the 
annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector 
mandates ($139 million in 2009, adjusted annually for 
inflation). However, testimony from affected parties indicates 
the landowners want to be included in the park; therefore, CBO 
estimates that the bill would likely impose no mandate.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Deborah Reis 
(for federal costs) and Amy Petz (for the private-sector 
impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                           Earmark Statement

    H.R. 715 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) 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 italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

    SECTION 4 OF THE SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 1994


SEC. 4. EXPANSION OF PARK BOUNDARIES.

  (a) In General.--(1) The boundaries of the park are hereby 
modified to reflect the addition of approximately 3,460 acres 
of land and interests therein as generally depicted on the map 
entitled ``Saguaro National Monument Additions'' and dated 
April, 1994.
    (2) The boundary of the park is further modified to include 
approximately 975 acres, as generally depicted on the map 
titled ``Saguaro National Park Proposed Boundary Adjustment'', 
numbered 151/80,045A, and dated August 2008. The map shall be 
on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices 
of the National Park Service.
  (b) Land Acquisition.--(1) Within the lands added to the park 
pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to 
acquire lands and interests therein by donation, purchase with 
donated or appropriated funds, transfer, or exchange: Provided, 
That no such lands or interests therein may be acquired without 
the consent of the owner thereof unless the Secretary 
determines that the land is being developed, or is proposed to 
be developed in a manner which is determental to the integrity 
of the park.
  [(2) Lands or interests therein owned by the State of Arizona 
or a political subdivision thereof may only be acquired by 
donation or exchange.]
    (2) The Secretary may, with the consent of the State and in 
accordance with Federal and State law, acquire from the State 
land or interests in land within the boundary of the park.
    (3) If the Secretary is unable to acquire the State land 
under paragraph (2), the Secretary may enter into an agreement 
that would allow the National Park Service to manage State land 
within the boundary of the park.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Boundary Study.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study 
        to identify lands that would be a part of any future 
        boundary adjustments for the park.
          (2) Criteria.--The study shall examine the natural, 
        cultural, recreational, and scenic values and 
        characters of lands identified under paragraph (1).
          (3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
        funds are made available for the study under this 
        subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
        on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives 
        and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 
        the Senate a report on the findings, conclusions, and 
        recommendations of the study.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We oppose H.R. 715 because it fails to protect property 
rights and leaves intact impediments to securing our nation's 
borders against criminal incursions and the environmental 
degradation that is now occurring along the border as a result.
    This legislation will expand Saguaro National Park by 975 
acres, nearly all of it private, except for one parcel owned by 
a county. These property owners will face new limitations on 
their property. Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior 
will have the authority to take private land if he determines 
the owner's use of the land is detrimental to the park. The 
federal government already has more land than it can adequately 
manage and yet this Congress keeps expanding boundaries and 
providing endless funding mechanisms to acquire even more. 
Under these circumstances, there is no reason to continue 
providing the National Park Service with the hammer of 
condemnation that it wields to create so-called ``willing 
sellers.''
    At the full Committee markup, Congressman Rob Bishop 
offered an amendment to remove the threatening authority and 
provide a degree of security to property owners in line with 
current standards for recent park expansion bills. 
Unfortunately, this common sense amendment was defeated on a 
largely partisan vote.
    Saguaro National Park used to be a crown jewel in our 
National Park system. Recently, however, the Fraternal Order of 
Police named it one of the top 10 most dangerous parks in the 
country, stating that Saguaro is ``home to body dumping, 
smuggling and poaching after rangers go home at night.'' The 
National Park Service's own website alerts visitors to be on 
the lookout for arson, vandalism, theft of cactus, poaching, 
dumping of debris, marijuana cultivation and drug labs. With 
these growing new threats to the environment of the park along 
the borderlands, it is imperative that Congress re-define and 
balance the roles of the Interior Department and the Department 
of Homeland Security. It is now apparent that the undue 
prohibitions and restrictions being imposed on needed Border 
Patrol enforcement activities harm both border security and the 
park environment.
    When arguing against an amendment offered by Congressman 
Rob Bishop that would have prevented the Park Service from 
placing restrictions on the Border Patrol from securing the 
park, the sponsor of H.R. 715 stated that it should be up to 
the individual parks to negotiate what is and isn't 
permissible. It is our belief that Congress, not bureaucrats, 
should establish our national security strategy. Unfortunately, 
this sound policy, border security amendment was defeated by 
the Majority Democrats on a party-line vote.
    We are also concerned with the cost of the legislation. The 
National Park Service has a well-publicized backlog estimated 
at nearly $9 billion, and this expansion could cost as much as 
$30 million. When will this Democrat Majority show restraint 
and take care of the neglected land we already have?
    Despite the refusal to accept Republican amendments in 
committee that would have corrected these issues, we are 
hopeful that careful analysis of these shortcomings on the 
Floor of the House of Representatives, under an open rule, will 
allow us to pass these amendments with strong bipartisan 
support.

                                   Doc Hastings.
                                   Rob Bishop.

                                  
