[House Report 114-688]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 114-688
======================================================================
FORT ONTARIO STUDY ACT
_______
July 14, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 4202]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 4202) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a special resource study of Fort Ontario in the
State of New York, 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. 4202 is to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to conduct a special resource study of Fort
Ontario in the State of New York.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 4202 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
initiate a special resource study of Fort Ontario, a military
installation in Oswego, New York. In the study, the Secretary
of the Interior will evaluate the site's national significance,
determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Fort
Ontario as a unit of the National Park System, and consider
other alternatives for preservation, protection, and
interpretation of the lands by Federal, State, or local
governmental entities, or private and nonprofit organizations.
Fort Ontario was originally built by the British in 1755 to
protect the area around the east end of Lake Ontario. Located
at the mouth of the Oswego River in Oswego, New York, Fort
Ontario directly overlooks the shores of Lake Ontario. In 1756,
the French Army destroyed the fort, also known as the ``Fort of
the Six Nations.'' In 1759, the British built a much stronger
and larger fort on the same site.
During the American Revolution, the British abandoned Fort
Ontario, and in 1778 American troops destroyed the fort.
Despite the surrender at Yorktown in 1781, the British
reoccupied Oswego in 1782 and rebuilt Fort Ontario for the
third time. The British held it until 1796 before finally
turning it over to the United States.
During the War of 1812, British forces captured and
destroyed the fort. After a period of abandonment, new
construction started in part due to tensions with Great Britain
as well as to check smuggling activities between Canada and the
United States. Construction of a fourth Fort Ontario commenced
in 1839, amidst tensions arising from Canada's Patriot War.
Later, amid fears of British intervention in the Civil War, the
United States upgraded defenses of the fort in 1860.
Fort Ontario later served as a training post from 1903 to
1905, a hospital camp during World War I, and a training
installation for military police and anti-aircraft units in
World War II. Additionally, from August 1944 to February 1946,
Fort Ontario operated as the nation's only emergency refugee
shelter during World War II and housed approximately 982
refugees, predominantly of Jewish descent.
After nearly two hundred years of active military use, the
United States Army abandoned the fort in 1946 and transferred
it to the State of New York. In 1953, Fort Ontario opened as a
New York state historic site. The fort was added to the
National Register of Historic Places in 1970 and remains open
to the public today.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 4202 was introduced on December 9, 2015, by
Congressman John Katko (R-NY). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands. On May 24, 2016, the
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On June 14, 2016, the
Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The
Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments
were offered and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the
House of Representatives by unanimous consent on June 15, 2016.
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.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) 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)(2)(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. 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 30, 2016.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4202, the Fort
Ontario Study Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Marin
Burnett.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
H.R. 4202--Fort Ontario Study Act
H.R. 4202 would require the National Park Service (NPS) to
conduct a special resource study of Fort Ontario, a state
historic site in Oswego, New York. (Fort Ontario was used
during the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and
the War of 1812.) The study would determine whether the site
meets NPS criteria for inclusion in the National Park System.
Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates that
implementing the legislation would cost about $250,000; such
spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated
funds.
Enacting H.R. 4202 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 4202 would not increase net direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2027.
H.R. 4202 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Marin Burnett.
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of 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 spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditure. According to the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), implementing H.R. 4202 would cost about
$250,000, subject to appropriation. CBO estimates that the bill
``would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits
in any of the four consecutive 10 year periods beginning in
2027''.
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 authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a special resource study of Fort Ontario in
the State of New York.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
This bill makes no changes to existing law.
[all]