[House Report 106-446]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 106-446
======================================================================
MIWALETA PARK EXPANSION ACT
_______
November 4, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1725]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1725) to provide for the conveyance by the Bureau of Land
Management to Douglas County, Oregon, of a county park and
certain adjacent land, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
H.R. 1725 would provide for the conveyance by the Bureau of
Land Management to Douglas County, Oregon, of a county park and
certain adjacent lands.
background and need for legislation
The Miwaleta Park is currently managed under an agreement
between Douglas County, Oregon, and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The Miwaleta Park is presently a county day-
use facility and also a boat ramp facility at Galesville
Reservoir. Title to the Park is currently held by the BLM. H.R.
1725 would direct the BLM to transfer title of the Park to
Douglas County. The parcel of land involved, covering
approximately 28.5 acres, would be used by the County to
construct a campground.
While this type of transfer could be made administratively
under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, the County has
become frustrated with the length of time the necessary
assessments, consultations, and other bureaucratic redtape is
taking. One of the main problems for the delay is there is a
bald eagle nest within one mile of the proposed campground and
several juvenile spotted owls have been seen in the vicinity.
H.R. 1725 was introduced to expedite the process.
committee action
H.R. 1725 was introduced on May 6, 1999, by Congressman
Peter DeFazio (D-OR). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands. On July 13, 1999, the
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On September 23, 1999,
the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were
offered and the bill was then ordered favorably reported to the
Full Committee on a voice vote. On October 20, 1999, 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 a 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 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. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
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, October 29, 1999.
Hon. Don Young,
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. 1725, the Miwaleta
Park Expansion Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark
Grabowicz (for federal costs) and Marjorie Miller (for the
impact on state and local governments).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 1725--Miwaleta Park Expansion Act
H.R. 1725 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey, without compensation, Miwaleta Park and certain
adjacent land to Douglas County, Oregon. The bill stipulates
that the county must use this land for recreational purposes.
Currently, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) allows the
county to use the land for a park at no cost to the county.
Because BLM does not plan to sell the land or otherwise
generate receipts from it, CBO estimates that implementing H.R.
1725 would result in no significant costs to the federal
government. The bill would not affect direct spending or
receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
H.R. 1725 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Douglas County might incur some costs as a result of the bill's
enactment, but any such costs would be voluntary. The county
also would benefit, however, because it would receive land at a
negligible cost. The bill would have no significant impact on
the budgets of other state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contacts are Mark Grabowicz (for federal
costs) and Marjorie Miller (for the impact on state and local
governments). This 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.