[House Report 106-896]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-896
======================================================================
DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE PRESERVATION AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
_______
September 26, 2000.--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. 5036]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 5036) to amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation
Act of 1992 to clarify the areas included in the Dayton
Aviation Heritage National Historical Park and to authorize
appropriations for that park, 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. 5036 is to amend the Dayton Aviation
Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to clarify the areas included
in the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park and to
authorize appropriations for that park.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park was
originally created in 1992. The historical park preserves sites
associated with Wilbur and Orville Wright and the early
development of aviation and is approximately 86 acres in size.
In addition, the Park contains the home of Paul Laurence
Dunbar, a famous African-American poet who also was a business
associate and friend of Orville Wright. The Park currently
includes the Wright Brothers' bicycle and printing shop, the
1905 Wright Flyer, the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, and the
home of Paul Laurence Dunbar.
H.R. 5036 amends the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation
Act of 1992 to clarify the areas included in the Dayton
Aviation Heritage National Historical Park and to authorize
appropriations for that park. Specifically, the bill would
authorize the inclusion of three parcels of land including two
residential properties and expansion of Wright Hall.
H.R. 5036 also removes a current prohibition which limits
the amount of appropriated dollars spent for the operation,
development, and restoration of non-federally owned properties
to no more than $200,000. The cap on this appropriation has
apparently caused concerns for interpretive functions, funding
from other sources, and for a construction project which has a
small amount of non-federal land associated with it.
Committee Action
H.R. 5036 was introduced on July 27, 2000, by Congressman
Tony Hall (D-OH). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands. On September 7, 2000, the
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands held a hearing
on the bill. On September 20, 2000, the Full Resources
Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands was discharged from further
consideration of the bill by unanimous consent. No amendments
were offered and the bill was 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 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. 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, September 25, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5036, the Dayton
Aviation Heritage Preservation Amendments Act of 2000.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 5036--Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Amendments Act of 2000
H.R. 5036 would expand the boundaries of the Dayton
Aviation Heritage National Historical Park in Ohio to include
three adjacent properties. The bill also would codify the
addition of a fourth property that was added by the National
Park Service (NPS) under existing authority. Finally, the bill
would remove the $200,000 limit on the use of appropriated
funds for expenses related to nonfederal property within the
park.
CBO estimates that the NPS would spend about $3 million
over the next two or three years to develop or restore
structures in the historical park, and that annual costs to
operate the park would increase by about $800,000, beginning in
fiscal year 2001. The NPS could spend another $1 million to
purchase the Setzer building within the park, but this would
probably not occur for several years. This estimate includes
amounts for properties to be added to the park by the bill as
well as for nonfederal properties that are already within the
park but are currently ineligible for federal funding because
of the $200,000 limit. These estimates are based on information
provided by the NPS, and assume appropriation of the necessary
amounts.
The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 5036
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
On September 22, 2000, CBO submitted a cost estimate for S.
2959, the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Amendments Act
of 2000, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources on September 20, 2000. These bills are
very similar and our estimates of their costs are the same.
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 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 italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE PRESERVATION ACT OF 1992
* * * * * * *
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE NATIONAL
HISTORICAL PARK.
(a) * * *
[(b) Area Included.--The park shall consist of the following
sites, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Proposed
Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park'', numbered
NHP-DAH 80,000, and dated February 1992:
[(1) A core parcel in Dayton, Ohio, which shall
consist of the Wright Cycle Company Building, Hoover
Block, and lands between.
[(2) Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio.
[(3) The Wright 1905 Flyer and Wright Hall, Dayton,
Ohio.
[(4) The Paul Laurence Dunbar home, Dayton, Ohio.]
(b) Areas Included.--The park shall consist of the following
sites, as generally depicted on a map entitled ``Dayton
Aviation Heritage National Historical Park'', numbered ____ and
dated ____:
(1) A core parcel in Dayton, Ohio, which shall
consist of the Wright Cycle Company building, Hoover
Block, and lands between.
(2) The Setzer building property (also known as the
Aviation Trail building property), Dayton, Ohio.
(3) The residential properties at 26 South Williams
Street and at 30 South Williams Street, Dayton, Ohio.
(4) Huffman Prairie Flying Field, located at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
(5) The Wright 1905 Flyer III and Wright Hall,
including constructed additions and attached
structures, known collectively as the John W. Berry,
Sr. Wright Brothers Aviation Center, Dayton, Ohio.
(6) The Paul Laurence Dunbar State Memorial, Dayton,
Ohio.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 107. COORDINATION BETWEEN THE SECRETARY AND THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE.
The decisions concerning the execution of this Act as it
applies to properties under control of the Secretary of Defense
shall be made by such Secretary, in consultation with the
[Secretary of Interior] Secretary of the Interior.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out this title[: Provided, That the amount
to be appropriated for the operation, development or
restoration of non-federally owned properties within the
boundaries of the park shall not exceed $200,000].
* * * * * * *