![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="1.0708333333333333in"}

# Legislative Bulletin..........................................May 23, 2007

**Contents:**

> **H.R. 1100 ---** Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site Boundary
> Revision Act of 2007

H.R. 1100 --- Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site Boundary
Revision Act of 2007 *(Shuler, D-NC)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, May 23, 2007, subject to a structured rule
([H.Res.
429](http://www.rules.house.gov/news_details.aspx?NewsID=2673)), making
three amendments in order (summarized below) and allowing a motion to
recommit with instructions.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1100 would authorize the Secretary to
Interior to purchase, from willing sellers, 115 acres of land, water, or
interests in land and water, to be added to the Carl Sandburg Home
National Historic Site. Five acres of the 115-acre parcel, would be used
for the development of a visitor's center and a visitor parking area.
The newly-acquired land would be administered as part of the historic
site in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
[110-157](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr157)),
located near Flat Rock, North Carolina, the Carl Sandburg Home National
Historic Site was established as part of the National Park System (NPS)
in 1968, and currently includes 264 acres of federal land. Carl Sandburg
was an American author and won two Pulitzer Prizes. The Sandburg
historical site is home to the Sandburg residence, a goat barn, and
hiking trails. To read more about the site, please click
[here](http://www.nps.gov/carl/).

The Committee Report states the following regarding the need for
additional land: "As required by the National Park Service's policies on
land protection, the historic site's 2003 General Management Plan (GMP)
identified and evaluated boundary adjustments that may be necessary or
desirable in order to carry out the purposes of the historic site. The
preferred alternative from the GMP, as reflected in the resulting Record
of Decision, recommended a boundary addition of 115 acres, of which not
more than 5 acres are for the construction of a new visitor center and
parking lot. Congressional authorization is required to expand the
boundary of the historic site."

However, several Republican Members of the Committee included dissenting
views in the Committee Report, arguing against a 115-acre expansion of
federal landholdings. The following is a portion of the dissenting
views.

> "Despite a legislative hearing and two markups, neither the Majority,
> nor the bill's sponsor have ever made a compelling case for this
> boundary expansion. To be fair, the National Park Service did make a
> case for a five acre expansion for a visitor center and parking lot to
> address safety concerns and to enhance the visitor experience. The
> additional 110 acres have been proposed to protect a 'viewshed.'
> ...this bill has the additional complication of attempting to protect
> a view that is not visible from the actual park unit. From the
> evidence presented to the Committee, and accepted by the Majority, the
> land in question is not visible from nearly the entire historic site.
> Rather the viewshed is on the other side of a ridge which marks the
> park's boundary. The 110 proposed acres are clearly out of view of the
> Carl Sandburg home, which this National Park unit is designed to
> preserve and interpret. **We have seen no evidence that this
> augmentation of the immense federal estate will in any way enhance the
> visitor experience or even protect the National Historic Site**"
> (emphasis added).

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}: Some conservatives may
be concerned that this bill would add 115 acres to federal landholdings
(when arguably only five acres are needed), likely costing \$7 million,
of which roughly half would be used to build a visitor's center at a
historic site in North Carolina.**

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1100 was introduced on February
15, 2007, and referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources,
which held a mark-up and reported the bill by voice vote, as amended, on
May 17, 2007.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, enacting H.R.
1100 would "cost \$7 million over the next several years." CBO estimates
that approximately half of the cost would be incurred from purchasing
the additional land, and the other half would be derived from the cost
of establishing and equipping a visitor's center at the site.

**[Amendments Made in Order Under the Rule:]{.underline}**

**Bishop, (R-UT) #1.** Prohibits the acquisition of any property for the
Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site until after deferred
maintenance has been completed at the site.

**Bishop, (R-UT) #2.** Reduces the total amount of acreage which can be
acquired for the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site from 115
acres to five, which is for use as a visitor center and parking lot. As
noted in the dissenting views in the Committee Report, "The 110 proposed
acres are clearly out of view of the Carl Sandburg home, which this
National Park unit is designed to preserve and interpret. We have seen
no evidence that this augmentation of the immense federal estate will in
any way enhance the visitor experience or even protect the National
Historic Site."

**Heller (R-NV)**. Prohibits federal funds from being appropriated to
acquire 110 acres of land for the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic
Site, but allows the land to be acquired by donation, purchase with
*donated* funds or by exchange with other lands. The underlying bill
allows the Secretary to obtain the additional land through *"*purchase
with donated or appropriated funds."

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes. The bill adds 115 acres to the federal
landholdings.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: No.

**[Earmark Compliance]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
[110-157](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr157)),
the "H.R. 1100 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or
9(t) of rule XXI."

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The committee cites
constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, but fails to cite a
specific clause.

House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports
contain "a statement citing the *specific* powers granted to Congress in
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint
resolution" *(emphasis added).*

**[RSC Staff Contact:]{.underline}** Joelle Cannon;
<joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov>, 202.226.0718.

\###