59–006 

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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

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 ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:49 Jul 15, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR688.XXX HR688

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

mittee 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. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

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. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS