19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–538 

SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK 

BOUNDARY EXPANSION ACT 

JUNE 12, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3100] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 3100) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand 

the boundary of the San Antonio Missions National Historical 

Park, to conduct a study of potential land acquisitions, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended 

do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 

Boundary Expansion Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds that— 

(1) the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park is important to understanding the history and development of the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, 

the State of Texas, and the United States; 

(2) understanding the connection between the San Antonio River and the San 

Antonio Missions is critical to understanding mission life in colonial Texas; and 

(3) the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park enjoys the strong support of the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, and their citizens and businesses. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

SEC. 3. BOUNDARY EXPANSION. 

Section 201(a) of Public Law 95–629 (16 U.S.C. 410ee(a)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘In order’’ and inserting ‘‘(1) In order’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘The park shall also’’ and inserting: 

‘‘(2) The park shall also’’; 

(3) by striking ‘‘After advising the’’ and inserting: 

‘‘(5) After advising the’’; and 

(4) by inserting after paragraph (2) (as so designated by paragraph (2) above) 

the following: 

‘‘(3) The boundary of the park is further modified to include approximately 151 

acres, as depicted on the map titled ‘San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 

Proposed Boundary Addition 2009’, numbered 472/468,027, and dated November 

2009. The map shall be on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices 

of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

‘‘(4) The Secretary may not acquire by condemnation any land or interest in land 

within the boundaries of the park. The Secretary is authorized to acquire land and 

interests in land that are within the boundaries of the park pursuant to paragraph 

(3) by donation only. No private property or non-Federal public property shall be 

included within the boundaries of the park without the written consent of the owner 

of such property. Nothing in this Act, the establishment of park, or the management 

plan of the park shall be construed create buffer zones outside of the park. That 

an activity or use can be seen or heard from within the park shall not preclude the 

conduct of that activity or use outside the park.’’. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 3100, as ordered reported, is to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to expand the boundary of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park and to conduct a study of 

potential land acquisitions. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 3100 authorizes the expansion of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park to include an additional 151 acres, all of 

which are currently owned or being managed by the National Park 

Service (NPS). After a NPS evaluation, it was determined that 

these additional acres are necessary to protect park resources and 

achieve the purposes of the park. Additionally, significant cultural 

and archeological resources associated with the park are currently 

outside the boundary, but would be included in this expansion. 

According to the NPS, there will be no additional cost to enacting 

this legislation because most of the new acreage is already owned 

by the NPS and the remainder need not be acquired as the agency 

already manages it through agreements. 

During Full Committee consideration of the bill, an amendment 

offered by Congresman Rob Bishop (R–UT) was adopted to eliminate potential costs associated with the legislation and to enhance 

property right protections. The amendment removed language authorizing a study for another boundary expansion and clarified that 

written consent of property owners will be required before their 

land can be included in the park. The creation of buffer zones 

around the park and use of condemnation will also be prohibited. 

Finally, while no land acquisition is currently anticipated, the 

amendment would limit any acquisition to donation only. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 3100 was introduced on October 5, 2011, by Congressman 

Francisco Canseco (R–TX). The bill was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the SubVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:52 Jun 19, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR538.XXX HR538

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

committee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. On May 

17, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On June 7, 

2012, the Full Natural Resources Committee met to consider the 

bill. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public 

Lands was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Rob 

Bishop (R–UT) offered amendment designated .066; the amendment was adopted by a roll call vote of 23–17, as follows: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 4 here HR538.001
5 

No further amendments were offered, and the bill, as amended, 

was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by 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 

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: 

H.R. 3100—San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act 

H.R. 3100 would expand the boundary of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park in Texas to include approximately 

151 additional acres. Of the proposed 151-acre expansion, 132 acres 

are currently owned by the National Park Service (NPS) or are 

being donated to the park. The remaining 19 acres would continue 

to be managed under a cooperative agreement with the city of San 

Antonio and Bexar County, which own the property. 

Fourteen acres of the property owned by the city of San Antonio 

have environmental contamination. If those lands are included 

within the boundary of the park, the NPS would be responsible for 

the remediation of that contamination. Based on information from 

the NPS, CBO estimates that remediation work would cost around 

$9 million, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates that 

implementing H.R. 3100 would have no other significant impacts 

on the federal budget. The NPS currently manages most of the 

land that would be added to the park, and CBO estimates that the 

legislation would not significantly affect operating costs. Enacting 

H.R. 3100 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 3100 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. 

On December 20, 2011, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 

114, the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary 

Expansion Act of 2011, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on November 10, 2011. 

The estimated costs of the two bills differ for a number of reasons. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

H.R. 3100 would authorize lands to be acquired only by donation, 

whereas S. 114 would authorize the NPS to purchase additional 

land. Also, since the cost estimate for S. 114 was prepared, the 

NPS has been paying the operational costs (other than environmental remediation costs) of the proposed additional land, so the 

legislation would not add to those costs. Additionally, S. 114 would 

authorize a study of the suitability of adding other lands to the 

park, which H.R. 3100 would not authorize. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Martin von Gnechten. 

The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, 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 budget authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

Based on information from the National Park Service, CBO estimates that remediation work provided for in the bill would cost 

around $9 million, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3100 would have no other 

significant impacts on the federal budget. 

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, as ordered reported, is to authorize the Secretary of the 

Interior to expand the boundary of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park and to conduct a study of potential land acquisitions. 

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. 

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 italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 201 OF PUBLIC LAW 95–629 

SEC. 201. (a) øIn order¿ (1) In order to provide for the preservation, restoration, and interpretation of the Spanish Missions of San 

Antonio, Texas, for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future 

generations of Americans, there is hereby established the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park (hereafter in this section 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

referred to as the ‘‘park’’) consisting of Concepcion, San Jose, San 

Juan, and Espada Missions, together with areas and features historically associated therewith, as generally depicted on the drawing 

entitled ‘‘Boundary Map, San Antonio Missions National Historical 

Park’’, numbered 930-80,022-C and dated May 1978, which shall be 

on file and available for public inspection in the offices of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, and in the offices 

of the Superintendent of the park. øThe park shall also¿ 

(2) The park shall also consist of the lands and interests therein 

within the area bounded by the line depicted as ‘‘Proposed Boundary Extension’’ on the maps entitled ‘‘San Antonio Missions National Historical Park’’, numbered 472–80,075, 472–80,076, 472– 

80,077, 472–80,078, 472–80,079, 472–80,080, and 472–80,081 and 

dated June 7, 1990, which shall be on file and available for public 

inspection in the same manner as is such drawing. øAfter advising 

the¿ 

(3) The boundary of the park is further modified to include approximately 151 acres, as depicted on the map titled ‘‘San Antonio 

Missions National Historical Park Proposed Boundary Addition 

2009’’, numbered 472/468,027, and dated November 2009. The map 

shall be on file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

(4) The Secretary may not acquire by condemnation any land or 

interest in land within the boundaries of the park. The Secretary is 

authorized to acquire land and interests in land that are within the 

boundaries of the park pursuant to paragraph (3) by donation only. 

No private property or non-Federal public property shall be included within the boundaries of the park without the written consent of the owner of such property. Nothing in this Act, the establishment of park, or the management plan of the park shall be construed create buffer zones outside of the park. That an activity or 

use can be seen or heard from within the park shall not preclude 

the conduct of that activity or use outside the park. 

(5) After advising the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the Committee on Natural 

Resources of the United States House of Representatives, in writing, the Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Secretary’’) may make minor revisions of the boundaries of the 

park when necessary by publication of a revised drawing or other 

boundary description in the Federal Register. 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(8) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

The Majority has taken a good idea, the expansion of the San 

Antonio Missions National Historical Park, and undermined it by 

insisting on amendments that would establish terrible precedents 

for other park expansions, all in order to score political points. 

Since 2002 the community of San Antonio, Texas has been working to expand the boundaries of the National Historical Park. The 

San Antonio Missions National Historical Park preserves a significant link to Mexico and Spain that has influenced the culture and 

history of the United States. Significant cultural resources would 

be protected by expanding the Park’s boundaries. 

The 111th Congress overwhelmingly supported legislation to expand the current boundaries of the Park and to direct the National 

Park Service to study other lands in Bexar and Wilson counties 

that might be suitable for inclusion within the Park’s boundaries. 

At no point during the process were concerns raised about the 

study or potential land acquisition. 

Last October, Congressman Canseco introduced similar legislation to authorize the National Park Service to expand the boundary 

of the Park to include 151 acres of land already cooperatively managed by the National Park Service, private land owners, the City 

of San Antonio and Bexar County and to study future boundary expansions. 

During subcommittee consideration of the legislation, no issues 

regarding the expansion study or acquisition of additional federal 

lands were raised by the Majority. Instead, days before the markup, the Majority proposed an amendment to eliminate the study 

and put debilitating restrictions on land acquisition. 

As ordered reported by the Committee, the legislation would 

allow the Park to acquire land by donation only, not by purchase 

or exchange. In effect, the Majority’s amendment would prohibit a 

willing seller from selling their land to the Park and would instead 

require the property owner to donate their land. 

Preventing land-owners from selling their private property to the 

federal government cannot be justified and is, ironically, an 

abridgement of private property rights. Such a provision will needlessly cripple this Park and, as a result, we oppose this legislation. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS