79–006

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
2

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.
3

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.
4

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) * * *

ø(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:

ø(1) A core parcel in Dayton, Ohio, which shall consist of the

Wright Cycle Company Building, Hoover Block, and lands between.

ø(2) Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright-Patterson Air

Force Base, Ohio.

ø(3) The Wright 1905 Flyer and Wright Hall, Dayton, Ohio.

ø(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 ll and dated ll:

(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.

* * * * * * *
5

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 øSecretary 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 titleø: 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¿.

* * * * * * *

Æ