19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–430 

WACO MAMMOTH NATIONAL MONUMENT 

ESTABLISHMENT ACT OF 2011 

APRIL 16, 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. 1545] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1545) to establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument in the State of Texas, 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 ‘‘Waco Mammoth National Monument Establishment 

Act of 2011’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds that— 

(1) the Waco Mammoth Site area is located near the confluence of the Brazos 

River and the Bosque River in central Texas, near the city of Waco; 

(2) after the discovery of bones emerging from eroding creek banks leading 

to the uncovering of portions of 5 mammoths, Baylor University began investigating the site in 1978; 

(3) several additional mammoth remains have been uncovered making the 

site the largest known concentration of mammoths dying from the same event; 

(4) the mammoth discoveries have received international attention; and 

(5) Baylor University and the city of Waco, Texas, have been working together— 

(A) to protect the site; and 

(B) to develop further research and educational opportunities at the site. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) CITY.—The term ‘‘City’’ means the city of Waco, Texas. 

(2) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘management plan’’ means the management plan for the Monument prepared under section 5(c)(1). 

(3) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Proposed Boundary 

Waco-Mammoth National Monument’’, numbered T21/80,000, and dated April 

2009. 

(4) MONUMENT.—The term ‘‘Monument’’ means the Waco Mammoth National 

Monument established by section 4(a). 

(5) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior. 

(6) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State of Texas. 

(7) UNIVERSITY.—The term ‘‘University’’ means Baylor University in the 

State. 

SEC. 4. WACO MAMMOTH NATIONAL MONUMENT, TEXAS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the State, as a unit of the National 

Park System, the Waco Mammoth National Monument, as generally depicted on the 

map. 

(b) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service. 

SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF MONUMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall administer the Monument in accordance 

with— 

(1) this Act; and 

(2) any cooperative agreements entered into under subsection (b)(1). 

(b) AUTHORITIES OF SECRETARY.— (1) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may enter into cooperative 

management agreements with the University and the City, in accordance with 

section 3(l) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–2(l)). 

(2) ACQUISITION OF LAND.—The Secretary may acquire by donation only from 

the City any land or interest in land owned by the City within the proposed 

boundary of the Monument. 

(c) GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the University and the City, shall complete a general management plan for the Monument. 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The management plan shall include, at a minimum— 

(A) measures for the preservation of the resources of the Monument; 

(B) requirements for the type and extent of development and use of the 

Monument; 

(C) identification of the capacity of the Monument for accommodating 

visitors; and 

(D) opportunities for involvement by the University, City, State, and 

other local and national entities in— 

(i) developing educational programs for the Monument; and 

(ii) developing and supporting the Monument. 

(d) PROHIBITION OF USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—No Federal funds may be used to 

pay the costs of— 

(1) carrying out a cooperative agreement under subsection (b)(1); 

(2) acquiring land for inclusion in the Monument under subsection (b)(2); 

(3) developing a visitor center for the Monument; 

(4) operating or maintaining the Monument; 

(5) constructing exhibits for the Monument; or 

(6) developing the general management plan under subsection (c). 

(e) USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS.—Non-Federal funds may be used to pay any 

costs that may be incurred by the Secretary or the National Park Service in carrying out this section. 

(f) EFFECT ON ELIGIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—Nothing in this Act affects the eligibility of the Monument for Federal grants or other forms of financial 

assistance that the Monument would have been eligible to apply for had National 

Park System status not been conferred to the Monument under this Act. 

(g) TERMINATION OF NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM STATUS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Designation of the Monument as a unit of the National Park 

System shall terminate if the Secretary determines that Federal funds are required to operate and maintain the Monument. 

(2) REVERSION.—If the designation of the Monument as a unit of the National 

Park System is terminated under paragraph (1), any land acquired by the Secretary from the City under subsection (b)(2) shall revert to the City. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 

(h) PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION.—No private property may be made part of 

the Monument without the written consent of the owner of that private property. 

SEC. 6. NO BUFFER ZONES. 

Nothing in this Act, the establishment of national monument, or the management 

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

an activity or use can be seen or heard from within the Monument shall not preclude the conduct of that activity or use outside the Monument. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1545, as ordered reported, is to establish the 

Waco Mammoth National Monument in the State of Texas. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Currently the City of Waco, Texas, and Baylor University jointly 

own a 109-acre site that contains the largest known concentration 

of mammoths dying from the same event. The mammoth remains 

were first discovered in 1978 and since then, Baylor University has 

been the lead investigator of the remains. The 109 acres were acquired over the past two decades from private donations and from 

buying parcels of land as they became available. The site is located 

near the center of Waco and is surrounded by agricultural lands, 

housing developments, the Brazos and the Bosque Rivers, and 

some additional lands owned by the University and the City of 

Waco. 

This legislation would designate the 109-acre site a national 

monument and would direct the National Park Service (NPS) to administer the site, and to enter into cooperative agreements. However, the 109 acres would not immediately transfer to NPS, but it 

may later acquire them by donation. 

The legislation is unique because it establishes a new unit of the 

Park System, but prohibits the use of federal funds and requires 

a management plan to be developed with Baylor University and the 

City of Waco. The Waco community has demonstrated an ability to 

manage the site, but anticipates that the partnership with NPS 

will contribute to the preservation and exposure of the resource. 

During markup of the bill, the Natural Resources Committee 

adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Bill Flores (R–TX) 

to protect private property rights. The amendment clarifies that 

NPS can only acquire property through donation, and that no property can be included in the boundary of the monument without 

written consent of the owner. Finally, the amendment adds language to prevent the creation of buffer zones around the monument, thus protecting uses outside the boundaries from being impeded by NPS interference. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1545 was introduced on April 14, 2011, by Congressman 

Bill Flores (R–TX). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. On June 14, 2011, the 

Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On November 17, 2011, 

the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands was 

discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Bill Flores offered 

amendment designated .991 to the bill; the amendment was adoptVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:15 Apr 17, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR430.XXX HR430

emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
4 

ed by voice vote. Congressman Raul Grijalva (D–AZ) offered 

amendment designated .040 to the bill; the amendment was not 

adopted by a bipartisan roll call vote of 15 to 28, as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
5 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 5 here HR430.001
6 

The bill, as amended, was then 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. 1545—Waco Mammoth National Monument Establishment Act 

of 2011 

H.R. 1545 would establish the Waco Mammoth National Monument in Texas. The legislation would prohibit the use of federal 

funds to implement the bill, and the site’s designation as a unit of 

the National Park System would terminate if the Secretary of the 

Interior determines that federal funds are required to operate and 

maintain the monument. The legislation would authorize the National Park Service (NPS) to acquire land for the monument by donation. H.R. 1545 also would require the NPS to prepare a management plan for the monument within three years of enactment 

of the legislation. Enacting H.R. 1545 could affect direct spending 

if funds for the monument’s operation are donated and spent by the 

NPS; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, 

however, that any net impact in direct spending would be insignificant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

For this estimate, CBO assumes that about 5 acres of land 

owned by the city of Waco would be donated to the NPS within the 

next three years; the remainder of the approximately 110-acre site 

would remain in nonfederal ownership. We further assume that 

other costs to develop visitor facilities within the monument—an 

estimated $8 million—would be borne by the city or other nonfederal entities. 

Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates that 

implementing H.R. 1545 would cost $1 million over the next three 

years and about $400,000 a year thereafter. The $1 million would 

be used to develop a management plan and to establish the site as 

a national monument. Beginning in 2015, $400,000 would be needed for the federal share of annual operating costs. The bill’s prohibition on the use of federal funds for operations would require that 

those costs be financed through nonfederal sources. If nonfederal 

funds do not become available to implement the legislation, ownerVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:15 Apr 17, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR430.XXX HR430

emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 

ship of the site would revert back to the city of Waco, and the site 

would terminate as a unit of the National Park System. In any 

event, CBO estimates that the legislation would have an insignificant impact on the federal budget. 

H.R. 1545 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. 

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, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. Enacting H.R. 1545 could affect direct spending 

if funds for the monument’s operation are donated and spent by the 

NPS; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, 

however, that any net impact in direct spending would be insignificant. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

Based on information provided by the NPS, CBO estimates that 

implementing H.R. 1545 would cost $1 million over the next three 

years and about $400,000 a year thereafter. The $1 million would 

be used to develop a management plan and to establish the site as 

a national monument. Beginning in 2015, $400,000 would be needed for the federal share of annual operating costs. The bill’s prohibition on the use of federal funds for operations would require that 

those costs be financed through nonfederal sources. If nonfederal 

funds do not become available to implement the legislation, ownership of the site would revert back to the city of Waco, and the site 

would terminate as a unit of the National Park System. In any 

event, CBO estimates that the legislation would have an insignificant impact 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 establish the Waco Mammoth 

National Monument in the State of Texas. 

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

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(8) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

The 107th Congress authorized a Special Resources Study, conducted by the National Park Service, to assess various options for 

the long-term management of the Waco Mammoth site. The study 

was transmitted to Congress in 2008 and found the site was suitable and feasible as a unit of the National Park System. The study 

concluded that a partnership, including the City of Waco and 

Baylor University, and led by the National Park Service, would be 

the most effective and efficient management strategy for the site. 

Last Congress, legislation (H.R. 1376) implementing the study 

recommendations and sponsored by then-Representative Chet 

Edwards (D–TX), passed the House under suspension of the rules 

by a vote of 308 to 74, with 85 Republicans voting in favor of the 

measure. 

Rather than building on that progress this Congress, the Majority has insisted on taking an enormous step backward. H.R. 1545 

would still designate the site as a national monument and unit of 

the National Park System, but drops specific reference to the applicability of laws governing units of the National Park System, requires that any new land for the monument be donated by the 

City, rather than purchased or exchanged, and specifically prohibits the use of any federal funds for management or operation of 

the site. Finally, H.R. 1545 requires that, if the Secretary determines federal funds are required to operate the monument, its designation as a unit of the National Park System shall terminate and 

any land acquired by the Secretary revert to the City. 

Given that the legislation designates the site as a unit of the National Park System, a prohibition on federal funding for the monument is nonsensical, as is the idea that the monument’s status as 

a unit of the National Park System could be turned off or on like 

a switch. Democrats offered the text of the legislation approved 

overwhelmingly by the House during the previous Congress as a 

substitute but the amendment was defeated on a largely party line 

vote. 

The Majority is attempting to appear supportive of a new national park while working behind the scenes to cripple the unit. 

The debilitating changes Republicans have made to this once-popular bill demonstrate that the Majority is more committed to 

defunding the National Park System than expanding it. 

EDWARD MARKEY. RUSH HOLT. MADELEINE BORDALLO. JOHN GARAMENDI. GRACE NAPOLITANO. 

NIKI TSONGAS. 

DALE E. KILDEE. 

GREGORIO SABLAN. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
9 

BEN LUJA ́ N. RAUL GRIJALVA. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING