Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 26 (Thursday, March 9, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 26 (Thursday, March 9, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H765-H773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IVANPAH VALLEY AIRPORT PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 433 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1695.

{time} 1114

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1695) to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal public
lands in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to Clark County, Nevada, for the
development of an airport facility, and for other purposes, with Mr.
LaHood in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in support of H.R. 1695, introduced by my colleague, the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
An enormous amount of effort has gone into the preparation of this
bill, and I would like to commend the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons) for working so diligently on this bill and bringing it to the
floor. I do not think a lot of my colleagues realize that the gentleman
from Nevada probably knows as much about aviation as any Member in the
Congress, serving both as a military pilot and a commercial pilot, as
well as the many other accomplishments he has had in his life. And I
commend him on doing an excellent job on a piece of legislation that
has been quite controversial, but which I think we now have a meeting
of the minds on.
Clark County, Nevada, is the fastest growing metropolitan area in the
Nation, and its current McCarran Airport, located in Las Vegas, is
quickly exceeding capacity. The exorbitant growth in development and
tourism has made the need for another airport in the Las Vegas metro
area absolutely critical. The ever-increasing influx of visitors to
southern Nevada is overrunning the present airport. Approximately half
of the visitors to Las Vegas arrive as passengers at McCarran Airport,
and that figure will continue to climb as the city increasingly becomes
an international destination. I have been given to understand that it
is now the ninth busiest airport in America.
H.R. 1695 authorizes the sale of Federal lands to Clark County for
the construction of a new airport which will serve southern Nevada and
the Las Vegas Valley. Clark County would pay fair market value for
6,500 acres in Ivanpah Valley, the proceeds of which would be used to
purchase and preserve environmentally-sensitive areas within the State
of Nevada.
The topography and orientation of the Ivanpah Valley make it an ideal
location for an airport. The land is a dried-up lakebed, with nothing
more than an interstate highway and a railroad on either side. An
airport in this valley would be close enough to serve the metro area;
however, its existence will not interfere with the current airspace
needs of McCarran Airport or Nellis Air Force Base.
The environmental impact of this airport will be minimal.
Nevertheless, H.R. 1695 ensures full compliance with all of the
National Environmental Protection Act's provisions prior to operation
of this airport. The airport will be located 16 miles away from the
Mojave Preserve to avoid interference with that area. The Secretary of
Transportation will design an airspace management plan that will avoid,
to the maximum extent possible, overflights of the Mojave Preserve.
Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I will be offering an en bloc
amendment to address the outstanding concerns with this legislation.
The amendment has been agreed to by the minority and provides
bipartisan support for this legislation, and I thank my staff and the
staff of the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and the minority for
working diligently to work out this en bloc amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reiterate my support for H.R. 1695 and ask for the
endorsement of the Members to provide this much-needed improvement to
Nevada's infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman H.R. 1695 directs the conveyance of a substantial tract
of public lands located near the Mojave National Preserve for the
development of a large commercial airport and related facilities for
the Las Vegas area.
As reported by the Committee on Resources, H.R. 1695 was a
controversial measure. The bill was opposed by the administration, the
environmental community, and many Members because the legislation
failed to adequately address the potential environmental impacts, land-
use conflicts, and

[[Page H766]]

administrative problems associated with large-scale land conveyance.
Attempts were made to address these significant issues in the
Committee on Resources. These efforts were spearheaded by our
colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), who is unable to
be here with us today because he is recovering from major surgery; but
I know he is watching this closely. The gentleman from Minnesota has
been involved in the legislative consideration of this matter for
several years, and his expertise on public lands issues gave him keen
insight into the problems associated with the bill. The gentleman from
Minnesota offered several constructive amendments to the legislation in
committee. Although the committee did not adopt these amendments at
that time, the seeds of his efforts are bearing fruit.
H.R. 1695 was headed to the floor this week with solid opposition
from the administration, from the environmental community, and from
many Members of Congress, including myself, concerned about the
environmental consequences of this proposal. Fortunately, efforts have
been underway to address these concerns, and for that I want to commend
our colleague, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). The
involvement of the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) was critical
in helping to diffuse that opposition and make possible the manager's
amendment that will be offered to this legislation.
In helping to craft these changes, the gentlewoman from Nevada showed
herself to be a strong advocate for her community and the environment.
I can attest to that fact because I have been cornered by her numerous
times over the last couple of months about this legislation and about
her concerns for the opposition to the legislation that was being
registered at that time.
As a result of that, I believe the manager's amendment that we now
have before us makes a significant improvement to the bill by providing
a joint lead agency status for the Department of the Interior on the
Environmental Impact Statement necessary for the planning and
construction of an airport facility on the conveyed lands. This is
important, since the lands to be conveyed are currently administered by
the Department of the Interior; and the potential environmental impacts
of such an airport involve the Mojave National Preserve and other
resource responsibilities of the Interior Department.
A detailed EIS will be crucial in determining whether an airport
should be placed within the Ivanpah Valley. As noted in the NEPA
regulations, found in 40 CFR 1502.14, the EIS must rigorously explore
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, including the no-
action alternative. Further, it will have to include a detailed
analysis of environmental issues and consequences associated with the
proposed airport facilities and the related infrastructure.
These are questions that cannot be answered today. With the potential
impacts to the environment that exist with the proposal, especially for
the Mojave National Preserve, it is incumbent the EIS thoroughly
address all alternatives and environmental consequences.
As one of the cosponsors of the California Desert Protection Act, I
have a long-standing interest in protecting the biological diversity of
the region's desert ecosystem, especially as it relates to the Mojave
National Preserve and the wilderness areas designated in the 1994 act.
These are areas that some might dismiss as dirt and rock but in truth
hold significant environmental values that ought to be addressed before
any decision is made about a new airport that could negatively impact
these areas.
Even with these changes made by the manager's amendment, the bill is
not perfect; but it is certainly an improvement as to what the House
would otherwise have been faced with. And again I want to commend the
committee and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for their
efforts in putting together this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to take this
moment to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), for
having participated diligently with me in 3 years of effort to bring
this bill to the floor here today. The efforts of the gentleman from
Utah have been critical in terms of his work and his support to bridge
those gaps between the questions that have been raised by the
environmental and minority committees and bringing together all of
those parties so that we have a workable resolution, a workable bill
here today.
The en bloc amendment of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) offered
here today, Mr. Chairman, is certainly one which I think allows for us
to proceed with this bill and which will accomplish the goals that Las
Vegas needs to have in the coming years with a new airport that will
relieve the stress of congestion at the ninth busiest airport in
America today.
Mr. Chairman, as has already been mentioned, southern Nevada is the
fastest growing area in the United States. Last year alone, in Las
Vegas, there were more than 20,000 new homes constructed in the area.
And because Nevada has somewhere between 87 and 92 percent of its land
owned by the Federal Government, it makes expansion for many of our
communities almost impossible. Fortunately, H.R. 1695 addresses the
issue of smart growth and expansion and prepares Clark County, the home
of Las Vegas, for the 21st century.
As Las Vegas and southern Nevada continue to grow, a greater demand
is put upon its airport and its facility. Currently, passengers
traveling through the Las Vegas McCarran International Airport account
for approximately 50 percent of the 31 million visitors who come to Las
Vegas each and every year. As the Valley's resorts increasingly become
desirable nationally and internationally as travel destinations, this
percentage can be expected to climb, and an exhausting strain will be
placed on McCarran Airport. That is why this legislation is so
critically important to the future of the Las Vegas Valley, indeed the
economy of our State.
This is similar to the Dulles International Airport and the National
Airport situation that we had existing right here in Washington, D.C.
When Washington National, now Ronald Reagan National Airport, was
becoming overcrowded and burdened by excess travel, there was a demand,
30 years ago, to increase its capacity by building a facility 30 miles
to the west of here. That became known as Dulles International Airport.
Today, the same problems, the same stress, are occurring in Las Vegas
with the McCarran International Airport. Thirty miles to the Southwest
will be the Ivanpah Airport as a reliever facility for McCarran's
International Airport.
The Ivanpah Airport will be located far enough away from McCarran's
Airport and the Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas to be free from
their flight restrictions, yet it has a close proximity to Interstate
15 and the Union Pacific Railroad which will provide an excellent union
of intermodal and multimodal transportation opportunities. And lastly,
it is surrounded by vacant Federal land, which gives Clark County an
opportunity to continue their forward-thinking and responsible growth
while protecting the airport from incompatible land uses.
As McCarran reaches its physical capacity, expected to be in the year
2008, H.R. 1695 becomes a necessity to accommodate this county's
favorable oasis in the desert and its future. There are those who rally
against smart growth, forward-thinking planning, or even needed
expansion. However, with the guidance and hard work, as I said earlier,
of our colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and after
working on this legislation for over 3 years, dedicating many hours to
working out these compromises with the administration and environmental
organizations, I believe we have finally found a common ground among
all groups.
This compromise is reflected, as I said earlier, in the manager's
amendment. It allows greater say by the Secretary of the Interior on
initial Environmental Impact Statement planning processes to take care
of the administration's objections. The manager's amendment also takes
care of a small technical problem associated with the revisionary
clause; and, finally, it addresses a small concern brought up by

[[Page H767]]

the Committee on the Budget. However, if there are still concerns by
some in this body, I would like to take the next few minutes, Mr.
Chairman, to dispel these thoughts and concerns.
Some have stated that H.R. 1695 makes the National Environmental
Protection Agency process moot.

{time} 1130

Realize, however, that NEPA is a necessity. Before the Ivanpah site
can be developed as an airport, the Secretary of Transportation and the
Secretary of Interior will be required to prepare a full Environmental
Impact Statement pursuant to NEPA. H.R. 1695 merely authorizes the sale
of the land which otherwise could not be sold.
Another question has been raised that others have stated that the
bill obstructs policy comment required by FLPMA. There is only one
reference to FLPMA in H.R. 1695, and it is not a waiver of public
comment or environmental protections.
Since the Ivanpah Airport project is to be Congressionally mandated,
this subsection merely relieved the Secretary from the requirement that
the project be accounted for in land inventories, maps, and land use
plans. Not to mention there have been numerous local public meetings by
the Clark County Commission concerning the Ivanpah Airport project.
There is no significant local opposition to providing Southern Nevada
a much needed second airport site. The bill is supported by the entire
bipartisan Congressional delegation, the State, city, county and many
local businesses and labor unions in Nevada.
Another concern raised was that one of the most timely and important
issues facing Clark County is growth and the protection of their
natural resources. Mr. Chairman, this issue was weighed heavily when I
crafted H.R. 1695 because of its proximity to the Mojave Preserve.
However, the Ivanpah site is more than 16 miles from the Mojave
Preserve and there is already a substantial community between the
Mojave Preserve and the airport site known as Primm, Nevada. This
community is located at the California State line, which includes three
casinos and a large regional outlet mall.
Because of this existing development, the BLM land management plan
has already decided to sell over 5,000 acres of land along Interstate
15 for private development. Any further releases of land will require
an amendment to the land management plan. If an airport is built at
Ivanpah, a clear zone will be established around it which will preclude
additional growth surrounding the site.
A provision was added to H.R. 1695 which requires the Secretary of
Transportation to work with the Secretary of the Interior to develop an
air space management plan which precludes, except when safety requires,
arrivals or departures over the Mojave Preserve.
H.R. 1695 also mandates that the air space management plan determine
the optimum flight approach and departure corridors. This was done in a
proactive manner to minimize overflight impacts on the preserve.
Another question that was raised was to ensure that the people of
America receive fair compensation for their public lands. H.R. 1695
requires that the land be sold at fair market value. I repeat, Mr.
Chairman, that the land will be sold at fair market value. This is not
a give-away. The bill originally allowed the land to be purchased in
phases and the new appraisals were required every 3 years. At a
resources hearing, however, the County has indicated its intent to
purchase the entire site as soon as possible; and the bill was amended
in committee to require Clark County to buy the entire parcel for fair
market value.
It is important to ensure that our citizens not only realize the
benefits of this new airport but are justly compensated for its use,
for the use of our public lands.
Another concern was that flights over or near the preserve will
destroy the scenic vistas, natural quiet, and night skies.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that, although H.R. 1695 precludes flights
from the Ivanpah Airport over the Mojave National Preserve, the
preserve is already heavily impacted by aircraft overflight. In fact,
the preserve is actually located beneath one of the world's most
concentrated air traffic corridors. Air traffic in and out of the Los
Angeles basin airports, such as Los Angeles International, Palmdale
Airport, John Wayne/Orange County Airport, Burbank, Ontario, and the
Long Beach Airport, to name a few. Those airports require current
overflights of the Mojave Preserve.
Additionally, there are a number of military airfields in California
which also impact the Mojave Preserve with their operations. To give my
colleagues an idea, there are in excess of 400,000 operations on the
airways over the Mojave Preserve at 6,000 feet or more above the
preserve.
Mr. Chairman, once again, there are 400,000 operations each year over
the Mojave Preserve at 6,000 feet or more above the preserve.
Additionally, there are 147,000 operations that fly over the Mojave
Preserve annually at altitudes of 10,000 to 16,000 feet, which is
comparable to the elevations of aircraft 16 miles from the Ivanpah
location.
This is the same distance between the Ivanpah Airport and the Mojave
Preserve, which simply means that all aircraft arriving and departing
at Ivanpah at a distance of 16 miles will be at least 10,000 feet and
probably 16,000 feet or more above the preserve.
Finally, concerns have been advanced about airport related light
emissions impacting star gazing activities within the Mojave Preserve.
Frankly, a small commercial service airport located between the two
communities, such as Jean and Primm, Nevada, will contribute little, if
any, to the local light emulating from the Ivanpah Valley.
The last concern I would like to address this morning is the
potential impact to the desert tortoise, mountain sheep, and their
habitats. Clark County and I are extremely sensitive to the concerns
regarding the potential impact of the airport on these desert animals.
However, it was determined that the airport did not impact the critical
habitat for the desert tortoise or areas of critical concern as set
forth in the BLM Resource Management Plan.
Remember that the site will also have to pass the rigorous standards
of the National Environmental Policy Act process, as well as a possible
section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act.
It is important to note that the United States Air Force Research
Laboratory studied the effects of subsonic as well as supersonic
aircraft noise on the desert tortoise. The report, dated May 1999,
stated, ``There was no increase in blood lactate levels during or post
exercise. The most extreme response to simulated subsonic aircraft
noise was a typical reptilian defense response.''
The University of Arizona also evaluated the effects of simulated
low-altitude F-16 jet aircraft noise on the behavior of captive
mountain sheep. They concluded ``that when F-16 aircraft flew over the
sheep, the noise levels created did not alter behavior or increase
heart rates to the detriment of the population.''
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that these aircraft were
flying along a ridge line at 125 meters, that is approximately 375
feet, above the ground, not the 6,000 feet or more that would be used
by aircraft traveling to, arriving, or departing from the Ivanpah
Airport and possibly over the Mojave Preserve.
And if there were a safety issue requiring them to fly over, that
would be a rare and abnormal occurrence that would only occur
infrequently, at best.
Finally, I would again like to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Hansen), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his hard work once again
and dedication in helping me see this project through over the last 3
years.
As a freshman, and with the help of former Congressman John Ensign,
the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) stood behind the people of
Southern Nevada and enabled us to get to this point today. The State of
Nevada owes the gentleman many thanks.
Mr. Chairman, I ask everyone to support H.R. 1695, which is so very
important to the Southern Nevada area and its future.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for all
of his work and effort in coming to an agreement on this legislation. I
know

[[Page H768]]

that he has been involved with it for a considerable period of time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley); and I again thank her for all of her help
and effort on this legislation.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1695.
I particularly wish to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller) for his help with this issue; the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), who was instrumental in making sure that
this, in fact, was heard by all the parties; the gentleman from Utah
(Chairman Hansen) for his extraordinarily diplomatic work on these
efforts; and I want to thank my colleague the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Gibbons) for graciously acknowledging my involvement, and I wish
to do the same to him.
Mr. Chairman, I represent the fastest growing district in the United
States, which is located in one of the fastest growing States in the
United States. I have 5,000 new residents a month coming into Southern
Nevada to establish residence and raise their families there.
In addition to that, we have 32 million visitors a year coming to
Southern Nevada to enjoy the exciting family entertainment that Las
Vegas offers to its visitors. A very large percentage of that 32
million visitors that come to Las Vegas do so by accessing McCarran
Airport. Because of the unprecedented growth and the extraordinary
growth that we have experienced in Southern Nevada, it has become
apparent recently that the McCarran Airport will be at 100 percent
capacity by the year 2008.
It was, therefore, imperative that we moved quickly in order to
facilitate the ability of Southern Nevada to continue to grow, continue
to prosper, continue to allow people easy access to enjoy our Southern
Nevada life-style. Therefore, it became very important for us to pass
this legislation so that we might have another access route for people
to come to Southern Nevada.
The Ivanpah Airport is not a new idea. It is certainly a very
important one for the people of Southern Nevada, particularly for our
continued growth and development.
One of the things that is particularly important about this
legislation is the fact that we have been able to marry and blend not
only the economic needs of our community but the environmental needs,
as well. And for somebody like me and my family that are now three
generations of Southern Nevadans, the environment was as important to
me as the future growth and development of my community.
To be able to blend both needs for future prosperity and to continue
the vibrant economy of Southern Nevada, blend that with the
environmental concerns, which we all have, in order to maintain the
beauty of the environment and keep it as pristine as possible, to be
able to blend both of those very important needs in a piece of
legislation that all parties concerned about this have agreed to
support I think is great statesmanship, and I applaud everybody that
was involved in the process.
It was very important that we have all the parties at the table
agreeing not only to see that the future of Southern Nevada is in very
good hands and the economy, the future growth, and prosperity of our
economy is ensured into the next several decades, but also to make sure
that the thing we care about the most, our beautiful desert
environment, is protected.
So I want to applaud my colleagues for working very diligently to
make sure that this piece of legislation was, in fact, crafted in a way
that everybody could be very excited about the future of Las Vegas, the
future of Southern Nevada, not only the economic side but the
environmental side, as well.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

{time} 1145

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of
the full committee, is not able to be here and has asked that I read
into the Record his brief statement.
He says,

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1693, a bill
to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal-owned land
for the development of a much needed airport for the Ivanpah
Valley in Nevada. This piece of legislation was introduced by
one of our most active and effective resource committee
members, our colleague, Congressman Jim Gibbons from Nevada.
I want to commend the gentleman for his hard work on this
bill that is so important to Nevada and to the many visitors
to Nevada who will someday use this airport facility.
Nevada has the highest percentage of Federally owned lands
of any State in the union with more than 80 percent of
Nevada's land base owned and managed by Federal conservation
agencies. This of course makes it very difficult to provide
for public services in fast growing areas such as Clark
County, Nevada. I can sympathize with the problem. Alaska has
similar problems since so much of my State is owned by the
Federal Government.
However, I am satisfied that this land transfer will not in
any way lessen or diminish the quality of the environment in
Nevada but is absolutely necessary to provide an essential
means of air transportation for the region. My committee has
held hearings not only on the issues relating to this airport
but also to the impacts of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport
expansion on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
The Minnesota refuge is home to a broad range of wildlife
species, including threatened bald eagles, 35 mammal species,
23 reptile and amphibian species and 97 species of birds
including tundra swans migrating all the way from Alaska. Our
hearings revealed that the expansion of the Minneapolis
Airport would result in overflights as low as 500 feet above
the wildlife refuge. Yet the environmental impact statement
for the Minnesota Airport revealed that the wildlife would
not be disturbed so much that the airport expansion should be
stopped. They also found no impact on the threatened bald
eagle and no need for the protections of the endangered
species act. The scientist studying the impacts of the
airport found that the wildlife in the refuge would adjust to
the noise from the low overflights. They found that there is
little scientific evidence that wildlife would be seriously
harmed by over 5,000 takeoffs and landings per month at less
than 2,000 feet above these important migratory bird
breeding, feeding and resting areas.
Just as the Minneapolis Airport has no impact on the
wildlife refuge less than one mile away, I am sure that the
new airport in the Ivanpah Valley of Nevada will have little
if any impact on the environment and will have no impact on
any wildlife refuges or preserves. Building this much-needed
airport is, however, an issue of public safety and the safety
of the flying public as well as those who will operate
private planes and commercial flights.
I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues
to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, I insert the following letters for the Record.

Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2000.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This week the leadership may schedule
H.R. 1695, the Ivanpah Valley Public Lands Transfer Act, for
consideration under a rule. This bill, authored by
Congressman Jim Gibbons, directs the Secretary of the
Interior to sell approximately 6400 acres of Bureau of Land
Management land just south of Las Vegas, Nevada, to Clark
County to develop an airport facility and related
infrastructure. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Resources, which filed its report on the bill on November 16,
1999 (H. Rept. 106-471).
While the H.R. 1695 is primarily a public land transfer
bill, Section 4 directs the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to develop
an airspace management plan that shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, avoid the airspace for the Mojave Desert
Preserve in California. In addition, under Section 4(b), the
Federal Aviation Administration must make certain
certifications to the Secretary of the Interior regarding
Clark County's airspace assessment.
The Committee on Resources recognizes your Committee's
jurisdiction over Section 4 under Rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives. I agree that allowing this bill to
go forward in no way impairs your jurisdiction over this or
any similar provisions, and I would be pleased to place this
letter and any response you may have in the Congressional
Record during our deliberations on this bill. In addition, if
a conference is necessary on this bill, I would support any
request to have the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure be represented on the conference.
This bill is vitally important to Congressman Jim Gibbons
and the people of Clark County, Nevada, so I very much
appreciate your cooperation, and that of Aviation
Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan (who serves on both our
Committees) and Rob Chamberlin of your staff during this very
busy time. I look forward to passing this bill on the Floor
soon and thank you again for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.

[[Page H769]]

____
Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for you letter of March 8,
2000 regarding H.R. 1695, the Ivanpah Valley Public Lands
Transfer Act. I understand that this bill is primarily a land
transfer bill. However, as you point out, Section 4 of the
bill requires the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to develop
an airspace management plan that shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, avoid the airspace for the Mojave Desert
Preserve in California. In addition, under Section 4(b), the
Federal Aviation Administration must make certain
certifications to the Secretary of the Interior regarding
Clark County's airspace assessment. These provisions are of
jurisdiction interest to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
Your recognition of the Committee's jurisdiction and your
acknowledgment that allowing this bill to go forward will not
impair the Committee's jurisdiction over this or other
similar provisions allay my jurisdiction concerns. In
addition, I am pleased to accept your offer of placing our
letters in the Congressional Record as well as your offer of
support if the Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure
requests representation on any potential conference.
Thank you for your assistance on this issue and your
continued support of aviation matters.
With warm personal regards, I remain,
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster,
Chairman.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my vigorous
opposition to H.R. 1695, the ``Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands
Transfer Act.'' Since this project could not meet the environmental or
procedural expectations of the federal government to transfer 6,600
acres of public land administratively, this body must now debate the
merits of legislation that visibly flaunts thirty years of sound
federal land use policy and procedure. It is my hope that as the full
House debates this measure it will see the numerous inconsistencies
with regard to standard federal policy that makes this legislation
unacceptable. Frankly, the advocates have systematically avoided the
administrative procedure this measure was before the bill's sponsors
introduced it three years ago. During this time, a transfer could have
been achieved administratively without forcing a policy and land
transfer down the Department of Interior's throat. One wonders if the
sponsors want an airport site or a political confrontation.
H.R. 1695 directs the sale of 6,600 acres of public land near the
Mojave Desert Preserve for the development of a commercial cargo
airport for the city of Las Vegas and its surrounding suburbs. Although
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has failed to identify this land
for disposal because of the important environmental and recreational
resources it contains, Clark County, Nevada is seeking ownership of
this land at substantially discounted prices. This mandatory conveyance
of public lands circumvents the existing statutory requirements for
land use planning and the sale of public lands including the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA) and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). As a result of this directed land sale, Clark County
is circumventing the necessary environmental safeguards that, under
normal circumstances would allow this project to proceed in an
environmentally responsible manner and make it accountable to the
public through the NEPA and FLPMA public participation processes prior
to the land transfer taking place.
The intent of this legislation makes it apparent that Clark County
has self-determined that there is not need for them to follow a
national policy regarding the disposal of federal lands. It became
apparent during the hearing on this legislation that the county has
independently, and subjectively, studied the issue and determined that
there is no other feasible alternative than construction of an airport
in this area. The feasibility review obtained by the Committee shows
that Clark County only briefly mentions any harmful environmental
impacts associated with the construction of this airport and that the
country made no attempt to study alternative areas on which to locate
the airport.
While in committee, I offered an amendment that would have addressed
the problems associated with this bill by requiring a full
environmental review of the proposed airport and its surrounding
facilities. This amendment contained language from the Airport and
Airway Development Act of 1970 (PL 91-258) that directs the Secretary
of Transportation to consult with the Secretary of the Interior
regarding environmental impacts associated with the construction of an
airport facility. If adverse impacts were found, but there were no
alternative sites on which to locate the airport, then the amendment
allowed for reasonable steps to be taken to reduce the impact of this
airport on the environment. Unfortunately, it was defeated and,
instead, replaced with a toothless amendment that only references NEPA
after the land transfer is complete.

It is my understanding that an agreement has been made to address the
Department of Interior's concerns. This agreement allows the Federal
Aviation Administration and the National Park Service to jointly
proceed on the development of the Environmental Impact Statement prior
to construction of the airport. This amendment follows the premise of
the amendment I offered in Committee by not making the location of the
airport an irrevocable decision regardless of the environmental impacts
associated with its construction. This represents a positive step
forward in the development of this legislation by all interested
parties. Although I am still troubled by H.R. 1695, I am grateful that
supporters of this legislation were able to find common ground with its
opponents to include a firewall that may provide a small measure of
environmental protection to this ecologically sensitive region.
Should construction of this airport be allowed to proceed, it would
be a mistake to not discuss the irreversible impacts that it may have
on the land and its inhabitants. In 1994, Congress established the
Mojave National Preserve that is adjacent to the proposed airport.
Because of prevailing winds to the south, the airport can only
accommodate a north-south facing runway that forces all departing
planes to fly directly over the northern portion of the preserve. The
environmental degradation associated with the airport and low-flying
planes will ultimately threaten one of the most ecologically diverse
desert landscapes in the world. The low-flying craft would destroy the
natural quiet and visitor experience to those exploring the area, harm
wildlife and destroy spectacular views of the night sky through light
pollution.
In addition to displacing the migratory habits of humans while on
vacation in the area, the construction and operation of this airport
will have dire consequences for the 700 plants and 200 animal species
that permanently reside here. Unlike humans, the wildlife does not have
the ability to escape the intrusion of man's inventions into their
increasingly displaced and ecologically fragmented world. Two animals
that would be especially threatened by noise generated from the airport
include the desert bighorn sheep and the endangered desert tortoise.
Studies have demonstrated that repeated jet noise at regular intervals
could increase the stress levels of these animals and have an adverse
impact on their reproductive efforts and their ability to detect and
escape predators.
The location of the proposed airport on a dry lakebed also raises
important hydrologic concerns that may threaten to ground this project
before it gets its wings in the air. The BLM testified during the
hearing on H.R. 1695 that this dry lakebed periodically floods and that
displaced water could affect development in the area. Furthermore, the
region lacks any reliable source of water. The closest water resource
is located south of Primm, Nevada in a California aquifer. Should the
proposed airport and its facilities tap into this aquifer, it could
place a severe strain on water resources for the flora and fauna, in
addition to creating clean air problems, resulting from dust storms
created by the evaporation of what little moisture remains in the dry
lakebed.
Finally, I would like to point out the administrative shortcomings of
this legislation. Firstly, H.R. 1695 makes the United States liable for
claims that may arise from a conveyance by failing to protect the valid
and existing rights that under normal circumstances would be standard
policy for such legislation. This legislation also fails to compensate
the federal government for the fair market value of the land by
requiring it to be appraised without reflecting any future enhancements
that may increase its value. Lastly, there are a number of
administrative costs associated with the bill that the federal
government, not Clark County, must pay, including land and resource
surveys, appraisals and land transfer patent expenses. I would like to
stress that it is Clark County directing the purchase of this land and
not the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, this project deserves the same environmental scrutiny
as other similar projects being pursued around the nation. I find it
disturbing that this Congress may blatantly disregard the rules and
procedures established by them to practically give away federal land to
a county that has determined the sites of its next large airport,
without the benefit of a full environmental review. If the sponsors
worked as hard to resolve the problems and work with the Department of
Interior as they have the past three years to circumvent the policy and
laws in place, we would have a resolution, not a confrontation as is
evident today! It is my hope that this body will find it beneficial to
carry out the proper studies so Clark County can provide to its
citizens and visitors a safe and environmentally friendly solution for
air transport. Without adequate safeguards, though, I fear that
Congress will give

[[Page H770]]

its nod of approval to a project that essentially subsidizes a
community's efforts to carry out an ill-conceived plan. While it is
true that the Las Vegas area is in need of a new airport, a project of
this magnitude should proceed in the same responsible manner as
required by other communities to ensure the safety and health of their
communities and surrounding environment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1695, a
bill that would allow for the sale of certain Federal public lands in
the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada to Clark County for the purposes of building
a new airport. I applaud the efforts of the Gentlewoman from Nevada,
Congresswoman Berkley, not only for her early recognition that a third
airport is key to accommodate the explosive growth in the Las Vegas
area, but also for her dedication to ensure that the construction of
any new airport will be balanced with environmental concerns in the
nearby Mojave Preserve. As of a few days ago, many issues with regard
to H.R. 1695 were still unresolved. However, through Congresswoman
Berkley's tireless efforts to bridge the gap on a bipartisan basis,
those issues have been resolved such that H.R. 1695 has full support
from all parties involved.
The demand for aviation has grown dramatically over the last several
decades, a trend that is expected to continue for the foreseeable
future. In 1998, 656 million passengers flew commercially, twice the
number in 1980. This number is expected to grow to almost 1 billion
over the next 10 years. In addition, the air cargo market is growing
faster than any other sector of the aviation industry, an average of
6.6% a year. To accommodate that growth, the Boeing Company estimates
that the world's jet freighter fleet will have to double by 2017--that
means adding 1,000 more aircraft.
No where has this explosive growth in aviation been evident as in the
Las Vegas, Nevada area. Passenger traffic at Las Vegas' McCarran
International Airport has increased by 64 percent since 1990, with
growth at 13 percent alone in 1999. In less than eight years, McCarran
will be at full capacity. To accommodate this rapid growth, several
options have been carefully considered, such as adding a 5th runway at
McCarran. However, the costs of constructing an additional runway are
estimated at upwards of 1.7 billion--four times the cost of the Ivanpah
proposal--and would have involved the condemnation of several homes
surrounding the airport. After careful consideration of other possible
sites, the Department of Aviation concluded that the site located in
the Ivanpah Valley was the most suitable. Importantly, the site located
in the Ivanpah Valley is the only area that will allow aircraft to use
a full precision instrument approach that will not result in airspace
conflict with nearby McCarran Airport.
Although H.R. 1695 will allow for the sale by the Bureau of Land
Management of approximately 6,600 acres of public land located in
Ivanpah Valley to Clark County for purposes of developing this third
airport, it also contains many safeguards to preserve environmental
interests at the Mojave Preserve. First, H.R. 1695 would require the
Secretaries of Transportation and Interior to work together to develop
an airspace management plan to restrict arrivals or departures over the
Mojave Preserve, unless necessary for safety. In addition, Clark County
would have to conduct an assessment, with Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) approval, to identify potential impacts on access
to the Las Vegas Basin under VFR flight rules.
Importantly, the Managers Amendment to H.R. 1695, offered by the
Gentleman from Utah, Congressman Hansen, would require, prior to
construction of the airport, a full environmental assessment under the
National Environmental Policy Act, with the Departments of Interior and
Transportation as co-lead agencies. If, at the conclusion of the NEPA
process, the FAA and Clark County determine that the site is not
suitable for an airport facility, custody of the land would revert back
to the Department of Interior. This provision is pivotal in ensuring
that all potential impacts of aircraft overflights on the Mojave
Preserve are assessed before any construction begins.
Passage of H.R. 1695 will allow the Las Vegas area to plan for its
future growth by increasing air capacity, while preserving the
integrity of the environment in the Mojave Preserve. I urge my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 1695

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Ivanpah Valley Airport
Public Lands Transfer Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF LANDS TO CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the land use planning
requirements contained in sections 202 and 203 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712 and
1713), but subject to subsection (b) of this section, the
Secretary shall convey to the County all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the Federal public
lands identified for disposition on the map entitled
``Ivanpah Valley, Nevada-Airport Selections'' numbered 01,
and dated April 1999, for the purpose of developing an
airport facility and related infrastructure. The Secretary
shall keep such map on file and available for public
inspection in the offices of the Director of the Bureau of
Land Management and in the district office of the Bureau
located in Las Vegas, Nevada.
(b) Conditions.--The Secretary shall make no conveyance
under subsection (a) until each of the following conditions
are fulfilled:
(1) The County has conducted an airspace assessment to
identify any potential adverse effects on access to the Las
Vegas Basin under visual flight rules that would result from
the construction and operation of a commercial or primary
airport, or both, on the land to be conveyed.
(2) The Federal Aviation Administration has made a
certification under section 4(b).
(3) The County has entered into an agreement with the
Secretary to retain ownership of Jean Airport, located at
Jean, Nevada, and to maintain and operate such airport for
general aviation purposes.
(c) Payment.--
(1) In general.--As consideration for the conveyance of
each parcel, the County shall pay to the United States an
amount equal to the fair market value of the parcel.
(2) Deposit in special account.--The Secretary shall
deposit the payments received under paragraph (1) in the
special account described in section 4(e)(1)(C) of the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (31 U.S.C. 6901
note).
(d) Reversion and Reentry.--
(1) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning 20
years after the date on which the Secretary conveys the lands
under subsection (a), if the Secretary determines that the
County is not developing or progressing toward the
development of the conveyed lands as an airport facility, all
right, title, and interest in those lands shall revert to the
United States, and the Secretary may reenter such lands.
(2) Procedure.--Any determination of the Secretary under
paragraph (1) shall be made only on the record after an
opportunity for a hearing.
(3) Refund.--If any right, title, and interest in lands
revert to the United States under this subsection, the
Secretary shall refund to the County all payments made to the
United States for such lands under subsection (c).

SEC. 3. MINERAL ENTRY FOR LANDS ELIGIBLE FOR CONVEYANCE.

The public lands referred to in section 2(a) are withdrawn
from mineral entry under the Act of May 10, 1872 (30 U.S.C.
22 et seq.; popularly known as the Mining Law of 1872) and
the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).

SEC. 4. ACTIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

(a) Development of Airpsace Management Plan.--The Secretary
of Transportation shall, in consultation with the Secretary,
develop an airspace management plan for the Ivanpah Valley
Airport that shall, to the maximum extent practicable and
without adversely impacting safety considerations, restrict
aircraft arrivals and departures over the Mojave Desert
Preserve in California.
(b) Certification of Assessment.--The Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall certify to the
Secretary that the assessment made by the County under
section 2(b)(1) is thorough and that alternatives have been
developed to address each adverse effect identified in the
assessment, including alternatives that ensure access to the
Las Vegas Basin under visual flight rules at a level that is
equal to or better than existing access.

SEC. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF
1969 REQUIRED.

Prior to operation of an airport facility on lands conveyed
under section 2, all actions required under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
with respect to that operation shall be completed.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act--
(1) the term ``County'' means Clark County, Nevada; and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior.

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment printed in House Report 106-515 shall be
considered read and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed

[[Page H771]]

in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments
will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hansen

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-515 offered by
Mr. Hansen:
Page 2, line 12, after ``section'' insert ``and valid
existing rights''.
Page 3, strike line 22 and insert the following:
Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2345). The second sentence
of section 4(f) of such Act (112 Stat. 2346) shall not apply
to interest earned on amounts deposited under this paragraph.
Page 3, strike line 23 and all that follows through page 4,
line 14, and insert the following:
(d) Reversion and Reentry.--If, following completion of
compliance with section 5 of this Act, the Federal Aviation
Administration and the County determine that an airport
cannot be constructed on the conveyed lands--
(1) the Secretary of the Interior shall immediately refund
to the County all payments made to the United States for such
lands under subsection (c); and
(2) upon such payment--
(A) all right, title, and interest in the lands conveyed to
the County under this Act shall revert to the United States;
and
(B) the Secretary may reenter such lands.
Page 5, strike line 16 and all that follows through line 19
and insert the following:
Prior to construction of an airport facility on lands
conveyed under section 2, all actions required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) with respect to initial planning and construction shall
be completed by the Secretary of Transportation and the
Secretary of the Interior as joint lead agencies.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to note that we recently reached
a compromise with the minority to add these en bloc amendments to the
bill. The amendments would make fairly technical changes to the
environmental review requirements and the revisionary clause in the
bill.
The original reversionary clause of this bill in section 2(d) gave a
lengthy period of time before the Secretary of the Interior could
assess the development and progress of land and determine whether it
should be given back to the United States. Under the amendment, Clark
County and the FAA would determine whether the airport could be
constructed on the conveyed lands through the NEPA process. If it was
determined that the airport could not be constructed, the title to the
land would immediately revert to the United States and the Secretary of
the Interior must refund to the county all payments made for the land.
This language is agreed to by the majority and the minority as well as
the airport authority.
The second major change is a complete rewrite of section 5 dealing
with compliance of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969.
Under the amendment, NEPA compliance must occur prior to the initial
planning and construction of the airport. Moreover, the language
provides that the Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of the
Interior will be joint lead agencies in conducting the NEPA work for
the initial planning and construction. However, we do not expect the
Secretary of the Interior to be a joint lead agency in subsequent NEPA
compliance which the airport may experience during its long-term
development.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, there is a technical amendment to the nature of
how the proceeds are expended by the Secretary. This amendment is made
at the request of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. Chairman, these are bipartisan amendments that serve to make this
bill acceptable to both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to
support the amendments.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Utah, the gentleman from
Nevada, and the gentlewoman from Nevada for working out this amendment
to make the bill acceptable to both sides of the aisle. I urge Members
to support the amendment.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the en bloc
amendments to H.R. 1695 as offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Hansen). First as we have already heard, there is a change to how the
revenues generated from the sale of this property to Clark County,
Nevada will be handled. This amendment simply states that those
revenues were to be applied under section 4(f) of the act, 112 Statutes
2346, which provided for those proceeds to be generated in the same
fashion that the southern Nevada land sales proceeds were developed.
However, the Committee on the Budget decided that it needed to revise
its treatment of the interest since that was not covered in the prior
act. That interest amount will go to the general treasury on any funds
that are generated from the sale of this property.
Secondly, as the gentleman from Utah has already explained, the
reentry revision finally recognizes that, if under the Secretary's
determination that this project cannot go forward under the NEPA
process and that there is a determination of a no-action alternative,
this property then will be reverted back to the United States and title
to the United States and the money which will be paid by Clark County
shall be returned to Clark County for the reversionary interest.
Lastly, of course, is the determination that prior to construction,
facility owned lands will be required to address all of the National
Environmental Policy Act requirements of 1969. To dispel any concerns,
Mr. Chairman, that Members may have, I would like to share with them
the environmental process that this airport will have to comply with.
Under title 49, section 47101, subsection H, Consultation, let me say
that to carry out the policy of this section, the Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Secretary of Interior and the
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency about any project
included in a project grant application involving the location of an
airport or runway or any major runway extension that may have a
significant effect on, one, natural resources including fish and
wildlife; two, natural scenic and recreational assets; three, water and
air quality; or, four, another factor affecting the environment.
Under subsection C, the environmental requirements, the Secretary of
Transportation may approve an application under this subchapter for an
airport development project involving the location of an airport or
runway or a major runway extension, A, only if the sponsor certifies to
the secretary that (i) an opportunity for a public hearing was given to
consider the economic, social and environmental impacts of the location
and the location's consistency with the objectives of any planning that
the community has carried out and (ii) the airport management board has
voting representation from the communities in which the project is
located or has advised the communities that they have the right to
petition the secretary about a proposed project.
Subsection B of that part says that only if the chief executive
officer of the State in which the project will be located certifies in
writing to the secretary that there is a reasonable assurance that the
project will be located, designed, constructed and operated in
compliance with the applicable air and water quality standards, except
that the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
make the certification instead of the chief executive officer if,
subsection (i) the State has not approved any applicable State or local
standards, and (ii) the administrator has prescribed applicable
standards.
And subsection C finally says that if the application is found to
have a significant adverse effect on natural resources including fish
and wildlife, natural, scenic and recreational assets, water and air
quality, or another factor affecting the environment, only after
finding that no possible and prudent alternative to the project exists
and that every reasonable step has been taken to minimize the adverse
effect.
Mr. Chairman, these are simply items that this project is going to
have to comply with. There is no attempt in

[[Page H772]]

this bill to skirt or circumvent any of the environmental process. We
think that this amendment brings forward and highlights those aspects.
We certainly rise in support of the en bloc amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417,
noes 3, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 36]

AYES--417

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--3

Chenoweth-Hage
Coburn
Paul

NOT VOTING--14

Brown (OH)
Cooksey
Granger
Horn
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
LaTourette
McCollum
Murtha
Scarborough
Schaffer
Spence
Vento
Wise

{time} 1224

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments? If not, the question is
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Ose) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1695) to
provide for the conveyance of certain Federal public lands in the
Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to Clark County, Nevada, for the development of
an airport facility, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 433, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 420,
nays 1, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 37]

YEAS--420

[[Page H773]]

Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--1

Coble

NOT VOTING--13

Brown (OH)
Cooksey
Granger
Johnson, Sam
LaTourette
McCollum
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Spence
Tiahrt
Vento
Waters

{time} 1339

Mr. SENSENBRENNER and Mr. BRADY of Texas changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 37 I inadvertently pressed
the ``no'' button. I meant to vote ``yes.''

____________________