[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 24098-24101]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    LAKE TAHOE BASIN LAND CONVEYANCE

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 634, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4656) to authorize the Forest Service to convey certain 
lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin to the Washoe County School District for 
use as an elementary school site, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 4656 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4656

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

     SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN FOREST SERVICE LAND IN THE 
                   LAKE TAHOE BASIN.

       (a) Conveyance.--Upon application, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, 
     may convey to the Washoe County School District all right, 
     title, and interest of the United States in the property 
     described as a portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 
     15, Township 16 North, Range 18 East, M.D.B. & M., more 
     particularly described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 426 for 
     Boise Cascade, filed in the office of the Washoe County 
     Recorder, State of Nevada, on May 19, 1977, as file No. 
     465601, Official Records.
       (b) Review of Application.--When the Secretary receives an 
     application to convey the property under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall make a final determination whether or not to 
     convey such property before the end of the 180-day period 
     beginning on the date of the receipt of the application.
       (c) Use; Reversion.--The conveyance of the property under 
     subsection (a) shall be for the sole purpose of the 
     construction of an elementary school on the property. The 
     property conveyed shall revert to the United States if the 
     property is used for a purpose other than as an elementary 
     school site.
       (d) Consideration Based on Requirement To Use for Limited 
     Public Purposes.--The Secretary shall determine the amount of 
     any consideration required for the conveyance of property 
     under this section based on the fair market value of the 
     property when it is subject to the restriction on use under 
     subsection (c).
       (e) Proceeds.--The proceeds from the conveyance of the 
     property under subsection (a) shall be available to the 
     Secretary without further appropriation and shall remain 
     available until expended for the purpose of acquiring 
     environmentally sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe Basin 
     pursuant to section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
     for the orderly disposal of certain Federal lands in Nevada 
     and for the acquisition of certain other lands in the Lake 
     Tahoe Basin, and for other purposes'', approved December 23, 
     1980 (94 Stat. 3381; commonly known as the ``Santini-Burton 
     Act'').
       (f) Applicable Law.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, any sale of National Forest System land under this 
     section shall be subject to the laws (including regulations) 
     applicable to the conveyance of National Forest System lands.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the author of this legislation, be permitted 
to control the time on this side.

[[Page 24099]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Parks and 
Public Lands. And, as well, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, for his 
support and leadership on this very important bill that is before us 
this evening.
  To my Democratic colleagues on other side of the aisle, let me say 
this is indeed a very important bill for a rural community in Nevada.
  H.R. 4656 will sell, and I want to emphasize that again, ``sell'' 8.7 
acres of U.S. Forest Service land inside a developed community, located 
in the Lake Tahoe Basin, to the Washoe County School District at fair 
market value for limited use as an elementary school site.
  The proceeds of the sale will go towards the purchase of 
environmentally-sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe region. The site will 
become the home of an elementary school for 400 children in Incline 
Village in Nevada.
  Mr. Speaker, the present site of Incline Elementary School was 
constructed in 1964 and serves as the only elementary school in the 
town. Presently, the Incline Elementary School is burdened by serious 
overcrowding problems, forcing the school to put more than 40 students 
in a classroom because there is just simply no place else for these 
children to go.
  Due to the school's size limitations, expanding beyond its current 
physical design is simply not an option.
  After reviewing all private and public property in the Incline 
Village area, the school district, in concert with parents, teachers 
and community leaders, agreed that the only possible location for a new 
school would be the 8.7 acres currently owned by the U.S. Forest 
Service.
  This land, Mr. Speaker, was purchased over a decade ago for 
approximately $500,000 as environmentally-sensitive land under the 
Santini-Burton Act. However, let me state that this land is not the 
pristine, beautiful land which one thinks of when thinking about the 
Lake Tahoe area.
  In fact, this 8.7 acres is surrounded by condominium complexes on 
both sides and a retail shopping mall on the other. Furthermore, the 
environmentally-sensitive area, which is a seasonal stream which runs 
through a portion of the land, will be completely protected from 
development.
  In addition, the school district will be installing a water 
filtration system at the end of the stream channel and the stream will 
be incorporated into existing educational programs on water quality.
  I can confidently state, Mr. Speaker, that any environmental concerns 
have been fully addressed. As a result, even former Congressman Jim 
Santini, the author of the Santini-Burton Act, has expressed his 
support for the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record his letter:

                                                 October 17, 2000.
     Hon. Jim Gibbons,
     House of Representatives, Cannon HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim: Recently, I learned that your legislation to 
     convey land in the Lake Tahoe Basin to the Washoe County 
     School District fell twenty-four votes short of passage in 
     the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules. I 
     was disturbed to learn further that much of the contentious 
     debate over your important bill centered around the fact that 
     the land had been acquired under legislation bearing my name, 
     the Santini-Burton Act. Consequently, I felt compelled to 
     write you about this matter and to express my strong support 
     for your legislation, which in no way would threaten the 
     intent, objectives, or goals of the Santini-Burton Act.
       The intent of the Santini-Burton Act was to protect 
     environmentally sensitive land from rampant commercial 
     development. However, the opposition to your bill does not 
     reflect the original intent of my legislation in any way. The 
     educational needs of the children of Incline Village, 
     currently crowded into classrooms with over 40 students, must 
     be addressed. Your bill, which was crafted with the input of 
     the League to Save Lake Tahoe, Washoe County School District, 
     and local Forest Service officials, will address these needs 
     while still protecting both the environment and the original 
     intent of my legislation.
       Over a decade ago, the U.S. government acquired, as 
     environmentally sensitive land under the Santini-Burton Act, 
     8.7 acres of land in the Lake Tahoe Basin, for approximately 
     $500,000. The environmental sensitivity of the land stems 
     solely from the seasonal stream bed which runs through a 
     portion of the site. In the years since the federal 
     acquisition, as you know, a condominium development and 
     retail strip mall have been built on the borders of the land. 
     I have also been informed that the next closest U.S. Forest 
     Service owned land is 26 miles away.
       Under your bill, H.R. 4656, the Washoe County School 
     District would purchase the 8.7 acres for fair market value 
     for the limited use as an elementary school site to alleviate 
     the overcrowding problems currently burdening the present 
     Incline Elementary School. The environmental sensitivity of 
     the land would be protected, even enhanced, by the addition 
     of water filtration systems and the seasonal stream area 
     would not be disturbed by development. The sensitive area 
     would be incorporated into the school's current curriculum on 
     water quality.
       Clearly, the use of this land as an elementary school site 
     would better serve the public than developing the land for 
     any other use--which could garner the full fair market value 
     (perhaps as much as $4 million) for which the Administration 
     so strenuously advocates. It astonishes me that anyone would 
     put such a high price on educating over 400 children.
       Jim, please be assured that you have my strong support on 
     this matter. It is my hope that during the debate on this 
     bill the intent of the Santini-Burton Act will no longer be 
     misrepresented. However, my greater hope is that your 
     legislation will pass Congress and be signed into law 
     promptly so that the students of Incline Village can learn in 
     a safe school facility that meets all of their educational 
     needs.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James D. Santini,
                                        Former Member of Congress.

  Mr. Speaker, Congressman Santini realized the importance of putting 
education before government profit. In his letter, he states very 
clearly, ``Clearly, the use of this land as an elementary school site 
would better serve the public than developing the land for any other 
use, which could garner the full market value (perhaps as much as $4 
million) for which the administration so strenuously advocates. It 
astonishes me that anyone would put such a high price on educating over 
400 children.''
  Mr. Speaker, it astonishes me, too, that they would be advocating 
such a price for this land. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe 
that just this week this administration stated that it has no higher 
priority than education and yet continues to object to this bill simply 
because they could get more money for the land if it were commercially 
developed rather than developed as a school site.
  Under this bill, the Federal Government will receive compensation for 
the land, the environment will be protected, the families of Incline 
Village will have a school for their children which will encourage 
education and not inhibit it because of limited space.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4656 is about education. It is about school 
construction. It is about having that mysterious mythical girl standing 
in the back of the classroom without room for her desk. And this bill 
is about children, 400 children as a matter of fact, over 50 percent of 
whom are ESL students who are learning English as a second language. 
All of these children deserve a safe and adequate school facility that 
meets their individual and educational needs.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my fear that if this legislation is not enacted 
today that the previously fabricated stories that I mentioned earlier 
about the young girl being forced to stand in the back of the school 
without her own desk and chair will become a reality in Incline 
Village.
  Voting for H.R. 4656 gives every Member of this House the opportunity 
to keep their promise and prove their commitment to supporting 
education. This is good public policy, and it is government's civic 
duty to provide education to our children, not to be greedy and price 
them out of an adequate and healthy learning environment.
  So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I encourage all Members to vote for H.R. 
4656, a bill that is truly a win-win for everybody.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 24100]]


  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the general concept that is being 
proposed by my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). But 
I have to tell the House that I have concerns about the fact that we 
have had a closed rule that will not allow us to perfect this piece of 
legislation.
  It would sail through, I am convinced, both this House and the other 
body if we could ensure that this parcel of land was purchased at a 
price that would allow us then to purchase equivalent land in the Tahoe 
area. And I think that is at the core of the issue that we are now 
debating here tonight.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my colleague, 
spoke earlier on the rule and I think made the case strongly and 
eloquently that this is not an appropriate way to proceed because these 
are taxpayer lands and these are taxpayer monies that are at risk here.
  I urge my colleague to continue to work with us so that we can 
continue to perfect the bill and do right by the school system in his 
State and also do right by the taxpayers of the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman. I have made 
my views known on this matter. I have a difference of opinion with the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) on whether or not this is a sale at 
fair market value. I realize the restriction. But I have been over 
that. It is pretty clear the gentleman has the votes and, so, I will 
not belabor the point.
  I would hope that before this bill finishes its journey that we could 
do a little bit better by the taxpayers.
  H.R. 4656 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to convey for fair 
market value an approximately 8.7 acre parcel on the Tahoe National 
Forest in Incline Village, NV to the Washoe County School District for 
use as an elementary school site. The parcel is valued at between $2-4 
million. However, because of a deed restriction directing use as a 
school site and a reversionary clause, the Forest Service believes that 
the appraised value would be reduced by 75% to approximately $500,000. 
The bill requires the proceeds of the sale to be used for acquiring 
environmentally sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
  The parcel, although in a developed area, was originally acquired by 
the Forest Service in 1981 under the Santini-Burton Act for 
approximately $500,000. That act authorizes the acquisition of 
environmentally sensitive land in Lake Tahoe thru sales of BLM land in 
and near Las Vegas. While the Santini-Burton Act allows transfer of 
lands or interests in land to state and local government, deed 
restrictions must protect the environmental quality and public 
recreation purposes of the land. Legislation is needed in this instance 
because this conveyance does not fall within the parameters of the Act. 
While local ordinances may protect the stream on the parcel, nothing in 
the legislation explicitly protects the stream area from development.
  The town sold off a potential school site in 1995 for $855,000. That 
money, plus a $7.2 million bond issue for construction of the school 
facility and environmental remediation, would pay for the project.
  H.R. 4656 was introduced by Representative Gibbons on June 14, 2000. 
A companion measure, S. 2728, was introduced by Senator Bryan (D-NV) on 
June 14, 2000. At the September 12, 2000 Committee mark-up, Adam Smith 
offered an amendment that would have removed the deed restriction and 
reversionary clause thereby allowing the federal government to get full 
fair market value. The amendment was rejected, the bill was reported 
out, and the minority filed dissenting views. Over our objections, the 
bill was placed on the suspension calendar on October 10, 2000 and when 
a recorded vote was requested, failed on suspension 248-160 on October 
12, 2000. In retaliation, the Majority killed Mr. Kildee's 
noncontroversial suspension bill (H.R. 468). Now being brought up under 
a closed rule, we are foreclosed from offering the Smith amendment.
  The administration opposes the bill as is, but would support it if it 
were amended so that the federal government could get fair market value 
for the land. Were it allowed, the amendment we would have offered 
simply removes both the deed restriction and the reversionary clause 
thereby allowing the federal government to get full fair market value 
for the land. The closed rule prohibits offering the amendment that 
would get full fair market value for the taxpayers. This is unfair. 
It's also unfair that the majority killed a noncontroversial bill and 
failed to reschedule it.
  The taxpayers deserve fair compensation for this land in particular, 
because they purchased the land under a federal program (Santini-
Burton) to buy environmentally sensitive land around Lake Tahoe and 
because the proceeds of the sale will be used to purchase additional 
environmentally sensitive land in the Lake Tahoe area. Like other land 
around Lake Tahoe, this land has appreciated considerably in the last 
20 years (from $500,000 to several million), and full market value 
would ensure the government has the ability to replace the land with 
comparable property. To offset the fiscal and environmental loss of 
this environmentally valuable property, the federal government should 
get full value.
  The Majority argues that there is precedent for conveying land at 
less than FMV with a reversionary clause. But in H.R. 695 (San Juan 
College-T. Udall) and other bills, the land conveyed was simply public 
domain land or surplus land. H.R. 2890 (Vieques-Crowley) returns land 
to Puerto Rico that has been used as a bombing range in an effort to 
restore its environmental integrity. In H.R. 2737 (Lewis and Clark 
Trail to State of Illinois-Costello), National Park Service land was 
conveyed for a purpose wholly consistent with the purpose for which the 
land was acquired (land went to the state to build an interpretive 
center). Finally, H.R. 1725 (Milwaleta Park Expansion-DeFazio (passed 
October 23, 2000 on suspension)) conveys park land to be used as park 
land.
  In this bill, the land is not surplus, and it is not being conveyed 
for a purpose consistent with the purpose for which it was acquired. 
The land is Santini-Burton land which the public purchased specifically 
for its environmental value and whose protection represents a federal 
priority. This bill undermines that act, which, thru restrictions on 
disposal of property, aims to protect the lands' environmental quality 
and public recreation purposes. It is sound fiscal policy for the 
public to receive full value for its public assets. This bill is a 
sweetheart deal for one school district and is yet another example of 
using federal lands to subsidize local interests. This is not the 
solution to school construction problems. It is a rip-off for taxpayers 
and the environment. The school gets an added windfall because it 
recently sold a potential school site for $855,000. It also gets not 
just the property, but the development rights. Unfortunately, this land 
conveyance is not just an isolated example of a giveaway. It is 
representative of public lands bills and policies that benefit a few 
people at the expense of the public.
  I have long been concerned that land deals--especially land 
exchanges--are being cut behind closed doors with tremendous special-
interest pressure and limited public input. A General Accounting Office 
report that I requested confirmed my fears: too many of these exchanges 
lead to environmental damage and taxpayer rip-offs. The GAO report, 
``Land Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate Value and Serve the Public 
Interest,'' released in July found that the Forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars 
swapping valuable public land for private land of questionable value, 
and the report concludes that the BLM may even be breaking the law. The 
GAO reported that the agencies ``did not ensure that the land being 
exchanged was appropriately valued or that exchanges served the public 
interest or met certain other exchange requirements.'' GAO went on to 
state that ``the exchanges presented in our report demonstrate serious, 
substantive, and continuing problems with the agencies' land exchange 
programs.''
  In addition, GAO found that the BLM has--under the umbrella of its 
land exchange authority--illegally sold federal land, deposited the 
proceeds into interest-bearing accounts, and used these funds to 
acquire nonfederal land (or arranged with others to do so). These 
unauthorized transactions undermine congressional budget authority, GAO 
said. Specific findings of the GAO report include:
  Private parties in one Nevada exchange made windfall profits, in one 
case acquiring land ``valued'' by BLM at $763,000 and selling it for 
$4.6 million on the same day and in another instance acquiring land 
``valued'' at $504,000 and selling it for $1 million on the same day.
  In the DelMar exchange in Utah, the BLM paid more than seven times 
the appraised value.
  The Forest Service acquired lands in three exchanges in Nevada that 
were ``overvalued

[[Page 24101]]

by a total of $8.8 million'' because the appraised values ``were not 
supported by credible evidence.''
  In the Cache Creek exchange in California, the BLM failed to 
``present the reasons for acquiring'' the land.
  In another Nevada exchange, the Del Webb exchange, BLM removed an 
agency appraiser and violated the BLM's own policy by hiring a non-
federal appraiser recommended by the exchange's private party.
  The GAO said the problems were so bad that Congress should consider 
eliminating the programs altogether. I believe that the appropriate 
step is to halt the programs and then fix them. in light of the GAO's 
report, I asked the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to 
immediately suspend their programs while they evaluate the best method 
to achieve exchanges' laudable goals. Both agencies declined my request 
for a moratorium but have begun to review their exchange programs. 
Although, the reviews may prove to correct many of the problems, I will 
watch the efforts closely, especially because the BLM continues the 
land transactions that GAO said were illegal. So now what does this 
Congress do when faced with a clear demonstration of the problems of 
the exchange program? Instead of supporting efforts to ensure that 
taxpayers and the environment are protected, Congress has passed some 
of the worst land swaps I have seen in my 26 years of Congress.
  Since the GAO report was released: The House passed and the President 
signed into law, S. 1629, the Oregon Land Exchange Act, which mandated 
the exchange of 90,000 acres without sufficient NEPA review or public 
disclosure of appraisal information. The House and Senate passed H.R. 
4828, the Steens Mountain exchange bill. The bill contains 5 legislated 
land exchanges. The exchanges were negotiated behind closed doors among 
a select group of participants. No appraisals were done. Further, while 
the exchanges themselves are unequal, the ranchers asked for even more 
and the bill includes nearly $5 million in cash payments to them. As if 
that was not enough, the bill directs the Secretary to provide fencing 
and water developments for their grazing operations.
  Finally, these trades involve the unprecedented transfer of more than 
18,000 acres of wilderness study areas (WSAs) to the ranchers. While it 
is true that the BLM would receive more than 14,000 acres of private 
land within WSAs, this is not only a net loss but it also sets a bad 
precedent of trading wilderness for wilderness. Further, significant 
private inholdings will remain in the proposed wilderness areas even 
after these trades.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) that those perfecting amendments they 
were talking about were, of course, removing the restrictions for the 
limitation of using this property only as a school site and also to 
remove the restriction of a reversionary clause, which would be that, 
if it were not used for a school, it would be reverted back to the 
Federal Government.
  Those provisions are in the bill; and to remove those, of course, 
would allow for the appraisal process to be one which would garner that 
of a commercially developed piece of property. This school district is 
not interested in developing this property as commercial property. It 
certainly wants to use the property for a school site. It is going to 
protect the environment.
  Let me also say to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall), over here that his support of H.R. 695, which is 
a bill that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Tom Udall) supported not 
long ago to acquire land for San Juan College, was sold and acquired 
with a restriction to be used for educational purposes, which, of 
course, had an effect on the valuation of it.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of bills that have been passed 
through this body with the support of the other side that have not been 
raised on the issue of fairness to the taxpayer that actually gave 
property away and let Federal taxpayers receive zero, zip, nada, 
nothing for the property that was given away; and those are clearly on 
record here. I can go through and cite many of those bills, Mr. 
Speaker.
  But this is an important piece of legislation for the education of 
some children. We are asking for the fair market value based on the use 
of the land as an educational site. It was acquired for $500,000. I 
think with the restrictions placed on it that we could actually give 
back to the taxpayers the money they paid for it and maybe even a 
little extra, depending upon the valuation of that property.
  But this is an important bill for the education of those children. We 
want to have an opportunity to give these children up there a place to 
go to school. The nearest, closest land that could be suitable for a 
school for an elementary school site in the area is about 26 miles 
away. Otherwise, these schoolchildren will have to be bussed over a 
mountainous pass in the wintertime, which is oftentimes closed by snow 
and ice, a very dangerous road in the wintertime.
  It is the safety of these children, it is the education of these 
children that we are so very, very much concerned about.
  Mr. Speaker, noting that my good friends on the other side of the 
aisle have been gracious, and I do have great respect for their 
opinions, I would ask that all of my colleagues support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The bill is considered read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 634, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________


                              {time}  1930