[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2503-2511]
[From the U.S. 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 administrative problems associated with large-scale 
land conveyance.

[[Page 2504]]

  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.

[[Page 2505]]

  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 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

[[Page 2506]]

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 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

[[Page 2507]]

     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.
                                  ____

                                       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 
county 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

[[Page 2508]]

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 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

[[Page 2509]]

     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 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.

[[Page 2510]]

  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 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.

[[Page 2511]]

  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

     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
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     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
     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.''

                          ____________________