[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10739-10741]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND IN CLARK COUNTY, 
                     NEVADA, FOR USE AS A HELIPORT

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 849) to provide for the conveyance of certain public land in 
Clark County, Nevada, for use as a heliport.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 849

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

     SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY TO CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Las Vegas Valley in the State of Nevada is the 
     fastest growing community in the United States;
       (2) helicopter tour operations are conflicting with the 
     needs of long-established residential communities in the 
     Valley; and
       (3) the designation of a public heliport in the Valley that 
     would reduce conflicts between helicopter tour operators and 
     residential communities is in the public interest.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide a 
     suitable location for the establishment of a commercial 
     service heliport facility to serve the Las Vegas Valley in 
     the State of Nevada while minimizing and mitigating the 
     impact of air tours on the Sloan Canyon National Conservation 
     Area and North McCullough Mountains Wilderness.
       (c) Definitions.--In this Act:
       (1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area'' 
     means the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area established 
     by section 604(a) of the Clark County Conservation of Public 
     Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2010).
       (2) County.--The term ``County'' means Clark County, 
     Nevada.
       (3) Helicopter tour.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``helicopter tour'' means a 
     commercial helicopter tour operated for profit.
       (B) Exclusion.--The term ``helicopter tour'' does not 
     include a helicopter tour that is carried out to assist a 
     Federal, State, or local agency.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) Wilderness.--The term ``Wilderness'' means the North 
     McCullough Mountains Wilderness established by section 
     202(a)(13) of the Clark County Conservation of Public Land 
     and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2000).
       (d) Conveyance.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall convey to the 
     County, subject to valid existing rights, for no 
     consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the parcel of land described in subsection 
     (e).
       (e) Description of Land.--The parcel of land to be conveyed 
     under subsection (d) is the parcel of approximately 229 acres 
     of land depicted as tract A on the map entitled ``Clark 
     County Public Heliport Facility'' and dated May 3, 2004.
       (f) Use of Land.--
       (1) In general.--The parcel of land conveyed under 
     subsection (d)--
       (A) shall be used by the County for the operation of a 
     heliport facility under the conditions stated in paragraphs 
     (2) and (3); and
       (B) shall not be disposed of by the County.
       (2) Imposition of fees.--
       (A) In general.--Any operator of a helicopter tour 
     originating from or concluding at the parcel of land 
     described in subsection (e) shall pay to the Clark County 
     Department of Aviation a $3 conservation fee for each 
     passenger on the helicopter tour if any portion of the 
     helicopter tour occurs over the Conservation Area.
       (B) Disposition of funds.--Any amounts collected under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be deposited in a special account in 
     the Treasury of the United States, which shall be available 
     to the Secretary, without further appropriation, for the 
     management of cultural, wildlife, and wilderness resources on 
     public land in the State of Nevada.
       (3) Flight path.--Except for safety reasons, any helicopter 
     tour originating or concluding at the parcel of land 
     described in subsection (e) that flies over the Conservation 
     Area shall not fly--
       (A) over any area in the Conservation Area except the area 
     that is between 3 and 5 miles north of the latitude of the 
     southernmost boundary of the Conservation Area;
       (B) lower than 1,000 feet over the eastern segments of the 
     boundary of the Conservation Area; or
       (C) lower than 500 feet over the western segments of the 
     boundary of the Conservation Area.
       (4) Reversion.--If the County ceases to use any of the land 
     described in subsection (d) for the purpose described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) and under the conditions stated in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3)--
       (A) title to the parcel shall revert to the United States, 
     at the option of the United States; and
       (B) the County shall be responsible for any reclamation 
     necessary to revert the parcel to the United States.
       (g) Administrative Costs.--The Secretary shall require, as 
     a condition of the conveyance under subsection (d), that the 
     County pay the administrative costs of the conveyance, 
     including survey costs and any other costs associated with 
     the transfer of title.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands 
(Mrs. Christensen) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).


                             General Leave

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 849, introduced by my committee colleague, the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), would provide for the conveyance 
of certain public land in Clark County, Nevada, currently being managed 
by the Bureau of Land Management, to the county for use as a heliport.
  The Las Vegas Valley is among the fastest growing communities in the 
United States. This community thrives on tourism with one of the most 
popular tourist excursions being the helicopter tour of the Grand 
Canyon. At present, helicopter tour flight paths impact long-standing 
residential neighborhoods. This bill would alleviate this growing 
conflict while providing a suitable location for the establishment of a 
commercial service heliport facility to serve the Las Vegas Valley.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the primary goals of this conveyance is to 
minimize the impact of air tours on the Sloan Canyon National 
Conservation Area and the North McCullough Mountains Wilderness that 
lie just north of the major residential areas. In addition, any 
operator of a helicopter tour originating from or concluding at the new 
heliport would pay the Clark County Department of Aviation a $3 
conservation fee for each passenger on the tour if any of the 
helicopter tours occurs over the Conservation Area. The fee collected 
will be placed in a special account in the Treasury of the United 
States. Those funds will then be made available to the Secretary for 
management of cultural, wildlife, and wilderness resource on public 
lands in the State of Nevada.
  This bill is also the result of public hearings and local decision-
making on this issue, and although not a perfect solution, it seeks a 
fair compromise to resolve the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation for Nevada that will 
hopefully alleviate some public safety concerns regarding helicopter 
overflights. As a result, we do not oppose H.R. 849.

[[Page 10740]]

  In addition to her other colleagues in Nevada, the Nevada delegation, 
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) is to be commended for her 
tireless efforts on behalf of this legislation. She continues to be a 
forceful advocate for managing the explosive growth of her communities 
effectively and responsibly.
  Of course, the distinguished Senate Minority Leader has been a 
powerful advocate for this legislation, and I know the delegation and 
the people of Nevada appreciate his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R. 849 on behalf 
of my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), before I make 
my own remarks on this important piece of legislation.
  First, I would like to read a prepared statement by the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Again, on behalf of the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons): ``I 
would like to express my strong support for H.R. 849 to convey certain 
public land in Clark County, Nevada, for use as a heliport.
  ``Nevada is 84 percent owned and managed by the Federal Government. 
This large share of Federal lands makes management of Nevada's cities 
and counties difficult at best. Extensive Federal ownership of Nevada, 
coupled with the rapid growth we are currently experiencing, brings 
even greater need for planning and management of all types of 
transportation in Nevada.
  ``Currently, over 90 helicopter flights per day, over 32,850 flights 
per year, fly over the homes of 90,000 Las Vegas residents. As you can 
imagine, this high volume of air traffic poses challenges and problems 
for the residents of southern Nevada. To help alleviate this problem, 
Clark County has searched extensively for a separate site that will not 
only accommodate helicopter operators, but meet the needs of the 
surrounding communities.
  ``The heliport site agreed to in this legislation is the result of a 
great deal of study and planning. Several sites were identified as 
potentially suitable. However, the site outlined in my legislation is 
the most ideal location. The site outlined in this legislation is 
further out of the city and will not affect any of the current 
residential areas.
  ``Again, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration.''
  Again, these comments were based upon written remarks from my 
colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

                              {time}  1530

  I would also like to express my strong support for H.R. 849. As an 
original cosponsor of this bill, I understand the problems that the 
current helicopter overflight path causes to many of my constituents. 
With almost 33,000 flights occurring per year over approximately 90,000 
people, a viable alternative to the current flight path that not only 
meets the needs of southern Nevadans but also the operators of the 
helicopters themselves is no longer wanted but needed.
  In order to solve the conflict, Clark County and other major 
stakeholders collaborated to find this alternative. After many studies, 
the site outlined in H.R. 849 was determined to be the most suitable. 
The area chosen within the legislation moves the flight path away from 
the residential areas, yet still allows helicopter operators to 
continue their air tours over Hoover Dam, the Grand Canyon, the Las 
Vegas Strip, and other beautiful areas of the American Southwest.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to voice my strong support for H.R. 
849.
  As an original cosponsor of this bill, I understand the problems that 
the current helicopter over-flight path causes to my constituents. With 
almost 33,000 flights occurring per year over approximately 90,000 
people, a viable alternative to the current flight path that not only 
meets the needs of Southern Nevadans, but also the operators of the 
helicopters themselves, is no longer wanted, but needed.
  In order to solve the conflict, Clark County and other major 
stakeholders collaborated to find this alternative. After many studies, 
the site outlined in H.R. 849 was determined to be the most suitable. 
The area chosen within the legislation moves the flight path away from 
residential areas yet still allows helicopter operators to continue 
their air tours over Hoover Dam, the Grand Canyon, the Las Vegas Strip, 
and other beautiful areas of the American Southwest.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support 
for H.R. 849, to convey certain public land in Clark County, Nevada for 
use as a heliport. Nevada is 84 percent owned and managed by the 
Federal Government. This large share of federal land makes management 
of Nevada's cities and counties difficult at best. Extensive Federal 
ownership of Nevada coupled with the rapid growth we are currently 
experiencing brings even greater need for planning and management of 
all types of transportation.
  Currently over 90 helicopter flights per day, or 32,850 flights per 
year, fly over the homes of more than 90,000 Las Vegas residents. As 
you can imagine, this high volume of air traffic poses challenges and 
problems for the residents of southern Nevada. To help alleviate this 
problem, Clark County has searched extensively for a separate site that 
will not only accommodate helicopter operators, but meet the needs of 
the surrounding communities. The heliport site agreed to in this 
legislation is a result of a great deal of study and planning. Several 
sites were identified as potentially suitable, however the site 
outlined in my legislation is the most ideal location. The site 
outlined in the legislation is further out of the city and will not 
affect any current residential areas. Again, thank you Mr. Speaker for 
your consideration of this legislation that is so important to southern 
Nevada. Additionally, I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Porter for 
his assistance, as well as the entire Nevada delegation for their 
support of this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to recognize the need 
for an alternative helicopter site and join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 849 would transfer certain land, 
currently within the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, to Clark 
County, Nevada. The land is to be used as a heliport for commercial 
helicopter air tours.
  The transfer would only take place if certain conditions on the use 
of the heliport are met by Clark County.
  The first condition is that the county must impose and collect a per 
passenger ``conservation fee'' of $3 for each passenger of a helicopter 
tour that passes over any portion of the conservation area.
  The second condition requires the County to ensure that any 
helicopter tour originating or concluding at the heliport traveling 
over the conservation area fly on a certain flight path and at a 
specified altitude except for safety reasons.
  For purposes of clarity, the conditions set forth in H.R. 849 are on 
the transfer of the land and should the county fail to fulfill the 
conditions; the land would either not be transferred or if already 
transferred would revert back to the United States.
  Let us look at each of the conditions on the transfer of the land to 
Clark County.
  The first condition, that the county impose and collect a per 
passenger fee, is problematic. Elsewhere in law, States or political 
subdivisions of States are prohibited from levying or collecting a 
``tax, fee, or charge . . . exclusively upon any business located a 
commercial service airport [which includes heliports] . . . other than 
a tax, fee, or charge wholly utilized for airport or aeronautical 
purposes.''
  Therefore, it seems that the county would be unable to fulfill the 
first condition of the land transfer as the fee would be imposed upon 
and collected from helicopter tour passengers for the management of 
cultural, wildlife and wilderness resources on public land in Nevada.
  The second condition is also problematic. Again, this condition would 
require the county to ensure that certain flight paths and minimum 
flight altitudes are utilized by the helicopter tours.
  It should be emphasized that this bill does not direct Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) action with regard to airspace management 
and control.
  In fact, should the FAA determine that the flight path and minimum 
altitude requirements set forth in the bill are unsafe or otherwise 
operationally unwise, the county would have failed to meet a condition 
of the land transfer and the land would revert back to the United 
States.
  To make this perfectly clear, only the FAA has the authority to 
manage and control the National Airspace. State, regional, county and 
other local government entities, not to mention other Federal 
departments and agencies, have no authority in this regard.
  Thus, the second condition on the transfer of land to Clark County is 
clearly outside of the county's authority and control.

[[Page 10741]]

  Therefore, given that Clark County may very well be unable to fulfill 
either of the conditions of the land transfer; it appears that H.R. 849 
is legislating a nullity.
  I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to be heard on H.R. 849 and 
to clarify the legislative record with regard to this bill and how it 
should be interpreted relating to the FAA and airspace management and 
control.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman from the Virgin 
Islands have any more speakers?
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gingrey). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 849.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________