79–010

Calendar No. 770

106TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 106–394

IVANPAH VALLEY AIRPORT PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER ACT

AUGUST 25, 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Filed under authority of the order of the Senate July 26, 2000

Mr. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 1695]

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was

referred the Act (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, having considered the same reports favorably

thereon with amendments and recommends that the Act, as

amended, do pass.

The amendments are as follows:

1. On page 2, line 24, strike ‘‘assessment’’ and insert ‘‘assessment, using the airspace management plan required by section

4(a),’’

2. On page 3, lines 15 through 22, amend paragraph (2) to read

as follows:

‘‘(2) DEPOSIT IN SPECIAL ACCOUNT.—(A) The Secretary

shall deposit the payments received under paragraph (1)

into the special account described in section 4(e)(1)(C) of

the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of

1998 (112 Stat. 2345). Such funds may be expended only

for the acquisition of private inholdings in the Mojave National Preserve and for the protection and management of

the petroglyph resources in Clark County, Nevada. 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.

‘‘(B) The Secretary may not expend funds pursuant to

this section until—

2

(i) the provisions of Section 5 of this Act have been

completed; and

(ii) a final Record of Decision pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq.) has been issued which permits development of an airport at the Ivanpah site.’’.

3. Strike page 3, line 23 and all that follows through page 4, line

2 and insert the following:

‘‘(d) REVERSION AND REENTRY.—If following completion

of compliance with section 5 of this Act and in accordance

with the findings made by the actions taken in compliance

with such section, the Federal Aviation Administration

and the County determine that an airport should not be

constructed on the conveyed lands—’’.

4. On page 4, line 23, strike ‘‘Secretary,’’ and insert ‘‘Secretary,

prior to the conveyance of the land referred to in section 2(a),’’

5. On page 5, line 18, add the following sentence at the end of

section 5: ‘‘Any actions conducted in accordance with this section

shall specifically address any impacts on the purposes for which

the Mojave National Preserve was created.’’.

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of H.R. 1695 is to provide for the sale of certain public lands in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to Clark County, Nevada.

BACKGROUND AND NEED

H.R. 1695 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands in the Ivanpah Valley to Clark County, Nevada. The legislation provides for return of the land to the Department of the

Interior, should airport development prove to be infeasible.

The Las Vegas metropolitan area is the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country, growing 4.7 percent, or almost 60,000

in population, in 1998. McCarran airport passenger traffic has

grown by 64 percent in the last 10 years. The Clark County Department of Aviation completed an extensive review of options

available for meeting the growing needs for air traffic in southern

Nevada. Because of restricted airspace north of Las Vegas due to

military uses, and existing full precision instrumental landing requirements of McCarran airport, the review concluded that the

Ivanpah site is the only option that can accommodate the growing

air traffic needs of the region. Authorization of this conveyance will

allow Clark County to proceed with NEPA analysis and the proposed development of a new airport to serve southern Nevada. The

Federal Aviation Administration will undertake an airspace study

to develop an airspace management plan that avoids, to the maximum extent possible, overflights of the nearby Mojave National

Preserve in California.

Clark County will pay fair market value for the land and the airport will be publicly owned and operated. The revenues collected by

the Government for the sale will be available for use by the BLM

for acquiring inholdings in the Mojave National Preserve and archaeological sites in Clark County.

3

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 1695 was introduced by Representative Gibbons on May 5,

1999. On March 9, 2000, the bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 420 to 1. The Senate companion measure, S. 930,

was introduced on April 29, 1999, by Senators Reid and Bryan. The

Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land Management held a

hearing on S. 930 on July 27, 1999. At the business meeting on

July 13, 2000, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered H.R. 1695 favorably reported, with an amendment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in

open business session on July 13, 2000, by a voice vote of a quorum

present, recommends that the Senate pass H.R. 1695, as amended

herein.

COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

During the consideration of H.R. 1695, the Committee adopted

amendments to clarify the requirements of the airspace management analysis, the timing of the purchase of the parcels in relation

to the NEPA analysis of the airport facility, and the uses of the

proceeds by the Department of the Interior.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1 cites the short title as the ‘‘Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act.’’

Section 2(a) directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey lands

to Clark County, Nevada, for the purpose of developing an airport

facility and related infrastructure.

Subsection (b)(1) requires the Secretary of the Interior to convey

the land only after Clarke County conducts an airspace assessment

to identify any potential adverse effects.

Paragraph (2) requires the Secretary of the Interior to convey the

land only after the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration certifies that the assessment is thorough and alternatives

have been developed to address each adverse effect identified in the

assessment.

Paragraph (3) requires the Secretary of the Interior to convey the

land only after Clark County enters into an agreement with the

Secretary to retain ownership of Jean Airport and to maintain and

develop Jean Airport as a general aviation airport.

Subsection (c)(1) requires Clark County to pay fair market value

for each parcel conveyed.

Paragraph (2) requires the proceeds of the sale to be deposited

in the special account established under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, and can only be used for the

purchase of inholdings in the Mojave National Preserve, and for

the protection of petroglyphs in Clarke County.

Subsection (d)(1) requires the Secretary of the Interior to refund

all payments to Clark County if the NEPA analysis required in section 5 determines an airport cannot be constructed on the site.

Paragraph (2) requires that upon the return of the payments to

Clark County, that all right, title, and interests in the conveyed

4

lands shall revert to the United States, and the Secretary of the

Interior may reenter the lands.

Section (3) directs that the parcels purchased are withdrawn

from mineral entry.

Section (4) requires the Secretary of Transportation to consult

with the Secretary of the Interior to develop an airspace plan that

safely, and to the extent practicable, restricts activity over the Mojave National Preserve.

Section (5) requires a NEPA analysis on the lands conveyed to

Clark County prior to construction of the airport facility.

Section (6) defines the terms used in the Act.

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the costs of

this measure follows:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, July 20, 2000.

Hon. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1695, the Ivanpah Valley

Airport Public Lands Transfer Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Megan Carroll (for federal costs) and Marjorie Miller (for the state and local impact).

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 1695—Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act

Summary. H.R. 1695 would direct the Secretary of the Interior

to convey to Clark County, Nevada, about 6,400 acres of public

land for the purpose of developing an airport facility and related

infrastructure. The county would pay fair market value for the

land. The legislation would authorize the Secretary to spend the

proceeds of the land sale. CBO estimates that implementing H.R.

1695 would result in an increase in offsetting receipts in 2001, but

that those receipts would be fully offset by a corresponding increase

in direct spending over fiscal years 2005 through 2007. Because

H.R. 1695 would affect direct spending (including offsetting receipts), pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. Implementing the

legislation also could increase spending subject to appropriation,

but CBO estimates that any additional discretionary spending

would be less than $500,000 a year.

H.R. 1695 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

Clark County would probably incur some costs as a result of this

legislation’s enactment, but these costs would be voluntary.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government. The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1695 is shown in the following table. The legislation also could affect spending subject to appropriation, but

5

CBO estimates that any changes in discretionary spending would

be less than $500,000 a year. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and the environment).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Asset sale proceeds:

Estimated budget authority ........................................................................... 0 ¥6000

Estimated outlays .......................................................................................... 0 ¥6000

Spending of proceeds:

Estimated budget authority ........................................................................... 0 6 0 0 0

Estimated outlays .......................................................................................... 0 (1)002

Net changes:

Estimated budget authority ........................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated outlays .......................................................................................... 0 ¥6002

1 Less than $500,000.

Basis of estimate: For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 1695 will be enacted by the end of fiscal year

2000. Estimates of outlays are based on historical spending patterns for similar activities, and the requirement under this legislation that development of the airport be approved before proceeds

from the sale can be spent.

Direct spending (including offsetting receipts)

H.R. 1695 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey

about 6,400 acres of public land to Clark County, Nevada, at fair

market value. Certain conditions would have to be met before the

conveyance could occur. Based on information from the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Transportation,

CBO estimates that those requirements would be completed during

fiscal year 2002 and that the land would be sold in that year.

Under current law, BLM has no plans to sell the land, and the

land does not generate any receipts for the federal government. According to BLM, the proceeds from sale of the land are highly uncertain since an appraisal has not been conducted and there are

virtually no other comparable land sales in that area. Based on information from the local airport authority and BLM, CBO estimates that sale proceeds would total about $6 million in fiscal year

2002.

Current law provides that states receive 5 percent of the net proceeds of sales of public lands within their limits. Thus, we estimate

that payments to the state of Nevada would total about $300,000

in fiscal year 2002 as a result of implementing H.R. 1695.

H.R. 1695 provides that proceeds from sale of the land shall be

deposited in a special account in the Treasury created by section

4(e)(1)(C) of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act

(Public Law 105–263). We assume that such deposits will be net of

the payments to Nevada discussed above. The net proceeds would

be available to the Secretary of the Interior, without further appropriation, to purchase environmentally sensitive land in Nevada, reimburse agency costs incurred in arranging the land disposal, and

for certain other purposes.

Under H.R. 1695, the proceeds from the sale could not be spent

until the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Transportation complete all actions required under the National EnvironVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:36 Aug 29, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR394.XXX pfrm04 PsN: SR394
6

mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the development of the airport has been approved. Based on information from BLM and the

Department of Transportation, CBO expects these requirements

would be met by the start of fiscal year 2005 and that the Secretary would spend $2 million a year over the 2005–2007 period for

the purposes specified in the legislation.

Spending subject to appropriation

H.R. 1695 would make the land conveyance contingent on Clark

County conducting an airspace assessment to identify any potential

adverse effects on access to the Las Vegas Basin resulting from the

construction and operation of an airport on the land to be conveyed.

Further, the conveyance would be contingent on the Federal Aviation Administration certifying that the county’s assessment is thorough and considers alternatives to any adverse effects identified in

the assessment. H.R. 1695 would require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Transportation to meet the requirements

of NEPA prior to constructing and operating the airport. Finally,

the legislation would direct the Secretary of Transportation to develop an airspace management plan for the Ivanpah Valley Airport

that restricts arrivals and departures over the Mojave Desert Preserve in California. Based on information from the departments, we

estimate that the total cost to the federal government of implementing these provisions would be less than $500,000 each year

over the 2001–2005 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net changes in

outlays that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in

the following table. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go

procedures, only the effects in the current year, the budget year,

and the succeeding four years are counted. Under the Balanced

Budget Act, proceeds from nonroutine asset sales (sales that are

not authorized under current law) may be counted for pay-as-yougo purposes only if the sale would entail no financial cost to the

government. Based on information provided by BLM, CBO estimates that the sale of the public land specified in H.R. 1695 would

result in a net savings to the government, and therefore, the proceeds would count for pay-as-you-go purposes.

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Changes in outlays ........ 0 0 ¥600222000

Changes in receipts ....... (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

1 Not applicable.

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R.

1695 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in

UMRA. The conveyance authorized by this legislation would be voluntary on the part of Clark County and any costs they would incur

to fulfill the conditions of the conveyance also would be voluntary.

This would include paying fair market value for the land and conducting an airspace assessment. The county would benefit from the

opportunity to acquire this land, and the state of Nevada would

7

benefit because they would receive a portion of the receipts from

the sale.

Estimated impact on the private sector: The legislation would impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

Previous CBO estimate: On November 4, 1999, CBO transmitted

a cost estimate for H.R. 1695, as ordered reported by the House

Committee on Resources on October 20, 1999. At that time, we assumed that H.R. 1695 would be enacted early in fiscal year 2000

and that the sale would occur during fiscal year 2001. In contrast,

we now assume that the legislation will be enacted by the end of

fiscal year 2000 and that the sale would occur during fiscal year

2002. In addition, two significant differences between the two

versions account for differences in our cost estimates for this legislation.

First, the Senate version includes a provision that would delay

the spending of proceeds from the sale of land under H.R. 1695

until certain requirements are met. The House version contains no

such provision; hence, we estimated that under that version the increase in offsetting receipts from the sale would be fully offset by

a subsequent increase in direct spending of those receipts over the

2001–2004 period. In contrast, we estimate that under the Senate

version, such receipts would be only partially offset by subsequent

spending over the 2001–2005 period, but that they would be fully

offset by 2007.

Second, under the House version of this legislation, interest

earned on the proceeds from the sale of land would be available to

be spent by the Secretary of the Interior. Hence, we estimated that

the House version would have resulted in a net increase in direct

spending of about $1 million over five years. The Senate version of

H.R. 1695 contains no such provision; thus, we estimate that, over

the 2001–2007 period, enacting this legislation would not result in

a net change in direct spending.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Megan Carroll. Impact on

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller. Impact on

the Private Sector: Lauren Marks.

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out

H.R. 1695.

The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing

Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses.

No personal information would be collected in administering the

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy.

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of H.R. 1695, as ordered reported.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

On July 13, 2000, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of the

Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting forth

8

Executive agency recommendations on H.R. 1695. These reports

had not been received at the time the report on H.R. 1695 was

filed. When the reports become available, the Chairman will request that they be printed in the Congressional Record for the advice of the Senate. The testimony provided by the National Park

Service at the Subcommittee hearing on S. 930 follows:

STATEMENT OF JOHN REYNOLDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PA- CIFIC WEST REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPART- MENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today before the

subcommittee to present the views of the Department of

the Interior on S. 930, a bill to provide for the conveyance

of certain public land in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to

the Clark County, Nevada, Department of Aviation.

The department cannot support this bill as currently

written as it provides for a mandatory conveyance of public

lands circumventing existing statutory requirements for

land use planning and sale of public lands. This change

creates a poor precedent and restricts our ability to adequately evaluate the effects of this transfer on the affected

public lands and the natural and cultural resources located

therein. Further, it prevents any meaningful evaluation of

alternative sites for the airport facility. These are exactly

the kind of issues that are appropriately examined in a

thorough environmental analysis and through the planning process. Unfortunately, the legislation appears to

waive that analysis. The department believes that the

preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is

mandatory before any land conveyances occur. An EIS

would not only document the impact of any airport, but

would examine alternative sites to determine if a more

suitable location for the airport and its accompanying infrastructure can be found. The EIS process would also

allow for public input into the decision on siting of the airport. Unfortunately, the public involvement called for in

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) is

eliminated in this legislation.

S. 930 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey parcels of land to Clark County, Nevada, for the purpose of establishing an airport facility and related infrastructure. The proposed lands are along Interstate 15 between Jean and Primm, Nevada, and are approximately

ten miles north of the Mojave National Preserve’s boundary. Due to prevailing winds from the south, the airport

proposal provides only for a north-south runway, which

would mean that departing planes would typically fly over

the northern portion of the preserve.

The Mojave National Preserve was created in October

1994, under the California Desert Protection Act. The act

was established to protect one of the most diverse desert

environments in the world. Creosote bushes, pinyon pines,

juniper woodlands, sand dunes, volcanic cinder cones,

Joshua tree forests, vast vistas and mile-high mountains

can all be found within the Mojave Desert. Visitors to the

9

Mojave National Preserve come to enjoy the wild splendors

of the rugged, isolated solitude of the desert, and to sightsee, hike, and camp among the fascinating flora and fauna.

Thus, the National Park Service is deeply concerned

with the potential effects the proposed airport would have

on the Mojave National Preserve’s resources and visitor experience, especially in several wilderness areas. The proposed airport is envisioned to be a cargo airport with

major warehousing facilities. Large, low-flying jet aircraft

would be a significant intrusion on a visitor’s solitude and

enjoyment of the quiet desert environment that is currently available. Few aircraft now fly over the preserve

and commercial aircraft are normally at crusing altitudes

and barely visible. While there are occasional military

flights through the preserve, they do not have the enormous impact on park resources and visitors that regular

overflights of departing or approaching jets would have.

There are real concerns that jets departing at regular intervals would adversely impact the nearby desert bighorn

sheep in the wilderness of Clark Mountain. The desert bighorn sheep is one of the most distinctive and easily recognized desert animals and is generally found in isolated

areas of the desert ranges. There is research that shows

that repeated jet noise at regular intervals can increase

stress in animals and potentially have long-term effects on

their reproduction and ability to detect and escape predators.

Another desert animal that could be impacted by the

noise generated by a proposed airport is the threatened

desert tortoise. This long-lived reptile was listed as a

threatened species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in

1992, and continues to face threats to its survival. Ivanpah

Valley is designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise,

whose populations have declined dramatically over the last

twenty years. Increased urban development has fragmented and reduced suitable habitat. Studies and recover

efforts are ongoing to help protect and preserve this

threatened species.

The scientific community is only beginning to investigate

and understand how animal species like the tortoise, bighorn, and insects communicate. They have already observed that jet noise can disrupt communication of spade

food toads, creating opprotunities for increased predation.

Another potentially significant impact to the Mojave National Preserve from the proposed airport is the deterioration of the natural quiet and the current night sky darkness that visitors enjoy at the park. Light pollution is becoming a recognized problem to many rural and rustic

areas, such as the Mojave Desert. Currently, opportunities

to enjoy natural quiet and the natural darkness of the

nighttime are being slowly impacted by development at

Primm and Laughlin. A nearby airport with runway lights,

tower lights, and other lighting requirements would adversely change the dark night landscape and quiet character of the Mojave National Preserve.

10

BLM has expressed concerns that there may be potential

hydrologic complications due to the proposed location of an

airport on a dry lakebed. This lakebed floods periodically

and displaced waters could affect other development in the

area. Off-site issues that need to be examined include the

potential effects from ancillary facilities needed to support

the construction and operations of the airport, as well as

the impact on natural resources in the area, including the

endangered species, and cultural resources.

We note that, in its latest assessment of the Nation’s

projected airport needs, called the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), the FAA has identified a

need in the future for a new airport to serve the Las Vegas

area. Nonetheless, this issue, as well as others that we

note today, are appropriately examined in a thorough environmental analysis and through the planning process already in place for new airport site selection. Unfortunately, the legislation appears to waive that analysis.

In addition to the concerns of the National Park Service,

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has four major

concerns with the proposed legislation that we ask the

committee to consider: • Resource conflicts; • Compliance with NEPA, FLPMA, and other environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and

the Historic Preservation Act; • Agency costs associated with the transfer; and • Fair market value determination.

As the BLM testified on a similar bill before the House

Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands in the

105th Congress, the passage of this bill will create conflicts

with current uses and resources of these lands. These

lands have not been identified for disposal through existing land use plans because of those uses and resources. As

mentioned previously, the threatened desert tortoise is indigenous to the area. The area also supports a number of

recreational pursuits including off-highway vehicle use,

and it encompasses a Special Recreation Management

Area within the boundary of the proposed land transfer.

Two mining claims encumber the land and the area is the

location of two state of Nevada mineral materials permits

issued by BLM for road maintenance gravel.

There are a number of costs associated with implementation of the bill, including land and resource surveys, appraisals, and land transfer patent expenses. Because the

transfer benefits Clark County, the bill should specify either that Clark County should absorb these costs or that

the funds described in section 2(d) could be used for all administrative costs associated with the transfer.

The legislation specifies (section 2(d)) that fair market

value should be paid by Clark County for the federal land,

but that the value determined based on the land ‘‘in its

unimproved state and shall not reflect any enhancement in

value to the parcel based upon the existence or planned

construction of infrastructure. . . .’’ This, in fact, does not

11

represent the fair market value of the lands and raises potentially serious concerns. We would urge the subcommittee to address this, either by deleting the provision

or by requiring that should these lands later be sold,

leased or otherwise conveyed by Clark County, the difference between what the County paid and the price it

later receives should be remitted to the federal account

specified in section 2(d)(3). This is consistent with language in section 4(g)(4) of Public Law 105–263, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. The

American people need to know that their assets are being

protected and that any financial gain benefits the public.

Section 203 of the FLPMA requires that the government,

when contemplating the sale of public land, consider

whether the sale would ‘‘serve an important public objective, . . . which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly

on land other than public land and which outweigh other

public objective and values. . . .’’ This legislation waives

that very important analysis. We think that this is a mistake.

Because of the large number of concerns raised by the

National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, the department believes it is critical that a decision

on siting on this airport be made only after compliance

with all requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Additionally, the BLM would like the opportunity to address and potentially resolve more minor concerns with the

bill, and is prepared to work with your staff to do so.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share

with the subcommittee the department’s position on S.

930. This concludes my formal remarks. I will be pleased

to answer any question you or other members of the subcommittee may have.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes in existing law are made by the Act, H.R. 1695, as ordered reported.

Æ