PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jul 15, 2025
Apex Area Technical Corrections Act
This act directs the Department of the Interior to grant certain rights-of-way related to the Apex Project (an industrial park) to Clark County in Nevada, the city of North Las Vegas, and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association. Thus, the act expedites the federal permitting process for expanding the industrial park's infrastructure.
Specifically, the act directs Interior to grant utility and transportation rights-of-way to the city of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association for the connection of existing electric power, water, natural gas, telephone, railroad, and highway facilities to lands within the Apex Project site. (Interior is already directed to grant such rights-of-way to Clark County.)
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Interior must also grant to the county, the city, and association such rights-of-way on public lands as may be necessary to support the development of the industrial park as a heavy use industrial zone. (Currently, Interior may grant the rights-of-way to the county.)
The act also requires that the withdrawal of the transferred lands within the Apex Site from all forms of entry and appropriation under the public land laws (e.g., leasing the land for minerals) continue in perpetuity.
In the case of the sale of mineral materials resulting from grading or other activities on the surface of a land parcel within the Apex Project site, the sales are exempt from quantity and term limitations placed on noncompetitive sales.
People & committees
Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4] · D–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 119-24.
Became Public Law No: 119-24.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S3459)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1980-1981)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1980-1981)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 618.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1980-1982)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 61.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-86.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-86.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 13, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.618 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.618 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.618 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.618 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.