[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3416-H3419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND AUTHORIZATION
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1522) to extend the authorization for the National Historic
Preservation Fund, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1522
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT.
The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 and
following; Public Law 89-665) is amended as follows:
(1) In the third sentence of section 101(a)(6) (16 U.S.C.
470a(a)(6)) by striking ``shall review'' and inserting ``may
review'' and by striking ``shall determine'' and inserting
``determine''.
(2) Section 101(e)(2) (16 U.S.C. 470a(e)(2)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(2) The Secretary may administer grants to the National
Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States,
chartered by an Act of Congress approved October 26, 1949 (63
Stat. 947), consistent with the purposes of its charter and
this Act.''.
(3) Section 102 (16 U.S.C. 470b) is amended by
redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) and by
redesignating subsection (d), as added by section 4009(3) of
Public Law 102-575, as subsection (e).
(4) Section 101(b)(1) (16 U.S.C. 470a(b)(1)) is amended by
adding the following at the end thereof:
``For purposes of subparagraph (A), the State and Indian
tribe shall be solely responsible for determining which
professional employees, are necessary to carry out the duties
of the State or tribe, consistent with standards developed by
the Secretary.''.
(5) Section 107 (16 U.S.C. 470g) is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 107. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to be
applicable to the White House and its grounds, the Supreme
Court building and its grounds, or the United States Capitol
and its related buildings and grounds as depicted on the map
entitled `Map Showing Properties Under the Jurisdiction of
the Architect of the Capitol' and dated November 6, 1996,
which shall be on file in the office of the Secretary of the
Interior.''.
(6) Section 108 (16 U.S.C. 470h) is amended by striking
``1997'' and inserting ``2004''.
(7) Section 110(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 470h-2(a)(1)) is amended
by inserting the following before the period at the end of
the second sentence: ``, especially those located in central
business areas. When locating Federal facilities, Federal
agencies shall give first consideration to historic
properties in historic districts. If no such property is
operationally appropriate and economically prudent, then
Federal agencies shall consider other developed or
undeveloped sites within historic districts. Federal agencies
shall then consider historic properties outside of historic
districts, if no suitable site within a district exists. Any
rehabilitation or construction that is undertaken pursuant to
this Act must be architecturally compatible with the
character of the surrounding historic district or
properties''.
(8) The first sentence of section 110(l) (16 U.S.C. 470h-
2(l)) is amended by striking ``with the Council'' and
inserting ``pursuant to regulations issued by the Council''.
(9) The last sentence of section 212(a) (16 U.S.C. 470t(a))
is amended by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2004''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr.
Faleomavaega) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1522 is a bill introduced by my colleague, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). He is to be commended for the
hard work he has done to craft a bill that addresses needed changes in
current law and which continues funding for a program that is
appreciated by all Americans.
H.R. 1522 reauthorizes the National Historic Preservation Fund
through the year 2004. This fund has been used to protect many of our
most cherished historical sites around the country. This bill also
makes many changes to the National Historic Preservation Act in order
that it can function better in protecting our priceless national
historic treasures.
I want to add, however, that the protection of our national
treasures, which this bill provides, nearly did not make it to the
floor today because of an eleventh hour concern by OMB, who suddenly
opposed this bill, even though the agency had months and months to
comment on it on any problems they may have had.
Nevertheless, everyone worked hard last night to address the concerns
of OMB, and we now have a bill which we can agree with and the
Administration can support.
{time} 1500
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill, and the National Historic
Preservation Fund needs to be reauthorized. I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 1522.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and commend the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands for his leadership in the management of
this legislation before the House today.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1522 amends the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966. Through this act, historically significant buildings, sites
and districts have been preserved, keeping America's history alive.
The primary purpose of the bill before us today is to reauthorize the
National Historic Preservation Fund. Monies from the fund are derived
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and Congress set the
authorization level at $150 million per year.
Authorization for the fund expired on September 30th, 1997. This bill
extends authorization of the fund through the year 2004. As I have
stated throughout our consideration of this bill, I would prefer the
bill end there. In fact, the bill that was first introduced or the one
that we brought to the floor today, I would not be able to support its
passage.
However, the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley) brought many sides together and has put together a bill that I
believe is worthy of our support. I do want to commend the gentleman
from Colorado for his leadership and for his ability to
[[Page H3417]]
bring everyone together at the table and to come out with a consensus
as we have now. He worked even this morning to address concerns raised
by the administration.
Mr. Speaker, even with all the changes made to the bill since its
introduction, concerns over certain provisions still exist. In
particular, the Office of Management and Budget is concerned with the
provision which takes away the mandatory requirement for the Keeper of
the Register to make a determination of whether or not his site is
eligible to be listed on the Register of Historic Places when property
owners oppose the designation.
The Office of Management and Budget and the National Park Service
fear this language could require the Keeper to act only in the most
contentious of issues, thereby politicizing the process.
Regardless of this language, Mr. Speaker, however, the current
practice whereby no site is placed on the register while owners oppose
such a designation remains intact. The statement of administration
policy of this legislation states that the administration has no
objection to the passage of H.R. 1522 but will work to have the
discretionary language removed during Senate consideration of the
legislation.
Another provision that remains a concern to some is one that contains
language providing that States and Indian tribes will be responsible
for determining which professional employees are needed to carry out
the preservation duties within their jurisdiction.
Debate on professional standards continue within the preservation
community, and any changes to this area I believe are best handled
after that debate is concluded and agreement is reached.
Mr. Speaker, the bill will also allow States and Indian tribes to
decide which professional positions are needed to address their
specific needs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield whatever time he may
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the
sponsor of this bill.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, to both the Chairman and the Ranking Member,
I extend my appreciation for their help as we worked through this
process and did try to bring all the groups together.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that one of the roles of government is
the preservation of our historic values. To paraphrase one historian,
we are unlikely to deal well with our future if we do not understand
our past.
Since 1966, the Historic Preservation Fund has been part of the way
this Nation seeks to accomplish that. The bill before us today reflects
the success and maturity of that program. Rather than a set of sweeping
reforms, H.R. 1522 attempts to fine-tune what is a mature program.
The bill reauthorizes the Historic Preservation Fund at its existing
level through the year 2004. I should point out that, despite the
authorization level, actual appropriations have never exceeded $50
million, and, in the last 7 years, have only twice exceeded $40
million.
The 2004 end date is intended to bring into sync budget deadlines for
this program, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the
budget agreement.
The bill also makes a number of changes to reflect what is happening
in the States.
It reemphasizes this Congress' commitment to the rights of private
property owners.
It gives State and tribal historic preservation offices greater
flexibility in the hiring of their employees.
The provision recognizes Interior's ongoing work at developing
standards for these employees, but gives States and tribes the right to
make the call on what professionals they need.
It allows the Federal Government, through the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, to respond to emergencies such as the
Mississippi floods of 1994.
The bill also codifies an executive order directing government
agencies to give consideration to the use of historic buildings in
historic districts and central business areas.
This is not only something Federal agencies should do as a matter of
course, it may help blunt the erosion of downtown areas.
The bill also contains a provision backed by strong report language
which signals the Committee on Resources' intent that government
agencies in Washington should honor the intent of preservation laws in
their dealings with local preservation agencies.
Too often, the law has been observed only as an afterthought.
As I said, this should not be a controversial bill. There are areas
where the involved parties simply agree to disagree. We do not agree on
everything in it.
But it has the backing of the Nation's five major preservation
groups, the Preservation Action, National Trust for Historic
Preservation, American Cultural Resources Association, National
Alliance of Preservation Commissions, National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Offices. So it does have a broad base of support.
Mr. Speaker, I will close and encourage passage of this piece of
legislation.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding
to me.
First, let me say to those of you who brought this bill to the floor,
I appreciate what you are doing and the sincerity. I am going to be the
skunk at the picnic because I am not a fan, based upon personal
experience, and I guess that is what we bring to the floor a lot.
I am not a fan of the National Keeper's office, nor how it is
conducted. Let me just say, as I unfold this tale for a second, that as
this bill moves forward, I hope that some of my concerns will be
incorporated in deliberations, particularly as you discuss this with
the other body.
Yes, the project I am about to relate to you is a controversial
highway project. Those in the environmental community have opposed it
assiduously for many years. Their only problem is 75 percent of
everybody in an affected county supports it. Their problem is every
elected official from the town council to whatever office you want to
point to supports this project.
So what we have done, then, over time, is we have gone through all
the hurdles. We have gone through the executive branch. We have gone
through the Federal Highway Administration. We have gone through the
West Virginia Department of Transportation. We have gone through
Federal court and won against environmentalists who want to oppose it.
We have gone to the Congress, and the Congress has approved money.
Every branch, I thought.
And then who pops up just as we are going to bid? The Keeper of the
National Historic Registry to declare a community in Hardy County, West
Virginia, which is appropriately named, I guess, ``Old Fields'' as a
historic district. She could have identified farm buildings and
designated them. She did not. She made it a historic district, which
then brings this highway project to a halt within that area.
So I call and I say, to whom do we appeal to? I call the Secretary of
the Interior's office. We do not know. Do I have to go back to court
now?
So the history of this particular situation is replete with
bureaucratic abuse, deadlines that have been passed for review, which,
of course, if you pass a deadline, it means your highway department and
your contractors and your engineers cannot move forward. We have
probably cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in simply delays by
this delay.
Oh, yes, yes, one other factor, the State involvement. The State
Historic Preservation Officer, about as competent a person as I have
met and a true professional, recommended against the Keeper taking this
action. Then the night after the action was announced, I get a call
from the Hardy County preservation officer who lives where, in Old
Fields, West Virginia, who says, what is going on? We never recommended
that this be declared a historic district.
That is my tale.
Mr. Speaker, to those moving this bill, I am interested in historic
preservation, but I am not interested in historic preservation that
denies a future.
[[Page H3418]]
I guess what I would ask is, as we move forward we closely monitor the
discretion that this official has. Because whether it is her office or
her personality, and I am not sure which, but whichever one it is,
there is clear need to put some teeth in here and to put in some
oversight.
I would just urge us not to move forward and to give the directive
that you shall declare areas historic areas. I hope we would at least
keep it at bay so we can continue to review this discretion and, when
appropriate, abuses.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, we share the gentleman's concerns, too, and
we want it to work. What we are trying to do with the reauthorization
to make it work, let me just share with you the report language of what
we intend here.
H.R. 1522 modifies the existing Secretarial review of nominations to
the National Historic Register as an option of appeal, rather than a
mandatory stage in the nominating process as it currently exists, which
speaks to what you just spoke to. This legislation intends that most of
the decision making would take place at the State and local level,
which is also what you want.
Mr. WISE. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. HEFLEY. I think we share the same kind of goals. You have had a
very bad experience with it, and I think a lot of us have. We want to
make it work right. We do not want to throw it out, because I think it
does have merit, but I want it to work.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, if I may say to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), I never thought
of either of you friends of overarching and overreaching government, so
I am quite confident and I am pleased you are moving in that direction.
But I think this is a situation that I would hope that, on both sides
of the aisle, you would be looking at in your deliberations.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from West
Virginia that his eloquent statement has been well taken. I am sure my
good friend from the other side of the aisle, the chairman of the
subcommittee, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and myself
will definitely look into the wordage of not only the report but the
language itself to make sure that it does not reflect the kind of
example that you have just shared with us this afternoon.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time and his
consideration.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend,
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
all his hard and skillful work on the bill. In a moment, I am going to
ask the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Hansen), if he would engage in a brief colloquy with me.
Before I do so, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen)
and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for really quite exemplary
work on this bill. I am aware of the balance that must be achieved here
and how difficult a bill like this is to get through the committee
while bearing in mind the necessary balance.
I am, of course, a strong supporter of the Historic Preservation Act.
I represent a historic city, a city that was born with the Nation
itself, with much to preserve on the Federal side and on the local
side.
I want to thank the gentlemen, also, for the faith they have kept to
the Congressional Accountability Act because of the way they have
brought our own agent, the Architect of the Capitol, under the Act,
while giving him full latitude to accomplish his job.
As we may recall, the Congressional Accountability Act indicated that
Congress would submit itself to the same laws as everyone else. We have
done that and kept faith with that. We have brought ourselves into
account with this promise in this Act.
I want to express my appreciation to both the gentleman from Colorado
and the gentleman from Utah for the kind consideration and the
sensitive way in which they have dealt with the special historic
preservation issues in the District of Columbia.
We have had an unfortunate experience involving a historic property
in the District of Columbia. I believe that this language will
guarantee that that experience will not be repeated.
I do want to say to the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman
from Utah that we have begun to work with the Architect of the Capitol
and so believe that he also understands the intent. But to make certain
of that, I ask the gentleman from Utah if he would engage in a colloquy
with me.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I am happy
to.
{time} 1515
Ms. NORTON. Is it the gentleman's understanding that by restricting
the application of the exemption in section 107 of the Act, it is the
intent of the Congress that the Architect of the Capitol at a minimum
give public notice to the abutters and the surrounding neighborhood
prior to undertaking a restoration or renovation project on an historic
building?
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, that is what
we expect, with the exceptions that are in the bill. I think we have
covered that.
Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the colloquy, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1522, which
will reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Act.
One of the many things that makes our nation great is our strong,
collective sense of history. We teach our children from an early age
about our past triumphs and failures and the lessons we've learned from
them. This tradition enables America to grow better with each passing
day: as we improve our understanding of the past, we increase our
chances of mastering the future.
That is why I am such a strong supporter of the National Historic
Preservation Act, passed by Congress and signed by the President in
1966. The Historic Preservation Act authorizes the Department of the
Interior to manage the National Register of Historic Places, encourages
State-level efforts to preserve these important locations, and provides
grants and expertise to the many individuals and associations across
America who have dedicated their lives to protecting and preserving
these treasures.
Mr. Speaker, my home State of Minnesota has a long legacy of historic
preservation. Established in 1849, the Minnesota Historical Society
preserves the history of Minnesota through a variety of activities
while overseeing a number of libraries, collections and historic sites.
One needs only to walk down beautiful Summit Avenue a historic district
in Saint Paul to appreciate how interested Minnesotans are to
preserving the jewels of our past. Indeed, since 1966, when Congress
passed the Historic Preservation Act, the State Historic Preservation
Office of Minnesota has inventoried more than 45,000 properties in all
87 counties of the State. And at the end of 1996, the National Register
of Historic Places contained more than 1,460 Minnesota listings. For
that, the Minnesota Historical Society deserves the appreciation of not
just Minnesotans, but all Americans.
Our State Historic Preservation Office (S.H.P.O.) is not just the
mansions of Summit Ave., St. Paul but the common housing and work
places that need sound historic preservation efforts and understanding
the culture and people means understanding where we came from. But the
S.H.P.O. does not and can't do it alone. Congress appropriated $36
million for the Historic Preservation Fund in 1997.
That money provides funding for State offices like the S.H.P.O. as I
described in Minnesota. $36 million is not nearly enough and this
measure continues the past authorization of $150 million per year. We
could accomplish even more with that kind of money. These dollars are
multiplied many times over but every day we are losing historic
fabric--our connection to our past.
I have attached to my statement an article from the Minneapolis Star-
Tribune that details the ten most endangered historic properties in
Minnesota this year. The properties are in urban areas such as my St.
Paul district and rural areas in Northern Minnesota such as Itasca
County. With additional funding, the talented and hard-working folks at
the Minnesota Historical Society could work to acquire, protect and
preserve these important places. Hopefully we could in future years
meet the promise of authorization closer to the amount dedicated to
this purpose.
So I support this bill, Mr. Speaker. It continues and hopefully will
build upon Congress'
[[Page H3419]]
important role in the protection of America's treasures, ensuring the
protection of our historic legacy for future generations.
10 Endangered Properties for '98--The Preservation Alliance of
Minnesota Lists Structures Threatened by Storms, Demolition or Neglect
(By Linda Mack)
The entire city of St. Peter, ``ma and pa'' resorts up
north, boarded-up buildings at Fort Snelling and a former
dairy farm near Brainerd are listed among Minnesota's 10 most
endangered properties of 1998.
Threatened by demolition, neglect or storm damage, the 10
buildings or groups of buildings have been selected by the
Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, a statewide nonprofit
membership group, to draw attention to the state's historic
resources and the need for their preservation.
George Edwards, who moved to Minneapolis recently from
Atlanta, GA, to head the Preservation Alliance, said
Minnesota's endangered buildings ``face the same threats that
we're seeing around the country--under-appreciation of our
heritage, neglect and a shift in priorities.''
Apart from the tornado-ravaged buildings of St. Peter, many
of which will be rebuilt, the challenge for most of the
communities is finding new uses for old buildings whose
original purpose has been lost, such as the old City Hall in
Nashwauk or the Hotel Lac qui Parle in Madison. Or, in the
case of the small resorts built in the early 20th century,
the key to preservation may be building a coalition of
historic resorts to do joint marketing. The list, said
Edwards, is just a start.
The update on last year's 10 most endangered properties is
mixed.
The Stillwater Bridge may have a better chance of surviving
because of a recent ruling by a federal judge that a new
bridge across the St. Croix River would adversely affect the
scenic riverway. Historic buildings at the University of
Minnesota's Twin Cities campus are being studied for reuse
rather than slated for demolition. The Washburn Crosby ``A''
Mill on the Minneapolis riverfront has been stabilized and
the Utility Building next to it will be redeveloped for
housing. Red Wing's Washington School was demolished, but the
city's Central High School is being studied for reuse and is
still being used.
The future of other properties on last year's list--such as
the Mannheimer-Goodkind House in St. Paul, the Handicraft
Building in downtown Minneapolis and Albert Lea's downtown
commercial buildings--remains uncertain.
Department of the Dakota Buildings, Fort Snelling, Hennepin County
Built between 1879 and 1905, the 28 buildings on 141 acres
of land overlooking the Minnesota River form a familiar
landmark near the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport,
but they are now mostly empty and boarded-up. Competing
interests of state and federal agencies have stalled
resolution of their future. The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources is now sponsoring a re-use study. The
buildings were on the list of endangered buildings last year
as well.
Anoka Amphitheater, Anoka, Anoka County
This little-known but charming open air theater overlooking
the Mississippi River was designed by Prairie School
architects Purcell and Elmslie in 1914. Unused for many years
and in need of work, the amphitheater sits in the way of a
road widening planned by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. The road wouldn't take the whole theater, but
it would lop off the back of it. Other alternatives should be
pursued, say preservationists, and the amphitheater kept as
part of a park.
Armstrong-Quinlan House, St. Paul, Ramsey County
The 1886 red brick Romanesque house sits in literal and
metaphorical limbo surrounded by parking lots on the edge of
downtown St. Paul. Owned by the state of Minnesota, it is a
lonely reminder of an earlier grand era of residential
buildings in downtown St. Paul. It's unlikely the
construction of a new hockey arena nearby will help resolve
its future.
early 20th century resorts, cass county and elsewhere
The small rustic resorts run by owner-operators grew up in
the early automobile era and make up a charming part of the
northern Minnesota landscape. But bigger, fancier resorts,
often with centralized operations, are the wave of the
future. And the rise in property values and taxes makes it
harder and harder for ``ma and pa'' operators to survive.
district no 5 schoolhouse, bergen township, mcleod county
Rural schoolhouses are fast disappearing, and this red
brick one built about 1910 is among the most endangered of a
number nominated for the list. Their original use is
outmoded, but they form a significant part of the rural
landscape.
hotel lac qui parle, madison, lac qui parle county
The city of Madison owns the small hotel on a downtown
corner and says there's no reuse. Local citizens argue the
building forms an important anchor to downtown's character
and have persuaded the city to do a structural analysis.
Madison has already lost one landmark, a tiny but ornate
Prairie School bank designed by architects Purcell and
Elmslie in 1913 and demolished in 1968.
nashwauk city hall, nashwauk, itasca county
Built in 1915, this solid and graceful civic building is
one of three intact city halls constructed in company towns
during the boom period of the western Mesabi Iron Range. But
the city moved out in 1977, and the building faces demolition
because of neglect.
echo dairy farm, brainerd, crow wing county
This impressive complex of high-roofed dairy barns just
south of Brainerd was built in the early 1920s as one of
Minnesota's first corporate agricultural operations and
operated until 1971. The city of Brainerd has bought the
complex for expansion of an industrial park.
stone buildings of ottawa township, ottawa township, le sueur county
Built during the 1850s to 1870s, seven native limestone
buildings--houses, churches and a town hall--form a charming
remnant of a Minnesota River village that was once a center
of stone quarrying. Their future may not be so charming: They
stand on land that is a prime target for an advancing silica
sand mining operation.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 1522, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________