[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 24, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6506-H6509]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MIAMI CIRCLE PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 1894) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
conduct a special resource study to determine the national significance 
of the Miami Circle site in the State of Florida as well as the 
suitability and feasibility of its inclusion in the National Park 
System as part of the Biscayne National Park, and for other purposes, 
as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 1894

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

           TITLE I--MIAMI CIRCLE SITE SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Tequesta Indians were one of the earliest groups to 
     establish permanent villages in southeast Florida;
       (2) the Tequestas had one of only two North American 
     civilizations that thrived and developed into a complex 
     social chiefdom without an agricultural base;
       (3) the Tequesta sites that remain preserved today are 
     rare;
       (4) the discovery of the Miami Circle, occupied by the 
     Tequesta approximately 2,000 years ago, presents a valuable 
     new opportunity to learn more about the Tequesta culture; and
       (5) Biscayne National Park also contains and protects 
     several prehistoric Tequesta sites.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to direct the 
     Secretary to conduct a special resource study to determine 
     the national significance of the Miami Circle site as well as 
     the suitability and feasibility of its inclusion in the 
     National Park System as part of Biscayne National Park.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Miami circle.--The term ``Miami Circle'' means the 
     Miami Circle archaeological site in Miami-Dade County, 
     Florida.
       (2) Park.--The term ``Park'' means Biscayne National Park 
     in the State of Florida.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.

     SEC. 103. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date 
     funds are made available, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     special resource study as described in subsection (b). In 
     conducting the study, the Secretary shall consult with the 
     appropriate American Indian tribes and other interested 
     groups and organizations.
       (b) Components.--In addition to a determination of national 
     significance, feasibility, and suitability, the special 
     resource study shall include the analysis and recommendations 
     of the Secretary with respect to--
       (1) which, if any, particular areas of or surrounding the 
     Miami Circle should be included in the Park;
       (2) whether any additional staff, facilities, or other 
     resources would be necessary to administer the Miami Circle 
     as a unit of the Park; and
       (3) any impact on the local area that would result from the 
     inclusion of Miami Circle in the Park.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after completion of the 
     study, the Secretary shall submit a report describing the 
     findings and recommendations of the study to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Resources of the United States House of Representatives.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this title.

               TITLE II--GATEWAY COMMUNITIES COOPERATION

     SEC. 201. IMPROVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERAL LAND MANAGERS 
                   AND GATEWAY COMMUNITIES TO SUPPORT COMPATIBLE 
                   LAND MANAGEMENT OF BOTH FEDERAL AND ADJACENT 
                   LANDS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Communities that are adjacent to or near Federal lands, 
     including units of the National Park System, units of the 
     National Wildlife Refuge System, units of the National Forest 
     System, and lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
     Management, are vitally impacted by the management and public 
     use of these Federal lands.
       (2) These communities, commonly known as gateway 
     communities, fulfill an integral part in the mission of the 
     Federal lands by providing necessary services, such as 
     schools, roads, search and rescue, emergency, medical, 
     provisioning, logistical support, living quarters, and 
     drinking water and sanitary systems, for both visitors to the 
     Federal lands and employees of Federal land management 
     agencies.
       (3) Provision of these vital services by gateway 
     communities is an essential ingredient for a meaningful and 
     enjoyable experience by visitors to the Federal lands because 
     Federal land management agencies are unable to provide, or 
     are prevented from providing, these services.
       (4) Gateway communities serve as an entry point for persons 
     who visit the Federal lands and are ideal for establishment 
     of visitor services, including lodging, food service, fuel 
     and auto repairs, emergency services, and visitor 
     information.
       (5) Development in these gateway communities affect the 
     management and protection of these Federal lands, depending 
     on the extent to which advance planning for the local 
     development is coordinated between the communities and 
     Federal land managers.
       (6) The planning and management decisions of Federal land 
     managers can have unintended consequences for gateway 
     communities and the Federal lands, when the decisions are not 
     adequately communicated to, or coordinated with, the elected 
     officials and residents of gateway communities.
       (7) Experts in land management planning are available to 
     Federal land managers, but persons with technical planning 
     skills are often not readily available to gateway 
     communities, particularly small gateway communities.
       (8) Gateway communities are often affected by the policies 
     and actions of several Federal land agencies and both the 
     communities and the agencies would benefit from greater 
     interagency coordination of those policies and actions.
       (9) Persuading gateway communities to make decisions and 
     undertake actions in their communities that would also be in 
     the best interest of the Federal lands is most likely to 
     occur when such decisionmaking and actions are built upon a 
     foundation of cooperation and coordination.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title to require 
     Federal land managers to communicate, coordinate, and 
     cooperate with gateway communities in order to--
       (1) improve the relationships among Federal land managers, 
     elected officials, and residents of gateway communities;
       (2) enhance the facilities and services in gateway 
     communities available to visitors to Federal lands, when 
     compatible with the management of these lands; and
       (3) result in better local land use planning and decisions 
     by Federal land managers.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Gateway community.--The term ``gateway community'' 
     means a county, city,

[[Page H6507]]

     town, village, or other subdivision of a State, or a 
     federally recognized American Indian tribe or Alaska Native 
     village, that--
       (A) is incorporated or recognized in a county or regional 
     land use plan; and
       (B) a Federal land manager (or the head of the tourism 
     office for the State) determines is significantly affected 
     economically, socially, or environmentally by planning and 
     management decisions regarding Federal lands administered by 
     that Federal land manager.
       (2) Federal land agencies.--The term ``Federal land 
     agencies'' means the National Park Service, United States 
     Forest Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
     the Bureau of Land Management.
       (3) Federal land manager.--The term ``Federal land 
     manager'' means--
       (A) the superintendent of a unit of the National Park 
     System;
       (B) the manager of a national wildlife refuge;
       (C) the field office manager of a Bureau of Land Management 
     area; or
       (D) the supervisor of a unit of the National Forest System.
       (d) Participation in Federal Planning and Land Use.--
       (1) Participation in planning.--The Federal land agencies 
     shall provide for meaningful public involvement at the 
     earliest possible time by elected and appointed officials of 
     governments of local gateway communities in the development 
     of land use plans, programs, land use regulations, land use 
     decisions, transportation plans, general management plans, 
     and any other plans, decisions, projects, or policies for 
     Federal public lands under the jurisdiction of these agencies 
     that will have a significant impact on these gateway 
     communities. To facilitate such involvement, the Federal land 
     agencies shall provide these officials, at the earliest 
     possible time, with a summary in nontechnical language of the 
     assumptions, purposes, goals, and objectives of such a plan, 
     decision, project, or policy and a description of any 
     anticipated significant impact of the plan, decision, or 
     policy on gateway communities.
       (2) Early notice of proposed decisions.--To the extent 
     practicable, the Federal land agencies shall provide local 
     gateway communities with early public notice of proposed 
     decisions of these agencies that may have a significant 
     impact on gateway communities.
       (3) Training sessions.--The Federal land agencies shall 
     offer training sessions for elected and appointed officials 
     of gateway communities at which such officials can obtain a 
     better understanding of--
       (A) agency planning processes; and
       (B) the methods by which they can participate most 
     meaningfully in the development of the agency plans, 
     decisions, and policies referred to in paragraph (1).
       (4) Technical assistance.--At the request of the government 
     of a gateway community, a Federal land agency shall assign, 
     to the extent practicable, an agency employee or contractor 
     to work with the community to develop data and analysis 
     relevant to the preparation of agency plans, decisions, and 
     policies referred to in paragraph (1).
       (5) Review of federal land management planning.--At the 
     request of a gateway community, and to the extent 
     practicable, a Federal land manager shall assist the gateway 
     community to conduct a review of land use, management, or 
     transportation plans of the Federal land manager likely to 
     affect the gateway community.
       (6) Coordination of land use.--To the extent consistent 
     with the laws governing the administration of the Federal 
     public lands, a Federal land manager may enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with a gateway community to provide for 
     coordination between--
       (A) the land use inventory, planning, and management 
     activities for the Federal lands administered by the Federal 
     land manager; and
       (B) the land use planning and management activities of 
     other Federal agencies, agencies of the State in which the 
     Federal lands are located, and local and tribal governments 
     in the vicinity of the Federal lands.
       (7) Interagency cooperation and coordination.--To the 
     extent practicable, when the plans and activities of two or 
     more Federal land agencies are anticipated to have a 
     significant impact on a gateway community, the Federal land 
     agencies involved shall consolidate and coordinate their 
     plans and planning processes to facilitate the participation 
     of the gateway community in the planning processes.
       (8) Treatment as cooperating agencies.--When a proposed 
     action is determined to require the preparation of an 
     environmental impact statement, the Federal land agencies 
     shall, as soon as practicable, but not later than the scoping 
     process, actively solicit the participation of gateway 
     communities as cooperating agencies under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (e) Grants To Assist Gateway Communities.--
       (1) Grants authorized; purposes.--A Federal land manager 
     may make grants to an eligible gateway community to enable 
     the gateway community--
       (A) to participate in Federal land planning or management 
     processes;
       (B) to obtain professional land use or transportation 
     planning assistance necessary as a result of Federal action;
       (C) to address and resolve public infrastructure impacts 
     that are identified through these processes as a likely 
     result of the Federal land management decisions and for which 
     sufficient funds are not otherwise available; and
       (D) to provide public information and interpretive services 
     about the Federal lands administered by the Federal land 
     manager and the gateway community.
       (2) Eligible gateway communities.--To be eligible for a 
     grant under this subsection, a gateway community may not have 
     a population in excess of 10,000 persons.
       (f) Funding Sources.--
       (1) General agency funds.--A Federal land agency may use 
     amounts available for the general operation of the agency to 
     provide funds to Federal land managers of that agency to make 
     grants under subsection (e).
       (2) Other planning or project development funds.--Funds 
     available to a Federal land manager for planning, 
     construction, or project development may also be used to fund 
     programs under subsection (d) and make grants under 
     subsection (e).
       (3) Combination of funds.--Federal land managers from 
     different Federal land agencies may combine financial 
     resources to make grants under subsection (e).

         TITLE III--MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

     SEC. 301. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS, MOUNT NEBO WILDERNESS, UTAH.

       (a) Lands Removed.--The boundary of the Mount Nebo 
     Wilderness is adjusted to exclude the following:
       (1) Monument springs.--The approximately 8.4 acres of land 
     depicted on the Map as ``Monument Springs''.
       (2) Gardner canyon.--The approximately 177.8 acres of land 
     depicted on the Map as ``Gardner Canyon''.
       (3) Birch creek.--The approximately 5.0 acres of land 
     depicted on the Map as ``Birch Creek''.
       (4) Ingram canyon.--The approximately 15.4 acres of land 
     depicted on the Map as ``Ingram Canyon''.
       (5) Willow north a.--The approximately 3.4 acres of land 
     depicted on the Map as ``Willow North A''.
       (6) Willow north b.--The approximately 6.6 acres of land 
     depicted on the Map as ``Willow North B''.
       (7) Willow south.--The approximately 21.5 acres of land 
     depicted on the Map as ``Willow South''.
       (8) Mendenhall canyon.--The approximately 9.8 acres of land 
     depicted on the Map as ``Mendenhall Canyon''.
       (9) Wash canyon.--The approximately 31.4 acres of land 
     depicted on the Map as ``Wash Canyon''.
       (b) Lands Added.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
     boundary of the Mount Nebo Wilderness is adjusted to include 
     the approximately 293.2 acres of land depicted on the Map for 
     addition to the Mount Nebo Wilderness. The Utah Wilderness 
     Act of 1984 (Public Law 94-428) shall apply to the land added 
     to the Mount Nebo Wilderness pursuant to this subsection.

     SEC. 302. MAP.

       (a) Definition.--In this title, the term ``Map'' means the 
     map entitled ``Mt. Nebo Wilderness Boundary Adjustment'', 
     numbered 531, and dated May 29, 2001.
       (b) Map on File.--The Map and the final document entitled 
     ``Mount Nebo, Proposed Boundary Adjustments, Parcel 
     Descriptions (See Map #531)'' and dated June 4, 2001, shall 
     be on file and available for inspection in the office of the 
     Chief of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
       (c) Corrections.--The Secretary of Agriculture may make 
     technical corrections to the Map.

     SEC. 303. TECHNICAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

       The boundary of the Mount Nebo Wilderness is adjusted to 
     exclude the approximately 21.26 acres of private property 
     located in Andrews Canyon, Utah, and depicted on the Map as 
     ``Dale''.

TITLE IV--BAINBRIDGE ISLAND JAPANESE-AMERICAN MEMORIAL SPECIAL RESOURCE 
                                 STUDY

     SEC. 401. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) During World War II on February 19, 1942, President 
     Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, 
     setting in motion the forced exile of more than 110,000 
     Japanese Americans.
       (2) In Washington State, 12,892 men, women and children of 
     Japanese ancestry experienced three years of incarceration, 
     an incarceration violating the most basic freedoms of 
     American citizens.
       (3) On March 30, 1942, 227 Bainbridge Island residents were 
     the first Japanese Americans in United States history to be 
     forcibly removed from their homes by the U.S. Army and sent 
     to internment camps. They boarded the ferry Kehloken from the 
     former Eagledale Ferry Dock, located at the end of Taylor 
     Avenue, in the city of Bainbridge Island, Washington State.
       (4) The city of Bainbridge Island has adopted a resolution 
     stating that this site should be a National Memorial, and 
     similar resolutions have been introduced in the Washington 
     State Legislature.
       (5) Both the Minidoka National Monument and Manzanar 
     National Historic Site can clearly tell the story of a time 
     in our Nation's history when constitutional rights were 
     ignored. These camps by design were placed in very remote 
     places and are not easily accessible. Bainbridge Island is a 
     short ferry ride from Seattle and the site would be within 
     easy reach of many more people.

[[Page H6508]]

       (6) This is a unique opportunity to create a site that will 
     honor those who suffered, cherish the friends and community 
     who stood beside them and welcomed them home, and inspire all 
     to stand firm in the event our Nation again succumbs to 
     similar fears.
       (7) The site should be recognized by the National Park 
     Service based on its high degree of national significance, 
     association with significant events, and integrity of its 
     location and setting. This site is critical as an anchor for 
     future efforts to identify, interpret, serve, and ultimately 
     honor the Nikkei- persons of Japanese ancestry- influence on 
     Bainbridge Island.

     SEC. 402. EAGLEDALE FERRY DOCK LOCATION AT TAYLOR AVENUE 
                   STUDY AND REPORT.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry out a 
     special resource study regarding the national significance, 
     suitability, and feasibility of designating as a unit of the 
     National Park System the property commonly known as the 
     Eagledale Ferry Dock at Taylor Avenue and the historical 
     events associated with it, located in the town of Bainbridge 
     Island, Kitsap County, Washington.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after funds are first 
     made available for the study under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report 
     describing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of 
     the study.
       (c) Requirements for Study.--Except as otherwise provided 
     in this section, the study under subsection (a) shall be 
     conducted in accordance with section 8(c) of Public Law 91-
     383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 
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, S. 1894 went to the Subcommittee on National Parks, 
Recreation and Public Lands, chaired by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding time to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to come to the 
floor and speak in favor of S. 1894, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would study the feasibility of including the 
Miami Circle archeological site within Biscayne National Park. This is 
a good bill, and deserves the support and endorsement of the House.
  S. 1894 also contains a title that incorporates the text of H.R. 
4622, which I introduced and which was passed in the Committee on 
Resources back in July. This title would help facilitate and improve 
the working relationship between gateway communities and Federal land 
management agencies.
  Too often, Federal land management agencies take for granted local 
gateway communities in their planning and decision-making processes, 
and this bill would go a long way toward engaging gateway communities 
as meaningful partners in the planning process. The bill would also 
provide important assistance to these communities in order to allow 
them to be meaningful participants in the planning process.
  Numerous examples have been provided throughout the country of how 
cooperative efforts have resulted in positive results, including 
valuable and important environmental benefits. These are real 
environmental benefits that would not have been realized if the Federal 
agencies had not consulted with the local gateway community. Some have 
made the inaccurate accusation that this bill would provide veto power 
to gateway communities to prevent Federal agencies from taking a 
particular action. This is simply not true. There is nothing in this 
bill that would do that.
  However, the premise of the bill is that, just as Federal agencies 
formally consider impacts upon wildlife, issues of habitat, and natural 
resource and environmental issues before taking a proposed action, that 
they should also consider and include gateway communities in their 
decision-making process. Congress has repeatedly passed laws based upon 
the supposition that informed decision-making is good decision-making. 
This bill would simply ensure that that takes place. Cooperation and 
coordination ought to be the standard operating procedure, rather than 
simply anecdotal stories of where Federal agencies are doing what they 
ought to be doing anyway.
  Ultimately, the Federal lands and their visitors will benefit from 
these requirements. For example, transportation plans for Federal lands 
will be vastly improved when Federal agencies understand, through 
coordination that has taken place from the earliest stages, where that 
community plans to direct its own resources and its own traffic outside 
the park.
  It is also interesting to me that some have expressed concern that 
this bill is flawed because it does not impose new requirements upon a 
gateway community that would prevent them from going forward with an 
action unless they have certified that it would not impact a park unit. 
What this amounts to is that they would like to have veto authority 
over what takes place outside Federal lands if it is perceived to have 
an impact upon those lands, but at the same time refuse to allow that 
simple coordination that must take place with a community as part of 
the decision-making process.
  I believe communities are most likely to take actions that are also 
in the best interests of the Federal lands when their decision-making 
rests upon a foundation of cooperation and coordination. Our public 
lands will be better served by a process that ensures that cooperation 
and coordination are a standard part of the process.
  I am particularly pleased that the ranking Democrat member of the 
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christensen), has offered her 
strong support for this legislation. I appreciate the strong working 
relationship that we have had with the gentlewoman, and commend her for 
her efforts in fostering this working relationship. I also appreciate 
the strong support of the administration for this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as amended, S. 1894 is a package of four pieces of 
unrelated legislation. The underlying vehicle, S. 1894, authorizes a 
special resource study to determine the national significance of the 
Miami Circle, as well as the feasibility of including the site in 
Biscayne National Park.
  In this body, the sponsor of this bill is our dear and departing 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). She has worked 
tirelessly, and I mean tirelessly, on behalf of the House companion to 
this legislation, and we are eager to see this study move forward as a 
small part of the huge legacy that will remain once the gentlewoman 
from Florida retires after this Congress.
  We shall miss the gentlewoman in this body, but we know we shall 
always have her friendship and wisdom as we continue to tackle the 
issues of this Nation.
  Also included in H.R. 1894 is the text of H.R. 3747, introduced by 
our colleague on the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee). This provision would provide for a special 
resource study of the Eagledale Ferry Dock located on Bainbridge Island 
in Washington State.
  This package also includes the text of H.R. 4622, legislation 
sponsored by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Radanovich). I remain unconvinced that H.R. 4622 is ready to be 
enacted. However, we support passage of S. 1894, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and I want to thank the 
committee as well. I certainly want to thank him for the very kind 
remarks he made about me and about my tenure here in the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate bill, S. 1894, which 
directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study on 
the inclusion in Biscayne National Park, Florida, of the archeological 
site known as the Miami Circle. I am pleased to be a sponsor of the 
companion bill, H.R. 3630.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the 
gentleman

[[Page H6509]]

from California (Chairman Radanovich), and the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), of the 
subcommittee, and their respective staffs, for the assistance and 
cooperation we received in getting this bill to the floor.
  I also want to thank the south Florida delegation for their help 
toward this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, to give just a little history on this particular site, 
in September of 1998, workers were preparing land for development at 
the mouth of the Miami River and they noticed this mysterious circular 
formation in the limestone bedrock that forms the foundation of the 
City of Miami.
  Then the archeologists came and looked at this site, and they 
revealed that this particular site was utilized by the Tequesta 
civilization 2,000 years ago, perhaps serving as an astronomical tool 
or as a cultural center for their complex maritime society.
  So we in Florida are very pleased to be a part of this archeological 
finding, bringing about the rediscovering of what happened with the 
ancient Tequesta Indians over 2000 years ago. I think we have a 
responsibility to preserve and study remains of our heritage, and S. 
1894 would be an important step.
  If the National Park Service will conduct a feasibility of this Miami 
Circle as part of the Biscayne National Park, it will be another 
fulfillment of what the Park Service should be doing to preserve this 
historically significant site.
  Furthermore, the Miami Circle is not only a site of local and 
regional significance, but also of national significance. It is 
believed to be the only cut-in-rock prehistoric structural footprint 
ever found in North America. This archeological site, which potentially 
qualifies to be included in the National Register of Historic Places, 
connects all Americans in a special way to the first inhabitants of our 
continent. Thus, it is very appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we study its 
inclusion to our National Park System. We must take seriously our 
responsibility as guardians of this cultural landmark.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to get this important bill to the President's 
desk for signature before this Congress adjourns. After all, this is my 
last Congress, Mr. Speaker. I am disappointed that this amendment that 
is being placed on it is being proposed. All of these amendments are 
very good, of course. I would like to see this bill go forward as soon 
as possible. The inclusion of this other legislation I hope will add to 
it and not compromise the chances of getting this bill to the 
President.
  I urge the chairman to find a way to get this noncontroversial Miami 
Circle bill to the President as soon as possible. I thank the chairman 
and the leadership for scheduling S. 1894.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, 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 Senate bill, S. 1894, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was 
passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________