[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16204-16207]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                COLTSVILLE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ACT

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 5131) to establish Coltsville National Historical Park 
in the State of Connecticut, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5131

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Coltsville National 
     Historical Park Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this Act:
       (1) City.--The term ``city'' means the city of Hartford, 
     Connecticut.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the 
     Coltsville National Historical Park Advisory Commission 
     established by subsection 6(a).
       (3) Historic district.--The term ``Historic District'' 
     means the Coltsville Historic District.
       (4) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map titled 
     ``Coltsville National Historical Park--Proposed Boundary'', 
     numbered T25/102087, and dated May 11, 2010.
       (5) Park.--The term ``park'' means the Coltsville National 
     Historical Park in the State of Connecticut.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of 
     Connecticut.

     SEC. 3. COLTSVILLE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), there is 
     established in the State a unit of the National Park System 
     to be known as the ``Coltsville National Historical Park''.
       (2) Conditions for establishment.--The park shall not be 
     established until the date on which the Secretary determines 
     that--
       (A) the Secretary has acquired by donation sufficient land 
     or an interest in land within the boundary of the park to 
     constitute a manageable unit;
       (B) the State, city, or private property owner, as 
     appropriate, has entered into a written agreement with the 
     Secretary to donate at least 10,000 square feet of space in 
     the East Armory which would include facilities for park 
     administration and visitor services;
       (C) the Secretary has entered into a written agreement with 
     the State, city, or other public entity, as appropriate, 
     providing that--
       (i) land owned by the State, city, or other public entity 
     within the Coltsville Historic District shall be managed 
     consistent with this section; and
       (ii) future uses of land within the historic district shall 
     be compatible with the designation of the park and the city's 
     preservation ordinance; and
       (D) the Secretary has reviewed the financial resources of 
     the owners of private and public property within the boundary 
     of the proposed park to ensure the viability of the park 
     based on those resources.
       (b) Boundaries.--The park shall include and provide 
     appropriate interpretation and viewing of the following 
     sites, as generally depicted on the map:
       (1) The East Armory.
       (2) The Church of the Good Shepherd.
       (3) The Caldwell/Colt Memorial Parish House.
       (4) Colt Park.
       (5) The Potsdam Cottages.
       (6) Armsmear.
       (7) The James Colt House.
       (c) Collections.--The Secretary shall enter into a written 
     agreement with the State of Connecticut State Library, 
     Wadsworth Atheneum, and the Colt Trust, or other public 
     entities, as appropriate, to gain appropriate access to Colt-
     related artifacts for the purposes of having items routinely 
     on display in the East Armory or within the park as 
     determined by the Secretary as a major function of the 
     visitor experience.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the park in 
     accordance with--
       (1) this Act; and
       (2) the laws generally applicable to units of the National 
     Park System, including--
       (A) the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et 
     seq.); and
       (B) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
       (b) State and Local Jurisdiction.--Nothing in this Act 
     enlarges, diminishes, or modifies any authority of the State, 
     or any political subdivision of the State (including the 
     city)--
       (1) to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction; or
       (2) to carry out State laws (including regulations) and 
     rules on non-Federal land located within the boundary of the 
     park.
       (c) Cooperative Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--As the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate to carry out this Act, the Secretary may enter 
     into cooperative agreements with the owner of any property 
     within the Coltsville Historic District or any nationally 
     significant properties within the boundary of the park, under 
     which the Secretary may identify, interpret, restore, 
     rehabilitate, and provide technical assistance for the 
     preservation of the properties.
       (2) Right of access.--A cooperative agreement entered into 
     under paragraph (1) shall provide that the Secretary, acting 
     through the Director of the National Park Service, shall have 
     the right of access at all reasonable times to all public 
     portions of the property covered by the agreement for the 
     purposes of--
       (A) conducting visitors through the properties; and
       (B) interpreting the properties for the public.
       (3) Changes or alterations.--No changes or alterations 
     shall be made to any properties covered by a cooperative 
     agreement entered into under paragraph (1) unless the 
     Secretary and

[[Page 16205]]

     the other party to the agreement agree to the changes or 
     alterations.
       (4) Conversion, use, or disposal.--Any payment by the 
     Secretary under this subsection shall be subject to an 
     agreement that the conversion, use, or disposal of a project 
     for purposes contrary to the purposes of this section, as 
     determined by the Secretary, shall entitle the United States 
     to reimbursement in an amount equal to the greater of--
       (A) the amounts made available to the project by the United 
     States; or
       (B) the portion of the increased value of the project 
     attributable to the amounts made available under this 
     subsection, as determined at the time of the conversion, use, 
     or disposal.
       (5) Matching funds.--
       (A) In general.--As a condition of the receipt of funds 
     under this subsection, the Secretary shall require that any 
     Federal funds made available under a cooperative agreement 
     shall be matched on a 1-to-1 basis by non-Federal funds.
       (B) Form.--With the approval of the Secretary, the non-
     Federal share required under subparagraph (A) may be in the 
     form of donated property, goods, or services from a non-
     Federal source, fairly valued.
       (d) Acquisition of Land.--Land or interests in land owned 
     by the State or any political subdivision of the State may be 
     acquired only by donation.
       (e) Technical Assistance and Public Interpretation.--The 
     Secretary may provide technical assistance and public 
     interpretation of related historic and cultural resources 
     within the boundary of the historic district.

     SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 fiscal years after the 
     date on which funds are made available to carry out this Act, 
     the Secretary, in consultation with the Commission, shall 
     complete a management plan for the park in accordance with--
       (1) section 12(b) of Public Law 91-383 (commonly known as 
     the National Park Service General Authorities Act) (16 U.S.C. 
     1a-7(b)); and
       (2) other applicable laws.
       (b) Cost Share.--The management plan shall include 
     provisions that identify costs to be shared by the Federal 
     Government, the State, and the city, and other public or 
     private entities or individuals for necessary capital 
     improvements to, and maintenance and operations of, the park.
       (c) Submission to Congress.--On completion of the 
     management plan, the Secretary shall submit the management 
     plan to--
       (1) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (2) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate.

     SEC. 6. COLTSVILLE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ADVISORY 
                   COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a Commission to be 
     known as the Coltsville National Historical Park Advisory 
     Commission.
       (b) Duty.--The Commission shall advise the Secretary in the 
     development and implementation of the management plan.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 11 
     members, to be appointed by the Secretary, of whom--
       (A) 2 members shall be appointed after consideration of 
     recommendations submitted by the Governor of the State;
       (B) 1 member shall be appointed after consideration of 
     recommendations submitted by the State Senate President;
       (C) 1 member shall be appointed after consideration of 
     recommendations submitted by the Speaker of the State House 
     of Representatives;
       (D) 2 members shall be appointed after consideration of 
     recommendations submitted by the Mayor of Hartford, 
     Connecticut;
       (E) 2 members shall be appointed after consideration of 
     recommendations submitted by Connecticut's 2 United States 
     Senators;
       (F) 1 member shall be appointed after consideration of 
     recommendations submitted by Connecticut's First 
     Congressional District Representative;
       (G) 2 members shall have experience with national parks and 
     historic preservation;
       (H) all appointments must have significant experience with 
     and knowledge of the Coltsville Historic District; and
       (I) 1 member of the Commission must live in the Sheldon/
     Charter Oak neighborhood within the Coltsville Historic 
     District.
       (2) Initial appointments.--The Secretary shall appoint the 
     initial members of the Commission not later than the earlier 
     of--
       (A) the date that is 30 days after the date on which the 
     Secretary has received all of the recommendations for 
     appointments under paragraph (1); or
       (B) the date that is 30 days after the park is established.
       (d) Term; Vacancies.--
       (1) Term.--
       (A) In general.--A member shall be appointed for a term of 
     3 years.
       (B) Reappointment.--A member may be reappointed for not 
     more than 1 additional term.
       (2) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment was made.
       (e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of--
       (1) the Chairperson; or
       (2) a majority of the members of the Commission.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the Commission shall constitute 
     a quorum.
       (g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall select a Chairperson 
     and Vice Chairperson from among the members of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Vice chairperson.--The Vice Chairperson shall serve as 
     Chairperson in the absence of the Chairperson.
       (3) Term.--A member may serve as Chairperson or Vice 
     Chairperson for not more than 1 year in each office.
       (h) Commission Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Compensation of members.--
       (A) In general.--Members of the Commission shall serve 
     without compensation.
       (B) Travel expenses.--Members of the Commission shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from the home or regular place of business 
     of the member in the performance of the duty of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Staff.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide the Commission 
     with any staff members and technical assistance that the 
     Secretary, after consultation with the Commission, determines 
     to be appropriate to enable the Commission to carry out the 
     duty of the Commission.
       (B) Detail of employees.--The Secretary may accept the 
     services of personnel detailed from the State or any 
     political subdivision of the State.
       (i) FACA Nonapplicability.--Section 14(b) of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the 
     Commission.
       (j) Termination.--
       (1) In general.--Unless extended under paragraph (2), the 
     Commission shall terminate on the date that is 10 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Extension.--Eight years after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Commission shall make a recommendation to 
     the Secretary if a body of its nature is still necessary to 
     advise on the development of the park. If, based on a 
     recommendation under this paragraph, the Secretary determines 
     that the Commission is still necessary, the Secretary may 
     extend the life of the Commission for not more than 10 years.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.

       There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for the 
     development of the park.

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


                             General Leave

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5131 was introduced by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) in April 2010. This bill would 
establish Coltsville National Historic Park on the former site of the 
Colt Fire Arms Company in Hartford, Connecticut.
  H.R. 5131 would create the park as part of a collaborative 
partnership between willing public and private landowners in the 
Coltsville historic district. It would also help revitalize one of 
Hartford's most economically challenged neighborhoods with new 
investments.
  A study conducted by the National Park Service found Coltsville to be 
of national significance but identified several technical challenges. 
Congressman Larson has worked with the committee and the National Park 
Service to include provisions in the bill addressing all of the 
agency's concerns. Mr. Larson is to be commended for his hard work on 
this legislation. This bill is good for the people of Connecticut, and 
it is good for our National Park System. I support H.R. 5131.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5131 proposes to create a new unit of the National 
Park System honoring the Colt family and their contribution to our 
Nation through the innovation of precision manufacturing. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there has been so little precision, 
apparently, in developing this legislation, that even the National Park 
Service has opposed the bill.
  I know the sponsor of this bill has worked extremely hard on this 
legislation, but the National Park Service conducted a study on this 
proposal and found that although the Coltsville site

[[Page 16206]]

is ``nationally significant,'' there are so many unresolved issues that 
they were unable to conclude that the park proposal is feasible. In 
fact, they were unable to determine which parts of the site they would 
own or even manage.
  Further complicating this proposal, the Park Service found--or rather 
I should say didn't find--that the public would have basic access to 
the site because it is under private ownership, among a variety of 
parties, including 55 condominiums and nine cottages.
  It probably goes without saying that visitors to this park would want 
to see the factory where the famous revolvers and other firearms were 
produced. Upon their arrival, they will probably be very disappointed 
because, quoting the Park Service, ``no commitments to permit visitors 
internal access to the Colt Fire Arms factory building currently 
exist.''
  How about a stop at the historic home of Samuel Colt? It is now a 
private, multiunit residential complex whose owners have determined 
that visitors touring through their homes would be, as the Park Service 
report states, ``problematic.''
  Regardless of the will of these property owners, this legislation 
would create Federal boundaries around their property and raise serious 
questions about whether their property rights are being violated. We 
talked about that a few times earlier today. This is yet another reason 
why this bill in my view is not ready to move today.
  In addition to the Park Service report, the agency testified in June 
on this legislation, and to quote from that testimony: ``The department 
does not support enactment of this legislation due to the uncertainty 
associated with the ownership and long-term financial sustainability of 
the Coltsville development project.''
  They continue, ``In concert with the lack of feasibility, the study 
was also unable to determine the need for the National Park Service 
management, or specifically which resources the National Park Service 
would manage.''
  As a very basic matter of priorities, I would remind my colleagues 
that the National Park Service already has a $9 billion maintenance 
backlog. Authorizing $10 million more for a new park that the Park 
Service doesn't believe is feasible to me makes no sense.
  The American public is pleading for this Congress to stop out-of-
control spending. While the concept and the intent behind this proposal 
may have merit, and I think it does have merit, we need to also 
acknowledge that the taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of 
dollars in rehabilitation costs just to prepare this site for visitors, 
if the visitors could get in, plus additional millions to manage the 
site from now to eternity.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that at the request of this 
Congress, the National Park Service conducted a study on this proposal 
and found substantial obstacles to it becoming a successful park. They 
reiterated that in testimony in June in front of the Natural Resources 
Committee. While this proposal may have its day, and I think it should 
have its day because of the historical significance of the Colt 
factory, in my view we are not there yet. So I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the chair of our caucus, the Honorable John Larson from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin 
Islands, and I thank my colleague from Washington. I can't wait to 
invite him up to Coltsville so he will see the accessibility and be 
exposed to what is part of this Nation's industrial revolution and part 
of our DNA when it comes to manufacturing.
  The gentleman points out clearly that the National Park Service has 
established its national significance. Its national significance, I 
think, is worth going into inasmuch as I don't think all of our 
colleagues here are aware of the great effort of Samuel Colt and 
actually his wife Elizabeth who managed the company for 39 years after 
his death. And even though she couldn't vote, managed one of the 
Nation's top companies that would have been then a Fortune Five company 
in this Nation. Indeed, it spawned the industrial revolution here. And 
as a lot of people know from the Colt signature iconic name, it was the 
gun that won the West. And I hope it wins your hearts today because 
along with recognizing its national historic significance and its 
suitability within the park system, it was modeled after what are 
difficult things for urban areas.

                              {time}  1550

  Unlike a lot of people out West who have spacious land, we are 
limited. This would be Connecticut's only national park because of its 
historic significance and also because of its economic significance. 
Hartford is the fourth poorest city in the Nation. Yes, there were 
obstacles that were put out in front over the last several years and 
then specifically in testimony. So, along with the committee, we sat 
down and worked through those issues.
  The issues centered mainly around the third criterion, knowing it was 
nationally significant, that it was suitable within the scheme of 
things, and that it followed the precedent established in Lowell, 
established in Rosie the Riveter in California, and then also, most 
recently, established in 2010 with Patterson Falls. It follows all of 
those criteria, but it goes beyond that for exactly the points that the 
gentleman raises. This is why I think it is so important and why I 
encourage the dialogue.
  We were on the phone with the National Park Service. They have no 
objection to this because this meets all of those criteria and those 
concerns. What are they?
  First and foremost, the gentleman is correct, any time you are in an 
urban area, you are going to enter into different property rights 
concerns than you would in an area which is less congested, shall I 
say. The point is this:
  Between all of the participants, including the Governor of the State, 
our economic development commission, the city of Hartford, their 
economic development commission, and the more than 88 property owners, 
everything was individually worked out. All are welcoming this with 
great pride and with the understanding of what this will mean to their 
city and with the understanding of what Coltsville and Elizabeth and 
Sam Colt mean to the State of Connecticut. This is, perhaps, not 
important to everybody here; but in a small State and in a small city 
that is economically depressed, it is enormously important.
  The gentleman raises the point that there were feasibility questions 
raised. There were. The developer has been replaced with a major and 
significant developer who has the feasibility and capability. A cap has 
been placed on any potential liability and cost for the National Park 
Service, which is another important hurdle, I dare say, which is not in 
most pieces of legislation. It is also with the understanding that the 
Park Service has veto power over this legislation, even though all of 
the hurdles have been addressed, should it prove not to be economically 
feasible.
  So I would plead with my colleague. I know, perhaps, in terms of the 
norm of national parks in an urban setting that in a congested and 
densely populated area like Connecticut, it's not going to meet a lot 
of those criteria. There are going to be property concerns. Though, you 
can go bipartisanly within your State, work with all the development 
authorities, go within the neighborhoods, work with everybody in the 
neighborhood, and then can look at this historic significance. Henry 
Ford went there to make sure he studied the assembly line. Pratt & 
Whitney were both apprentices there. It spawned the typewriter, the 
bicycle. The automobile we can even take credit for, though we are here 
to talk about the significance and the importance of this historic 
landmark.
  The urgency is that this structure, the 10,000 square feet that 
actually the Park Service would be in charge of, is in desperate need, 
in urgent need. It should have been passed years ago. This is a tough 
process. We have worked--and I really implore my colleagues, and many 
of you know this

[[Page 16207]]

from having gone through this locally--to have every local entity, down 
to the basic property holder, sign off on this enthusiastically, to 
experience all of the different hurdles that we have had to overcome 
and to go forward bipartisanly with the Governor of the State of 
Connecticut. I think it underscores how important this is to our great 
State of Connecticut.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge its passage.
  I understand the concerns that you have raised, but the Park Service 
has absolute veto power over that, and I think we in good faith have 
met every single one of those concerns. It is my hope that any 
disagreement or lack of understanding that has transpired can be 
overcome. Yet the urgency of this passage, of its importance and 
significance, I'd say to my good colleague and friend, is truly 
important to the people of the State of Connecticut.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. We may as well have a discussion here. If 
you need time, I will yield the time.
  First of all, I can see the passion that the gentleman has on this 
issue. Coming from the West, where that manufacturing facility won the 
West, I can understand that and respect that, but I do want to point 
out that there is a process here.
  We had a hearing on this in June. The Park Service expressed their 
concerns here in testimony. I quoted part of those concerns. They 
expressed their concerns, and we expressed some concerns that we may 
have had because the private property aspect to it was part of the 
dialogue. We marked the bill up in July, once again, expressing our 
concerns.
  I am one who respects when Members want to put something in their 
districts. Listen, they know their districts better than anybody else, 
and they should be given a lot of leeway; but there is a 
responsibility, if we are going to have national input, to know what 
the facts are so that we can respond accordingly, as it is not just the 
citizen taxpayers of Connecticut who are funding this; it is the 
taxpayers of the 50 States, so we need to have some answers.
  Now, this bill was put on the suspension calendar last night. I have 
checked with my staff. We have yet to hear from the Park Service as to 
if it has changed its mind or not. You alluded to that fact, but we 
haven't gotten anything at all.
  The gentleman knows that the approval rating of this Congress is 
very, very low, and it is precisely for these reasons. Even though we 
don't have the answers, albeit on a project that is small in terms of 
the overall scope of the Federal Government, it deserves to have 
answers, especially when we have been working on this. You said that 
you've been working on it, I think, if not publicly, then in private 
conversations for at least 10 years. These concerns that we have raised 
go back to this summer. They should at least be raised or answered, and 
they have not been adequately answered.
  So, in the waning days of this session, I will tell the gentleman 
that I am more than willing to work with him, if this does not pass the 
Congress this year, to get these things resolved so that, indeed, we 
can memorialize that factory. Yet, with the information I have right 
now, I respectfully say to my friend that we have focused on the Park 
Service, but there is a cost associated with this, which I alluded to 
in my opening remarks, and there is a private property aspect. Those 
are all important issues.
  With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but I have to say that 
I oppose this, and I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' 
though I certainly want to revisit this sometime in the future so we 
can get this legislation passed.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  The future for the city of Hartford and for Coltsville is now, and 
the sense of urgency is upon us. My good friend and colleague from 
Washington State is an honest broker and a decent person.
  I appreciate your comments and everything that you attributed to my 
enthusiasm and zeal. Let me say that that extends to the people of the 
State of Connecticut, as I indicated in a nonpartisan way, who are very 
much committed to this.
  The gentleman is correct that at the hearing, which I believe was in 
June, these issues were raised. We then sat down with the Park Service, 
and we addressed every one of their concerns. Representative Grijalva 
then introduced an amendment that we felt addressed those concerns as 
well.

                              {time}  1600

  In the push-and-shove of business here in Congress and on the floor, 
I understand sometimes in the process--and certainly the gentleman is 
correct in making process points. I just would say that this goes 
beyond process in terms of what it means.
  We are a small State, Connecticut, but a very proud State. This is a 
project--certainly, everybody recognizes--that has national 
significance and historic value and deserves to be preserved. The 
problem is that postponing it yet again doesn't work.
  And so I understand your position, but I would implore people on the 
other side of the aisle. If you were in a similar situation--and 
understanding all the fiscal responsibility that we have as a Congress, 
and to say that you have ultimate veto power that you give to the 
National Park Service that the project cannot go forward unless 
everything has been met--and the State, its economic development 
authority, the City of Hartford, its municipality authority, all the 
property owners all embrace this and have done so enthusiastically. And 
the National Park Service has signed off on it, they told me.
  I respect what the gentleman said, you haven't received that. That's 
unfortunate and unfair. I know you don't doubt my word, and I certainly 
don't doubt yours. I can only ask and implore that you support this, 
what I think is a very important and nationally significant bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have made my points on 
this. I appreciate the gentleman's input, but I stand by my opening 
remarks on this just because we haven't got the information. So I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support this important legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Langevin). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) 
that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5131, as 
amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________