[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 178 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H9092-H9104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2130, RED RIVER PRIVATE PROPERTY 
 PROTECTION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND 
                               THE RULES

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 556 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H9093]]

  


                              H. Res. 556

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2130) to provide legal certainty to property 
     owners along the Red River in Texas, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of December 13, 2015, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against House 
Resolution 556 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act. The resolution, in waiving all points of 
order against consideration of the bill, waives section 425 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, thereby causing a violation of section 
426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut makes a 
point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, Americans, understandably, feel a sense of 
fear and chaos caused by the news of the senseless attacks that have 
been carried out against civilians in this country and around the world 
in the past few weeks.
  We can and we should help reassure the American people that their 
Representatives in Congress--that we here in this Chamber--are doing 
everything in our power to prevent such a brutal attack from happening 
in any one of our communities.
  If we do not act this week, how can we go home? How can we go home 
and look our constituents in the eyes and tell them that we are doing 
everything we can? that we are upholding our sworn duty to protect the 
American people?
  But we can act. We can act, and we should act today.
  We need to close the loophole that allows dangerous people from 
buying guns. There is no loophole more egregious, more glaring, or more 
shocking than the one that allows suspected terrorists in this country 
to walk legally into a gun shop, to go online or to go to a gun show, 
and purchase a weapon in order to kill American citizens.
  This astounding loophole has allowed more than 2,000 individuals on 
the FBI's terrorist watch list to buy weapons legally in this country 
in the last 11 years. In that time, more than 90 percent of the 
individuals on the watch list who have tried to buy guns have been 
given a green light. They have been handed a gun. Those numbers are 
shocking, and they are disturbing.
  As Members of Congress, it is our responsibility to protect all 
Americans wherever they live, and one of those areas of protection is 
from terror in their communities. It is to keep our citizens safe.
  What is terror? There has been a lot of discussion about what terror 
is. In its most simple sense, terror is spreading fear and chaos, and 
that is exactly what the American people are feeling right now--fear 
and chaos here and around the world.
  There are no easy answers for mass shootings, and there are no easy 
answers for combating terrorism; but the fact that the answers are not 
easy does not absolve us of our responsibility to step up and do what 
is hard. We are not elected to do what is easy. We are not elected to 
do what is possible. We are elected and we are sworn to do what is hard 
and what is necessary to protect and advance the interests of the 
American people.
  Now is the time to act.
  Yesterday, the House voted to strengthen the security screening 
process for those who travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver 
Program, and I was proud to cosponsor that bill. We acted together in 
this body to protect the American people.
  While reforming the Visa Waiver Program is a good thing, it is not 
enough. It is insufficient to the task. Keeping guns out of the hands 
of terrorists in this country, on American soil, is a necessary and an 
important step for us to take; but until we have the opportunity to 
vote to close this loophole, suspected terrorists in this country will 
continue to have and to use the opportunity to buy weapons in our 
country.
  The simple truth for the American people to know is that we have been 
denied even the opportunity to vote to close this loophole, and we have 
a bipartisan bill right now that we could act on. It is time for us in 
this House to stand up for the safety of the American people and to 
stand up to the NRA and others who are sowing fear and misinformation 
about what is possible to do to protect people.
  I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan bill that would protect the 
American people. The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous 
Terrorists Act would close this loophole by banning the sale or the 
distribution of firearms to anyone the Attorney General deems to be 
engaged in terrorist activities.
  The U.S. Government already maintains a list of known and suspected 
terrorists. If there are problems with that list--and I have heard my 
colleagues raise that question--then let's fix the list. If there are 
problems with the law, let's fix the bill. We can't afford to remain 
silent. We can't afford to remain passive. We can't afford to be denied 
the opportunity to exercise our duty to vote as Members of Congress. 
That is what we do; and, right now, we are being denied that simple and 
straightforward right.

                              {time}  1245

  It is time. It is past time for this Congress to act. Let's keep guns 
out of the hands of suspected terrorists. Let's bring up the bill. If 
you can't fly, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
  Tonight, I will be joining some of my colleagues at the third 
national vigil to end gun violence. Here on Capitol Hill in a church a 
few blocks away, we will be meeting with families and survivors of gun 
violence from across the country, from Newtown, Connecticut, in my 
district; from Aurora, Colorado; from Chicago; from Harlem; from across 
this great country. Thousands of Americans are affected every month by 
our inaction.
  I am going to have a very hard time looking these folks in the eye 
today. I ask you to join me, come with me, and look them in the eye and 
tell them why you are unwilling to take one single vote, one single 
step to try to protect people in America. We have an opportunity to 
change that today. We have an opportunity to act together. We have an 
opportunity to fulfill our duty

[[Page H9094]]

to protect and defend the American people from the scourge of gun 
violence. A simple, straightforward, and important way to start is to 
allow us to vote on this bipartisan bill that will close an absurd 
loophole in the law that allows terrorists to buy guns to kill 
Americans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is should 
the House now consider House Resolution 556. While the resolution 
waives all points of order against consideration of today's measures, 
the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act. In fact, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
clearly agrees, she did not even mention the word ``unfunded'' once in 
her comments. The waiver is only necessary to ensure that the House can 
continue with its scheduled business. In fact, the Congressional Budget 
Office has stated in its analysis of this measure that there are no 
violations of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a dilatory tactic. This straightforward bill 
will provide certainty to the landowners on the Red River who are 
unsure if the land to which they hold title and have paid taxes on will 
remain in their families.
  In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for 
the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of 
consideration of the resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, some say as my colleague just did, my friend 
across the aisle, that we shouldn't bring up this issue this week; that 
this is political and, therefore, inappropriate. Well, I have to 
disagree and disagree strongly.
  Politics is about people coming together to solve problems. If we 
can't come together to help address the crying need of the American 
citizens to be protected a little bit more from the fear and chaos of 
terrorists on our soil, armed with guns legally purchased in this 
country because we have refused to act, I proudly say it is political 
and that is exactly what we should be doing. We should be coming 
together as the body politic of the American people.
  It is precisely the time to take action, and I support the underlying 
legislation. I support even more us taking steps now in the wake of 
mass shootings, now in the wake of terrorism, now at the time when many 
of the world's religions are praying for peace, hope, and light in the 
dark time of the year.
  It is a dark time in the soul of the American people and in this 
country, and we have the opportunity to take action. We have the 
opportunity to be a beacon of light and hope and responsiveness to the 
needs of the people. That is our job.
  I call on my colleagues to join me at the vigil and to join me in 
allowing us the opportunity to vote, to act, to protect and defend this 
country.
  I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. Esty) for raising an important issue, for forcing us 
to talk about something that the Republican leadership is working 
overtime to prevent us from having a vote on.
  Only in this Republican-controlled House of Representatives would the 
idea of prohibiting terror suspects from getting weapons be considered 
controversial. It is stunning.
  Let me say to the Republican leadership, who are, again, preventing 
us from being able to deliberate on this issue, you take my breath 
away. I cannot believe that you will not allow us to have a vote on the 
floor on this important issue. You are on the wrong side of history. 
You are certainly on the wrong side of public opinion.
  The vast majority of Americans--Democrats, Republicans, 
Independents--all think we ought to close this loophole, everybody but 
the leadership of this House, which is beholden to one special 
interest.
  Terror suspects can't fly on airplanes. I fly back and forth from 
Boston to Washington every week. I am glad that terror suspects can't 
fly on airplanes. I feel more safe. The people I fly with feel more 
safe.
  Why would it be somehow acceptable, then, to allow those same people 
who cannot fly to be able to go out and buy weapons, highly 
sophisticated weapons, weapons that are used by terrorists to kill 
civilians? Why would that be acceptable?
  We ought to have a vote on this. Let us vote. Let us deliberate on 
this important issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my 
colleagues from Connecticut and Massachusetts. I can't think of one 
person out of 535 Members of Congress that wants terrorists to have a 
firearm. Certainly not. That is not something that is even in question.
  I do find it very interesting, especially from my colleague from 
Massachusetts--and which we sit together on the Rules Committee--to 
bring up a point of something that, I would say, he advocates for daily 
on this floor and in this body and, that is, to follow regular order to 
allow pieces of legislation to go through the committee process, to 
allow every Member of this body to have their input, to have their say, 
to be able to amend, to be able to argue, to be able to debate, to 
allow it to go through the process that this body stands for, until 
today when it is their side of the aisle's idea that they have to move 
an issue forward.
  They say: Let's circumvent regular order, let's bring something that 
has not gone through the committee process, that has not allowed every 
Member of this body to weigh in on, to debate, to bring up amendments, 
to make their feelings known. Let's only do it when it is not their 
idea. That is the message I am getting.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the enormity of the issue 
before us. We are working on many bills in this legislative body to 
deal with the issue of terrorism in front of us as a Nation and as a 
world. I hope that Members of the other side of the aisle will support 
those efforts to make this country safer.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 174, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 681]

                               YEAS--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo

[[Page H9095]]


     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--174

     Adams
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Aguilar
     Gabbard
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Norcross
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Rothfus
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott, David
     Takai
     Tsongas
     Turner

                              {time}  1325

  Messrs. CICILLINE and RICHMOND changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
nay.''
  Messrs. GRAVES of Missouri, JODY B. HICE of Georgia, CARTER of 
Georgia, WITTMAN, LATTA, FINCHER, JOLLY, WALBERG, and FITZPATRICK 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 681, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 556, providing for consideration of 
an important piece of legislation, H.R. 2130, the Red River Private 
Property Protection Act.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2130 under a structured 
rule, making every amendment submitted to the committee in order, which 
includes a manager's amendment and an amendment by Mr. Cole of 
Oklahoma.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2130, the Red River Private Property Protection 
Act, is critically important to protecting private property in the 
great States of Texas and Oklahoma. This bill prevents the Federal 
Government from seizing thousands of acres of private land that is 
lawfully owned by American citizens along the 116-mile stretch of the 
Red River between Oklahoma and Texas.
  The Bureau of Land Management, or the BLM, is currently updating its 
Texas and Oklahoma Resources Management Plan, which covers this stretch 
of the Red River.
  BLM initially stated that there are an estimated 90,000 acres of land 
along this stretch of the river that may be considered public domain 
and managed as Federal land. They have since reduced this estimate to 
30,000.
  Of these 30,000 acres, less than 6,500 acres have actually been 
surveyed. These revisions and drastically different estimates based 
upon a fraction of acreage surveyed have caused great concern among 
landowners and local stakeholders.

                              {time}  1330

  H.R. 2130 would commission a survey of the entire 116-mile stretch of 
the contested area along the Red River using the gradient boundary 
survey method developed and backed by the Supreme Court of the United 
States in 1923's decision, Oklahoma v. Texas, that determined the 
proper boundaries between private and federally owned land.
  This decision set the precedent for determining the boundaries, 
including taking into account the doctrine of erosion, accretion, and 
avulsion of the Red River, which changes rapidly and materially in 
flood.
  The underlying bill states the survey must be conducted within 2 
years by licensed State land surveyors and approved by the Texas 
General Land Office in conjunction with the Commissioners of the Land 
Office in Oklahoma.
  Once the survey is approved, affected landowners have the ability to 
appeal the survey to an administrative law judge. After the boundary 
between public and private land is settled, the BLM is required to sell 
the remaining Federal land along the Red River at no less than fair 
market value. Landowners will rightly be given the rights of first 
refusal.
  H.R. 2130 also requires that a resource management plan adhere to the 
requirements in the bill and explicitly states that nothing in the 
language will affect the Red River Boundary Compact, which established 
the visible boundaries between the two States and solves jurisdictional 
and sovereignty disputes.
  Land already patented under the Color-of-Title Act will not be 
affected nor will the sovereignty of federally recognized Indian tribes 
regarding land that is located to the north of the South Bank boundary 
line.
  Mr. Speaker, the entire section of this 116-mile stretch has never 
even been surveyed by the BLM, and the small portions that the agency 
has surveyed appear to stray widely from the accepted gradient boundary 
survey method endorsed by the Supreme Court.
  Uncertainty clouds all decisions being made with regard to this land. 
The BLM has never actively managed the small strip of land they 
actually do own, as they are unsure of exactly what land it is they 
own.
  Meanwhile, the agency appears incapable of understanding basic 
natural

[[Page H9096]]

movements of the river. While the approved survey method makes clear 
that ownership boundaries between private and public land will change 
with the movements of the river over time, BLM surveys do not.
  A major determinant of land ownership must reflect the location of 
the existing median line of the river while taking into account past 
changes in the river's movement.
  While BLM fails to understand the very land they claim to be 
surveying, landowners along the river are left unsure if the land they 
have held titles to and have paid taxes on will remain their property 
or be subject to Federal ownership.
  This uncertainty threatens the value of privately owned lands. It 
clouds the title and causes landowners to think twice before making 
improvements on their land. This insecurity is harming local landowners 
and local economies, stifling any potential economic development in the 
area.
  H.R. 2130 will solve this problem and clear up the uncertainty caused 
by BLM's decision, after over 90 years, to suddenly decide to claim the 
rights to this land. In conjunction with the States and affected 
tribes, this legislation will make clear the true ownership of the 
property.
  The House Natural Resources Committee, which I sit on, favorably 
ordered this bill in September. It is important to note that this 
legislation is an updated version of legislation introduced in the 
113th Congress and reflects the input received from landowners, both 
States in subject, as well as feedback provided by the minority members 
on the Natural Resources Committee.
  So I believe the updates reflect the bipartisan nature in which this 
legislation was drafted and highlights the necessity of solving this 
problem for the people of Texas and the people of Oklahoma.
  This legislation is necessary to not only right an obvious wrong in 
this specific instance regarding the Oklahoma-Texas border, but is 
essential to ensuring that local landowners have a judicious, practical 
process to firmly establish title to their rightfully owned land.
  Government exists to protect our natural rights. Those include 
property rights. H.R. 2130 will put in place the proper process to 
ensure government agencies assist, rather than impede, with the 
protection of private property.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this rule allowing for consideration of H.R. 2130, 
the Red River Private Property Protection Act, will support the 
protection of private property and prevent the Federal Government from 
falsely claiming thousands of acres of land lawfully owned by American 
citizens.
  I support the rule's adoption. I urge my colleagues to support both 
the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, what we should be talking about today is keeping the 
government open before funding runs out. With the horrific terrorist 
attack in San Bernardino taking place just 1 week ago, we should also 
be talking about how to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
  House Democrats are united in making these our top priorities so that 
we can address the pressing issues the American people elected us to 
tackle. Instead, we are talking about H.R. 2130, the Red River Private 
Property Protection Act.
  This is a bill that Republicans know is going nowhere, but they still 
insist that we take it up. Today I rise in strong opposition to the 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  Proponents of this bill claim that the Bureau of Land Management's 
effort to survey land along the Red River is a Federal land grab. In 
fact, H.R. 2130 is a land grab by the State of Texas which will harm 
local Native American tribes and taxpayers nationwide.
  H.R. 2130 would set aside existing Federal surveys of land along the 
116-mile stretch of the Red River in Texas and would require the 
Secretary to commission and to accept, without Federal participation, 
surveys of the land approved by the Texas General Land Office.
  We should be helping to provide legal certainty to property owners 
along the Red River, but we should not use the approach of voiding or 
nullifying Federal surveys.
  BLM's survey and public planning process is not a land grab or a 
government overreach, but simply a Federal agency trying to resolve a 
very complex situation. If Texas wants to challenge the BLM's survey 
methods, they should do it in the normal way, in the courts, not 
through Congress.
  Additionally, this legislation would require the Interior Department 
to delegate its authority for determining Federal estate to a State 
agency, would be counter to near 100 years of settled law, and could 
reduce mineral revenue opportunities for the Kiowa, Comanche, and 
Apache tribes and the State of Oklahoma.

  Passing this bill could potentially complicate oil and gas leases 
that local tribes rely on for income. The Kiowa, Apache, and Comanche 
tribes receive 62.5 percent of any royalty generated for oil and gas 
development along this section of the Red River.
  If part of this land no longer belongs to the Federal Government, 
then this agreement would disappear and the important source of revenue 
relied on by these tribes could vanish into thin air. These tribes view 
this bill as a threat to their livelihood and an assault on their 
property.
  In addition to potentially losing revenues from mineral revenues, 
tribes have also expressed concern about access to water. Water is 
scarce in this arid region, and tribes rely on access to the Red River 
significantly. So H.R. 2130 could threaten that critical access.
  If we want to do what is right by the people of Texas, the people of 
Oklahoma, the affected tribes, and the people of the United States, we 
have got to reject this bill in its current form.
  We all know that it is going nowhere and will be just another waste 
of the House's precious time. I ask my colleagues: Shouldn't we be 
tackling pressing issues, like gun violence or funding for our 
government?
  Mr. Speaker, Congress only has 1 legislative day left to avert a 
government shutdown. Let me remind my Republican friends about the last 
time that they shut down the government:
  The economy lost $24 billion and 120,000 private sector jobs. 
Veterans' disability claims were stalled. Head Start centers were 
forced to close. Small businesses were cut off from SBA loans. $4 
billion in tax refunds were delayed. Hundreds of Americans were 
prevented from enrolling in NIH clinical trials.
  So instead of heading down that road again and damaging our 
recovering economy, I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle 
will do the right thing.
  I urge the Republican leadership to drop their demands for radical 
policy riders that put an omnibus funding bill in jeopardy. Work with 
our leadership. Work in a bipartisan way to advance a bill that will 
keep the government open and avert yet another Republican-manufactured 
crisis.
  There is a lot of work that needs to be done, Mr. Speaker, and it 
needs to be done right now.
  My friend from Washington earlier made reference to regular order, 
saying that those of us who are trying to get a vote on a bill to 
basically close a loophole that allows terrorist suspects to be able to 
buy weapons are not adhering to regular order.
  Well, I have news for my friend from Washington State. Regular order 
is dead in this House of Representatives. It died a long time ago. My 
Republican friends killed it a long time ago. There is no regular order 
in this House.
  Whether it is on your bills to defund Planned Parenthood, the energy 
package, the Syrian refugee bill, the oil bill, none of that came 
before us in regular order. We are on this floor day after day, 
demanding votes on procedural motions precisely because there is no 
regular order in this House.
  The committees of jurisdiction are not doing their job, are not even 
doing hearings or reporting a bill out of committee that would prevent 
terrorist suspects from getting access to weapons.

[[Page H9097]]

  So we are using procedural motions to try to put some pressure on the 
leadership in this House--if not pressure, maybe to shame the 
leadership of this House to bring a bill to the floor that the 
overwhelming majority of the American people want.
  As I said earlier, only in this Republican-controlled House of 
Representatives would the idea of prohibiting terrorist suspects from 
getting weapons be considered controversial.
  These people that we are talking about are on the no-fly list. They 
can't fly on airplanes, and I am glad that they can't fly with me when 
I go back and forth from Washington to Boston every week. I think the 
majority of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, are glad that 
terrorist suspects are not on their plane flying around the country 
when they are on these planes.
  Why, then, would it somehow be a good idea to say that these people 
who cannot fly on our airplanes because we suspect them of links to 
terrorism can somehow go out and buy a weapon of war that could 
potentially be used against our citizens?
  There are a lot of things we need to do. This is one of them. I get 
it that there is a particular special interest out there that is 
putting a lot of pressure on the leadership and on some Members on the 
other side to not be able to bring this bill to the floor. But I would 
say that a majority of the members of the National Rifle Association 
actually agree with us on this issue.
  By the way, this idea that we are putting forward here today is not a 
democratic idea. It is introduced by a Republican Member of Congress, 
Congressman Peter King of New York. It is an idea that has been 
endorsed by a Republican President and its administration, the Bush 
administration prior to this one. Their Justice Department thought this 
was a good idea.
  Former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, who is the co-chair of the 9/11 
Commission, said this is a good idea. I mean, reasonable, rational 
people think this is good idea.
  Yet, in this House of Representatives, we can't even get it on the 
floor for a vote. If you don't want to vote for it, then have the 
courage to vote ``no.'' Allow it to come to the floor. Let your 
constituents know where you stand on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague 
on the Rules Committee. I appreciate his opening comments and take 
great interest in some of the things that were pointed out.
  Certainly, nobody in this body on this side of the aisle or on your 
side is interested in closing down the government and shutting the 
government. In fact, just yesterday Leader McCarthy stood at this very 
podium and told everyone to make sure that they kept their travel plans 
flexible enough to be able to stay here and get their work done.
  So I think there is a commitment on both sides of the aisle in order 
to get work done for the American people. Also, protecting Americans in 
this very dangerous time that we face in the world today is one of the 
highest priorities that we have as a Congress and is certainly a 
constitutional duty that all of us take very seriously.

                              {time}  1345

  We are working very hard. We have committees of jurisdiction working 
very hard and coming up with workable ideas in order to accomplish just 
that. In fact, we just passed something this week that had to do with 
the waiver program for visas that I think will go a long way in keeping 
this country safe.
  We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can deal with the 
important issues of the American people as well as not only keeping the 
government open, keeping Americans safe, but also protecting property 
rights when a Federal agency creates a problem by trying to take 
private property away from citizens. In this case, it is not in my 
State, but tomorrow it could be, and it could be in your State 
tomorrow. So we can do multiple important things that the American 
people expect us to do on their behalf.
  Mr. Speaker, we talked a lot about regular order in my colleague's 
opening statements, so here we go again. As I said earlier, we are 
lectured on a daily basis on the importance of regular order. This bill 
that we are considering here is a perfect example of regular order. It 
went through the committee process. We have accepted two amendments in 
the Rules Committee that were offered to perfect this bill that the 
Members of this full body will get an opportunity to voice their 
opinions on and to vote whether they accept them or not.
  Just last week, Mr. Speaker, we heard two conference reports: one on 
the highways bill and one on education. That is a great example of 
regular order being reestablished in this House of Representatives. 
Speaker Ryan is committed to regular order, working from the ground up, 
letting the committees do their jobs, and allowing every Member to have 
a voice in this process.
  So I am very happy. I am very optimistic about the future of this 
body and our ability to get work done under Republican leadership. I 
think we have shown that we can get work done, and we are doing a great 
job doing it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry). He would like to speak on this issue of 
the Red River Valley.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman 
from Washington yielding me the time and his work on this issue, as 
well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for bringing it 
to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend a great deal of time debating 
the merits of the bill at this point on the rule. I think it is 
important, however, that I try to clear up some misunderstandings, 
apparently, that have been generated.
  Let me just say that one misunderstanding that I have heard referred 
to on the floor is that the committees in this House are not taking 
action against terrorism. I can say that the committee I am privileged 
to chair, the Armed Services Committee, has had a briefing this very 
morning about how we can be more effective against ISIS and the threat 
of terrorism. So there is a great deal of work that is going on around 
this House. It may not be every bill that every Member wants to see 
debated, but a variety of committees and committees working together 
are working to take action to try to keep this country safe, and I 
think that is important for the American people to know.
  Mr. Speaker, the Red River Private Property Protection Act is an 
important act not only for the landowners on both sides of the river 
along this 116-mile stretch in Texas and Oklahoma, but it is important 
for property owners across the country; because, if an agency of the 
Federal Government can wake up one day and say, ``We own more land than 
we ever have thought we owned over the last 90 years,'' it puts in 
doubt the property rights of landowners everywhere because it is very 
difficult to fight the Federal Government.
  The suggestion was made that this underlying legislation is a 
landgrab by Texas. Of course, my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is that reflects 
a fundamental understanding of the situation and certainly of what this 
legislation does.
  Let me take just a moment to explain that, when Thomas Jefferson 
bought the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, he bought for the 
United States all of the land in the riverbed of the Red River down to 
the south bank of the river. That was affirmed in numerous treaties 
between the United States and Spain, the United States and Mexico, and 
the United States and the Republic of Texas. That is the boundary, the 
south bank. But in 1867, the United States made a treaty with three 
Indian tribes, and that reservation that was the subject of that treaty 
just went to the middle of the river.
  I have the exact treaty which I may well enter into the Record at a 
future point.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, any reservation which later 
became private property in the State of Oklahoma extended only to the 
middle of the river, while Texas did not go further north than the 
south bank of the river. That leaves a narrow strip from

[[Page H9098]]

the middle of the river to the south bank that is absolutely Federal 
territory.

  That is the way it has been since, as I say, at least 1867, with 
nobody else making a claim that they owned it--until 2 years ago; and 
then the Bureau of Land Management said: We think we own a lot more 
land, not just the south bank, but a lot more land. And that is what 
has caused this controversy.
  So how do you solve a controversy like that? You do a survey. You 
follow the Supreme Court decision from the 1920s. You get professionals 
out there who know what they are doing, and you conduct a survey 
exactly along the line the Supreme Court said we should. And that is 
what this bill does. It requires a survey along the whole 116-mile 
stretch, which has never been done. As the gentleman from Washington 
states, as a matter of fact, they have only surveyed 6,000 acres in a 
spot sort of fashion.
  So this tries to answer this issue once and for all. Survey the whole 
thing. We know where the line is, and, therefore, people who are 
private property owners on both sides of the river know where the line 
is as well.
  Now, clearly, Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of infringing upon 
any of the rights that the tribes or anybody else has. Let me just 
quote a few provisions from the underlying legislation:
  Nothing in this act shall be construed to ``alter the valid rights of 
the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Nations to the mineral interest trust 
fund created pursuant to the act of June 12, 1926.''
  ``Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify the interest of 
Texas or Oklahoma or sovereignty rights of any federally recognized 
Indian tribe over lands located to the north of the South Bank boundary 
line as established by the survey.''
  ``The sale of a parcel under this section shall be subject to . . . 
valid existing State, tribal, and local rights.''
  There are more protections in here than even I can count. So the 
point is not to change anybody's rights. It is to prevent the Federal 
Government from confiscating the land that private property owners have 
deeds to, often for generations, and have paid taxes on for years and 
years. That is what this is trying to solve.
  The suggestion has been made, well, all this ought to be worked out 
in court. Number one, private landowners sometimes don't have the 
pockets to work it out--especially a fight with the Federal 
Government--in court.
  Secondly, while you are working it out in court, this cloud hangs 
over your title. You can't sell your land. You can't borrow money on it 
because nobody knows if that is really Federal land or private land.
  This was not a problem until 2 years ago, when the Bureau of Land 
Management said: We are going to take in more land than anybody has 
ever alleged that the Federal Government owns.
  The way to fix a BLM overreach is for this House to take action and 
answer the question once and for all. That is what this legislation 
does.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Washington and 
the chairman of the committee for giving us the opportunity to debate 
it.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration 
Policy on H.R. 2130, which says that if the President were presented 
with H.R. 2130, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the 
bill.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


          H.R. 2130--Red River Private Property Protection Act

                 (Rep. Thornberry, R-TX, Dec. 8, 2015)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2130, which would 
     set aside existing Federal surveys, divest the Secretary of 
     the Interior of responsibility as surveyor of record for the 
     United States, and transfer lands out of Federal ownership 
     without ensuring a fair return to the taxpayer.
       H.R. 2130 would set aside existing Federal surveys of land 
     along the Red River in Texas and would require the Secretary 
     to commission and to accept, without Federal participation, 
     surveys of the land approved by the Texas General Land 
     Office. This legislation would require the Secretary to 
     delegate her authority for determining Federal estate to a 
     state agency, would be counter to nearly 100 years of settled 
     law, and could reduce mineral revenue opportunities for the 
     Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Tribes and the State of Oklahoma.
       The Administration shares the goal of providing legal 
     certainty to property owners along the Red River, but 
     strongly opposes the approach of voiding or nullifying 
     Federal surveys.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 2130, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include that in the Record, first of 
all, to make it clear to my colleagues that what we are doing here is a 
waste of time. This bill isn't going anywhere.
  I would say to the gentleman from Washington that, if his idea of 
regular order is bringing bills to the floor that are going nowhere, we 
have a different definition of what regular order is all about. I have 
listed for you a series of major bills that did not go through regular 
order. Most of them never went through committee. This whole process, 
since we are 1 day away from a government shutdown, of putting an 
omnibus together is not regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends control the House, they control the Senate, 
and yet we are going to get this big bill no matter whether it passes 
or not. We are not going to know what is in this bill for weeks and 
months afterwards, all these riders and all these different deals on 
the omnibus bill and the tax extender bill. So, please, regular order 
is dead.
  We are again pursuing these procedural motions to try to force you, 
to try to shame my friends on the other side of the aisle, to bring a 
bill to the floor that the overwhelming majority of the American people 
want us to vote on.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would 
close a glaring loophole in our gun laws allowing suspected terrorists 
to legally buy firearms. Mr. Speaker, this bill would bar the sale of 
firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Why 
that is so controversial for the Republican leadership is beyond me.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. To discuss our proposal, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern.
  Mr. Speaker, with just 2 days until the government runs out of 
funding, House Republicans have chosen to bring a bill to the floor to 
solve a dispute between two States: Texas and Oklahoma.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an epidemic of gun violence in this country, and 
Congress is doing nothing to end the killing. Right now, a person on 
the FBI's terrorist watch list can go to a gun store or a gun show and 
purchase a firearm legally.
  If a person on the terrorist watch list is too dangerous to buy a 
plane ticket, why are they allowed to purchase unlimited quantities of 
weapons and ammunition?
  Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to act now to protect the American 
people. The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act 
is a bipartisan bill which prohibits the sale of firearms to people on 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's terrorist watch list. Congress 
needs to take the most basic step we can by passing this bill to keep 
Americans safe from those who wish to do us harm.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts again for the 
time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline.)
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a gun violence epidemic in this country. There 
have been nearly 50,000 incidents of gun violence in our country this 
year. More than 12,400 people have lost their lives. There have been 
more than 350 mass shootings in the United States this year, more than 
there have been days

[[Page H9099]]

in the year. For many killers in these mass shootings, assault weapons 
are the weapons of choice.
  Right now, Mr. Speaker, someone who is on the terrorist watch list, 
someone law enforcement has deemed too dangerous to board an airplane, 
can walk into a gun store and buy an assault rifle. This is insane. 
H.R. 1076 will fix this.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman King of New York for introducing 
this commonsense bill, and I applaud him for actually working with the 
Democrats. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill. We need 
more people on his side of the aisle to stop kneeling at the altar of 
the NRA and actually do something about this urgent threat to public 
safety.
  Mr. Speaker, if we don't pass this into law, then shame on us for 
doing nothing while thousands of Americans are dying each year from gun 
violence. Instead of spending time on this Texas landgrab, as Mr. 
McGovern says, we should be focused on the urgent issues facing our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
we can take up H.R. 1076 and do something to protect our constituents 
from gun violence in this country.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have just one comment to make in 
response to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  If the definition of regular order is only considering those issues 
that the administration approves of, then what really is our function 
here as a Congress? Should we just put a sign out that says that we are 
closed until a new administration comes along? It seems to me that we 
have a duty to the American people to consider issues that are 
important from the majority's perspective.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will just respond to the gentleman by 
saying that my objection is that we have become a place where trivial 
issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. The 
difference between debating a Texas landgrab bill that is going nowhere 
versus a bill that could protect the American people from terror 
suspects who now have access to buy guns, I don't think there is any 
comparison here. The difference between doing this Texas landgrab bill 
and actually passing a bill to keep the government running, I think 
passing a bill to keep the government running is more important.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Hahn).

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for 
the few moments to talk about something really important.
  Colleagues, it is our responsibility to take action on behalf of the 
American people that we represent, and right now they are begging us to 
take action to keep them safe. We should not be wasting our time 
debating this legislation on the floor today when so many lives are at 
stake.
  The American people are anxious, many are afraid, and they have 
reason to be. Guns kill 36 people every day in our country. No other 
developed country comes close to that level.
  Some would say it is we, in this body, who are to blame because we 
have failed to enact even the most reasonable policies to keep guns out 
of the hands of dangerous criminals.
  It is unbelievable that an individual on the terrorist watch list can 
walk into a gun shop and buy the firearm of their choice in this 
country. Among all the gaps in our gun laws, this loophole is the most 
glaring. In fact, in the past 11 years, 2,000 suspects on our FBI's 
terrorist watch list have walked into a gun store and bought the weapon 
of their choice.
  All we are asking for is the commonsense legislation that Peter King 
has introduced that would close this loophole be brought to this floor 
for a vote. This bill, introduced by Peter King, has bipartisan 
support. Of course, this bill is not a cure-all for all gun violence in 
this Nation, but it is a step in the right direction.
  I join my colleagues in asking Speaker Ryan to bring this legislation 
to the floor for a vote.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I had to take this opportunity to come to the floor to urge my GOP 
colleagues to allow a vote on closing the loophole that allows 
terrorists and terrorist suspects to go and purchase firearms and get a 
license for explosives. It is unbelievable that this loophole still 
exists. This is something that we can work together on to help keep our 
families safe all across America.
  And here is the state of the law. Currently, if you are a felon, you 
cannot purchase a firearm. If you are a fugitive, you cannot purchase a 
firearm. If you are a drug addict, you cannot purchase a firearm. If 
you have been convicted of domestic violence, you cannot purchase a 
firearm.
  Here is the loophole: If you are on the terrorist watch list and you 
cannot fly, you can still go into the gun store and purchase a firearm. 
This really is truly unbelievable.
  I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to tell us 
again the statistic, based upon the GAO report, of how many people, 
terrorists, suspected terrorists, have been able to purchase firearms.
  Do you know?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. This astounding loophole has allowed more than 2,000 
suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list to buy guns in the United 
States over the last 11 years.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I include in the Record a 
page that summarizes the GAO report from a few years ago, because I 
know folks think this is a partisan fight. And don't take it from us. 
Take it from the independent GAO. It states:
  ``Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person 
from possessing firearms or explosives under current Federal law.''

                   [From GAO Highlights, May 5, 2010]

Terrorist Watchlist Screening: FBI Has Enhanced Its Use of Information 
       From Firearm and Explosives Background Checks To Support 
                        Counterterrorism Efforts


                         Why GAO Did This Study

       Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a 
     person from possessing firearms or explosives under current 
     federal law. However, for homeland security and other 
     purposes, the FBI is notified when a firearm or explosives 
     background check involves an individual on the terrorist 
     watchlist. This statement addresses (1) how many checks have 
     resulted in matches with the terrorist watchlist, (2) how the 
     FBI uses information from these checks for counterterrorism 
     purposes, and (3) pending legislation that would give the 
     Attorney General authority to deny certain checks. GAO's 
     testimony is based on products issued in January 2005 and May 
     2009 and selected updates in March and April 2010. For these 
     updates, GAO reviewed policies and other documentation and 
     interviewed officials at FBI components involved with 
     terrorism-related background checks.


                          What GAO Recommends

       GAO is not making new recommendations, but has made prior 
     recommendations to the Attorney General to help ensure that 
     background checks involving individuals on the terrorist 
     watchlist are properly handled and that allowable information 
     from these checks is shared with counterterrorism officials, 
     which the FBI has implemented. GAO also suggested that 
     Congress consider adding a provision to any future 
     legislation that would require the Attorney General to define 
     when firearms or explosives could be denied, which has been 
     included in a subsequent bill.


                             What GAO Found

       From February 2004 through February 2010, FBI data show 
     that individuals on the terrorist watchlist were involved in 
     firearm or explosives background checks 1,228 times; 1,119 
     (about 91 percent) of these transactions were allowed to 
     proceed because no prohibiting information was found--such as 
     felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, or other 
     disqualifying factors--and 109 of the transactions were 
     denied. In response to a recommendation in GAO's January 2005 
     report, the FBI began processing all background checks 
     involving the terrorist watchlist in July 2005--including 
     those generated via state operations--to ensure consistency 
     in handling and ensure that relevant FBI components and field 
     agents are contacted during the resolution of the checks so 
     they can search for prohibiting information.
       Based on another recommendation in GAO's 2005 report, the 
     FBI has taken actions to collect and analyze information from 
     these background checks for counterterrorism purposes. For 
     example, in April 2005,

[[Page H9100]]

     the FBI issued guidance to its field offices on the 
     availability and use of information collected as a result of 
     firearm and explosives background checks involving the 
     terrorist watchlist. The guidance discusses the process for 
     FBI field offices to work with FBI personnel who conduct the 
     checks and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
     Explosives to obtain information about the checks, such as 
     the purchaser's residence address and the make, model, and 
     serial number of any firearm purchased. The guidance states 
     that any information that FBI field offices obtain related to 
     these background checks can be shared with other 
     counterterrorism and law enforcement agencies. The FBI is 
     also preparing monthly reports on these checks that are 
     disseminated throughout the FBI to support counterterrorism 
     efforts.
       In April 2007, the Department of Justice proposed 
     legislative language to Congress that would provide the 
     Attorney General with discretionary authority to deny the 
     transfer of firearms or explosives to known or suspected 
     ``dangerous terrorists.'' At the time of GAO's May 2009 
     report, neither the department's proposed legislative 
     language nor related proposed legislation included provisions 
     for the development of guidelines further delineating the 
     circumstances under which the Attorney General could exercise 
     this authority. GAO suggested that Congress consider 
     including a provision in any relevant legislation that would 
     require the Attorney General to establish such guidelines; 
     and this provision was included in a subsequent legislative 
     proposal. If Congress gives the Attorney General authority to 
     deny firearms or explosives based on terrorist watchlist 
     concerns, guidelines for making such denials would help to 
     provide accountability for ensuring that the expected results 
     of the background checks are being achieved. Guidelines would 
     also help ensure that the watchlist is used in a manner that 
     safeguards legal rights, including freedoms, civil liberties, 
     and information privacy guaranteed by federal law and that 
     its use is consistent with other screening processes. For 
     example, criteria have been developed for determining when an 
     individual should be denied the boarding of an aircraft.

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have got to act in a 
bipartisan fashion to close this loophole.
  I urge my GOP colleagues to stop blocking the bill from 
consideration. Bring it up for debate, and let's have a vote.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask, why are we not addressing gun violence? People 
who aren't allowed to fly because they are suspected of terrorism 
should not be allowed to purchase firearms.
  I can't believe that in 2015 this is a problem that needs fixing. 
Democrats have tried three times over to open debate on a bill--a bill, 
by the way, authored by a Republican that would block people on the no-
fly list from walking out of a gun shop with their firearm of choice--
and three times, the Republican House majority has blocked that 
opportunity. Ninety-one percent of the time, suspected terrorists pass 
a background check because the system we have in place does not check 
to see if a potential buyer is on the no-fly list. This is absolutely 
unacceptable.
  I ask the leadership in this House to immediately bring to the floor 
Republican Congressman Peter King's bill to close the loophole that 
allows suspected terrorists to buy guns. And if they won't, I call upon 
my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to sign the discharge 
petition, a petition currently before the House to force a vote on this 
bill.
  We must allow the House to work the will of the people instead of 
those in Congress who are more concerned with losing their ``A'' rating 
with the NRA than keeping Americans safe.
  Let us address gun violence. Bring the bill to the floor.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the time and for the 
tremendous work that he has done on this issue over his career in 
elected office and, before that, as a staff member here on Capitol 
Hill.
  Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in calling for this House to 
move a bipartisan piece of legislation because we have an opportunity 
to close a loophole that allows suspected terrorists to legally 
purchase firearms and explosives. I believe we have a responsibility to 
do so before this House takes another moment of silence, as we have 
done countless times already this session.
  Mr. Speaker, in the last 2 years alone, 94 percent of individuals 
suspected of planning terrorist attacks have been able to successfully 
pass background checks and purchase deadly weapons. If we don't trust 
somebody to board a plane, why on Earth would we trust them to buy a 
gun?
  That is why I led over 60 colleagues, along with my colleague from 
California, Mike Thompson, to write a letter to Speaker Ryan asking him 
to bring up our colleague Peter King's bill for a vote.
  Our response to gun violence, this body's response to gun violence, 
can no longer be moments of silence and thoughts and prayers by Members 
in this Chamber. We can do more than that. We are expected to do more 
than that. My hope today is that we will.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the State 
of Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  Again, I want to emphasize with him, as I was down here listening to 
my friend, that this is regular order. And, frankly, the one thing I 
have learned in the Rules Committee, especially under this 
administration, is, it wouldn't be a Rules Committee party if we didn't 
get a letter from the administration saying, I am not going to sign it.
  I am not sure, many times, what they are for. Again, if we are just 
going to talk about issues today--we are talking about a piece of 
legislation that affects Americans. And it is amazing to me, every time 
I come down here to hear my colleagues actually talk about trivial 
pieces of legislation--if it affects the American public and it is 
something that affects American lives, then it is not trivial on the 
floor of this House.
  This bill is worth it. This Red River Private Property Protection 
Act, we are going to vote on the rule. It needs to be supported. The 
underlying bill is going to be debated. It came through regular order. 
These are the things that we need to be doing.
  But if we also want to talk about things that are going on in the 
world right now, I want to talk about the absolutely anemic response 
that we have seen in the world situation from the administration, 
especially when it comes to where terrorists are moving and growing and 
being unfettered while we stand by and watch. Especially now. In fact, 
for this, we have had a debate, and we are looking through it.
  Iran, you know, oops, here we go again; it is not just a song on the 
radio. Iran has decided that they are just going to flaunt what we have 
been saying for years.
  But this is the key thought of our administration on attacking and 
being at peace with the world. They just tested nuclear missiles again 
in violation of two U.N. directives, just did it. Where is the outrage? 
There is none.
  We want to hang dangly little things out here. And let's talk about 
this: The real terrorists in the world, who hate us just because we are 
free, are still unabated.
  It is time not to tell Congress, we will work with AUMF. But, Mr. 
President, it is time for you to actually give us a plan. It is time 
for you to stop passing the buck. It is time for the administration to 
give us an actual idea of how you want to address this, how you want to 
go about it.
  Iran says: I will make a deal with America, flaunt it whenever I want 
to. I will do whatever I need.
  We come to the floor. We debate things that matter to Americans. The 
majority understands that national security is projecting a strong 
national security. The majority is putting forth bills that actually 
work for people. The majority is looking today to work on a piece of 
legislation that affects real people's lives.
  We will continue to have debates with my friends across the aisle on 
a number of issues. But today, let's move forward. And let's also have 
a time to say, Mr. President, we are looking for direction. It is time 
to lead. Check in, or check out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Iowa). Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair.

[[Page H9101]]

  

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted to defend the 
record of this House in terms of regular order, they can have it at. It 
is laughable, the record. This is the most closed Congress in the 
history of the United States Congress. That is the record that they are 
proud of.
  We are here, again, trying to pressure the leadership of this House 
to let this House do what it is supposed to do: have the committees of 
jurisdiction report this bill to shut down this terrible loophole which 
is a potential danger to our citizens. Bring it to the floor. We can't 
get you to bring anything to the floor related to this issue.
  But to get up here and to somehow talk like my friends on the other 
side care about regular order or even are in the most minimal way 
committed to an open process here is laughable. Look at the record of 
this Congress.
  The Speaker and the previous Speaker all get up here and talk about 
their commitment to regular order. And then what do they do? They do 
the opposite time and time again.
  I read to you some of the bills that you brought up recently that 
have come to the floor not under regular order. We don't need lectures 
on regular order from my friends on the Republican side who, again, are 
presiding over the most closed Congress in the history of the United 
States of America.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Torres).
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, despite the increasing frequency with which 
mass shootings seem to happen in this country, we never expect it to 
happen in our community. But a week ago today, that is exactly what 
happened when tragedy hit home.
  I knew the Inland Regional Center well, represented the city of San 
Bernardino during my time in the State senate; and on this tragic day, 
five individuals who lived in cities that I represent were murdered.
  Far too many communities have felt the pain that the San Bernardino 
and Inland Empire community is facing right now. Far too many Americans 
have lost loved ones in similar acts of violence.
  Mr. Speaker, the loophole that allows suspects on terrorist watch 
lists to purchase a gun, to walk into a gun store and purchase a high 
caliber weapon, must be fixed.
  This is an urgent, commonsense, widely supported reform that we can 
make to reduce gun violence, but we haven't. We haven't been able to 
have a serious conversation about any of these issues.
  Those who want to support changes to our gun laws need to make their 
voices heard and say, enough is enough; check in, or check out.
  Before we gather for yet another moment of silence, I remind my 
colleagues that this House floor is for action, not inaction. Doing 
nothing is inexcusable. It is an insult to the lives lost on that 
tragic day.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would challenge any one of my colleagues to go out on 
any street corner in the United States of America and ask people who 
are walking by: Do you think the people who are on the terrorist watch 
list who are not allowed to get on an airplane should be able to go 
into any gun store and buy a weapon of their choice?
  For example, a weapon that looks like this. This is a Smith & Wesson 
.223-caliber assault rifle. This is a weapon that is available to 
people who are on the terrorist watch list. It is also the weapon that 
was used by the shooters in San Bernardino to fire off 65 to 75 rounds 
and kill the coworkers of one of those shooters.
  Since 2004, over 2,000 suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list 
have successfully purchased weapons in the United States. More than 90 
percent of all suspected terrorists who attempted to purchase guns in 
the last 11 years were able to do that. It may not be the biggest 
issue, but, clearly, the American people don't think that potential 
terrorists should be able to buy guns.
  Let's do it.
  H.R. 1076 would ban the sale of weapons to any individual, according 
to the Attorney General, who is considered to be engaged in terrorist 
activities. Introduced by a Republican, this is bipartisan. Let's 
support Peter King's bill, the bill that many of us have gotten 
together to sponsor, as a beginning in order to say we are serious 
about protecting our communities.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise more in sadness than in anger. This debate has 
gone on long enough. Too many of our fellow Americans have been 
victimized by gun violence because we are enthralled by the gun lobby.
  Who do we serve in this body if it isn't the American people? It is 
the sacred responsibility of every Member of this body to protect that 
public, not a special interest lobby. Are we ever going to be willing 
to put aside what we perceive we owe that lobby and act on behalf of 
the American people?
  If we can't do it in this example--preventing guns from getting in 
the hands of people on a terrorist watch list--I would venture to 
guess, Mr. Speaker, that the American people who are watching this 
debate think it is made up, that it can't be true, that it can't be 
true that somebody on the terrorist watch list qualifies and is going 
to be protected by this body to exercise his Second Amendment right and 
buy a gun. Surely that cannot be true.
  I hope we examine our hearts as well as our minds in this discussion 
and come to our senses and do something vitally important for the 
American people.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think most Americans think it is 
important for the Constitution to be protected. The Second Amendment is 
protected. We have the right to bear arms.
  But most Americans would find our actions and inactions questionable 
at best because, after the 353rd mass murder, this Congress cannot come 
together and vote on one simple bill, that is, that individuals on the 
no-fly and terrorist watch lists would not be able to purchase guns.
  Yes, my colleagues, today, as we stand here, they can purchase guns. 
They can purchase guns without imprisonment, without charges. In memory 
of San Bernardino, among the other failures that caused their deaths, 
the one we know of was the utilization of automatic weapons that shot 
thousands or hundreds of rounds--many rounds--killing these innocent 
persons.
  I rise today to say that we should not move from this place without 
passing the Peter King bill, which keeps guns--automatic weapons--out 
of the hands of terrorists. How simple a question. How simple an 
answer. Vote ``yes'' for the American people.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman has any 
further speakers?
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I have one further speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am the last speaker on my side.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Amodei).
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I don't usually show up unannounced or 
uninvited. But I have listened to the debate on this, and I find 
absolutely amazing the outpouring of abhorrence for potential gun 
violence from a body that failed to have a moment of silence for Kate 
Steinle, that failed to do anything to recognize that instance of gun 
violence in the Bay Area.

[[Page H9102]]

  So, as I sit here and listen to all of the deplorable, junior varsity 
theater on the message, I wonder: Why aren't we doing something about 
that instance, which was put in the rearview mirror instantly and 
accelerate it away at the speed of light?
  America, the junior varsity theater is in session on this issue. I 
encourage you to skip the show.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.
  I am sorry that the previous speaker doesn't see the importance of 
this issue and thinks that this is theater. I assure you that the vast 
majority of Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike--
think this is a very serious issue.
  Right now, according to the ATF, the people who cannot own a gun in 
this country are criminals, unlawful users of controlled substances, 
people who are mentally ill, people who have renounced their 
citizenship, and people who have been convicted of domestic violence.
  Our laws are clear on that. These people can't go out and buy guns. 
Yet, when it comes to people who are suspected of terrorism, for some 
reason, we can't apply the law to them. For some reason, there is a 
reluctance by some on the other side of the aisle--not all, but some--
to do something about this.
  This is fairly easy. Congressman King, a Republican from New York, 
has a bill that I think is fairly straightforward. It basically says 
that people who are suspected of being terrorists, who right now can't 
fly on airplanes, should not be able to go out and purchase a gun, 
should not be able to purchase a weapon of war.
  That concept is controversial in this House of Representatives. It is 
hard to fathom. People can't quite understand what the problem is.
  Now, maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to 
introduce bills to allow us to be able to sell weapons to people who 
are convicted of domestic violence or to people who are felons or to 
people who have renounced their citizenship. Maybe that is going to 
mysteriously come to the House floor. Maybe that is what the plan is, 
but I hope not.

  I don't hear them saying that. I don't hear people on the other side 
of the aisle saying we should do away with the no-fly list and allow 
suspected terrorists to be able to fly on airplanes with the American 
people. I don't hear people asking to do that. So what is the problem?
  We are making a big deal of this. I am sorry the gentleman from 
Nevada doesn't appreciate the importance of this issue, but we are 
making a big deal of this because it is a big deal. We need to do a lot 
of different things to protect the American people, and this is one of 
them. No one is up here saying this will solve all of our problems, but 
we are saying this is an important piece that we ought to get done.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat the 
previous question. Allow us to have the opportunity to bring this up 
because we have tried every which way--we even have a discharge 
petition going to try to force a vote on this issue--and all we have 
encountered is resistance, resistance, resistance. Give us the 
opportunity to deliberate. Let the people's House do the people's 
business.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to 
then vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It has been an interesting hour in our discussion of private property 
rights in Texas and in Oklahoma. We have quite a broad subject here. 
Let me just say a couple of things before I close.
  It was just yesterday that the newspaper in Los Angeles, the LA 
Times, which is not known to be a conservative newspaper, stated: ``One 
problem is that the people on the no-fly list''--and Mr. McGovern was 
saying nobody wants to do anything about the no-fly list.
  The LA Times points out: ``One problem is that the people on the no-
fly list . . . have not been convicted of doing anything wrong . . . 
And the United States doesn't generally punish or penalize people 
unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime.''
  It continues: ``But serious flaws in the list have been identified. 
According to the American Civil Liberties Union''--the ACLU--``which is 
suing the government over the no-fly list, the two lists include 
thousands of names that have been added in error . .  .The no-fly list 
has also been used to deny boarding passes to people who only share a 
name with a suspected terrorist. Former Sen. Ted Kennedy''--from your 
State of Massachusetts--``was famously questioned at airports in 2004 
because a terror suspect had used the alias `T. Kennedy.' It took the 
senator's office three weeks to get his name cleared.''
  Does that sound like common sense to my colleagues?
  This is about upholding the Constitution, which we all swear an oath 
to every 2 years. Even the ACLU believes so.
  Mr. Speaker, even though this has been a great distraction by the 
other side, I think, to blur the fact that the current administration 
has no policy in place to defeat terrorism, to defeat ISIS, I think we 
need to keep our eye on the ball.
  The special terrorism task force has come up with fully 30 
recommendations that I am hopeful the other side of the aisle will help 
us work through and pass in order to keep this country safe.
  This is a serious issue that all Americans are concerned with. I am 
sure my office is no different than anyone else's in that the majority 
of calls and contacts they have received over the last few weeks has 
been about security, about being safe in our country.
  I hope we can work in a bipartisan way to address the true issues 
that will keep Americans safe and not address the distractions that 
take away the attention from where it needs to be: on the lack of a 
clear policy on the administration's part to defeat terrorism.
  Let me get back to the underlying reason we are having this 
discussion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that being the Red River 
Private Property Protection Act.
  For over 200 years, confusion and dispute over the Texas-Oklahoma 
border have been ongoing staples of land management in that region. I 
am sure my colleagues from Oklahoma and Texas would agree with me that 
the last thing we need further muddying this confusion is a Federal 
agency's stepping in and claiming ownership of a large portion of that 
area.
  Dozens of landowners along the Red River should not have to live in a 
restless state, unsure if the land they have held titles to, have 
worked hard to pay taxes on, and, in some cases, have owned for 
generations will suddenly be snatched up through a shoddily conducted 
survey.
  Conducting a survey using the Supreme Court's approved gradient 
boundary method is the only way to truly find the boundary between 
public and private ownership to settle this dispute once and for all.

                              {time}  1430

  My colleagues from Oklahoma and Texas and their constituents deserve 
to have this matter finally settled and in a just fashion. H.R. 2130 
protects private property and settles the question of ownership by 
requiring the BLM to commission a survey along the entire 116 mile 
stretch of the Red River using that gradient boundary survey method 
backed by the Supreme Court to determine the property ownership 
boundary between private and public land. This bill ensures that the 
survey is done correctly, accurately, and according to the Supreme 
Court's instructions.
  I support the rule's adoption, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the protection of private landowners, the States, and the affected 
tribal nations' rights upheld by this rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts 
is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 556 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist.

[[Page H9103]]

     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The 
     previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New 
     York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to 
     him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 178, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 682]

                               YEAS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--178

     Adams
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas

[[Page H9104]]


     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Aguilar
     Barr
     Bishop (GA)
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Huffman
     Johnson, Sam
     Lee
     Perlmutter
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Turner
     Wagner

                              {time}  1458

  Mr. ENGEL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 682, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I missed the following 
vote: Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing 
for consideration of H.R. 2130. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no'' on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 183, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 683]

                               AYES--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--183

     Adams
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Aguilar
     Bishop (GA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Perlmutter
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Turner

                              {time}  1506

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________