Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 178 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)

[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

[[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.

____________________