[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15901-15903]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 15901]]

       GRANTING CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO RED RIVER BOUNDARY COMPACT

  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) granting the consent of the 
Congress to the Red River Boundary Compact, as amended.


  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 72

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,   

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.

       (a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to the 
     Red River Compact entered into between the States of Texas 
     and Oklahoma and the new boundary established by the compact.
       (b) New Compact.--The compact referred to in subsection (a) 
     sets the boundary between the States of Texas and Oklahoma as 
     the vegetation line on the south bank of the Red River 
     (except for the Texoma area where the boundary is established 
     pursuant to procedures provided for in the compact) and is 
     the compact--
       (1) agreed to by the State of Texas in House Bill 1355 
     approved by the Governor of Texas on May 24, 1999; and
       (2) agreed to by the State of Oklahoma in Senate Bill 175 
     approved by the Governor of Oklahoma on June 4, 1999.
       (c) Compact.--The Acts referred to in subsection (b) are 
     recognized by Congress as an interstate compact pursuant to 
     section 10 of Article I of the United States Constitution.
       (d) Construction.--The compact shall not in any manner 
     alter--
       (1) any present or future rights and interests of the 
     Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Tribes, the Chickasaw Nation, and 
     the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and their members or Indian 
     successors-in interest;
       (2) any tribal trust lands;
       (3) allotted lands that may be held in trust or lands 
     subject to a Federal restriction against alienation;
       (4) any boundaries of lands owned by the tribes and nations 
     referred to in paragraph (1), including lands referred to in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3), that exist now or that may be 
     established in the future under Federal law; and
       (5) the sovereign rights, jurisdiction, or other 
     governmental interests of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache 
     Tribes, the Chickasaw Nation, and the Choctaw Nation of 
     Oklahoma and their members or Indian successors-in interest 
     presently existing or which may be acknowledged by Federal 
     and tribal law.
       (e) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect on August 
     31, 2000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As everyone knows by now, the Constitution requires that when any one 
State or more than one State wishes to enter into an agreement with one 
or another State, that agreement is subject to the consent of the 
Congress. That is why our committee, charged with the responsibility of 
overseeing those kinds of agreements, brings to the floor, just as we 
have now, this pending agreement, already reached between the States of 
Texas and Oklahoma with respect to the boundary line, that momentous 
boundary line that exists between the two States, namely the Red River.
  It appears that over the years the Red River changes its contours 
from time to time and causes difficulty for everyone concerned in 
determining the actual dividing line between those two great States in 
the Southwest. Such continued argument about the boundary has resulted 
in a final resolution of it. Yet just as the final resolution was 
reached, it was also determined that the Indian tribes that abound in 
that area were themselves hurt, or they felt that they would be hurt by 
the final agreement. They determined that some of their interests, land 
interests and other, would be harmed if they were not consulted or made 
a part of the agreement, so that their concerns could be addressed.
  Voila, then, we have this new compact before us which takes into 
account all the concerns that the Indian tribes have uttered over the 
years. And it was as a result of the dispatch by our committee of our 
chief counsel, Ray Smietanka, and minority counsel, Mr. Lachmann, to 
that area that lay the groundwork for the final resolution of this 
problem.

                              {time}  1530

  But we are glad to report that here today we are ready to have the 
House vote on a complete finalization of the boundary line that the Red 
River constitutes.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter and cost 
estimate:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2000.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.J. Res. 72, 
     granting the consent of the Congress to the Red River 
     Boundary Compact.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
     Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Barry B. Anderson
                                   (for Dan L. Crippen, Director).
       Enclosure.

        Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, July 20, 2000


  h.j. res. 72--granting the consent of the congress to the red river 
  boundary compact, as ordered reported by the house committee on the 
                       judiciary on july 29, 2000

       H.J. Res. 72 would give Congressional consent to the Red 
     River Compact entered into by the states of Texas and 
     Oklahoma concerning the new boundary between these states 
     that would be established by the compact. Enacting the 
     resolution would result in no cost to the federal government. 
     Because enactment of H.J. Res. 72 would not affect direct 
     spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
     apply. The resolution contains no intergovernmental or 
     private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
     Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
     tribal governments.
       The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz, 
     who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by 
     Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
     Analysis.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) whose district is affected by this compact, be 
allowed to control the time on this side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to first thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law, as well as the committee staff, for working with 
all of the parties interested in this legislation so that we can bring 
a fair and well-crafted bill to the floor today.
  Madam Speaker, House Joint Resolution 72 grants a consent of Congress 
to the River Boundary Compact entered into between the States of 
Oklahoma and Texas. This compact establishes a new practical boundary 
between the two States and ends over 200 years of jurisdictional 
uncertainty. The State legislatures of both Texas and Oklahoma have 
approved the compact with overwhelming support.
  Madam Speaker, the Red River is 1,290 miles long. For about half of 
this distance, it serves as the Texas-Oklahoma border. To the great 
frustration of many of those trying to use the river as a 
jurisdictional marker, mature rivers like those of the American Midwest 
tend to meander a great deal.
  The natural tendency of a river flowing across flat country is to 
meander and flow loose as it erodes the outer side of a bend and 
deposits sediment on the inner side. It is clear that several of the 
loops of the Red River have changed in this way.
  As the Speaker undoubtedly knows, the State of Texas was an 
independent nation from the years 1836 to 1845. In 1841, engineers 
surveyed the border along the Red River between the Republic of Texas 
and the United States. The survey set the boundary between the two 
countries on the southern bank of the river. This definition was later 
refined by the Supreme Court of the United States as the gradient 
boundary line on the south bank.
  The survey was carefully done, and the results of the survey as 
recorded in the engineers' report and monuments placed along the border 
were accepted by both governments as the true and legal boundary.
  Unfortunately, however, the river paid no attention to the survey; 
and in the years since 1841, the Red River has left that border high 
and dry. As a result, the artificial boundary line long the Red River 
has caused general confusion in our States for many decades.

[[Page 15902]]

  The States of Texas and Oklahoma recognize that there are actual and 
potential disputes, controversies, and criminal and civil litigation 
problems arising out of the location of the boundary line between these 
two States along the Red River. In particular, an inability to identify 
the boundary at a point in time is a significant problem for law 
enforcement personnel, taxing authorities, and citizens on both sides 
of the river.
  It is in the interest of the party States to establish the boundary 
between the States through the use of a readily identifiable and 
natural landmark. This identifiable line is established in the Red 
River Boundary Compact. The Compact sets the boundary between the 
States of Texas and Oklahoma as the vegetation line on the south bank 
of the Red River, except for the Texoma area where the boundary is 
established pursuant to procedures provided for in the compact approved 
by both States.
  The vegetation line, which includes trees, shrubs and grasses, is 
easily recognizable. More importantly, the use of the vegetation line 
as the boundary marker also maintains historical significance. 
Surveyors of the General Land Office and Bureau of Land Management have 
confirmed that the vegetation line is substantially the same as the 
gradient boundary line, with the important distinction of being 
identifiable without a survey.
  Like the Red River itself, this compact is the culmination of years 
of work. It is not easy to settle a jurisdiction battle that dates back 
to the Louisiana Purchase.
  The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which 
at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank. 
However, true to the slogan ``One Riot, One Ranger,'' the good governor 
of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his 
horse.
  Madam Speaker, this is good legislation. A great deal of effort went 
into ensuring that the interest of all parties along the Red River are 
protected in the compact.
  It is important to note that the terms of the Red River Boundary 
Compact will not affect private property ownership or boundaries. The 
compact is strictly political in nature and will in no way alter the 
property or the claims of individuals or federally recognized Indian 
tribes.
  Finally, I want to take this opportunity before the House to 
recognize the tireless efforts of the chairman of the Red River 
Boundary Commission of the State of Texas, Mr. William Abney, from 
Marshall, Texas, a well-respected East Texas attorney, as well as the 
other members of both the Texas and Oklahoma commissions.
  I would also like to offer special thanks to my colleague from Texas 
(Mr. Thornberry) who is here today for his work and for the work of his 
staff. I think both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and I 
recognize that the true work of the House is done by the staff.
  I urge Congress to pass House Joint Resolution 72.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, this resolution deals with a special 
function entrusted to Congress under article I, section 10 of the 
Constitution.
  I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Gekas) and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the 
ranking member, for the serious, thoughtful way that they have met this 
responsibility and for their patience and persistence in making sure 
that we get every detail of this compact just right.
  I also want to thank their staffs, especially Ray Smietanka and David 
Lachmann, for their work which brought this matter to a successful 
conclusion and, of course, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) and 
the other cosponsors of this bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Watkins) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), all of whom 
represent the border between Texas and Oklahoma.
  Finally, I want to thank Trey Bahm of my staff for his work in making 
sure that we get it right.
  As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) said, Madam Speaker, this 
dispute goes back 200 years to the Louisiana Purchase. The boundary 
line between the Louisiana territory and Spain was not well defined at 
that time. But a treaty with Spain concluded in 1819 by Secretary of 
State John Quincy Adams helped to define the boundary somewhat more 
clearly. That boundary was reaffirmed by the U.S. and Mexico and the 
U.S. and the Republic of Texas.
  Later the Supreme Court found that the proper boundary was the 
gradient boundary along the south bank of the Red River. The problem is 
that changes periodically, and so it is a difficult thing to measure. 
They have to have a survey crew go out there to decide where the 
boundary is every time the river changes. Obviously, that has not 
worked very well.
  Over the years there have been disputes of various kinds. The 
incident that my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) 
referred to in the 1930s was one in which Oklahoma failed to follow a 
court ruling to close the border. One of the Rangers that was sent to 
deal with the Oklahoma National Guard and the tanks that they brought 
happened to be my wife's grandfather. And there was a picture of him in 
Life Magazine meeting the tank, proving that one tank and one Ranger 
was a pretty equal match.
  More recently we have not had that kind of open warfare, but we have 
had difficulties in law enforcement taxation.
  So having a clearly identifiable border, which this resolution sets 
out, which has been passed by both the State legislatures of Oklahoma 
and Texas I think makes sense. We guarantee private property rights. We 
guarantee the rights of the Indian tribes, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) pointed out.
  So this, I think at long last, after 200 years, brings to conclusion 
the disputes and the difficulties raised by this border. I hope that it 
will gain the unanimous approval of my colleagues.


Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob B. Chestnut and Detective 
                             John M. Gibson

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the Chair's announcement of 
earlier today, the House will now observe a moment of silence in memory 
of Officer Jacob B. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson.
  Members in the Chamber and the staff and those in the gallery may 
wish to rise for a moment of silence.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, we had mentioned the fact that the concerns 
of the Indian tribes in the area were a highlight of the agreement that 
was finally reached. As a matter of fact, we approved an amendment in 
full committee, which is now part of the bill, which takes into account 
those concerns.
  Here we have a resolution issued by the Kiowa, Comanche & Apache 
Intertribal Land Use Committee, which, in effect, approves and supports 
the amendment, the language that is now in the bill that expresses our 
concern about the Indian tribe concerns. And it has been duly certified 
and rendered to our committee. I include for the Record that 
resolution:

       Kiowa, Comanche and Apache Intertribal Land Use Committee


                          Resolution No. 00-10

       Whereas, the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache Tribes of Oklahoma 
     are federally recognized Tribes with approved constitutions; 
     and
       Whereas, the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache Intertribal Land 
     Use Committee (KCAILUC) is the duly authorized and delegated 
     official body given the responsibility and authority by the 
     three tribes to act on their behalf with respect to the care, 
     maintenance and development of commonly owned tribal 
     properties and resources; and
       Whereas, it is the desire of the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache 
     Intertribal Land Use Committee (KCAILUC) to accept the 
     Amendment to H.J. Res. 72 Offered by Mr. Gekas as follows:

[[Page 15903]]

       (d) Construction--The compact shall not in any manner 
     alter--(1) any present or future rights and interests of the 
     Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Tribes, the Chickasaw Nation, and 
     the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and their members or Indian 
     successors-in-interest; (2) any tribal trust lands; (3) 
     allotted lands that may be held in trust or lands subject to 
     a Federal restriction against alienation; (4) any boundaries 
     of lands owned by the tribes and nations referred to in 
     paragraph (1), including lands referred to in paragraphs (2) 
     and (3), that exist now or that may be established in the 
     future under Federal law; and (5) the sovereign rights, 
     jurisdiction, or other governmental interests of the Kiowa, 
     Comanche, and Apache Tribes, the Chickasaw Nation, and the 
     Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and their members or Indian 
     successors-in-interest presently existing or which may be 
     acknowledged by Federal and tribal law.
       Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Kiowa, Comanche and 
     Apache Intertribal Land Use Committee (KCAILUC) hereby 
     approve and support the Amendment to H.J. Res. 72 Offered by 
     Mr. Gekas.


                             CERTIFICATION

       The foregoing KCAILUC Resolution No. 00-10 was duly adopted 
     at a Regular Monthly Meeting of the Kiowa, Comanche and 
     Apache Intertribal Land Use Committee held at the KCA 
     Administration Office on July 12, 2000, by a vote of 6 For 1 
     Against 0 Abstain. A quorum being present and at least two 
     representatives from each tribe concurring in the vote.
     Billy Evans Horse,
       Chairman.
     Melvin Kerchee, Jr.,
       Secretary.

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.J. 
Res. 72, a Joint Resolution granting the consent of Congress to the Red 
River Boundary compact. This bipartisan legislation will re-enforce the 
eroding Red River south bank and establish a new boundary between the 
states of Texas and Oklahoma. The new boundary is a vegetation line 
that is not as susceptible to the forces of nature and is substantially 
the same as the gradient line used to originally determine the states' 
boundaries.
  Initially, three tribal nations, the Kiowa, the Comanche, and the 
Apaches expressed concerns regarding this legislation's effect on the 
status of land from which the tribes derive oil and gas royalties. To 
remedy that issue, language, approved by officials from Texas, 
Oklahoma, the Indian Tribes, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, was put 
into the legislation confirming that neither the rights of the Indian 
nations nor the boundaries of the Indians lands will be altered by the 
compact.
  I commend my colleagues for working together in a bipartisan manner 
to resolve this important issue and I strongly support the effort.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H.J. 
Res. 72, the Red River Boundary Compact, and urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislation. Today, with Congressional consent 
the border dispute between Oklahoma and Texas that has existed for more 
than 100 years will come to an end.
  The official boundary is currently the south bank of the Red River. 
However, the Red River constantly runs dry, which makes determining the 
south bank difficult. There was an obvious need for a new, more 
definitive way to determine the border.
  In 1996, Oklahoma and Texas agreed upon creating a Red River Boundary 
Commission to solve this border dispute. In the last year, this 
commission released their findings and both Oklahoma and Texas state 
governments have agreed on this compromise. This agreement would 
clarify and affix the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas as the 
vegetation line on the south bank of the Red River. This agreement 
would mean that the Red River would be part of the State of Oklahoma, 
where it belongs.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. We 
need to put a stamp on this agreement which will end the Red River War, 
and I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 72.
  Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 72, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the joint resolution, as amended, 
was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________