[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19884-19897]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               RED RIVER PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 2130.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 556 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2130.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over 
the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1510


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2130) to provide legal certainty to property owners along the Red 
River in Texas, and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe of Texas in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important bill 
to the people who live in this particular area of Texas and Oklahoma.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock), the subcommittee chair who heard this bill.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, every now and then, we have a chance to 
stop an injustice and restore the fundamental purpose of our government 
to secure the inalienable rights of the people. In this instance, the 
Federal Government has become destructive of this end. It is attempting 
to seize thousands of acres of private land lawfully owned by American 
citizens along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River between Texas and 
Oklahoma. Mr. Thornberry's bill would stop this injustice, reassert the 
rule of law, and restore the unclouded title of these lands to their 
rightful owners.
  In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court established the rules for determining 
the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma that established the property 
rights over this land. For nearly a century, the Federal Government 
recognized and respected the property lines established by this ruling. 
Property owners purchased and sold this land and, in some cases, passed 
it down from generation to generation. These property owners, in good 
faith, dutifully paid taxes on their lands year after year, invested in 
these lands, maintained them, cultivated them, and improved them.
  Out of the blue, the Bureau of Land Management has now announced that 
it is arbitrarily changing the boundaries established by the Supreme 
Court and is seizing this land for itself.

                              {time}  1515

  This outrageous claim clouds the property rights along this vast 
territory. It is based on the flimsiest of pretexts, a limited survey 
over a fraction of this land that ignored the 1923 Supreme Court decree 
that originally established these boundary lines. In other words, it is 
a guess based upon a fraud.
  The Red River Private Property Protection Act rights this obvious 
wrong. It requires the Federal Government, in conjunction with the 
affected State and tribal governments, to make clear the true ownership 
of this property.
  It tells the BLM to back off, and authorizes a collaborative survey 
to be conducted by the affected State and tribal governments, according 
to the rule of law established by the Supreme Court. And if this new 
survey determines any errors in the old, it provides that the 
landowners who have poured their blood, toil, tears, and sweat into 
this land can repurchase it for a $1.25 per acre, the price set by the 
Color of Title Act to resolve disputes of this nature.
  Without this act, title to the farms and homes will be clouded for 
decades while this matter drags on through the courts.
  Meanwhile, the BLM's assertion that it has regulatory jurisdiction 
would have devastating impacts on local landowners and businesses and 
make it much more difficult to encourage economic development in the 
region.
  We should also beware of an amendment sought by several neighboring 
tribal governments that attempts to seize this property for themselves. 
Despite the fact that this bill is to be amended to reaffirm all tribal 
treaties to assure that the tribes are an integral part of the new 
survey process, and are guaranteed the right of first refusal over any 
lands they currently occupy, they are seeking to replace the injustice 
perpetrated by the BLM with an injustice of their own.
  Whether private property is seized by the Federal Government or by a 
tribal government makes no difference to the innocent victims whose 
land is being stolen, and it is an equal affront to the just principles 
of property rights that this bill seeks to restore.
  Tribal governments whose own sovereignty and property rights are 
often threatened by this Federal Government ought to be particularly 
sensitive when that same government threatens the rights of others.
  Government exists to protect our natural rights, including our 
property rights. This bill realigns our government with its stated 
purpose.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 2130, the Red River Private Property Protection Act, sponsored 
by Representative Thornberry of Texas, aims to resolve a series of 
property disputes along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River, which 
forms a portion of the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma.
  While this legislation may seem like an issue with only local or 
regional interests, it speaks to broader policy issues on our Nation's 
public lands, lands which belong to all Americans.
  I am sympathetic to the concerns of Mr. Thornberry and his 
constituents.

[[Page 19885]]

Landowners in the area, some of whom have lived there for generations, 
deserve clarification on the amount of land owned by the Federal 
Government and the location of the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma.
  However, as written, I am concerned that this legislation undermines 
the authority of the Federal Government, and potentially jeopardizes 
longstanding mineral revenue distribution agreements with the State of 
Oklahoma and certain Native American tribes.
  Federal interest in land along the Red River goes back to the 
Louisiana Purchase. More than 200 years later, after several treaties 
and compacts, there is still confusion about the amount of land owned 
by the Federal Government and the location of the boundary between 
Texas and Oklahoma.
  The majority rightly cites a 1926 Supreme Court case that established 
the gradient boundary method as the means of determining the boundary 
between the two States, Texas and Oklahoma.
  Under this decision, which has been adhered to for nearly a century, 
the boundary of Oklahoma extends to the center of the river, and the 
Texas boundary extends to the ordinary high water mark on the south 
bank. All the land in between was retained in Federal ownership.
  The Supreme Court ruling established the boundary between the States, 
but it did not change the ownership status of any land, and the Federal 
Government has had a continual interest in land along the Red River.
  To complicate matters even further, the area has a long history of 
oil and gas development and includes several tribal interests.
  The Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Government's ``Surveyor of 
Record,'' is in the process of updating its management plan for the 
area, which includes surveying all of the land in question, in order to 
determine the extent of the remaining Federal interest and clarify 
ownership claims.
  There are many overlapping claims, missing and unreliable records, 
and even competing claims from both Texas and Oklahoma over the same 
pieces of property, so the BLM is poring through county GIS data to 
sort out who owns what and where.
  This survey is not a land grab by the Federal Government. It is a 
long, but necessary, process that BLM must work through to validate 
ownership claims.
  In fact, BLM wants to limit Federal interest in the region. But it 
has to be allowed to survey the area first.
  There are an estimated 30,000 acres of Federal land in the affected 
area, 23,000 of which are potentially overlaid by private deeds. 
Without the survey, the agency will have no legal way to give a clear 
title to land claimed by a private interest or determine what Federal 
land is suitable for sale.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 2130 halts the survey process, nullifies all 
previous BLM surveys, and transfers survey authority to the Texas 
General Land Office. The bill also requires the Secretary of the 
Interior to forfeit any right, title, and interest to land in the 
affected area.
  Taking away BLM's survey authority and putting the Texas General Land 
Office in control of the survey would effectively make a large portion 
of the estimated Federal landholdings disappear. The result is unfair 
to American taxpayers, who deserve fair compensation for their assets.
  H.R. 2130 could also jeopardize a longstanding agreement between the 
Federal Government and the Kiowa, Apache, and Comanche tribes. These 
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, this important source of 
revenue relied on by the tribes could also vanish.
  Yesterday, the Natural Resources Committee received a letter from the 
Kiowa-Comanche Intertribal Land Use Committee that outlined serious 
concerns with the bill, as introduced. We were unable to hear about 
these concerns until now, because we have not had a hearing on this 
bill in this Congress.
  Representative Cole has offered an amendment to address the concerns 
of these tribes. His amendment will ensure that the mineral and surface 
interests held by tribes are not diminished by this bill. The Cole 
amendment makes significant improvements to the bill, and I am glad the 
Rules Committee made it in order.
  Adoption of the Cole amendment, however, does not address all of our 
concerns or remove our fundamental opposition to the bill.
  I want to reiterate, we would all like to see the property dispute 
resolved in a way that benefits all parties and provides much-needed 
clarification for local landowners and tribes. However, instead of 
ceding Federal authority to a State, Congress should allow BLM to 
complete its work.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2130.
  Before I reserve my time, I want to note that, as we approach the end 
of the year, there are critical issues that we have yet to address. 
Funding the Federal Government, extending tax breaks and, yes, 
addressing the scourge of gun violence in this country are just a few 
that deserve our urgent attention, instead of debating this bill, which 
the President will likely veto.
  For example, Representative King's bill, H.R. 1076, the Denying 
Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act is a bipartisan and 
commonsense bill that would make our communities safer.
  Since 2004, for 11 years now, more than 2,000 FBI-identified 
suspected terrorists have legally purchased weapons in the United 
States. This is an alarming figure.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of Republican Congressman Peter King's 
bill, which would prevent people who are linked to terrorist activities 
from buying a gun, a commonsense bill that has support from both 
Republicans and Democrats, and would protect our communities.
  It is pretty simple. If the Federal Government doesn't allow you to 
board an airplane, it shouldn't allow you to buy a gun.
  I have joined my colleagues in filing a discharge petition to force a 
vote on this bill after House Republicans have repeatedly voted to 
prevent the House from even debating Congressman King's bill.
  We should be doing everything we can to keep deadly weapons out of 
the hands of suspected terrorists. It is just common sense to allow a 
vote on this.
  I urge the Republican leadership to allow on vote on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  For people whose homes and lives are being threatened by inaction or 
an improper action of the Federal Government, that is a critical issue 
to them. This bill is significantly important to people who are being 
harmed by the Federal Government.
  So this is what happened: In 2009, the Bureau of Land Management, 
they did a survey on 6,000 acres, out of a potential of about 90,000 
acre piece of property. They used poor surveying methods, methods that 
were outlawed by the Supreme Court back in the 1920s because of the 
inaccuracy of the method they used.
  Four years later, this Bureau then decided, based on the inaccurate 
surveying done in an improper way, that they would lay claim to 90,000 
acres. They later reduced that number somewhat, even though people 
lived on the land they were claiming. Their homes were there. Their 
future was there. They had a valid title to that land. They had been 
paying taxes on that land for years.
  Nonetheless, the government decided it was theirs. The government had 
no use for this land. They had no plan. They had no need for it. All it 
was was about control.
  Even the BLM workers who were on the field that understood, they 
didn't want this. It was made up here in the higher levels of people 
who want to control. And even though they own a third of the land mass 
of the United

[[Page 19886]]

States, that simply was not enough. They wanted to go after the homes 
of these people as well.
  If people were in the way of that control, they didn't care. If 
property rights were in the way of that control, they didn't care.
  We have seen this issue played over and over on this floor recently. 
We had a bill the other day in the State of Virginia, where 1 acre, 1 
acre of a park that was not being used was needed for a daycare center, 
and the Park Service was opposed to it because it took their control 
away from that 1 acre of land. Fortunately, we passed that bill on a 
voice vote.
  There is a school, a middle school in Reno, Nevada, that was stopped 
by the BLM because it was going to be put on land that was 12 miles 
away from a potential sage grouse lek. That was stopped.
  There is a lake in Louisiana where the exact same thing is happening 
on 200 acres around that particular lake, a bad survey in which the 
Federal Government says, oh, give us time to fix this problem.
  The bottom line is, we are seeing, time after time after time, in 
which actions by the Federal Government, specifically, the Department 
of the Interior, are actually hurting people, and that is wrong. We 
must stop that.
  We are here in the people's House. It is incumbent upon us, if an 
agency of government, an administration, or a bureaucracy does 
something to harm people, it is our responsibility to change that, to 
challenge it, and to set it right.
  If the bureaucracy decides to become heartless thugs and tries to 
take away property rights, tries to take away homes, then we, the 
Representatives of the people, need to have this time to stand up there 
and say, no, it is wrong; we need to do it the right way.
  That is exactly what the bill before us does. It says: Stop this 
inaccuracy. Stop this offense. Stop hurting people. Redo the survey, 
but redo it in a proper way, and put in a source of process where those 
who have actual rights on this land can go about and get their rights.
  If that undermines the Federal Government, which has had 6 years to 
redo the survey, and do it the right way, then it is incumbent upon us. 
If they have done something wrong, we need to fix it.
  This bill in no way, shape, or form has any negative impact on 
anybody's mineral rights. Whether it is the government, tribes, or 
individuals, it does not harm them.
  But it is our job to make sure we do something. We, in this body, set 
the standards and the boundaries of what government should do, not a 
faceless bureaucracy. And when that faceless bureaucracy, after a great 
deal of time, fails to do their job, that is when we, as a body, need 
to stand up and set things right to protect the people whom we 
represent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am appalled that Republicans are continuing to ignore 
the calls that Mr. Thompson has led to bring up my good friend from New 
York, Republican Peter King's bipartisan bill to keep guns out of the 
hands of terrorists.
  It is remarkable enough that individuals on the terrorist watch list 
are able to freely purchase weapons in this country, weapons that could 
then be turned against innocent Americans.
  In fact, the GAO report showed that over the last 10 years, 90 
percent of the people on the terrorist watch list who wanted to buy a 
weapon passed a background check. That is simply outrageous.

                              {time}  1530

  But it is extraordinary that, knowing of this truly absurd policy, 
Republicans refuse to bring Mr. King of New York's aptly named Denying 
Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act.
  Mr. Chairman, protecting our Nation from its enemies motivates my 
work here in Congress, as it should motivate all of us. That Members on 
the other side of the aisle are in such thrall to gun advocates that 
they would place their political aspirations above our national 
security shocks the conscience. This cannot be.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope you will see Mr. King's worthy bill on the floor 
without delay
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the sponsor of this bill. He is someone 
who has been working for at least 6 long years to try to make sure that 
the Federal Government stops its harming of individuals in taking away 
their property and their homes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to express my 
appreciation to Chairman Bishop not only for bringing this bill to the 
floor, but for taking the time to understand the issues, how they came 
to be, and cutting to the heart of the matter. I thought he did an 
outstanding job of explaining the challenges that my constituents face. 
Also, Subcommittee Chairman McClintock has done an excellent job of 
talking about this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely true. This specific legislation 
applies only to the 116-mile stretch of the Red River that is at issue 
here; but one point I completely agree with the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts on is that the consequences of this extend far beyond 
those 116 miles, because if the Federal Government can come in and, 
through a regulatory process, say this land that you may have a deed 
to, that you may have paid taxes on for generations, that you may think 
you own, is not yours but is really ours, then that threatens private 
property rights throughout the country.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is the reason the American 
Farm Bureau, the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, the Texas Farm Bureau, the 
National Cattlemen's Association, and the Public Lands Council all 
support this legislation, because private property rights are very 
important to be protected wherever they may be threatened.
  Now, the bottom line, as Chairman Bishop just mentioned, is that the 
BLM conducted some surveys several years ago, spot surveys, and they 
refuse to follow the mandates of the Supreme Court in its 1926 
decision. The rest of the story is, BLM has indicated they will never 
survey the whole 116 miles. So, as the gentlewoman from Massachusetts 
points out, well, there is confusion, and this, that, and the other. 
The only way to straighten it out is to conduct a survey of the whole 
area and do it under the mandate, the way the Supreme Court of the 
United States said it should be done. BLM has said they are not going 
to do that. The only way to get that done is to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentlewoman from Massachusetts 
accurately described how there got to be this narrow strip of Federal 
land from the middle of the river to the south bank. Some people don't 
understand that. The gentlewoman described it exactly right. But that 
has been the problem for the BLM. They don't know how to manage a 
narrow strip of sand down the middle of the river. It has been 
suggested to me that that is the reason they are looking to expand what 
they own, so it is easier to manage if they can make it grow. 
Obviously, as the chairman points out, that takes away people's homes, 
property that people have the deeds to and that they have paid taxes on 
sometimes for generations.
  The other misstatement that has been made is that somehow Texas is 
going to control this survey. That is not true. This legislation says 
Texas, in conjunction with Oklahoma--and I think the manager's 
amendment will say in conjunction with the tribes--will choose a 
professional surveyor to do this right. The Congressional Budget Office 
says this legislation actually saves the taxpayers money. Certainly, we 
have bent over backwards to make sure landowners on both sides of the 
river--the tribes, individuals, and local governments--are part of this 
process.
  I think the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is the only way to prevent the

[[Page 19887]]

BLM from taking this land in a timely way without years of court 
battles is to pass this legislation, as written, with the manager's 
amendment that Chairman Bishop will offer, requiring there to be a 
survey that is done right, and then set up the process so that whatever 
that survey reveals can be dealt with in an equitable manner. That is 
what the underlying bill does.
  Again, I appreciate the chairman's taking the time to understand 
this. We don't have a lot of Federal land in and around Texas, but any 
time the Federal Government comes in to try to confiscate what people 
own and have paid taxes on for generations, it is a threat to us all, 
and this legislation, I hope, will be supported.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), my 
colleague.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I too believe 
that Congress must act quickly to address terrorist threats in order to 
keep Americans safe.
  Congress promptly acted in a bipartisan manner this week to 
strengthen glaring holes in our country's Visa Waiver Program. However, 
we have done absolutely nothing to close an equally alarming loophole 
which allows suspected terrorists to purchase guns.
  Unlike felons, domestic abusers, and the adjudicated mentally ill, 
suspected terrorists can legally purchase firearms in the United 
States. I think that is worth repeating. Individuals who are suspected 
of being involved in terrorist activities by the FBI can legally 
purchase dangerous weapons--including military-style assault rifles and 
explosives--in this country. In fact, more than 2,000 suspects on the 
FBI's terrorist watch list have purchased firearms over the last 11 
years.
  If our intelligence community is concerned enough about an 
individual's suspected ties to terrorism to prohibit them from boarding 
an aircraft, why would we allow that person to purchase a firearm?
  The American people are urging Congress to address gun violence and 
strengthen our Nation's security against increasing threats from ISIS 
and other terrorist organizations. This bill provides a rare 
opportunity to do both. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has 
refused to even debate this bill.
  We cannot, Mr. Chairman, wait to act any longer. I urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation and help ensure that every American lives 
free from the threat of gun violence.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel), my colleague.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, here is what the terrorists 
say: ``America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You 
can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away 
with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and 
most likely without having to show an identification card.''
  Those words, Mr. Chairman, are from the mouth of former al Qaeda 
spokesman Adam Gadahn, who, until his demise, was one of the world's 
most wanted terrorists. Mr. Gadahn can be seen on a video urging lone-
wolf attacks on innocent Americans.
  After describing how easy it is to buy a firearm in our country, he 
ends the video by saying: ``So what are you waiting for?''
  So I ask this Congress: What are we waiting for--more attacks like 
San Bernardino or Paris? more families destroyed? more innocent lives 
wasted? more 30 seconds of silence in this Chamber?
  Let's save some lives today. Say ``no'' to the purchase of weapons by 
those who would use violence and threats to destroy our way of life.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have some other speakers who are 
on their way, so I will reserve in the hopes that I can hear some other 
speeches that care about people who are about to lose their homes by 
the actions of this government, that we actually care about those 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address an issue that has been 
addressed in the course of our conversations.
  The majority continues to claim that the Federal Government does not 
and has never had any legal claim to the land between the river's 
median and the south bank, but that claim is inaccurate.
  This 116-mile stretch of the river originally came into Federal 
ownership under the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Treaties between 1819 
and 1838 established the south bank of the Red River as the southern 
border of the United States and the northern border of what is now the 
State of Texas. In 1867, the land north of the river became part of the 
Kiowa-Comanche-Apache Reservation, with the medial line of the river 
denoting the reservation's southern boundary.
  All land between the medial line and the southern bank of the Red 
River was retained--not acquired--by the Federal Government as public 
land. The land between the medial line and the south bank has never 
been owned by anyone other than the Federal Government.
  The Supreme Court decision in the 1920s never ceded ownership of the 
public land to either State but simply adopted a new methodology and 
terminology for determining where the southern bank of the Red River, 
still the border between Texas and Oklahoma, lies.
  Although litigation in the 1980s, resulting from natural changes in 
the river's location, attempted to settle private landowners' acreage 
disputes, these agreements had no effect on Federal land ownership. 
Likewise, while the Red River Compact changed the boundary between the 
States by switching from applying the gradient line measurement to 
using the vegetation line, that compact explicitly did not transfer any 
title or status of land held in the public domain to Texas, Oklahoma, 
or any private landowner. Any claim that any litigation or agreements 
over the past 90-plus years have somehow negated Federal ownership of 
these 30,000 acres simply is not true.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield, once again, such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the 
sponsor of this bill, to explain how this actually did take place and 
what the issue is here.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that statement by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts. I do not disagree with anything she 
said, and I think I said that a while ago, that there absolutely is a 
legitimate Federal claim from the middle of the river to the south 
bank. That has been the case ever since 1803. The gentlewoman is 
exactly right in laying that out.
  The problem is that the Bureau of Land Management has said now the 
south bank is as much as a mile to the south of where it is because 
they refuse to follow the survey method that the Supreme Court 
mandated. They have done these spot surveys the chairman mentioned.
  It is not a question about the middle of the river to the south bank. 
It is a question of where the south bank is. In some cases, it is a 
tremendous difference back, and that is where they confiscate the land. 
It is because their new interpretation of the south bank is far, far 
away from the river, as I say, as much as a mile. That is the issue. 
That is the reason the only way to solve this is to have a professional 
survey define the south bank using the criteria set by the Supreme 
Court, and then that decides it.
  Will there continue to be Federal land between the south bank and the 
middle of the river? Absolutely. BLM has said they don't know what they 
are going to do with it because it is a narrow strip of sand. But the 
key is to define that boundary so we don't take away the livelihood and 
the homes of the people who have lived and had deeds on the land far 
beyond the south bank. That is what is at issue here.

[[Page 19888]]

  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just to address an issue that my colleague from Texas 
has brought up, the BLM is trying to resolve the very difference that 
he suggests and has instituted a survey and would like to continue that 
process in order to resolve the very issue that he is raising, but it 
is an issue that should be retained by the Federal Government through 
the BLM.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, when you can't do a survey in 6 
years, maybe somebody should insist the Federal Government's agencies 
do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire of the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts how many more speeches she has. There is 
one person coming down, but I don't know if he will make it. I think, 
in light of the time, I am ready to close if she is ready to close.

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close and yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I want to conclude by acknowledging that I sympathize with the 
property owners along the Red River. Providing them with certainty and 
assurance that their property rights are not threatened is a goal that 
we should all share, and we do.
  Unfortunately, this bill will only complicate an already complicated 
and messy situation. As introduced, it will likely lead to litigation 
from tribes and tribal members who stand to lose both property and 
mineral interests.
  Furthermore, this bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
disclaim all right, title, and interest in the affected areas and 
transfer survey authority to the State of Texas. It is unclear how the 
BLM will be able to work with property owners to clear titles after the 
United States has already conceded its authority over the land.
  Additionally, transferring the Federal Government survey authority to 
Texas is not a workable solution. It is so implausible, in fact, that 
the bill has triggered a veto threat from the White House.
  If there is really a problem that Congress can solve, providing Texas 
landowners with the certainty they desire, we should work together to 
come up with legislation that would earn the President's signature.
  We should go back to the drawing board. Until that happens, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is one of those situations where this is an issue that has been 
festering for 6 years now. If the Bureau of Land Management truly 
wanted to solve this issue, if they truly wanted to make amends, if 
they truly wanted to give certainty to these people, it could have 
happened by now. But up the food chain they have refused to do it.
  That is why it is incumbent upon us to do the right thing. We are 
talking about people whose property, whose homes, their future, their 
livelihoods, are being threatened by a government bureaucracy that 
simply says they don't care. They would rather have control than solve 
a problem.
  The bill before you actually sets out a way of doing the survey in 
the right way, the way the Supreme Court said it should be done, doing 
it the right way the first time and ensuring that everyone will be part 
of the table. It sets out a process to actually solve this problem in a 
minimum amount of time. This is the right thing to do. We should go 
forward with that.
  I appreciate those who have spoken on this particular issue because 
there are people whose lives are being threatened right now because of 
the uncertainty about what their property rights are and where they 
will not be, and that is wrong. That is simply wrong.
  What has happened to these people is wrong. If we allow it to go 
forward by our inability of trying to make decisions here, we are 
wrong, too. It is time to quit hurting people and do things that 
actually help them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, first off, I would like to thank 
Congressman Thornberry for leading this effort in the House.
  It is no surprise that the Bureau of Land Management under this 
Administration has become greedy.
  But their blatant disregard of the law and private property rights is 
shameful.
  One would think the federal government would be satisfied with the 
653 million acres of land it currently controls and owns, which is over 
27 percent of the total U.S. surface area.
  A lot of which goes unused, but apparently that is not enough.
  If anything the federal government should being selling land instead 
of trying to claim more.
  The Bureau of Land Management's actions are a cloud on the title of 
Texas ranches.
  Since the 1845 annexation of Texas into the United States, the 
federal government has owned very little to no property in Texas.
  The Red River Private Property Protection Act, if signed into law 
would settle these absurd claims and clearly define the borders.
  It is important that we support and protect Oklahoma and Texas 
landowners from this Administration's ridiculous attempt at another 
land grab.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources printed in 
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2130

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Red River Private Property 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. DISCLAIMER AND OUTDATED SURVEYS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary disclaims any right, title, 
     and interest to the land located south of the South Bank 
     boundary line in the affected area.
       (b) Clarification of Prior Surveys.--Surveys conducted by 
     the Bureau of Land Management before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act shall have no force or effect in 
     determining the South Bank boundary line.

     SEC. 3. SURVEY OF SOUTH BANK BOUNDARY LINE.

       (a) Survey Required.--To identify the South Bank boundary 
     line in the affected area, the Secretary shall commission a 
     survey. The survey shall--
       (1) adhere to the gradient boundary survey method;
       (2) span the entire length of the affected area;
       (3) be conducted by Licensed State Land Surveyors chosen by 
     the Texas General Land Office, in consultation with the 
     Oklahoma Commissioners of the Land Office;
       (4) be completed not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; and
       (5) not be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management for 
     approval.
       (b) Approval of the Survey.--After the survey is completed, 
     the Secretary shall submit the survey to be approved by the 
     Texas General Land Office, in consultation with the Oklahoma 
     Commissioners of the Land Office.
       (c) Surveys of Individual Parcels.--
       (1) In general.--Parcels surveyed as required by this 
     section shall be surveyed and approved on an individual basis 
     by the Texas General Land Office, in consultation with the 
     Oklahoma Commissioners of the Land Office.
       (2) Surveys of individual parcels not submitted to the 
     bureau of land management.--Surveys of individual parcels 
     shall not be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management for 
     approval.
       (d) Notice.--
       (1) Notification to the secretary.--Not later than 30 days 
     after a survey for a parcel is approved by the Texas General 
     Land Office under subsection (c), such office shall provide 
     to the Secretary the following:
       (A) Notice of the approval of such survey.
       (B) A copy of such survey and field notes relating to such 
     parcel.
       (2) Notification to adjacent landowners.--Not later than 30 
     days after the date on which the Secretary receives 
     notification relating to a parcel under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall provide to landowners adjacent to such parcel 
     the following:
       (A) Notice of the approval of such survey.
       (B) A copy of such survey and field notes relating to such 
     parcel.
       (C) Notice that the landowner may file an appeal under 
     section 4.

[[Page 19889]]

       (D) Notice that the landowner may apply for a patent under 
     section 5.
       (E) Any additional information considered appropriate by 
     the Secretary.

     SEC. 4. APPEAL.

       Not later than 1 year after the date on which a landowner 
     receives notification under section 3(d)(2), a landowner who 
     claims to hold right, title, or interest in the affected area 
     may appeal the determination of the survey to an 
     administrative law judge of the Department of the Interior.

     SEC. 5. RED RIVER SURFACE RIGHTS.

       (a) Notification of Application Period for Patents.--
       (1) In general.--On the date that is 18 months after the 
     date on which the Secretary receives notification relating to 
     a parcel under section 3(d)(1), the Secretary shall determine 
     whether such parcel is subject to appeal.
       (2) Parcel not subject to appeal.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which the Secretary determines a parcel is 
     not subject to appeal, the Secretary shall--
       (A) notify landowners adjacent to such parcel that the 
     Secretary shall accept applications for patents for that 
     parcel under subsection (b) for a period of 210 days; and
       (B) begin accepting applications for patents for that 
     parcel under subsection (b) for a period of 210 days.
       (3) Parcel subject to appeal.--If the Secretary determines 
     a parcel is subject to appeal, the Secretary shall, not less 
     than once every 6 months, check the status of the appeals 
     relating to such parcel, until the Secretary determines such 
     parcel is not subject to appeal.
       (b) Patents for Lands in the Affected Area.--If the 
     Secretary receives an application for a patent for a parcel 
     of identified Federal lands during the period for 
     applications for such parcel under subsection (a)(2)(B) and 
     determines that the parcel has been held in good faith and in 
     peaceful adverse possession by an applicant, or the ancestors 
     or grantors of such applicant, for more than 20 years under 
     claim (including through a State land grant or deed or color 
     of title), the Secretary may issue a patent for the surface 
     rights to such parcel to the applicant, on the payment of 
     $1.25 per acre, if the patent includes the following 
     conditions:
       (1) All minerals contained in the parcel are reserved to 
     the United States and subject to sale or disposal by the 
     United States under applicable leasing and mineral land laws.
       (2) Permittees, lessees, or grantees of the United States 
     have the right to enter the parcel for the purpose of 
     prospecting for and mining deposits.
       (c) Pending Requests for Patents.--The Secretary shall not 
     offer a parcel of identified Federal land for purchase under 
     section 6 if a patent request for that parcel is pending 
     under this section.

     SEC. 6. RIGHT OF REFUSAL AND COMPETITIVE SALE.

       (a) Right of Refusal.--
       (1) Offers to purchase.--After the expiration of the period 
     for applications under section 5(a)(2)(B), the Secretary 
     shall offer for purchase for a period of 60 days for each 
     right of refusal--
       (A) the surface rights to the remaining identified Federal 
     lands located north of the vegetation line of the South Bank 
     to--
       (i) the adjacent owner of land located in Oklahoma to the 
     north with the first right of refusal;
       (ii) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located in 
     Texas to the south with the second right of refusal;
       (iii) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located to 
     the east with the third right of refusal; and
       (iv) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located to 
     the west with the fourth right of refusal; and
       (B) the surface rights to the remaining identified Federal 
     lands located south of the vegetation line of the South Bank 
     to--
       (i) the adjacent owner of land located in Texas to the 
     south with the first right of refusal;
       (ii) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located in 
     Oklahoma to the north with the second right of refusal;
       (iii) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located to 
     the east with the third right of refusal; and
       (iv) if applicable, the adjacent owner of land located to 
     the west with the fourth right of refusal.
       (2) Remaining identified federal lands defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``remaining identified Federal lands'' 
     means any parcel of identified Federal lands--
       (A) not subject to appeal under section 4;
       (B) not determined by an administrative law judge of the 
     Department of the Interior or a Federal court to be the 
     property of an adjacent landowner; and
       (C) not patented or subject to a pending request for a 
     patent under section 5.
       (b) Disposal by Competitive Sale.--If a parcel offered 
     under subsection (a) is not purchased, the Secretary shall 
     offer the parcel for disposal by competitive sale for not 
     less than fair market value as determined by an appraisal 
     conducted in accordance with nationally recognized appraisal 
     standards, including the Uniform Appraisal Standards for 
     Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of 
     Professional Appraisal Practice.
       (c) Conditions of Sale.--The sale of a parcel under this 
     section shall be subject to--
       (1) the condition that all minerals contained in the parcel 
     are reserved to the United States and subject to sale or 
     disposal by the United States under applicable leasing and 
     mineral land laws;
       (2) the condition that permittees, lessees, or grantees of 
     the United States have the right to enter the parcel for the 
     purpose of prospecting for and mining deposits; and
       (3) valid existing State, tribal, and local rights.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date on which 
     the survey is approved, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a list of the parcels of identified 
     Federal lands that have not been sold under subsection (b) 
     and a description of the reasons such parcels were not sold.

     SEC. 7. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       The Secretary may not treat a parcel of identified Federal 
     lands as Federal land for the purposes of a resource 
     management plan if the treatment of such parcel does not 
     comply with the provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 8. CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Lands Located North of the South Bank Boundary Line.--
     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.
       (b) Patents Under the Color of Title Act.--Nothing in this 
     Act shall be construed to modify land patented under the Act 
     of December 22, 1928 (Public Law 70-645; 45 Stat. 1069; 43 
     U.S.C. 1068; commonly known as the Color of Title Act), 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Red River Boundary Compact.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed to modify the Red River Boundary Compact as 
     enacted by the States of Texas and Oklahoma and consented to 
     by the United States Congress by Public Law 106-288 (114 
     Stat. 919).

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Affected area.--The term ``affected area'' means lands 
     along the approximately 116-mile stretch of the Red River 
     from its confluence with the North Fork of the Red River on 
     the west to the 98th meridian on the east between the States 
     of Texas and Oklahoma.
       (2) Gradient boundary survey method.--The term ``gradient 
     boundary survey method'' means the measurement technique used 
     to locate the South Bank boundary line under the methodology 
     established in Oklahoma v. Texas, 261 U.S. 340 (1923) 
     (recognizing that the boundary line between the States of 
     Texas and Oklahoma along the Red River is subject to change 
     due to erosion and accretion).
       (3) Identified federal lands.--The term ``identified 
     Federal lands'' means the lands in the affected area from the 
     South Bank boundary line north to the medial line of the Red 
     River as identified pursuant to this Act.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of 
     Land Management.
       (5) South bank.--The term ``South Bank'' means the water-
     washed and relatively permanent elevation or acclivity, 
     commonly called a cut bank, along the southerly or right side 
     of the Red River which separates its bed from the adjacent 
     upland, whether valley or hill, and usually serves to confine 
     the waters within the bed and to preserve the course of the 
     river (as specified in the fifth paragraph of Oklahoma v. 
     Texas, 261 U.S. 340 (1923)).
       (6) South bank boundary line.--The term ``South Bank 
     boundary line'' means the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma 
     identified through the gradient boundary survey method (as 
     specified in the sixth and seventh paragraphs of Oklahoma v. 
     Texas, 261 U.S. 340 (1923)).
       (7) Survey.--The term ``survey'' means the survey required 
     by section 3(a).
       (8) Vegetation line.--The term ``vegetation line'' means 
     the visually identifiable continuous line of vegetation that 
     is adjacent to the portion of the riverbed kept practically 
     bare of vegetation by the natural flow of the river and is 
     continuous with the vegetation beyond the riverbed.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 114-
375. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 
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.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 114-375.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 12, insert ``and seek further judicial 
     review'' after ``appeal''.

[[Page 19890]]

       Page 5, line 18, strike ``Not'' and insert the following:
       (a) Appeal to Administrative Law Judge.--Not
       Page 5, after line 23, insert the following:
       (b) Further Judicial Review.--
       (1) In general.--A landowner who filed an appeal under 
     subsection (a) and is adversely affected by the final 
     decision may, not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     final decision, file a civil action in the United States 
     district court for the district----
       (A) in which the person resides; or
       (B) in which the affected area is located.
       (2) Standard of review.--The district court may review the 
     case de novo and may enter a judgment enforcing, modifying, 
     and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in 
     part, the decision of the administrative law judge.
       Page 6, line 8, insert ``or further judicial review'' after 
     ``appeal''.
       Page 6, line 9, insert ``or judicial review'' after 
     ``appeal''.
       Page 6, line 11, insert ``or judicial review'' after 
     ``appeal''.
       Page 6, line 20, insert ``or judicial review'' after 
     ``appeal''.
       Page 6, line 21, insert ``or further judicial review'' 
     after ``appeal''.
       Page 6, line 23, insert ``or judicial reviews'' after 
     ``appeals''.
       Page 6, line 25, insert ``or further judicial review'' 
     after ``appeal''.
       Page 9, line 14, insert ``or further judicial review'' 
     after ``appeal''.
       Page 11, after line 20, insert the following:
       (d) Tribal Reservations.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to create or reinstate a tribal reservation or any 
     portion of a tribal reservation.
       (e) Tribal Mineral Interests.--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.
       Insert ``and each affected federally recognized Indian 
     tribe'' after ``Oklahoma Commissioners of the Land Office'' 
     each place it appears.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 556, the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of a 
brilliantly written manager's amendment to H.R. 2130.
  In short, this bill, introduced by my friend, the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Thornberry of Texas, prevents the Federal 
Government from claiming thousands of acres of private land legally 
owned by American citizens and tribes along the 116-mile stretch of the 
Red River between Texas and Oklahoma.
  My manager's amendment will do the following: It will ensure that 
nothing in this bill will create or reinstate a tribal reservation. It 
ensures that nothing in this bill alters the valid existing mineral 
rights of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Nations. It allows affected 
federally recognized Indian tribes to be part of the survey process in 
addition to the States of Oklahoma and Texas. It allows landowners 
access to judicial review beyond the Bureau of Land Management's 
administrative appeals process.
  This manager's amendment reflects concerns that have been brought to 
us by Chairman Thornberry, by Congressman Cole of Oklahoma, by Oklahoma 
Governor Fallin, by private landowners, and by the other stakeholders 
who have an interest in this particular area.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the manager's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cole

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 114-375.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, line 13, strike ``landowners'' and insert 
     ``federally recognized Indian tribes with jurisdiction over 
     lands''.
       Page 7, lines 8 and 9, strike ``or deed or color of 
     title''.
       Page 7, line 11, strike ``$1.25'' and insert ``fair market 
     value''.
       Page 8, after line 7, insert the following (and redesignate 
     the subsequent clauses accordingly):
       (i) the federally recognized Indian tribes holding 
     reservation or allotment land on June 5, 1906, with the first 
     right of refusal;
       Page 8, line 9, strike ``first'' and insert ``second''.
       Page 8, line 13, strike ``second'' and insert ``third''.
       Page 8, line 15, strike ``third'' and insert ``fourth''.
       Page 8, line 18, strike ``fourth'' and insert ``fifth''
       Page 8, after line 22, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent clauses accordingly):
       (i) the federally recognized Indian tribes holding 
     reservation or allotment land on June 5, 1906, with the first 
     right of refusal;
       Page 8, line 24, strike ``first'' and insert ``second''.
       Page 9, line 3, strike ``second'' and insert ``third''.
       Page 9, line 5, strike ``third'' and insert ``fourth''.
       Page 9, line 8, strike ``fourth'' and insert ``fifth''
       Page 11, after line 20, insert the following:
       (d) Tribal Allotments.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to alter the present median line of the Red River 
     as it relates to the surface or mineral interests of tribal 
     allottees north of the present median line.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 556, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by noting how much I 
respect the sincerity and good intentions of my friends from Texas and 
their desire to settle this issue of landownership along the Red River.
  I want to particularly thank Chairman Thornberry and Chairman Bishop, 
who have been extremely cooperative and helpful in trying to resolve 
some of these thorny issues.
  I do, however, still have serious concerns about the unintended 
consequences that the suggested message for resolving this issue will 
most certainly have on Indian tribes in my district, specifically the 
Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache. All three tribes oppose the bill and 
support this amendment.
  This bill gives Texas and Oklahoma the power to conduct a survey, the 
goal of which is to ascertain the exact location of the portion of the 
Red River currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management.
  The BLM land would be sold off in a three-step process. The first 
step provides for adverse possessors to apply for a patent to the BLM 
land. The second is a sale based on a right-of-first-refusal structure. 
The third provides for any remaining BLM land to be sold via a 
competitive sale process. The goal is to remove the Federal control 
that the BLM has over a 116-mile stretch of the river and, by the CBO's 
estimate, of roughly 30,000 acres.
  My amendment seeks to accomplish the following:
  Ensure that tribes receive fair notice of their right to appeal any 
survey conducted pursuant to this legislation.
  Ensure taxpayers receive full compensation instead of $1.25 per acre, 
as proposed, for any Federal land. This would also discourage 
fraudulent patent applications to BLM land that would hinder the 
process of disposal.
  Ensure tribes will be provided with rights of first refusal to 
purchase BLM land.
  And, finally, explicitly ensure that a survey and/or subsequent 
purchase does not result in any diminishment or alteration of tribal 
surface or mineral interests.
  Mr. Chairman, the first portion of this amendment is an easy fix. 
Providing tribal landowners with notice of their right to appeal a 
survey determination is a fundamental notion of due process. Tribes 
have been left out of such notice requirements in the bill, as 
currently drafted.
  The second portion of my amendment will help minimize the likelihood 
the projected litigation will commence. Litigation does nothing but 
unduly delay the opportunity for tribes to buy back their land at a 
fair market price. The $1.25 an acre price the current bill proposes is 
not the best deal for taxpayers, and Congress should vote to get the 
best value for BLM land.
  To avoid this result, my amendment raises the standard patent 
applicants must meet for their applications to be approved.

[[Page 19891]]

  The amendment also alters the right of first refusal structure for 
landowners to purchase BLM land by competitive sale. Indian tribes that 
formerly held reservation land in this part of Oklahoma, like the 
Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache, now have the right of first refusal for 
any competitive sale of BLM land that takes place pursuant to this 
legislation.
  Finally, my amendment would disallow the survey from moving the 
medial line of the river north to affect the surface or mineral 
interests of tribal allottees north of the river in Oklahoma.
  I simply cannot support a bill that would negatively impact tribal 
landowners in Oklahoma whose interests in surface, oil, gas, minerals, 
and water are critical to economic stability and funding for tribal 
government programs.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill would begin a process of give-and-take in 
redetermining landownership between Texans, Oklahomans, and Indian 
tribes. Congress should remain mindful of its trust responsibilities 
and tread carefully when it comes to what could very well be construed 
as a taking of the Constitution.
  Those in support of the bill will likely argue that tribes stand to 
benefit from re-surveying the river, citing that allotments bordering 
the river will actually expand in certain areas. That is a big gamble 
to take.
  The fact is that neither Texans, Oklahomans, nor tribal members have 
any indication of whether they stand to gain or lose as a result of the 
survey method to be used. As a result, they have everything to lose 
should this bill become law without the amendment.
  I urge the support of the Cole amendment to H.R. 2130.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for 
Congressman Cole and his efforts. I want to also offer that, as this 
bill continues to be processed, I will be more than happy to work on 
these and other issues, as we have in the past on certain issues that 
are in the manager's amendment.
  But I have to oppose this particular amendment. It does certain 
things that are problematic.
  First, the amendment alters the bill's rights of first refusal 
procedure to give precedence to some above others, whether or not they 
have a reasonable claim to the land or hold an adjacent allotment. That 
is the key point right there: is the claim and the allotment adjacent.
  The bill, as is already written, already gives the right of first 
refusal to those landowners who are there as long as they own the 
adjacent land parcel. That should not be changed.
  Secondly, the medial line is an important issue in allocating where 
the location of the river actually is. If you are going to solve the 
problem unequivocally to demonstrate the true ownership of the land, 
this has to be solved. Otherwise, the clouded title to private lands 
will continue on, as they have been by BLM's action so far.
  The Supreme Court has made it very clear that the medial is supposed 
to change as the movements of the river change. BLM's recent survey 
ignored the movement of the river, which is causing the very issue that 
we are facing today.
  This amendment would put it back into the failed process. This 
amendment then runs contrary to what the Supreme Court's decision said 
is the fair surveying practices that ought to have been done 6 years 
ago by the BLM in the first place.
  Congressman Thornberry has worked extensively with Congressman Cole 
to address some of the concerns--many of the concerns--that are there. 
I would point out just a few that have been added.
  We are preventing the alternation of sovereign right States under the 
Red River Boundary Compact. We are ensuring the State of Oklahoma and 
affected tribes are involved in picking surveyors and approving the 
survey.
  We are preventing the creation or reinstatement of the tribal 
reservation. We are ensuring that the bill does not impact the valid 
rights of the affected tribes to the mineral interest fund created in 
1926.
  Overall, the bill, as written and amended with the manager's 
amendment, proposes a fair solution to the issue at hand, incorporates 
the ideas and views of those interested in a wide range of the 
stakeholders.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by acknowledging what my 
friend said. I appreciate Mr. Thornberry and him working with us. This 
is a long and complex issue.
  I will just say, we don't see the 1923 Supreme Court decision is 
where it started. We think it goes back to an earlier period where the 
tribes did not ever agree to give up their reservation land. They want 
an opportunity to be able to repurchase what they think was taken from 
them, if it should become available on the market.
  I thank my friends again for working with me and look forward to 
continuing that process.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I 
actually have?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the chairman's yielding to me.
  I also appreciate the considerable efforts that have gone on not just 
in the past few weeks and months but all the way back to the last 
Congress with Congressman Cole, with the Governor's Office of Oklahoma, 
and with the tribes directly to try to make sure that any concern was 
addressed.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say one overall point. Actually, the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts made this really clear, which is that in 
going back to at least 1867 there is no tribal claim that goes south of 
the median line of the river. As a result, really, the only interests 
that could be threatened are that narrow strip of sand that the Federal 
Government does have a rightful claim on or its expansion beyond its 
rightful claim.
  There should be no question of any tribal surface or mineral interest 
that is impinged by this legislation because they only ever went to the 
middle of the river. What we are talking about is the south bank of the 
river, which is what the BLM is now claiming.
  I want to address the $1.25 issue because the bill requires that any 
land sold to an adjacent landowner or to anybody else be sold at 
current market value. The only exception is if, for a period of at 
least 20 years, you have owned the land, if you have a deed to the 
land, if you have paid taxes on the land, or if the Federal Government 
has never made a claim on the land for at least 20 years. In that 
instance, then you can under color of title procedure purchase the land 
for $1.25 an acre if the Bureau of Land Management agrees. It is at 
their discretion.
  The idea is, if this survey happens to find some acreage--and I am 
not sure it will--that somebody has owned, has a deed to, has paid 
taxes on, has lived on, or if nobody else has claimed the title to it, 
then they don't have to buy it twice because they already bought it 
once. That is the purpose of this. In every other case, you have to pay 
the full market value for any land.
  The last point is that Congressman Cole is very interested in making 
sure that the tribes are fully participating and know this about the 
survey, et cetera. I agree. I think the manager's amendment that 
Chairman Bishop has just offered ensures that the tribes participate in 
the survey from the beginning. Of course, they have the right to appeal 
just like any other landowner would.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is the answer to a problem that needs our 
intervention because it is wrong to leave these people hanging for 
another 6 or 10 years without a complete survey that answers the 
question.

[[Page 19892]]


  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 183, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 684]

                               AYES--246

     Adams
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zinke

                               NOES--183

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Miller (FL)
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Aguilar
     Davis, Danny
     Johnson, Sam
     Sanchez, Loretta

                              {time}  1640

  Messrs. SHUSTER, McCARTHY, PRICE of Georgia, BOST, Mses. ROS-
LEHTINEN, FOXX, Messrs. LaMALFA, FLORES, MEADOWS, MILLER of Florida, 
GOSAR, COFFMAN, GRAVES of Louisiana, MARCHANT, CRAWFORD, FINCHER, 
McHENRY, WALDEN, MULVANEY, WOODALL, GUTHRIE, DUFFY, YOUNG of Indiana, 
HECK of Nevada, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Messrs. LUETKEMEYER, DUNCAN of 
South Carolina, SALMON, Mrs. LUMMIS, Messrs. PERRY, SMITH of Nebraska, 
TROTT, SENSENBRENNER, WILSON of South Carolina, Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER, 
Messrs. CARTER of Georgia, RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, SMITH of Missouri, 
Mrs. BLACKBURN, Messrs. BARTON, ROKITA, and ROSKAM changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mses. HAHN, SPEIER, Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. 
VARGAS, FATTAH, BUTTERFIELD, HINOJOSA, TURNER, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY 
of New York, Messrs. YODER, GUINTA, CURBELO of Florida, STIVERS, 
FORTENBERRY, DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, ENGEL, and KATKO changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Stewart). The question is on the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Stewart, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2130) to 
provide legal certainty to property owners along the Red River in 
Texas, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 556, 
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit 
at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Thompson of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     2130 to the Committee

[[Page 19893]]

     on Natural Resources with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment:
       After section 8, add the following (and redesignate the 
     subsequent section accordingly):

     SEC. 9. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY 
                   THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR 
                   THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES 
                   LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.

       (a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion 
     Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits 
     to Dangerous Terrorists.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting the following new section after section 
     922:

     ``Sec. 922A. Attorney General's discretion to deny transfer 
       of a firearm

       ``The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm 
     pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General 
     determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately 
     suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct 
     constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to 
     terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the 
     Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective 
     transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.'';
       (2) by inserting the following new section after section 
     922A:

     ``Sec. 922B. Attorney General's discretion regarding 
       applicants for firearm permits which would qualify for the 
       exemption provided under section 922(t)(3)

       ``The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for 
     a firearm permit which would qualify for an exemption under 
     section 922(t)(3) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be 
     or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation 
     for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing 
     material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a 
     reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in 
     connection with terrorism.''; and
       (3) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(36) The term `terrorism' means `international terrorism' 
     as defined in section 2331(1), and `domestic terrorism' as 
     defined in section 2331(5).
       ``(37) The term `material support' means `material support 
     or resources' within the meaning of section 2339A or 2339B.
       ``(38) The term `responsible person' means an individual 
     who has the power, directly or indirectly, to direct or cause 
     the direction of the management and policies of the applicant 
     or licensee pertaining to firearms.''.
       (b) Effect of Attorney General Discretionary Denial Through 
     the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) 
     on Firearms Permits.--Section 922(t) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by inserting ``or State law, 
     or that the Attorney General has determined to deny the 
     transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A'' before the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``or State law'' 
     the following: ``or if the Attorney General has not 
     determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to 
     section 922A'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)(A)(i)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (I); and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(III) was issued after a check of the system established 
     pursuant to paragraph (1);'';
       (4) in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (A) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (ii); and
       (B) by adding after and below the end the following:
       ``(iii) the State issuing the permit agrees to deny the 
     permit application if such other person is the subject of a 
     determination by the Attorney General pursuant to section 
     922B;'';
       (5) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``or State law,'' 
     the following: ``or if the Attorney General has not 
     determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to 
     section 922A,''; and
       (6) in paragraph (5), by inserting after ``or State law,'' 
     the following: ``or if the Attorney General has determined to 
     deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A,''.
       (c) Unlawful Sale or Disposition of Firearm Based on 
     Attorney General Discretionary Denial.--Section 922(d) of 
     such title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) has been the subject of a determination by the 
     Attorney General pursuant to section 922A, 922B, 
     923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.''.
       (d) Attorney General Discretionary Denial as Prohibitor.--
     Section 922(g) of such title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     inserting; ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) who has received actual notice of the Attorney 
     General's determination made pursuant to section 922A, 922B, 
     923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title,''.
       (e) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal 
     Firearms Licenses.--Section 923(d)(1) of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any'' and inserting ``Except as provided 
     in subparagraph (H), any'';
       (2) in subparagraph (F)(iii), by striking ``and'' at the 
     end;
       (3) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) The Attorney General may deny a license application 
     if the Attorney General determines that the applicant 
     (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately 
     suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct 
     constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to 
     terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the 
     Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant 
     may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.''.
       (f) Discretionary Revocation of Federal Firearms 
     Licenses.--Section 923(e) of such title is amended--
       (1) in the 1st sentence--
       (A) by inserting after ``revoke'' the following: ``--(1)''; 
     and
       (B) by striking the period and inserting a semicolon;
       (2) in the 2nd sentence--
       (A) by striking ``The Attorney General may, after notice 
     and opportunity for hearing, revoke'' and insert ``(2)''; and
       (B) by striking the period and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) any license issued under this section if the Attorney 
     General determines that the holder of the license (including 
     any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) 
     to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in 
     preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or 
     providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General 
     has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm 
     in connection with terrorism.''.
       (g) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in 
     Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit.--Section 923(f) 
     of such title is amended--
       (1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 
     except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to 
     subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which 
     the Attorney General relied for this determination may be 
     withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General 
     determines that disclosure of the information would likely 
     compromise national security'' before the period; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the 3rd sentence 
     the following: ``With respect to any information withheld 
     from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United 
     States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or 
     redacted versions of documents containing information the 
     disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would 
     likely compromise national security.''.
       (h) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in 
     Relief From Disabilities Lawsuits.--Section 925(c) of such 
     title is amended by inserting after the 3rd sentence the 
     following: ``If receipt of a firearm by the person would 
     violate section 922(g)(10), any information which the 
     Attorney General relied on for this determination may be 
     withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General 
     determines that disclosure of the information would likely 
     compromise national security. In responding to the petition, 
     the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, 
     summaries or redacted versions of documents containing 
     information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has 
     determined would likely compromise national security.''.
       (i) Penalties.--Section 924(k) of such title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``, or'' and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) constitutes an act of terrorism (as defined in 
     section 921(a)(36)), or material support thereof (as defined 
     in section 921(a)(37)); or''.
       (j) Remedy for Erroneous Denial of Firearm or Firearm 
     Permit Exemption.--Section 925A of such title is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``Remedy for 
     erroneous denial of firearm'' and inserting ``Remedies'';
       (2) by striking ``Any person denied a firearm pursuant to 
     subsection (s) or (t) of section 922'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), any person 
     denied a firearm pursuant to section 922(t) or pursuant to a 
     determination made under section 922B,''; and
       (3) by adding after and below the end the following:
       ``(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied 
     the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee 
     pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination 
     regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 
     922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought 
     against the

[[Page 19894]]

     United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 
     days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the 
     Attorney General's determination made pursuant to section 
     922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General's 
     determination on a showing by the United States by a 
     preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General's 
     determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 
     922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and 
     the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of 
     documents containing information the disclosure of which the 
     Attorney General has determined would likely compromise 
     national security. On request of the petitioner or the 
     court's own motion, the court may review the full, 
     undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall 
     determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the 
     case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the 
     underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, 
     undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney 
     General's determination satisfies the requirements of section 
     922A or 922B.''.
       (k) Provision of Grounds Underlying Ineligibility 
     Determination by the National Instant Criminal Background 
     Check System.--Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence 
     Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by inserting after ``is ineligible to receive a 
     firearm,'' the following: ``or the Attorney General has made 
     a determination regarding an applicant for a firearm permit 
     pursuant to section 922B of title 18, United States Code''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting after ``the system shall provide such 
     reasons to the individual,'' the following: ``except for any 
     information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has 
     determined would likely compromise national security''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in the 1st sentence, by inserting after ``subsection 
     (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code or 
     State law'' the following: ``or if the Attorney General has 
     made a determination pursuant to section 922A or 922B of such 
     title,'';
       (B) by inserting ``, except any information the disclosure 
     of which the Attorney General has determined would likely 
     compromise national security'' before the period; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``Any petition for 
     review of information withheld by the Attorney General under 
     this subsection shall be made in accordance with section 925A 
     of title 18, United States Code.''.
       (l) Unlawful Distribution of Explosives Based on Attorney 
     General Discretionary Denial.--Section 842(d) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) has received actual notice of the Attorney General's 
     determination made pursuant to section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2) of 
     this title.''.
       (m) Attorney General Discretionary Denial as Prohibitor.--
     Section 842(i) of such title is amended--
       (1) by adding ``; or'' at the end of paragraph (7); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) who has received actual notice of the Attorney 
     General's determination made pursuant to section 843(b)(8) or 
     (d)(2),''.
       (n) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal 
     Explosives Licenses and Permits.--Section 843(b) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Upon'' and inserting the following: 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (8), on''; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) The Attorney General may deny the issuance of a 
     permit or license to an applicant if the Attorney General 
     determines that the applicant or a responsible person or 
     employee possessor thereof is known (or appropriately 
     suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct 
     constituting, in preparation of, in aid of, or related to 
     terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the 
     Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may 
     use explosives in connection with terrorism.''.
       (o) Attorney General Discretionary Revocation of Federal 
     Explosives Licenses and Permits.--Section 843(d) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' in the first sentence after 
     ``if''; and
       (2) by striking the period at the end of the first sentence 
     and inserting the following: ``; or (2) the Attorney General 
     determines that the licensee or holder (or any responsible 
     person or employee possessor thereof) is known (or 
     appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in 
     conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or 
     related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, 
     and that the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that 
     the person may use explosives in connection with 
     terrorism.''.
       (p) Attorney General's Ability To Withhold Information in 
     Explosives License and Permit Denial and Revocation Suits.--
     Section 843(e) of such title is amended--
       (1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``except that if the denial or revocation is based on a 
     determination under subsection (b)(8) or (d)(2), then any 
     information which the Attorney General relied on for the 
     determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the 
     Attorney General determines that disclosure of the 
     information would likely compromise national security'' 
     before the period; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``In responding to any petition for review of a denial or 
     revocation based on a determination under section 843(b)(8) 
     or (d)(2), the United States may submit, and the court may 
     rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents 
     containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney 
     General has determined would likely compromise national 
     security.''.
       (q) Ability To Withhold Information in Communications to 
     Employers.--Section 843(h)(2) of such title is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or section 
     843(b)(1) (on grounds of terrorism) of this title,'' after 
     ``section 842(i),''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by inserting ``or section 843(b)(8)'' after ``section 
     842(i)''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, except that any 
     information that the Attorney General relied on for a 
     determination pursuant to section 843(b)(8) may be withheld 
     if the Attorney General concludes that disclosure of the 
     information would likely compromise national security'' 
     before the semicolon.
       (r) Conforming Amendment to Immigration and Nationality 
     Act.--Section 101(a)(43)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii)) is amended by 
     striking ``or (5)'' and inserting ``(5), or (10)''.

  Mr. THOMPSON of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against 
the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment 
to the bill, which will not kill the bill nor send it back to 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  My motion to recommit would incorporate H.R. 1076, a Republican bill 
titled the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act 
of 2015, into the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1645

  The bill is straightforward. It says if you are on the FBI's 
terrorist watch list, then you don't get to walk into a gun store, pass 
a background check, and leave with a weapon of your choice. It is an 
outrageous loophole. And we know it allows dangerous people to easily 
get guns.
  Since 2004, more than 2,000 suspected terrorists have legally 
purchased weapons in the United States. And more than 90 percent of all 
suspected terrorists who tried to purchase guns in the last 11 years 
walked away with the weapons they wanted. If there is one thing both 
sides of this House can agree on, it is keeping guns from terrorists.
  I know my colleagues on the other side have expressed some concerns. 
So let's address them.
  You are worried that there are names on the list that shouldn't be 
there. This is a legitimate concern. So let's scrub the list.
  You are worried that it is difficult to get off the list if you are 
wrongly put on it. This bill has an appeals process.
  You are concerned about denying people their Second Amendment rights. 
Well, I am a gun guy. I own guns. I support the Second Amendment. If 
this bill did anything to violate those rights, my name wouldn't be on 
it.
  We are not talking about prohibiting law-abiding, non-dangerous 
people from getting guns. We are just talking about taking a pause.
  I think we can all agree that it is better to err on the side of 
caution and let people get their names taken off the list, rather than 
just sell them a gun and hope they are not a terrorist.
  So let's scrub the list and make it accurate. Let's make sure the 
appeals process is functional and efficient. And if someone is on the 
terrorist list and is denied from buying a gun, let's pump the brakes 
and make sure they are, in

[[Page 19895]]

fact, not a terrorist before that sale is allowed to proceed.
  Everyone on my side of the aisle stands ready to address your 
concerns. Will your side do the same? Will you address our concern 
about terrorists being able to have legal and easy access to guns?
  We have a chance to take a simple, straightforward step to keep 
spouses, kids, and communities safe. We can take this vote today. I 
have filed a discharge petition on the bill. We just need a simple 
majority to sign it. You can do it right now.
  If House Republicans agree that terrorists shouldn't be able to get 
guns, then walk down to the well, sign your name on the line, and let's 
have a vote.
  It is your own party's bill. It was supported by George W. Bush's 
Department of Justice. All it does is prevent suspected terrorists from 
getting guns--in the exact same way we prevent criminals, domestic 
abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill from getting guns.
  We will work with you to address your concerns. Do the same for us. 
Work with our side to keep guns from suspected terrorists.
  This is an issue we can all come together on. 2,000 suspected 
terrorists buying guns is 2,000 too many. So let's stop it. Let's take 
a stand. Put your name down in writing and let's take a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, and 
I continue to reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that our 
colleagues, Mr. McClintock and Don Young, were put on this watch list--
actually, for Don Young maybe it fits.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am going to insist on my point of order.
  This motion to recommit involves subject matter that is different 
from the bill. The fundamental purpose of the motion is unrelated to 
the bill.
  I insist on my point of order.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on 
the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California may be heard 
on the point of order.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the 
Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California should 
understand that the Chair has not ruled on the point of order.
  The Chair will now rule.
  The gentleman from Utah makes a point of order that the instructions 
proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from 
California involve a subject matter different from the bill.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no 
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall 
be admitted under color of amendment.
  The bill addresses the boundary line between Texas and Oklahoma drawn 
by the Red River. Though the bill touches on a number of aspects of 
property management, it does so only with respect to a narrow 
geographic area.
  The amendment proposed in the motion to recommit makes a variety of 
changes to title 18 of the United States Code relating to the sale, 
possession, licensing, and distribution of firearms and explosives. It 
has no bearing on the land addressed in the underlying bill.
  The Chair finds that the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit 
goes beyond the subject matter of the underlying bill. It is, 
therefore, not germane. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the 
Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the 
table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if arising without further 
proceedings in recommittal, and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of 
the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246, 
nays 182, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 685]

                               YEAS--246

     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
     DeFazio
     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
     Turner
     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--182

     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)
     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

[[Page 19896]]


     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
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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--5

     Aguilar
     Davis, Danny
     Johnson, Sam
     Nolan
     Sanchez, Loretta

                              {time}  1706

  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McCarthy was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Members that there will 
be votes in the House on Friday, which I expect to end by early 
afternoon.
  Having said that, I want to advise the Members that votes are no 
longer expected in the House this weekend. However, Members should 
continue to keep their schedules flexible for possible votes in the 
House on Monday, and I will let Members know more details about that 
for next week as soon as possible.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  On Monday, would your expectation be that, if there were votes, no 
votes would occur prior to 6:30?
  Mr. McCARTHY. Yes. There will be no votes before 6:30, and I will let 
the gentleman know prior to departing on Friday whether we are in on 
Monday.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, some of us on the Rules Committee voted to 
bring up a bill that would prevent terrorists from buying guns, but 
Republicans on the committee blocked that attempt.
  Democrats have tried to close this loophole by defeating the previous 
question, and Republicans have blocked those attempts.
  Can the Speaker tell me how we can get an up-or-down vote on this 
bill that prevents terrorists from buying guns?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not entertain a parliamentary 
inquiry that does not relate, in a practical sense, to the present 
proceedings.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that insisting on 
the point of order prevents the House from voting on the gentleman from 
California's motion to recommit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the gentleman from 
California's motion to recommit would close the loophole that currently 
allows terrorists who are on the no-fly list to buy guns?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, further 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, is it true that the 
Republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation that would explicitly 
prevent terrorists from buying guns?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, why can we not get 
an answer to this question?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has not stated a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The Chair is prepared to put the question on passage to a vote of the 
House.
  The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there any Members wishing to seek a 
recorded vote or the yeas and nays?
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by a 5-minute vote on agreeing 
to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 253, 
nays 177, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 686]

                               YEAS--253

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     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
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)

[[Page 19897]]


     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--177

     Adams
     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Grayson
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Aguilar
     Johnson, Sam
     Sanchez, Loretta

                              {time}  1731

  Mr. WELCH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________