Dan Newhouse

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, it is very fitting today that we are considering this bill. It is the same week that the President released the final budget of his administration--a budget that would add nearly $2.6 trillion to our national debt over the next 5 years. In fact, this President has never submitted a budget to Congress that would balance. Few Americans may realize this, but just last week, our national debt reached $19 trillion--Mr. Chairman, $19 trillion. When the President came into office in 2009, the debt stood at $10.6 trillion. That is nearly doubling our national debt in just 7 years' time. Mr. Chairman, we are on a high-speed train, careening towards a fiscal cliff. Soon it may be too late to slow this train down. If I could, in the name of all that is fiscally sane, I would enact an amendment to the Constitution right now requiring us to balance our budget. But, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, our Constitution requires two-thirds of our colleagues here in Congress to approve that amendment, which history and previous votes on constitutional amendments have shown is a very difficult bar to reach. While this measure may not be the balanced budget amendment that our country desperately needs and deserves, it will help draw a very clear line of distinction in the sand. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that my colleagues from Virginia and Ohio and Alabama and I are offering would simply require the President to tell the American people whether or not they support a balanced budget amendment when he or she asks for a debt ceiling increase. It is as simple as that. This is about transparency and about being open with the American people about where you stand on this very critical issue. It would provide a very clear contrast if the President asked to raise the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars in this case, but offers no support for a measure that would put an end to our Nation's debt problems for good. Make no mistake, time is quickly coming when our Nation will have to make the decision if we want to restore the fiscal health of our Nation to a state of stability and prosperity for future generations, or go down the same road of nations like Greece that have been shattered by their debt woes. When that day comes, the American people deserve to know who is standing where. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my legislation, the Justin Smith Morrill Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2016. This legislation would honor a true American hero by posthumously awarding the Honorable Justin Smith Morrill with the Congressional Gold Medal. Mr. Morrill was elected to six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and six terms in the United States Senate, making him the longest serving Member of Congress in the 19th Century. During his tenure, he chaired the House Committee on Ways and Means, the Senate Committee on Finance, and the Senate Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Buildings and Grounds, he served as the principle advocate for financing and constructing the Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress and planned the location of the U.S. Supreme Court Building. He also raised funds to complete the unfinished Washington Monument and advocated for the Smithsonian Institution throughout his service in Congress. However, his greatest achievement was authoring the Morrill Act of 1862, which created the land-grant university system. Today, land-grant and other public universities award nearly 1 million degrees annually and perform more than $37 billion in research. Additionally, almost 30 years later, Senator Morrill authored the Morrill Act of 1890, which created historically black land-grant universities. Justin Smith Morrill is a man who has provided generations and millions of Americans--especially those from working class families-- with access to higher education throughout the nation. His achievements have inspired American history, values, and culture and will be recognized and honored by generations to come. For these reasons, and many others, I urge all members to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation, which will honor this great American hero with the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of a respected constituent of mine whom I was proud to have called a dear friend. James Trull was the kind of leader who could be depended on to bring people together and advance solutions on behalf of their communities. He was passionate about water issues. It was his life's work. He served as the district manager of the Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District for 34 years. He understood the complicated western water law like no one else. Jim was a valued leader in our community. He was kind and was loved by those who knew him. While Jim will be missed by many, we can honor his legacy by striving to follow the kind of leadership he embodied in his life. As we remember Jim, the passage from the Prophet Isaiah comes to mind: ``For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground . . .'' I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering my friend, Jim Trull.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make the point that it is customary, whether Republicans are in control or whether Democrats control, that the CRAs, the Congressional Review Acts, come to the floor under a closed rule. I might also say that, regarding the STREAM Act, all amendments that were germane were made in order. As it comes to the bill pertaining to Iran, that bill was marked up in committee last week. No amendments were offered, and the bill passed on voice vote. Having made those points, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the good gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have got several colleagues here that would like to weigh in on all three of these issues. But before I turn the floor over to them, I just wanted to make a comment about the fact that there are two closed rule bills in this. All of these issues before us today have been thoroughly vetted. They have been through the committee process. They have had ample opportunity for people to weigh in. In fact, one of the bills is in a structured rule. Actually, we are allowing four amendments. Three of those amendments are from the Democratic side. So I think that there is ample opportunity for all people to make their feelings known on this legislation in front of us. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that transparency, public involvement, and anything that the administration, that this government does, is not a waste of time. In fact, it is our duty to make sure that the public has the ability to see what its government is doing, to make sure it is done in the light of day. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), my good friend.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 583 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, if it embarrasses the President to be held accountable for the very words that come out of his mouth, I guess there is not much we can do about that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the good gentleman's wishes for a good retreat for the Republicans this coming next few days, and I look forward to finding opportunities to work together with his side of the aisle on many important things facing our Nation. I just would remind them, too, that there have been plenty of opportunities for all Members of this body to have input on these pieces of legislation before us through committee, here on the floor, in Rules. I think following regular order is proving exactly what we wanted it to do to give people that opportunity. I am very happy that we have been able to do that. Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule that we are considering today allowing for consideration of three very important pieces of legislation that I think will protect our national security interests abroad and hold the administration accountable for sanctions lifted under the Iran nuclear agreement. It will ensure that mining communities and hardworking families are not crushed by another crippling Federal regulation, and it will help protect our rural western communities by providing much-needed relief from the burdensome waters of the United States rule. Although we may have different viewpoints and differences of opinion, I believe this rule and the underlying bills are strong measures that are important to our country's future. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 583 as well as the underlying bills.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 583, providing for consideration of three important pieces of legislation. Those are H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act; H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act; and S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers' rule relating to the definition of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1644 under a structured rule, making four amendments in order, three from the Democrats and one from the Republicans, H.R. 3662 under a closed rule and S.J. Res 22 also under a closed rule. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I have grave concerns about the administration's nuclear agreement with Iran. Since the agreement's adoption in July, Iran has shown no goodwill or intention of improving its relationship with the West. In many ways, the Iranian regime has increased its aggressive attitude toward the United States and our allies. Against U.N. Security Council resolutions, the rogue nation has expanded its ballistic missile program, testing two missiles as recently as last fall. Just on December 26 an Iranian military ship fired a rocket near U.S. and French military vessels in the Persian Gulf. These incidents occurred just months before crippling international sanctions against the country are scheduled to be lifted. Further, Iran continues to be a state sponsor of terrorism, a direct threat to our closest ally in the region, Israel, continues rampant human rights abuses, and continues the wrongful imprisonment of five American citizens. President Obama and senior administration officials have claimed that the nuclear agreement and lifting of economic sanctions, which could return as much as $100 billion in frozen assets to Tehran, will help Iran down a more moderate path. However, reality appears to show the contrary is occurring. Just weeks after the deal was signed, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that: We won't allow American political, economic, or cultural influence in Iran. And just last week the Supreme Leader told a gathering of prayer leaders that: Americans have set their eyes covetously on elections, but the great and vigilant nation of Iran will act contrary to the enemies' will, whether it be in elections or on other issues, and, as before, will punch them in the mouth. While President Obama may find something positive in Iran's actions and statements, I believe Congress owes it to the American people to view Iran with skepticism and concern. H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act, requires the President to certify that those individuals and entities receiving sanctions relief under the Iranian nuclear deal are not involved in Iran's support for terrorism, its human rights abuses, or its ballistic missile program. By passing this legislation, Mr. Speaker, Congress can help ensure that the U.S. will continue to sanction and deter terrorism and illegal ballistic missile tests within the state of Iran. In arguing for the nuclear deal's adoption, the President committed to Congress and to the American people that our ``sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program, will continue to be fully enforced.'' This legislation gives us the opportunity to hold the President to his word and conduct the necessary oversight to ensure that sanctions are enforced. Additionally, this rule will provide for consideration of two other very critical measures that will help protect American businesses and families from the administration's regulatory overreach. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1644, legislation that was drafted in response to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's ongoing rulemaking process that seeks to govern the interaction between surface mining operations and streams. It is commonly referred to as the stream buffer zone rule. In December 2008, the outgoing Bush administration published its final stream buffer zone rule. This rule was the product of over 5 years of deliberation, extensive scientific research, environmental analyses, public comment, and a concurrence from the Environmental Protection Agency. Put simply, this rule was developed the right way, with transparency, unbiased research, scientific integrity, stakeholder engagement, and, most importantly, public involvement. However, shortly after the final 2008 rule was released, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the OSM, ultimately leading to a settlement agreement between OSM and the environmental groups. After numerous missed deadlines, the environmental organizations renewed the litigation, the administration agreed with the complaint. As a result, the court vacated the 2008 rule and OSM subsequently restarted the rulemaking process. Since that time, the entire process has lacked transparency. Oversight conducted by the House Committee on Natural Resources, of which I am a member, revealed that the settlement agreement's expedited timeframe, coupled with an inexperienced contractor and gross mismanagement of the rulemaking process, resulted in major issues with the administration's rule. Now, this may sound just a little familiar. It is the very same sue and settle practice that the House addressed just last week with the passage of H.R. 712, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act. The outcome is another example of why sue and settle leads to poor rulemakings and onerous regulations that significantly harm the people, businesses, and jobs they are supposed to be supporting. Backroom deals between environmental groups and Federal agencies do not lead to sound regulations, but instead circumvent the rulemaking process to serve the interest of a select few, namely, special interests and environmental groups. For 6 years, OSM has been rewriting this rule, and the ongoing process has now cost the taxpayers over $10 million, though this is only a small fraction of the cost it will have on businesses and hardworking American families. The stream protection rule will drastically reduce our access to coal, which accounts for nearly half of our country's electricity, leading to higher electricity costs and significant job losses. According to a study from the National Mining Association, the number of direct mining jobs that could be lost is between 40,000 and 77,000 and the total job losses is between 112,000 and 280,000, a fact that is underscored by the Nation's second largest oil company, Arch Coal, filing for bankruptcy, largely due to the increased cost of Federal regulations. That happened just this week, Mr. Speaker. For these reasons, it is imperative that we pass H.R. 1644, legislation that delays the rule's implementation, increases scientific transparency for rulemakings affecting mining, directs a transparent third party to evaluate the existing stream buffer zone rule, and reduces duplicative regulation. This rule also makes in order legislation dealing with an issue that I hear about very often in my congressional district. It strikes the controversial waters of the United States, or WOTUS rule. S.J. Res. 22 is a resolution of disapproval of the President's WOTUS rule that was passed by the Senate in bipartisan fashion, and it is now time for the House to consider and pass this important measure. This legislation was crafted in response to the WOTUS rule promulgated by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, which redefines and vastly expands the scope of water subject to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. By issuing this rule, these agencies have given themselves broad new power over water and land across the United States. Like many of my constituents, I am very concerned with this massive Federal overreach. It goes far beyond the agencies' statutory authority and could impose significant costs not only on American farmers and small businesses, but on States and local governments. The rule is another Federal power grab that has more to do with controlling land use decisions than protecting access to clean water. Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 22 utilizes the Congressional Review Act to block this harmful regulation, and it is time to send this critical measure to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and the rule providing for its consideration. Mr. Speaker, the rule we consider here today provides for the consideration of three bills that are critically important for the future of this country. We must pass H.R. 1644 and S.J. Res. 22 to protect American families and businesses from the rampant executive overreach that will be the defining achievement of the Obama administration. Furthermore, the United States must stand with our allies in the Middle East, as well as around the world, in the face of growing Iranian aggression, which threatens not only the stability of the region, but the strength of U.S. alliances and standing in the world. I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Obama administration's shortsighted nuclear agreement does not unravel decades of work by the U.S. and our allies to impose meaningful sanctions on the country of Iran. These sanctions have restricted Iran's ability to spread its radical beliefs and inflict unknown damage on its neighbors in the region, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia, a fellow member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time to speak on this important topic. I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this conversation. Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, I am a farmer. I can tell you that growing crops, cultivating crops, can teach you a lot about a responsible regulatory process. That may sound like a strange statement, but let me just say I primarily grow hops and grapes, two crops that require a trellis system. Neither of these crops would be successfully grown without a good, strong trellis system that gives them structure, direction, and support. However, on the flip side, if the trellises aren't constructed properly, if they are not maintained and kept in good working order, the crop growth would be affected. It would be stunted, and production in the end would suffer. Our regulatory process is very similar, Mr. Speaker. Congress passes laws intended to provide a progrowth structure for our economy. Regulatory agencies build out and fill in the details based on the directions from us, from Congress. However, sometimes agencies provide regulations that can significantly harm people and harm businesses and the jobs they are supposed to be supporting. Many times these regulations exceed or are in contravention to the discretion or authority provided by Congress. Many times it seems as if the regulators write these regulations for the sake of regulations with little regard for the consequences to those that are forced to comply. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, as these bills will provide Congress and the American public with new tools to ensure that regulations truly have the public's best interest in mind and do not hinder economic expansion and growth. For example, H.R. 712 will prevent what are called the sue and settle tactics that are used to circumvent the normal rulemaking process. It has been well documented that, on numerous regulations, the administration has intentionally dragged its feet and failed to propose a regulation in a timely fashion. So what happens then, they can be sued and ultimately settle on the terms decided solely by the court, by the administration, and by the plaintiff. This tactic has removed the cost-benefit analysis required for many economically significant regulations. But more importantly, it has eliminated stakeholder engagement in the regulatory process as well as the public's right to comment on dozens of regulations with compliance costs totalling in the hundreds of millions to the billions of dollars. This legislation also includes other commonsense measures, such as requiring agencies to post on the Internet in plain language 100-word summaries detailing what a regulation does. Few individuals or small businesses have either the time or the fleets of lawyers needed to pore over hundreds of pages of regulations and be expected to comment or comply. I was also proud to cosponsor H.R. 1155, which this rule also provides for consideration. It is estimated that the current Federal code spans more than 175,000 pages. This important legislation will enact a commission to review the regulatory code and make recommendations on which regulations are necessary, which are overlapping, and which are duplicative or obsolete. Wouldn't it be a refreshing change, Mr. Speaker, if, for once, Washington, D.C., could actually cut red tape instead of creating new barriers to economic growth? Too often regulations have begun to have costs that far outweigh their benefits, seriously harming those they were intended to regulate, help, and protect. Regulations resulting from sue and settle are often impossible to comply with, and the public is removed from the rulemaking process. We can and we must do better. These commonsense reforms in H.R. 712 and H.R. 1155 will help reverse the trend of regulations stunting growth and stalling production and restore the progrowth-oriented structure and direction that Congress has intended. Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to four high school teams that continue to establish Central Washington as the football powerhouse of Washington State. On December 5, (13-1) the Prosser High School Mustangs rolled over the Tumwater Thunderbirds to claim the Washington State 2A High School Football Championship. Led by a stellar defense, the Mustangs amassed four interceptions for the third time in the playoffs. This is Prosser's fifth state football championship. Not to be outdone, the (13-1) Okanogan High School Bulldogs pulled off an amazing, nail-bitter win that you usually only see in the movies. Rallying from a 27-14 third quarter deficit, the Bulldogs pulled off a late-fourth quarter touchdown to defeat the Napavine Tigers 36-34. This was Okanogan's second straight Washington State 2B High School Football Championship. Central Washington teams proved very successful in other divisions as well. In a Knights versus Knights face-off, the Royal High School Knights defeated the Kings' High School Knights in the Washington State 1A High School Championship. The win secured Royal's perfect (14-0) season, their first championship since 2007, and the school's fifth title. Particularly commendable is Royal's defense, which allowed a mere four and a half points average scored against the team throughout the season. Finally, in another nerve-wracking finale, the (13-1) Almira Coulee Hartline High School Warriors edged out Lummi Nation Blackhawks 46-42 for the Washington State 1B High School Football title. Almira Coulee Hartline entered the fourth quarter down 42-38, but after recovering a Lummi fumble on the one yard line, the Warriors began a 99 yard drive that ended with a three yard touchdown with just a minute and a half left on the clock. This was also Almira Coulee Hartline's first title since 2007, and the school's third state championship. Every one of these teams has proudly represented their school. These teams have demonstrated the level of skill, teamwork, and tenacity that will prepare them well for future seasons and for future success in life. Congratulations to Prosser, Okanogan, Royal, and Almira Coulee Hartling on a well-played football season.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to congratulate two high school football teams that continue to establish central Washington as the football powerhouse of Washington State. On December 5, the 13-1 Prosser Mustangs rolled over the Tumwater Thunderbirds to claim the Washington State 2A high school football championship. Led by a stellar defense, the Mustangs amassed four interceptions for the third time in the playoffs. This is Prosser's fifth State football championship. Not to be outdone, the also 13-1 Okanogan High School Bulldogs pulled off an amazing nail-biter win, a win you usually only see in the movies. Rallying from a 27-14 third quarter deficit, the Bulldogs pulled off a late fourth-quarter touchdown to defeat the Napavine Tigers 36-34. This was Okanogan's second straight Washington State 2B high school football championship. Both teams have proudly represented their schools and demonstrated a level of skill, teamwork, and tenacity that will prepare them well for future seasons and for future success in life. Congratulations to both Prosser and Okanogan on well-played seasons.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my Legislative Director, Jason Herbert, and his wife, Erin Kathleen Herbert, on the birth of their daughter, Blakely Elizabeth Herbert. Blakely was born at 2:17 p.m. on Sunday, December 6, 2015. Miss Blakely weighed in at a perfect 7 pounds and 10 ounces. As my Legislative Director, Blakely's father, Jason, has been key to my legislative operation. Jason's stalwart attention to details, and his remarkable ability to stay alert during long and late night Rules Committee hearings and floor debates will serve him well as a father. My entire staff has awaited this good news with eager anticipation of Jason and Erin becoming parents. Blakely is fortunate to have such a loving father and mother. Congratulations and best wishes to Jason and Erin and their entire family on this wonderful addition.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It has been an interesting hour in our discussion of private property rights in Texas and in Oklahoma. We have quite a broad subject here. Let me just say a couple of things before I close. It was just yesterday that the newspaper in Los Angeles, the LA Times, which is not known to be a conservative newspaper, stated: ``One problem is that the people on the no-fly list''--and Mr. McGovern was saying nobody wants to do anything about the no-fly list. The LA Times points out: ``One problem is that the people on the no- fly list . . . have not been convicted of doing anything wrong . . . And the United States doesn't generally punish or penalize people unless and until they have been charged and convicted of a crime.'' It continues: ``But serious flaws in the list have been identified. According to the American Civil Liberties Union''--the ACLU--``which is suing the government over the no-fly list, the two lists include thousands of names that have been added in error . . .The no-fly list has also been used to deny boarding passes to people who only share a name with a suspected terrorist. Former Sen. Ted Kennedy''--from your State of Massachusetts--``was famously questioned at airports in 2004 because a terror suspect had used the alias `T. Kennedy.' It took the senator's office three weeks to get his name cleared.'' Does that sound like common sense to my colleagues? This is about upholding the Constitution, which we all swear an oath to every 2 years. Even the ACLU believes so. Mr. Speaker, even though this has been a great distraction by the other side, I think, to blur the fact that the current administration has no policy in place to defeat terrorism, to defeat ISIS, I think we need to keep our eye on the ball. The special terrorism task force has come up with fully 30 recommendations that I am hopeful the other side of the aisle will help us work through and pass in order to keep this country safe. This is a serious issue that all Americans are concerned with. I am sure my office is no different than anyone else's in that the majority of calls and contacts they have received over the last few weeks has been about security, about being safe in our country. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way to address the true issues that will keep Americans safe and not address the distractions that take away the attention from where it needs to be: on the lack of a clear policy on the administration's part to defeat terrorism. Let me get back to the underlying reason we are having this discussion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that being the Red River Private Property Protection Act. For over 200 years, confusion and dispute over the Texas-Oklahoma border have been ongoing staples of land management in that region. I am sure my colleagues from Oklahoma and Texas would agree with me that the last thing we need further muddying this confusion is a Federal agency's stepping in and claiming ownership of a large portion of that area. Dozens of landowners along the Red River should not have to live in a restless state, unsure if the land they have held titles to, have worked hard to pay taxes on, and, in some cases, have owned for generations will suddenly be snatched up through a shoddily conducted survey. Conducting a survey using the Supreme Court's approved gradient boundary method is the only way to truly find the boundary between public and private ownership to settle this dispute once and for all. My colleagues from Oklahoma and Texas and their constituents deserve to have this matter finally settled and in a just fashion. H.R. 2130 protects private property and settles the question of ownership by requiring the BLM to commission a survey along the entire 116 mile stretch of the Red River using that gradient boundary survey method backed by the Supreme Court to determine the property ownership boundary between private and public land. This bill ensures that the survey is done correctly, accurately, and according to the Supreme Court's instructions. I support the rule's adoption, and I urge my colleagues to support the protection of private landowners, the States, and the affected tribal nations' rights upheld by this rule and the underlying bill. The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 556 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1076.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I have one further speaker.