Dan Newhouse

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have just one comment to make in response to the gentleman from Massachusetts. If the definition of regular order is only considering those issues that the administration approves of, then what really is our function here as a Congress? Should we just put a sign out that says that we are closed until a new administration comes along? It seems to me that we have a duty to the American people to consider issues that are important from the majority's perspective. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee. I appreciate his opening comments and take great interest in some of the things that were pointed out. Certainly, nobody in this body on this side of the aisle or on your side is interested in closing down the government and shutting the government. In fact, just yesterday Leader McCarthy stood at this very podium and told everyone to make sure that they kept their travel plans flexible enough to be able to stay here and get their work done. So I think there is a commitment on both sides of the aisle in order to get work done for the American people. Also, protecting Americans in this very dangerous time that we face in the world today is one of the highest priorities that we have as a Congress and is certainly a constitutional duty that all of us take very seriously. We are working very hard. We have committees of jurisdiction working very hard and coming up with workable ideas in order to accomplish just that. In fact, we just passed something this week that had to do with the waiver program for visas that I think will go a long way in keeping this country safe. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can deal with the important issues of the American people as well as not only keeping the government open, keeping Americans safe, but also protecting property rights when a Federal agency creates a problem by trying to take private property away from citizens. In this case, it is not in my State, but tomorrow it could be, and it could be in your State tomorrow. So we can do multiple important things that the American people expect us to do on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, we talked a lot about regular order in my colleague's opening statements, so here we go again. As I said earlier, we are lectured on a daily basis on the importance of regular order. This bill that we are considering here is a perfect example of regular order. It went through the committee process. We have accepted two amendments in the Rules Committee that were offered to perfect this bill that the Members of this full body will get an opportunity to voice their opinions on and to vote whether they accept them or not. Just last week, Mr. Speaker, we heard two conference reports: one on the highways bill and one on education. That is a great example of regular order being reestablished in this House of Representatives. Speaker Ryan is committed to regular order, working from the ground up, letting the committees do their jobs, and allowing every Member to have a voice in this process. So I am very happy. I am very optimistic about the future of this body and our ability to get work done under Republican leadership. I think we have shown that we can get work done, and we are doing a great job doing it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry). He would like to speak on this issue of the Red River Valley.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 556, providing for consideration of an important piece of legislation, H.R. 2130, the Red River Private Property Protection Act. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2130 under a structured rule, making every amendment submitted to the committee in order, which includes a manager's amendment and an amendment by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2130, the Red River Private Property Protection Act, is critically important to protecting private property in the great States of Texas and Oklahoma. This bill prevents the Federal Government from seizing thousands of acres of private land that is lawfully owned by American citizens along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between Oklahoma and Texas. The Bureau of Land Management, or the BLM, is currently updating its Texas and Oklahoma Resources Management Plan, which covers this stretch of the Red River. BLM initially stated that there are an estimated 90,000 acres of land along this stretch of the river that may be considered public domain and managed as Federal land. They have since reduced this estimate to 30,000. Of these 30,000 acres, less than 6,500 acres have actually been surveyed. These revisions and drastically different estimates based upon a fraction of acreage surveyed have caused great concern among landowners and local stakeholders. H.R. 2130 would commission a survey of the entire 116-mile stretch of the contested area along the Red River using the gradient boundary survey method developed and backed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1923's decision, Oklahoma v. Texas, that determined the proper boundaries between private and federally owned land. This decision set the precedent for determining the boundaries, including taking into account the doctrine of erosion, accretion, and avulsion of the Red River, which changes rapidly and materially in flood. The underlying bill states the survey must be conducted within 2 years by licensed State land surveyors and approved by the Texas General Land Office in conjunction with the Commissioners of the Land Office in Oklahoma. Once the survey is approved, affected landowners have the ability to appeal the survey to an administrative law judge. After the boundary between public and private land is settled, the BLM is required to sell the remaining Federal land along the Red River at no less than fair market value. Landowners will rightly be given the rights of first refusal. H.R. 2130 also requires that a resource management plan adhere to the requirements in the bill and explicitly states that nothing in the language will affect the Red River Boundary Compact, which established the visible boundaries between the two States and solves jurisdictional and sovereignty disputes. Land already patented under the Color-of-Title Act will not be affected nor will the sovereignty of federally recognized Indian tribes regarding land that is located to the north of the South Bank boundary line. Mr. Speaker, the entire section of this 116-mile stretch has never even been surveyed by the BLM, and the small portions that the agency has surveyed appear to stray widely from the accepted gradient boundary survey method endorsed by the Supreme Court. Uncertainty clouds all decisions being made with regard to this land. The BLM has never actively managed the small strip of land they actually do own, as they are unsure of exactly what land it is they own. Meanwhile, the agency appears incapable of understanding basic natural movements of the river. While the approved survey method makes clear that ownership boundaries between private and public land will change with the movements of the river over time, BLM surveys do not. A major determinant of land ownership must reflect the location of the existing median line of the river while taking into account past changes in the river's movement. While BLM fails to understand the very land they claim to be surveying, landowners along the river are left unsure if the land they have held titles to and have paid taxes on will remain their property or be subject to Federal ownership. This uncertainty threatens the value of privately owned lands. It clouds the title and causes landowners to think twice before making improvements on their land. This insecurity is harming local landowners and local economies, stifling any potential economic development in the area. H.R. 2130 will solve this problem and clear up the uncertainty caused by BLM's decision, after over 90 years, to suddenly decide to claim the rights to this land. In conjunction with the States and affected tribes, this legislation will make clear the true ownership of the property. The House Natural Resources Committee, which I sit on, favorably ordered this bill in September. It is important to note that this legislation is an updated version of legislation introduced in the 113th Congress and reflects the input received from landowners, both States in subject, as well as feedback provided by the minority members on the Natural Resources Committee. So I believe the updates reflect the bipartisan nature in which this legislation was drafted and highlights the necessity of solving this problem for the people of Texas and the people of Oklahoma. This legislation is necessary to not only right an obvious wrong in this specific instance regarding the Oklahoma-Texas border, but is essential to ensuring that local landowners have a judicious, practical process to firmly establish title to their rightfully owned land. Government exists to protect our natural rights. Those include property rights. H.R. 2130 will put in place the proper process to ensure government agencies assist, rather than impede, with the protection of private property. So, Mr. Speaker, this rule allowing for consideration of H.R. 2130, the Red River Private Property Protection Act, will support the protection of private property and prevent the Federal Government from falsely claiming thousands of acres of land lawfully owned by American citizens. I support the rule's adoption. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleagues from Connecticut and Massachusetts. I can't think of one person out of 535 Members of Congress that wants terrorists to have a firearm. Certainly not. That is not something that is even in question. I do find it very interesting, especially from my colleague from Massachusetts--and which we sit together on the Rules Committee--to bring up a point of something that, I would say, he advocates for daily on this floor and in this body and, that is, to follow regular order to allow pieces of legislation to go through the committee process, to allow every Member of this body to have their input, to have their say, to be able to amend, to be able to argue, to be able to debate, to allow it to go through the process that this body stands for, until today when it is their side of the aisle's idea that they have to move an issue forward. They say: Let's circumvent regular order, let's bring something that has not gone through the committee process, that has not allowed every Member of this body to weigh in on, to debate, to bring up amendments, to make their feelings known. Let's only do it when it is not their idea. That is the message I am getting. So, Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the enormity of the issue before us. We are working on many bills in this legislative body to deal with the issue of terrorism in front of us as a Nation and as a world. I hope that Members of the other side of the aisle will support those efforts to make this country safer. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is should the House now consider House Resolution 556. While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of today's measures, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In fact, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut clearly agrees, she did not even mention the word ``unfunded'' once in her comments. The waiver is only necessary to ensure that the House can continue with its scheduled business. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has stated in its analysis of this measure that there are no violations of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Mr. Speaker, this is a dilatory tactic. This straightforward bill will provide certainty to the landowners on the Red River who are unsure if the land to which they hold title and have paid taxes on will remain in their families. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 556 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, at Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown, it's reported that the Marquis de Lafayette praised America saying, ``Humanity has gained its suit; Liberty will nevermore be without an asylum.'' To this day his words ring true; America continues to uphold justice over tyranny and terror, and spreads the values of individual freedom across the globe. However, Lafayette's words also remind us that America has never been alone in that struggle. Since the inception of our nation, the French people have been our compatriots in advancing the causes of justice and liberty. Last week, our oldest friend--an ally of peace and justice--was brutally and senselessly attacked by terrorists. As they have been there during our struggles, we must now be there for the French people. While we mourn together now, we must also unite and stand against global terrorism. The terrorists responsible must be brought to justice for these horrendous acts, ensuring both of our nations remain defenders of liberty for generations to come.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the opening of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, a significant part of which is in my Congressional District in the State of Washington. Decades of successful cleanup efforts at the Hanford nuclear site have come to fruition with the dedication of the historic B Reactor as a part of this national park. The B Reactor was the world's first full- scale plutonium production reactor, helping our country end World War II and the cold war. The new park will highlight the sacrifices and the contributions of thousands of workers who built the facility and the scientists whose groundbreaking research played a critical role in the Manhattan Project. More than 50,000 visitors have toured the site since 2009, and the park will attract thousands more to learn about our region's history. The park will provide future generations with a unique educational experience. I applaud the efforts of the community who has worked for years to make this national park a reality. I will continue to support the opening of additional sites for public access in order to preserve and tell the story of Hanford.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my legislation, the Ensuring Continued Operations and No Other Major Incidents, Closures, or Slowdowns (ECONOMICS) Act of 2015. From late 2014 through February 2015, a dispute between the Pacific Maritime Association and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union drastically slowed import and export traffic at our 29 West Coast ports, paralyzing supply chains and the economy west of the Mississippi River. This dispute had severe and devastating economic impacts on Washington's 4th Congressional District, the Pacific Northwest, and the country--as agricultural producers, retailers, manufacturers, and countless other businesses and consumers were unable to get their goods through the ports and to foreign as well as domestic markets. This legislation would create new economic safeguards and triggers that mandate a legal mediation process in an employer-labor dispute at our nation's ports, in order to prevent future disputes and slowdowns. The measure would require the Administration to investigate a dispute and prevent unnecessary economic harm by mandating that a Board of Inquiry be convened within 10 days of any of the safeguards being triggered and then report its recommendations to the President and the public on whether there should be a judicial injunction. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that Congress provide additional tools to keep supply chains operating and the economy running during times of severe economic hardship and this legislation does just that. This commonsense and straightforward bill takes an important first step in mitigating the negative impacts of future labor disputes at our nation's ports, which will help protect the economy, as well as families, businesses, and agricultural producers, many of whom are still recovering from the most recent slowdown at our West Coast ports.

Mr. NEWHOUSE

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Shuster, as well as Ranking Member DeFazio and all the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their hard work on this large bill, this legislation. The amendment I offer today for myself and Mr. Schrader of Oregon is vitally important to the American economy. Nearly a year ago, a dispute began at 29 of our Nation's West Coast ports that drastically slowed imports and exports to a near standstill. Agricultural products rotted on the docks. Retailers couldn't get products to stores. American manufacturers could not get their products to foreign customers. By one estimate, there was nearly $7 billion in damages to our economy. Mr. Chairman, I have no interest in pointing fingers over who is responsible for the dispute. However, I do believe that Congress has a great interest in preventing future disruptions from harming our businesses and consumers as well as our economy. One thing that became abundantly clear during the disruption was that there was very little data available to gauge how our ports are functioning on a day-to-day basis. If something is impeding port performance, be it a dispute, major congestion, or even a natural disaster, we need to know if and how our ports are suffering before it harms our economy and standing with foreign trading partners. This amendment is simple. It requires the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to collect and make available data on how our Nation's ports are operating. Currently, the Bureau collects this information for our railroads, for our highways, and our airports. We also need this information for our ports as well. The amendment that we are introducing is already in the Senate highway bill. It has been approved by the Senate Commerce Committee by voice vote. This is not and should not be controversial. I also want to note that there are over 150 organizations supporting this measure, organizations like the National Retail Federation, the American Farm Bureau, the Association of American Railroads, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Trucking Association. The list goes on and on. It has very broad multi-industry and bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about transparency and certainty for our Nation's economy. If something is harming our ports, our decisionmakers need information to address and mitigate that harm. Now, I would have urged my colleagues to adopt this amendment, just as a broad, bipartisan group did so in the Senate, but I have been in close conversation with staff of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as the chairman and the ranking member. I would ask for continued commitment on the part of the chairman to keep working on this issue. It is very important and vital to the economy of the United States. With that commitment, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.