Red River Private Property Protection Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source