# Investigation: H.R. 9022 Sec. 108 — Title I, Section 108 HR 9022 — 119-hr-9022-rh · 119th Congress Evidence boundary 2026-07-28 · Bench 4 of the record Terrain: narrow · 78% confidence Part of [FY27 appropriations riders: what survives?](https://prism.vote/record/fy27-rider-survival.md) ## Screening · Staff Read Terrain: blocked · 60% confidence This provision prohibits the Secretary of the Army from enforcing regulations that ban firearms at water resources development projects if the possessor complies with state law and is not otherwise prohibited. While there has been prior legislative attention to firearms on federal lands through the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, this specific mechanism of statutorily prohibiting the Army Secretary from enforcing firearm regulations at water resources projects appears to be novel, with no textually similar enacted precedent. The approach of directly prohibiting a federal agency from enforcing its own regulations is a significant departure from normal legislative practice. ## Observation · Brief The initial screen called this "novel"; the record says the opposite. This provision has been a recurring rider in House Energy-Water appropriations bills since the 112th Congress (2011), appearing fourteen times across eight years of Republican-controlled Houses. The text has been carried essentially verbatim through successive Energy-Water markups: 112th, 113th, 114th, 115th, then a gap, then the 118th, and now the 119th. That gap maps exactly to the 116th and 117th Congresses (2019 to 2022), when Democrats controlled the House. The provision returns in every Republican House majority and disappears in every Democratic one. This is a position-marker with a perfect partisan on/off switch; nothing about it is a novel drafting experiment. ### Evidence - **Provision comparison** — H.R. 5325 (112th), sec. 111, through H.R. 9022 (119th), sec. 108 — Fourteen appearances, 112th through 119th Congress > First appeared in H.R. 5325, the 112th Congress Energy-Water appropriations bill. Carried through the 113th (2 versions), 114th (2 versions), and 115th (4 versions), returned in the 118th (2 versions), and again in the 119th (current). No appearances in the 116th or 117th Congress, corresponding exactly to Democratic House control. ## Observation · Brief The regulation this provision targets is 36 CFR 327.13, which explicitly prohibits possession of loaded firearms at Army Corps water projects except for law enforcement officers, licensed hunting and fishing, and authorized shooting ranges. The provision would prevent the Secretary of the Army from enforcing that rule for anyone who is legally permitted to possess a firearm and complies with state law, effectively importing the National Parks model into Army Corps lands. That National Park Service model was enacted in 2009 through the Credit CARD Act, but Congress specifically left Army Corps lands untouched at that time. Rep. Gibbs (R-OH) named this gap explicitly on the House floor in 2016: "In 2010, legislation was enacted that allows campers, hikers, and sportsmen who are legally allowed to possess a firearm to protect themselves and their families on land operated by the National Park Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service. Unfortunately, this law left millions of acres overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers closed." Every Energy-Water appropriations rider since 2011 has tried to close that gap through the annual spending bill rather than authorizing legislation. None has been enacted. ### Evidence - **Legal reference** — 36 CFR 327.13 — Explosives, firearms, other weapons and fireworks > The possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or other weapons is prohibited unless: (1) In the possession of a Federal, state or local law enforcement officer; (2) Being used for hunting or fishing as permitted under § 327.8, with devices being unloaded when transported to, from or between hunting and fishing sites; (3) Being used at authorized shooting ranges. - **Floor debate** — CREC-2016-02-25 (SHARE Act debate) — Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015 — Rep. Gibbs (R-OH) — 2016-02-25 > In 2010, legislation was enacted that allows campers, hikers, and sportsmen who are legally allowed to possess a firearm to protect themselves and their families on land operated by the National Park Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service. Unfortunately, this law left millions of acres overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers closed to those who want to legally arm and protect. ## Observation · Brief The most telling terrain signal is the enacted record: no enacted bill in the analyzed corpus carries near-identical text. This provision has passed the House floor repeatedly under Republican majorities, including House-passed versions in the 115th and 118th Congresses, but has never survived the Senate or a conference or four-corners negotiation into a signed appropriations law. Rep. DeSaulnier (D-CA) offered an amendment on the House floor in May 2016 specifically targeting the firearms rider in the Energy-Water bill, describing it as "another attempt by the majority to promote the interests of the gun lobby" and calling it an "inappropriate mechanism" for gun policy, the kind of floor opposition that foreshadows Senate resistance. The FY2019 Energy-Water committee report carried formal minority views, confirming that Democratic appropriators have consistently documented their opposition on the record. ### Evidence - **Floor debate** — CREC-2016-05-24 (Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2017) — DeSaulnier amendment to strike firearms provision — Rep. DeSaulnier (D-CA) — 2016-05-24 > Section 111 of the bill explicitly prohibits the Secretary of the Army from preventing someone from bringing a loaded weapon onto Federal Army Corps property. This divisive gun policy is nothing more than another attempt by the majority, unfortunately, to promote the interests of the gun lobby. It chips away at the safety and well-being of the Army Corps personnel and surrounding communities. Not only is this gun rider widely considered bad policy, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill is an inappropriate mechanism for debating gun policy. - **Provision comparison** — Enacted provisions compared against this text — No enacted bill carries near-identical text > No enacted bill in the analyzed corpus carries near-identical text, in a corpus where comparable provisions routinely do reach law. That absence, set against fourteen years of House-only passage, is strong evidence of a Senate ceiling. ## Insight · Brief The picture that emerges is a provision with a bifurcated track record: perfect House passage under Republican majorities, zero Senate or conference enactment. The Army Corps firearms gap has been pursued through at least three separate legislative vehicles (Energy-Water annual appropriations riders, the SHARE Act, which passed the House in the 112th, 113th, and 115th Congresses, and a House amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act in 2016), and none of them closed the gap. This is not a provision that died in committee or failed on the House floor. It cleared the House repeatedly. The ceiling has always been the Senate, where the rider's policy weight makes it the first casualty in any bipartisan negotiation. In a four-corners process without floor amendments, that dynamic concentrates. The question for the FY27 endgame under unified Republican government is whether Senate Republicans will treat this as a must-have or a trading chip. History says trading chip. ## Observation · Brief The Trump administration's Statement of Administration Policy for the FY2019 Energy-Water bill "strongly supports" the bill overall but does not specifically call out the firearms provision, neither endorsing it nor objecting. The administration's silence on that specific rider is notable: it was content to let the House majority carry it, but it was not a White House priority that would have generated pressure to preserve it in Senate negotiations. No committee hearings specifically on Army Corps firearms restrictions appear in the record, confirming this issue has been handled exclusively through the appropriations rider process rather than the standard committee hearing and markup track that would build a stronger Senate-side record. Both factors reinforce the trading-chip characterization: the rider has administration acquiescence without White House advocacy, and no hearing record to anchor it politically on the Senate side. ### Evidence - **Legal reference** — SAP for H.R. 5895 (115th Congress, FY2019 Energy-Water), June 5, 2018 — Trump Administration Statement of Administration Policy > The Administration strongly supports [the bill overall]. [No mention of the firearms provision in the detailed objections or endorsements.] The Administration strongly supports the overall Defense levels... the Administration does not support the BBA's non-Defense cap... ## Synthesis · Brief This is a well-established House appropriations rider, fourteen carries across eight years of Republican Congresses, that has never breached the Senate threshold. The provision reliably passes the House under Republican majorities, including at least two House-passed bills confirmed in the record, and disappears completely in Democratic-controlled Houses. The regulatory target is 36 CFR 327.13, which explicitly prohibits loaded firearms at Army Corps water projects except for law enforcement, hunting, fishing, and shooting ranges. The provision would disable enforcement of that rule for state-law-compliant holders who are not otherwise prohibited, a defensible design modeled on the Credit CARD Act's National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service approach, which Congress deliberately chose not to extend to Army Corps lands in 2009. ### Viable paths 1. **Energy-Water annual appropriations (House-passed, four-corners negotiation)** - Mechanism: House general provision rider prohibiting Army Secretary enforcement of 36 CFR 327.13 for state-law-compliant, legally eligible holders - Evidence: House-passed versions confirmed in 115th and 118th Congresses. Committee reports from FY2017 and FY2019 Energy-Water bills show the provision cleared markup in both cycles. Rep. DeSaulnier (D-CA) offered an amendment to strip it on the House floor in May 2016, which failed, confirming it survived House floor votes even under targeted opposition. Trump administration SAP for the FY2019 Energy-Water bill strongly supported the bill without objecting to the firearms provision. - Tradeoff: No enacted match for this text across 14 years of recurring inclusion. Senate Democrats documented formal opposition in minority views for the FY2019 report and have consistently used the 'inappropriate vehicle for gun policy' framing to resist the rider in any bipartisan spending negotiation. In a CR, this provision does not survive: CRs freeze spending without adding new policy riders. - Example sections: 112-hr-5325-eh-I.sec-111, 115-hr-3219-eh-D.I.sec-109, 118-hr-4394-eh-I.sec-110 2. **SHARE Act / Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act (standalone authorization)** - Mechanism: Dedicated title in a sportsmen's omnibus closing the Army Corps gap left open by the 2009 NPS/FWS model - Evidence: The SHARE Act passed the House in the 112th, 113th, and 115th Congresses carrying the Army Corps firearms provision explicitly. Rep. Gibbs named the gap on the House floor in 2014 and 2016. The provision was also attached as a House amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act (S. 2012) in 2016 with bipartisan floor support. - Tradeoff: No version of the SHARE Act has passed the Senate. Standalone authorization vehicles face the same Senate 60-vote threshold and additionally require committee action the Senate has not provided on this issue. This path is a longer shot than the appropriations route. - Example sections: 115-hr-3354-pcs-L.I.sec-109 Terrain: narrow · 78% confidence Path forward: For the FY27 endgame, the decisive variable is Senate Republican leadership posture in the four-corners negotiation. Under unified Republican government the theoretical ceiling is marginally higher than in prior mixed-control cycles, but Senate appropriations still typically need 60 votes and this rider has been the explicit target of amendment efforts and formal minority views in every recent cycle. In a CR or short-term extension, this provision does not survive. In a full-year omnibus, it is a known trading chip that has been dropped every prior cycle. Survival odds rise only if Senate Republican leadership explicitly holds the line, a posture with no historical precedent in this record. --- Canonical: https://prism.vote/investigations/51a40bbb-9332-4508-8c73-126d75ba5cc0