[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 81 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4201-H4205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 900 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2.
Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) kindly resume the
chair.
{time} 1832
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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for the reform and continuation of
agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture
through fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes, with Mr. Collins of
Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 16 printed in House Report 115-679 offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) had been disposed of.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Russell
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gallagher). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 17 printed in House Report 115-679.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 386, line 23, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Section''.
Page 387, after line 5, insert the following:
(b) Exclusion of Alcohol Products From Definition.--Section
231(a)(5) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1632a(a)(5)) is amended by
adding below subparagraph (B) the following:
``The term `value-added agricultural product' does not
include beer, wine, distilled spirits, hard cider, or other
alcohol product.''.
(c) Rescission.--Of the funds made available under section
231(b)(7)(A) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000
(as in effect before the date of the enactment of this
section) to the Secretary of Agriculture to make value-added
agricultural product market development grants and
unobligated as of such date of enactment, $8,000,000 is
hereby rescinded.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses but redirects; it
does not eliminate any funds from the Value Added Producer Grants.
These $18 million worth of grants are designed to generate new
products, expand market opportunities, and assist beginning and
socially disadvantaged farmers, family farms, and even veterans
entering farming.
Unfortunately, millions of these funds go to fund alcohol products.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with alcohol products, of the
government funds that are used for promotion of these products through
the program, we also note that the alcohol industry spends $7.6 million
a year in lobbying costs.
Not only do these tax dollars used to fund the promotion of alcohol
take away from non-alcohol-based farmers and ranchers, they also
compete with the Government itself.
Every year, we spend millions of dollars to curtail the use and abuse
of alcohol.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the impacts and loss of
alcohol abuse results in $249 billion a year in economic, workplace
absence, healthcare loss, criminal justice expenses, and vehicle crash
costs.
Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense that the Government should spend
money to both promote and curtail an industry.
This amendment preserves the Value Added Grants for farmers that have
no $8-million-a-year industry to lobby for them, and it ends the
duplicitous practice of the Government being both for and against
something that costs the Nation nearly $250 billion in annual economic
loss.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Russell
amendment, which, if enacted, would have a detrimental impact on
producers across our Nation, including many of my wine, grape, and hops
producers, as well as the beer and wine industry, not only in my State,
but around the country.
This amendment proposes to eliminate wine, distilled spirits, beer,
and other alcohol products from the Value Added Producer Grant program
administered by the USDA.
These industries, in my State and, quite frankly, across the Nation,
are a growing segment of our farm economy, providing thousands of jobs.
It is also important to point out the growing significance of wine
and hops exports to their industries. Last year, my State exported $28
million of wine, representing about 5 percent of our total production.
In my home valley of the Yakima Valley in the State of Washington, we
account for 75 percent of the U.S. production of hops. With the
continued boom of microbreweries and the demand for hops, we must
ensure we have available markets.
Our wine grape growers and the wine industry continue to face
challenges in export markets, such as the recent tariffs placed on our
products by China.
We are in an environment with potential changes in international
trade, and farmers are looking for more export markets.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose any efforts to limit our
farmers' ability to find markets for their products.
Mr. Chair, I include these letters of support in the Record: one from
the Wine Institute, Wine America, Distilled Spirits Council, and the
Brewers Association; and one from the Specialty Crop Farm Bill
Alliance.
May 17, 2018.
Re Oppose Russell Amendment to the Farm Bill.
Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the nearly 9,000
small, family owned wineries, 6,200 small and independent
breweries and approximately 1,700 distilleries spread across
rural America to urge you to vote against the Russell
Amendment to the Farm Bill.
This amendment would unfairly target a vibrant and growing
segment of U.S. agriculture by seeking to block small
wineries, breweries and distilleries from participating in
USDA's value-added agriculture marketing grants. Combined,
the American
[[Page H4202]]
wine, brewing and spirits industries have a direct economic
impact of $287 billion on the United States economy and
support more than 5 million jobs nationwide.
Wineries, distilleries and breweries in America represent
the very epitome of value-added agriculture, bringing quality
jobs and generating much needed tourism to farming
communities across the country. This amendment would make it
harder for these communities to benefit fully from this
opportunity.
We urge you to support these small businesses and their
communities buy opposing the Russell Amendment.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Koch,
President & CEO, Wine Institute.
James Trezise,
President, WineAmerica.
Robert D. Pease,
President & CEO, Brewers Association.
Mark Gorman,
SVP Government Relations, Distilled Spirits Council.
____
SCFBA,
Washington, DC, May 16, 2018.
Dear Members of the House of Representatives: The Specialty
Crop Farm Bill Alliance representing over 120 specialty crop
organizations across the United States appreciate Chairman
Conaway's efforts on H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition
Act that initiates the formal 2018 Farm Bill process and for
his diligent efforts to complete Committee action on the
measure and get it to the floor of the House. After a
thorough review of the H.R. 2, the Alliance is also pleased
to see that the Committee has retained many of the specialty
crop provisions that were included in the 2014 Farm Bill.
Included in the House version are provisions funding key
specialty crop priorities such as:
Specialty Crop Block Grants ($85 million/year);
Specialty Crop Research Initiative ($80 million/year);
Trade Programs including MAP ($200 million/year) and TASC
($9 Million/year);
Pest and Disease Programs ($75 million/year) and National
Clean Plant Network ($5 million/year);
Food Insecurity and Nutrition Incentive Program (FINI)
(Increased to $285 million over five years).
These funding commitments demonstrate that the House
recognizes the value of these programs and their tremendous
importance to the specialty crop industry and the Alliance is
grateful for their inclusion in the House legislation. With
debate over the next several days on a series of amendments
to H.R. 2, we would like to draw your attention to several
amendments we interested in. In particular the Specialty Crop
Farm Bill Alliance opposes the following amendments:
Amendment 50 by Rep. Russell prohibits USDA value-added
grants for wine and other products;
Amendment 71 by Reps. Brat, Blumenauer, and Titus on
Checkoff Programs;
Amendment 93 by Rep McClintock on Crop Insurance;
Amendment 97 by Rep. Faso on Plant Pests;
Amendment 100 by Rep. Rogers on multivitamin purchases
through SNAP.
Finally, we look forward to continuing to work with
Chairman Conaway and Members of the House Agriculture
Committee on further policy objectives that we believe will
strengthen this bill and assist the specialty crop industry
to compete in a domestic and global market place. These
priorities are consistent with our requests since last year
and in previous Farm Bills which include enhancing nutrition
programs, continuing to support Specialty Crop Block Grant
programs, combatting invasive pest and diseases, support
trade programs, and research funding.
We look forward to the Farm Bill being considered on the
House floor this week and that you will strongly consider our
views on the amendments mentioned above.
Thank you,
John Keeling,
Executive Vice President & CEO, National Potato Council,
SCFBA Steering Committee Co-Chair.
Mike Stuart,
President & CEO, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association,
SCFBA Steering Committee Co-Chair.
Tom Nassif,
President, Western Growers Association, SCFBA Steering
Committee Co-Chair.
Robert Guenther,
Sr. Vice President of Public Policy, United Fresh Produce
Association, SCFBA Steering Committee Secretariat.
Attachment: List of Specialty Crop Coalition Members.
Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance Organization
Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance Steering Committee
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, Co-Chair; National
Potato Council, Co-Chair; Western Growers Association, Co-
Chair; United Fresh Produce Association, Executive
Secretariat; American Mushroom Institute; American Mushroom
Institute; AmericanHort; America Pistachio Association; Blue
Diamond Growers; California Association of Winegrape Growers;
California Citrus Mutual; California Fresh Fruit Association;
California Table Grape Commission; Florida Tomato Exchange;
Georgia Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association.
Idaho Grower Shippers Association; Idaho Potato Commission;
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Watermelon
Association; National Grape Research Alliance; Northwest
Horticultural Council; Produce Marketing Association; Sunkist
Growers; Sun-Maid Growers; Texas International Produce
Association; U.S. Apple Association; Washington State Potato
Commission; Wild Blueberry Commission of Maine.
Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance Member Organizations
Alabama Watermelon Association; Arizona Winegrowers
Association; Buy California Marketing Agreement; California
Association of Nurseries & Garden Centers; California Canning
Peach Association; California Dried Plum Board; California
Fig Institute; California Fresh Fig Growers Association;
California Strawberry Commission; California Walnut
Commission; California-Arizona Watermelon Association; Cherry
Marketing Institute; Colorado Potato Administrative
Committee; Colorado Wine Industry Development Board.
Connecticut Farm Wine Development Council; Connecticut
Vineyard & Winery Association; Empire State Potato Growers;
Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Citrus Packers; Florida
Strawberry Growers Association; Florida Sweet Corn Exchange;
Florida Watermelon Association; Fruit Growers Marketing
Association; Georgia Watermelon Association; Grower-Shipper
Association of Central California; Idaho Grape Growers and
Wine Producers Commission; Indian River Citrus League;
Indiana-Illinois Watermelon Association.
Leafy Greens Council; Maine Potato Board; Maryland-Delaware
Watermelon Association; Maryland Wineries Association; Miami-
Dade County; Michigan Apple Committee; Minnesota Area II
Potato Growers Research and Promotion Council; Minnesota
Grape Growers Association; Missouri Wine & Grape Board;
National Berry Crop Initiative; National Grape Cooperative
Association; National Onion Association; National Peach
Council; New England Vegetable and Berry Growers.
New Mexico Wine Growers Association; New York Apple
Association; New York Wine & Grape Foundation; North American
Blueberry Council; North American Bramble Growers
Association; North American Strawberry Growers Association;
North Carolina Blueberry Council; North Carolina Grape & Wine
Council; North Carolina Potato Association; North Carolina
Strawberry Association; North Carolina Watermelon
Association; Northern Kentucky Vintners & Grape Growers
Association; Northern Plains Potato Growers.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.; Ohio Wine Producers
Association; Oklahoma Grape Growers & Wine Makers
Association; Oregon Potato Commission; Oregon Raspberry &
Blackberry Commission; Oregon Strawberry Commission; Oregon
Wine Advocacy Council; Oregon Winegrowers Association; Peace
River Valley Citrus Growers Association; Peerbolt Crop
Management; Potato Growers of Idaho; Rocky Mountain
Association of Vintners & Viticulturists.
South Carolina Watermelon Association; Tennessee Farm
Winegrowers Association; Texas Citrus Mutual; Texas Vegetable
Association; Texas Wine & Grape Growers Association; Texas
Watermelon Association; Tropical Fruit Growers of South
Florida; United Fresh Potato Growers of Idaho; United Potato
Growers of America; Virginia Apple Growers Association;
Virginia Wineries Association; Washington Association of Wine
Grape Growers; Washington Red Raspberry Commission.
Washington State Apple Commission; Welch's; Western
Pistachio Association; Western Watermelon Association; Wine
Institute; Wine Producers Commission; WineAmerica; Winegrape
Growers of America; Winegrowers Association of Georgia;
WineMichigan; Wyoming Grape & Wine Association; Yakima Valley
Growers-Shippers Association.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, we should not be singling out key
agricultural industries under programs like this. We should not be
picking winners and losers among our farmers.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose the Russell
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms.
Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Washington State
for yielding me the time and for speaking against this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I am sorry to say to my colleague from the other side of
the aisle, we oppose this amendment,
[[Page H4203]]
which would remove money from the highly successful Value Added
Producer Grant program.
The base text of this farm bill already removes all mandatory funding
from VAPG. Now this amendment would make a bad situation worse by
rescinding $8 million from VAPG.
The Value Added Producer Grant is one of the only grant programs that
goes directly to farmers.
At a time when the farm economy is hurting, we should be helping
farmers find new markets, not taking away opportunities to do so.
USDA's Economic Research Service released a new report earlier this
month. Businesses that receive VAPG support are less likely to fail
than nonrecipient businesses, and businesses that receive VAPG support
also employ more workers than nonrecipient businesses.
This amendment would also exclude beer, wine, distilled spirits, and
hard cider projects from being eligible for VAPG. It is completely
arbitrary and foolish to restrict these products.
In my State of Maine, there has been an explosion of craft breweries,
distilleries, and cideries that are contributing to the local economy.
Two years ago, Ricker Hill Orchards in Maine received VAPG money to
increase production of hard cider and fruit wine. This provided the
farmers with an opportunity to diversify revenue and reach new markets.
This may be a very small program, but it can make a big impact on
farmers and rural communities in States like mine and across the
country.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, ``a bad situation worse''? You want to see
a bad situation? How about this: Just in the District of Columbia, $3.5
billion in 2010 in direct economic costs; $179 billion of the total
cost of alcohol consumption comes from a loss in workplace
productivity.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything for or against, or want to
promote prohibition or anything of the like. The matter is that these
crops can stand on their own. They receive $8 million a year nearly,
$7.67 million from the alcohol industry in lobbying costs. They already
have their promoters. These crops can stand on their own. However, of
the $18 million in this Value Added fund, $8 million of that goes to
the alcohol industry.
So when we are talking about picking winners and losers, I think we
have already seen who is being picked here, and it is the fleecing of
the American people.
What about those that are new farmers, family farms, even veterans
that are trying to enter the farming industry but they don't want to
grow hops? Maybe they want to grow something that we eat that doesn't
have a detrimental $250 billion a year of an impact.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would argue that I would probably have to be
drunk to think that the Government should both promote and curtail
something at the same time.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I believe I have the right to close, so I
would reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has the right to close.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chair, it is my amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I have one speaker. I yield the balance of
my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, how much time does the gentleman have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Washington State for the opportunity to yield to me to discuss this
important issue.
Mr. Chair, this amendment, some in the room might think perhaps will
target the Market Access Program, but, in fact, it is the Value Added
Producer Grant program.
This is a program that supports and helps producers add value to the
products that they raise.
I would tell you my chief concern at this point in time in the way
this amendment has been offered is that about $8 million of the
rescissions of this program would come out of current programs that
farmers have already applied for. USDA has already scored the
applications, it has compiled proposals to make a decision and
announcement on grant awards; thus, the amendment wouldn't just
adversely affect the small producer-owned wineries, but producers
across the board, including those from Oklahoma who have and expect to
receive grants.
That is not fair. If you played by the rules, if you have gone
through the grant process, if you have qualified, suddenly to have $8
million taken out to punish a particular industry means that even
though you might not be a part of that industry, you lose your
opportunity to add value.
Maybe this is an issue that needs to be discussed on a different day
in a different way, but I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I have the greatest of respect for my fellow Oklahoman,
but on this occasion, let's turn this amendment back.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have the deepest respect for
my colleague from Oklahoma, and he and I see eye to eye on most issues,
but on this one, it makes no sense that we spend nearly 40 percent of
the Value Added program--which, by the way, I never addressed Market
Access Program, that was never even mentioned--but the Value Added
program is not adding value when $250 billion of economic cost hits the
United States; $27 billion comes from healthcare expenses; $25 billion
to criminal justice; $12.5 billion to vehicle crashes. We all pay for
this.
{time} 1845
But why should we both promote and curtail it? We spend millions of
dollars in the Federal Government to control and contain abuse and also
rehabilitation programs, which are good.
So we need to choose, Mr. Chairman. Are we for something, or are we
against something? We may be one, we may be the other, but we cannot be
both.
Mr. Chairman, I know these are contentious issues, but it is
interesting to watch in the course of our politics over time. This is
not a partisan issue; this is an American issue.
I say it is not partisan because if we were holding this debate 30
years ago you would have had a flip-flop, but as we have seen shift in
parties in States and regions of the country, we might politically have
parties go one direction or the other, but it seems like the special
interests remain in the middle.
And if we are really talking about promoting value-added crops and
entering new farmers in the workplace, then we don't need to give 40
percent to the alcohol industry when we already see nearly $8 million
given to them by lobbyists.
Mr. Chairman, I ask people to support this amendment. It saves the
taxpayer dollars. These crops can stand on their own, and they can do
it without the taxpayer subsidization and then our further spending to
try to curtail it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Turner
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in House Report 115-679.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 410, after line 13, insert the following:
[[Page H4204]]
SEC. 7113. RESEARCH AND EXTENSION FUNDING EQUITY FOR RECENTLY
DESIGNATED 1890 INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Extension.--Section 1444(b) of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3221(b)) is amended, in the matter following
paragraph (2)(B), by adding at the end the following:
``Beginning with fiscal year 2019, in making the calculation
under paragraph (1), any recently designated 1890 Institution
shall be deemed to have been designated as an eligible
institution on or before September 30, 1978. For purposes of
the preceding sentence, a `recently designated 1890
Institution' means an 1890 Institution designated as such on
or after September 30, 1999.''.
(b) Research.--Section 1445 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3222) is amended-- by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Beginning with fiscal year 2019, in making the
calculation under paragraph (2)(A), any recently designated
1890 Institution (as defined in section 1444(b)) shall be
deemed to have been designated as an eligible institution on
or before September 30, 1978.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of my amendment to the farm
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I had a great conversation today with Secretary of
Agriculture Perdue in which he spoke very highly of the students,
faculty, and the president of Central State University during his visit
to the university. Central State University is in my congressional
district, and I want to thank Secretary Perdue for his leadership.
I am committed to working with the Secretary's office and all of the
Historically Black Colleges to find a solution during the
appropriations process to stop the disparate funding treatment
currently in place. All 1890 land-grant institutions should be treated
equally.
My commonsense and revenue-neutral amendment evens the playing field
of Federal funding qualifications for all 1890 land-grant Historically
Black Colleges, as it is currently written now.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his support for my
work on this amendment. I specifically want to thank Joyce Beatty, who
supports the amendment and who is the only alumnus from Central State
University.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Stefanik
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in House Report 115-679.
Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Subtitle A of title VIII is amended by adding at the end
the following:
SEC. 8109. INCLUSION OF INVASIVE VEGETATION IN DESIGNATED
TREATMENT AREAS.
Section 602 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, invasive
vegetation,'' after ``insect''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, invasive
vegetation,'' after ``insects''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``, invasive
vegetation,'' after ``insect''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Stefanik) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, our national forests are among our greatest natural
resources. Unfortunately, these forests are under constant threat from
invasive species and disease. You do not have to search far to find a
forest battling invasive pests, disease, or invasive vegetation.
The Healthy Forest Restoration Act was created as a way to help
respond to these persistent threats. My amendment before the House
would simply add invasive vegetation to the Healthy Forest Restoration
Act for the purposes of the designated treatment areas.
Invasive vegetation chokes out our native trees by competing for
moisture, sunlight, nutrients, and space. Species like kudzu climb our
trees and infrastructure and threaten the health and safety of the
areas where it uncontrollably spreads.
When native trees are threatened, it is not just the ecosystem that
is damaged. Local economies and sportsmen and those that use our land
for other forms of recreation all suffer from degraded forestland.
Adding this designation increases the effectiveness of the Healthy
Forest Restoration Act by taking a more encompassing view of the
threats facing our forestland.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Cheney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20
printed in House Report 115-679.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of part III of subtitle C of title VIII, add the
following new section:
SEC. 8334. VACANT GRAZING ALLOTMENTS MADE AVAILABLE TO
CERTAIN GRAZING PERMIT HOLDERS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary concerned shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, make vacant grazing allotments
available to a holder of a grazing permit or lease issued by
such Secretary if the lands covered by the permit or lease
are unusable because of a natural disaster (including a
drought or wildfire), court-issued injunction, or conflict
with wildlife, as determined by the Secretary concerned.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The terms and conditions
contained in a permit or lease for a vacant grazing allotment
made available pursuant to this subsection (a) shall be the
terms and conditions of the most recent permit or lease that
was applicable to such allotment.
(c) Court-issued Injunctions.--A court may not issue any
order enjoining the use of any allotment for which a permit
or lease has been issued by the Secretary concerned and
continues in effect unless the Secretary concerned can make a
vacant grazing allotment available to the holder of such
permit or lease.
(d) Environmental Assessment Under the National
Environmental Policy Act.--Activities carried out by the
Secretary concerned pursuant to subsection (a) are a category
of actions hereby designated as being categorically excluded
from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement under section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, livestock producers in Wyoming and across the West have
been battling for years against a Federal Government that has attempted
systematically to reduce grazing allotments on public lands.
My amendment would simply make vacant grazing allotments available
for our producers should their existing allotments become unavailable
due to unforeseen circumstances such as wildfire, drought, other
natural disasters, or litigation.
Today, some of our ranch families are facing extreme hardship. They
are at risk of losing their livelihood because of factors beyond their
control. Frivolous lawsuits have often resulted in a complete loss of
grazing rights for some of our producers who have been grazing on
public lands for generations.
Mr. Chairman, these circumstances can lead to situations where our
ranchers face two options. They either force their livestock to graze
in confined conditions that are unsuitable and can't support the stock,
or they have to sell their livestock at fire-sale prices.
We have seen family ranches go out of business and others that are
now facing the prospect that their allotments will be lost within the
next
[[Page H4205]]
year--this, all despite the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the Forest Service
has vacant allotments available nearby.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide relief and justice for these
family ranch operations. It would ensure that Federal agencies honor
the terms of these allotments. Best management practices would be
maintained, Mr. Chairman, by ensuring that the terms and the conditions
of the original allotments are honored on the new ones.
Allowing our ranchers to move their livestock to vacant allotments is
plain common sense, and it is the right thing to do, Mr. Chairman, for
our livestock industry.
Our hardworking ranch families shouldn't face the potential of
economic ruin because of natural disaster or frivolous lawsuits. My
amendment will help protect them while we keep them on landscapes they
have grazed on for generations.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to
provide stability and peace of mind for our ranchers across the West.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse).
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman
from Wyoming for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment No. 20 offered by my
friend Ms. Cheney, and I am a proud cosponsor, as well, of this
amendment.
This amendment would provide resources for ranchers that are facing
unforeseeable events, like natural disasters.
In my district, particularly in the northern counties of north-
central Washington, where catastrophic wildfires are becoming far too
common an occurrence, ranchers can be forced off of their allotments
due to wildfires causing their land to be unsuitable for grazing. When
these ranchers are forced off of these allotments due to these external
factors, they have nowhere to take their livestock.
This amendment will provide a solution to this problem by allowing
these ranchers to take their livestock to vacant allotments in the
event they face one of these unfortunate but all too common
occurrences.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge my colleagues to support amendment
No. 20, and I thank my colleague Ms. Cheney for her leadership on this
issue.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my cosponsor, Mr.
Newhouse, and I would also like to thank Chairman Conaway for his work
on this important bill overall.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will just provide
justice for our ranch families.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Garrett) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gallagher, 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. 2) to
provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other
programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2023, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________