Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 81 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 81 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4164-H4173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018

General Leave

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 2.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 891 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 Texas (Mr. Weber) kindly take the chair.

{time} 1419

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. Weber of
Texas (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
May 16, 2018, amendment No. 9 printed in part C of House Report 115-677
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) had been
disposed of.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Herrera Beutler

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. 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 487, after line 4, insert the following:
(d) Stewardship Project Receipts.--Section 604(e) of the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591c(e))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``subject to
paragraph (3)(A),'' before ``shall''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``services received by
the Chief or the Director'' and all that follows through the
period at the end and inserting the following: ``services and
in-kind resources received by the Chief or the Director under
a stewardship contract project conducted under this section
shall not be considered monies received from the National
Forest System or the public lands, but any payments made by
the contractor to the Chief or Director under the project
shall be considered monies received from the National Forest
System or the public lands.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Conaway for the
opportunity to speak on this important amendment that I am offering to
the farm bill today.
I also want to thank my colleague, Congressman Westerman, for his
tireless work on behalf of our rural communities that are dependent on
timber.
Mr. Chairman, the key takeaway here is simple: If moneys are
generated during restorative work in our forests, then a portion of
those moneys generated from that work ought to remain in the community.

[[Page H4165]]

Traditional timber sales require that a quarter of the revenues stay
in the local county. But when the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of
Land Management use what is called stewardship contracts to work in the
forests, none of those proceeds remain locally.
Our forested counties are facing a financial crisis right now.
Federal endangered species listings have left timber-dependent counties
in southwest Washington with little to no revenue from timber sales.
In counties that are primarily federally owned, like Skamania County
in my district, which is 97-percent owned by the government, they are
unable to make up these drastically reduced revenues from property
taxes. This means that, by no fault of their own, they lack the local
tax base to support even the most basic needs of their local
communities, like schools or roads or local fire and police.
To help make up some of that revenue, Congress created the Secure
Rural Schools program in 2000. Unfortunately, despite my and my
colleagues' persistent effort to find a long-term solution through SRS,
we cannot keep relying on the Federal Government's short-term fixes.
That is not doing right by these communities.
This commonsense amendment will empower desperately needed funds to
stay in local communities. Individuals and families should not be
victim to Federal dysfunction. Let's not allow a Federal contracting
program for timber harvest and forest restoration to leave those
neighboring communities empty-handed.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment to ensure that
a portion of the proceeds from these contracts are being rightfully
directed to timber counties.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler) for her leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is at the desk directs a portion of
revenue from stewardship contracting toward individual counties for
further investment in roads, schools, and the like.
This amendment has no effect on in-kind contributions or exchanges of
timber for goods or services provided. This amendment only affects the
rare instance where stewardship contracts are exchanged for cash.
Per the 1908 Forest Service revenue-sharing law, counties are
entitled to 25 percent of all timber receipts sold from Federal lands
within their borders. This amendment simply ensures that if it looks
like a timber sale, where timber is exchanged for cash, counties
receive the same share they would if the Forest Service had sold the
timber outright.
The argument that this amendment siphons off money from the Forest
Service is false. This amendment does not affect or reduce the
reinvestment from in-kind contributions. Furthermore, little investment
can be made in our Nation's forest at all if there are no local
communities to cultivate the investment.
This amendment ensures that counties can continue to invest in their
forests and their children's future, both by protecting the good work
of stewardship contracting and by ensuring that our rural counties get
their fair share.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support a fair share for rural
communities.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Mr. GOSAR. 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:

Strike section 8331 and insert the following new section:

SEC. 8331. GOOD NEIGHBOR AGREEMENTS.

Section 8206 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C.
2113a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``Secretary or a
Governor'' and inserting ``Secretary, Governor, county, or
Indian Tribe'';
(B) in paragraph (4) by striking ``Secretary and a
Governor'' and inserting ``Secretary and a Governor, county,
or an Indian Tribe'';
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian Tribe' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)).
``(11) County.-- The term `county' has the meaning given
the term in section 2 of title 1, United States Code.''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``, county, or an
Indian Tribe'' after ``Governor''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, county, or an Indian
Tribe'' after ``Governor''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense
amendment that will empower local communities by allowing counties to
be included in Good Neighbor Authority cooperative agreements and
contracts in order to improve forest health and bolster watershed
restoration.
The base farm bill reauthorizes Good Neighbor Authority through
fiscal year 2023 and contains a provision that allows tribal
governments to be eligible to enter into Good Neighbor Authority
cooperative agreements and contracts. Our amendment simply builds on
that commonsense provision by also authorizing counties to be eligible
for Good Neighbor Authority.
Good Neighbor Authority projects have been remarkably successful.
From 2002 to 2013, 63 projects treated more than 4,100 acres in
Colorado and Utah. These worthwhile treatments mitigated the threat of
catastrophic wildfire, reduced flooding, enhanced forest health, and
improved water quality.
Counties on both sides of the aisle requested this amendment and new
authority.
The problem in Coconino County, a liberal county represented by my
colleague Mr. O'Halleran, is that the wood is low-value timber, so they
can't attract private industry to thin their forest for pending work
they need completed.
Counties want to do this type of work themselves or find a contractor
if the Federal Government won't treat their forests. All that is
missing is the authorization from Congress.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is already entering
into cooperative agreements with counties to partner in the management
of Wisconsin County Forests, and it is working for them as well.
Some counties have actual foresters or other land management
professionals on staff. These are not limited specifically to large
counties either. For example, Adams County, Idaho, population of 4,000,
has a natural resources committee that is chaired by a retired Forest
Service employee who also serves on the local forest collaborative.
Coconino County has a forest restoration director who would be in
charge of these county Good Neighbor Authority agreements. This is a
director-level executive position that reports directly to the deputy
county manager.
While some counties will likely contract with outside entities to
perform the work, county contracts will be overseen by someone such as
an auditor or a clerk.
The National Association of Counties supports this amendment,
stating, ``NACo stands ready to work with you to promote locally
supported, consensus-driven solutions to address forest management
challenges and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. NACo
encourages the United States House of Representatives to adopt your
amendment to H.R. 2 and give counties the opportunity to assist our
Federal partners to make our national forests healthy again.''
In addition to NACo, I am also honored to have the support of the
National Water Resources Association, the Arizona Association of
Conservation Districts, the Salt River Project, the Colorado Pork
Producers Council,

[[Page H4166]]

and more than 20 other local and national organizations and elected
officials.
I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this commonsense
amendment that will empower bipartisan communities throughout the
country, improve forest health, and bolster watershed restoration.
Again, this is an authorization, not a requirement. It puts more
power into the hands of local communities who need the work done but
have nowhere to turn under the status quo.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Montana (Mr.
Gianforte), my good friend and colleague, who is a cosponsor of this
amendment.
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment I cosponsored with
Representative Gosar that will expand the Good Neighbor Authority for
counties.
Good Neighbor Authority allows the Forest Service to enter into
cooperative agreements and contracts with States and Puerto Rico to
execute projects that perform watershed restoration and forest
management services on National Forest System lands.
The current text of the farm bill includes language to expand the
Good Neighbor Authority to include Indian Tribes. This simple amendment
seeks to build on that commonsense provision by empowering local
communities and allowing the Forest Service to include counties as
partners to these agreements.

{time} 1430

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Gosar for
offering this commonsense amendment.
Good Neighbor Authority was one of the hard-fought achievements in
the 2014 farm bill that has proven useful in improving our national
forests and our rural communities. I was pleased to expand the Good
Neighbor Authority to Indian Tribes in the base text of this bill, and
I am happy that my colleague continues to improve the forestry title
with this amendment authorizing counties to be eligible.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Gianforte

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Mr. GIANFORTE. 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:

At the end of part III of subtitle C of title VIII, insert
the following:

SEC. 83__. SALVAGE AND REFORESTATION IN RESPONSE TO
CATASTROPHIC EVENTS.

(a) Expedited Salvage Operations and Reforestation
Activities Following Large-scale Catastrophic Events.--
(1) Expedited environmental assessment.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, an environmental assessment
prepared by the Secretary concerned pursuant to section 102
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332) for a salvage operation or reforestation activity
proposed to be conducted on National Forest System lands or
public lands adversely impacted by a large-scale catastrophic
event shall be completed within 60 days after the conclusion
of the catastrophic event.
(2) Expedited implementation and completion.--In the case
of reforestation activities conducted on National Forest
System lands or public lands adversely impacted by a large-
scale catastrophic event, the Secretary concerned shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, achieve reforestation of at
least 75 percent of the impacted lands during the 5-year
period following the conclusion of the catastrophic event.
(3) Availability of knutson-vandenberg funds.--Amounts in
the special fund established pursuant to section 3 of the Act
of June 9, 1930 (commonly known as the Knutson-Vandenberg
Act; 16 U.S.C. 576b) shall be available to the Secretary of
Agriculture for reforestation activities authorized by this
section.
(4) Timeline for public input process.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, in the case of a salvage operation or
reforestation activity proposed to be conducted on National
Forest System lands or public lands adversely impacted by a
large-scale catastrophic event, the Secretary concerned shall
allow 30 days for public scoping and comment, 15 days for
filing an objection, and 15 days for the agency response to
the filing of an objection. Upon completion of this process
and expiration of the period specified in paragraph (1), the
Secretary concerned shall implement the project immediately.
(b) Compliance With Forest Plan.--A salvage operation or
reforestation activity authorized by this section shall be
conducted in a manner consistent with the forest plan
applicable to the National Forest System lands or public
lands covered by the salvage operation or reforestation
activity.
(c) Prohibition on Restraining Orders, Preliminary
Injunctions, and Injunctions Pending Appeal.--No restraining
order, preliminary injunction, or injunction pending appeal
shall be issued by any court of the United States with
respect to any decision to prepare or conduct a salvage
operation or reforestation activity in response to a large-
scale catastrophic event. Section 705 of title 5, United
States Code, shall not apply to any challenge to the salvage
operation or reforestation activity.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Gianforte) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, my amendment would allow land management agencies like the
U.S. Forest Service and BLM to quickly remove dead trees after
wildfires to pay for reforestation and rehabilitation after devastating
fires.
Last year, over 1 million acres burned in Montana. Livelihoods were
threatened, wildlife habitats were destroyed, and whole landscapes were
scarred.
My commonsense amendment was passed, verbatim, in the Resilient
Federal Forests Act by this body. It would allow the agencies to
quickly respond, as well as to raise funds to further rehabilitate the
forest. An expedited environmental assessment would still be required
and public input would still be included in order to move forward with
the project. Most importantly, this amendment would require that at
least 75 percent of the burned area would be reforested.
These landscape scale projects are badly needed. The Rice Ridge fire
burned over 160,000 acres alone. Quickly responding to the damage
caused will protect our public lands and restore our watersheds for the
future and restore them to the quality we have come to love in Montana.
As I mentioned, similar language was included in the Resilient
Federal Forests Act, which passed the House on a bipartisan basis on
November 11, 2017.
My amendment is supported by the Federal Forest Resource Coalition,
the National Association of Counties, the National Water Resources
Association, and the Idaho Forest Group.
Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my good friend
and colleague Congressman Gianforte's wildfire salvage operations
amendment. I am glad that, with the farm bill package, we have the
opportunity to look at the forest industry and wildfire issues from all
sides.
This amendment is part and parcel of a broader wildfire strategy that
requires proactive action from Congress for the steps before, during,
and after wildfires are expected. Specifically, this amendment will
ensure that the National Forest System forest is cleared and replanted
if a catastrophic wildfire chars it to the ground.
Our National Forest System lands will be rehabilitated after wildfire
devastates them, but in a way consistent with forest plans. That way,
the ecosystem of the new forest will have better management and be less
susceptible to another large-scale burn-down event.
This is a forward-thinking amendment to fix a backwards system we
have devised in Congress, and I urge Members to vote for this
demonstration that shows Congress isn't willing to just give up and let
our forest system lands be catastrophically burnt.
Mr. Chair, I applaud Representative Gianforte for his strong
leadership and tireless efforts to reduce the threat of dangerous
wildfires. I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment.

[[Page H4167]]

Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I thank Mr. Gianforte for offering this important
amendment for Montana and, quite frankly, for our National Forest
System as a whole.
Over the past several years, fires have had a devastating impact on
our forest system lands, resulting in deteriorated landscapes. I have
witnessed this firsthand across the country as the former chairman of
the Committee on Agriculture's Subcommittee on Conservation and
Forestry.
It is vital that the Forest Service has the right tools, the ability
to restore these landscapes as quickly as possible to preserve habitat,
clean air, and the significant impact that these incidents can have on
clean water.
Unfortunately, litigation stalls many of these projects. As Madison
County, Montana, Commissioner Dave Schulz noted before the House
Natural Resources Federal Lands Subcommittee in May of 2015, due to the
threat of litigation from outside groups refusing to meet or
collaborate with the community, what started out as a consensus
proposal for 100,000 acres of fire salvage and reforestation was
reduced to less than 2,000 acres of salvage. ``Fear of litigation
prevents the Forest Service from thinking big.''
In another quote, he offered, a ``significant factor in preventing
responsible management of our Nation's forests.''
Mr. Chair, I certainly support this amendment. It has already passed
the House. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chair, at this time, I urge adoption of my
commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Westerman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, 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, insert
the following:

SEC. 8334. ANALYSIS OF ONLY TWO ALTERNATIVES (ACTION VERSUS
NO ACTION) IN PROPOSED COLLABORATIVE FOREST
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

(a) Application to Certain Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements.--This section shall apply
whenever the Secretary concerned prepares an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement pursuant to
section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4332) for a forest management activity that--
(1) is developed through a collaborative process;
(2) is proposed by a resource advisory committee;
(3) will occur on lands identified by the Secretary
concerned as suitable for timber production;
(4) will occur on lands designated by the Secretary (or
designee thereof) pursuant to section 602(b) of the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6591a(b)),
notwithstanding whether such forest management activity is
initiated prior to September 30, 2018; or
(5) is covered by a community wildfire protection plan.
(b) Consideration of Alternatives.--In an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement described in
subsection (a), the Secretary concerned shall study, develop,
and describe only the following two alternatives:
(1) The forest management activity.
(2) The alternative of no action.
(c) Elements of No Action Alternative.--In the case of the
alternative of no action, the Secretary concerned shall
consider whether to evaluate--
(1) the effect of no action on--
(A) forest health;
(B) habitat diversity;
(C) wildfire potential;
(D) insect and disease potential; and
(E) timber production; and
(2) the implications of a resulting decline in forest
health, loss of habitat diversity, wildfire, or insect or
disease infestation, given fire and insect and disease
historic cycles, on--
(A) domestic water supply in the project area;
(B) wildlife habitat loss; and
(C) other economic and social factors.

SEC. 8335. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

(a) Balancing Short- and Long-Term Effects of Forest
Management Activities in Considering Injunctive Relief.--As
part of its weighing the equities while considering any
request for an injunction that applies to any agency action
as part of a forest management activity the court reviewing
the agency action shall balance the impact to the ecosystem
likely affected by the forest management activity of--
(1) the short- and long-term effects of undertaking the
agency action; against
(2) the short- and long-term effects of not undertaking the
action.
(b) Time Limitations for Injunctive Relief.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) the length of any
preliminary injunctive relief and stays pending appeal that
applies to any agency action as part of a forest management
activity, shall not exceed 60 days.
(2) Renewal.--
(A) In general.--A court of competent jurisdiction may
issue one or more renewals of any preliminary injunction, or
stay pending appeal, granted under paragraph (1).
(B) Updates.--In each renewal of an injunction in an
action, the parties to the action shall present the court
with updated information on the status of the authorized
forest management activity.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, my amendment promotes collaborative forest management,
cuts red tape, and encourages the Forest Service to plan for the long-
term health of our Nation's forests.
Mr. Chair, if we were to go to the doctor and we had cancer and the
doctor offered a treatment for that cancer but decided it might not be
in our best interests, we wouldn't just leave. We would want to find
out what the best treatment was.
What is happening in our national forests is, if one plan is
rejected, we do nothing, and we don't treat the disease of
mismanagement that is currently happening in our forests.
Implementing sound, scientifically-based management reforms is
necessary to address the growing economic and environmental threats of
catastrophic wildfire. Prevention through active management is the best
medicine to make our forests healthy.
By requiring environmental analysis of a collaboratively developed
proposal to be weighed against a ``no action'' alternative--the impacts
of doing nothing on forest health and wildfire risk--this amendment
ensures that taxpayer dollars are spent only on analysis and project
planning that protects our forests' long-term health. Further, my
amendment ensures that long-term forest health is considered by the
courts when granting an injunction on critical forest management
activities.
This amendment previously received bipartisan support in the House as
part of the Resilient Federal Forests Act. It has no cost to the
American taxpayer and is supported by a variety of organizations,
including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association
of Counties, the National Association of Home Builders, and more.
Mr. Chair, inaction itself is a forest management decision. Standing
by and doing nothing is the reason we continue to watch our forests
burn.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, this amendment significantly alters critical
environmental review requirements and limits opportunity for the public
to challenge forest management projects.
Restricting NEPA analysis to two alternatives may seem like it will
save time and money, but this cuts right at the heart of critical
environmental protections. NEPA doesn't hurt forest management
projects; bad planning, ignoring science, and disingenuous intentions
hurt forest management projects.
NEPA supports collaboration through public participation. It allows
many voices and different voices to participate in the planning
process,

[[Page H4168]]

which leads to better results and reduced costs.
NEPA ensures Federal agencies consider all alternatives, without
requiring that agencies select the most environmentally friendly option
or value the environment over other concerns.
Much like the forestry provisions in the base text of this bill, we
have been down this road before. House Republicans tried to include
harmful provisions to scale bedrock environmental laws and restrict
access to the courts during the omnibus negotiations.
All of these toxic proposals were rejected by the Senate. Let's not
make the Senate say ``no'' for a second time.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, this bill, again, does not sidestep any
environmental activity. It just simply says that we have to evaluate
the do-nothing option and what the effects to the forest are from that.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Westerman.
The United States is about to embark on yet another year of ravaging
catastrophic wildfire. I say ``embark'' because this is ultimately a
choice. While some amount of summer wildfire is to be expected during
the heat of summer, the devastation we have seen in recent years is
unprecedented.
2017 was one of the worst wildfire seasons on record. More than
58,000 fires burned more than 9.2 million acres. The Forest Service
spent more than $2.5 billion on suppression costs this fiscal year
alone, a new record.
These expenditures and destruction coincide perfectly with Congress'
dereliction of its duty to ensure our land management agencies are
equipped with the tools and authorities to properly manage our forests.
Congress has provided some legislative fixes this year, but I think
every Member understands full well we shouldn't pat ourselves on the
back just yet.
As the coming months will demonstrate, we and, by extension, the
American taxpayer are still on the hook here. We are susceptible to
years more of supermassive fire blanketing the country unless we build
on our progress.
Mr. Westerman's amendment here does just that. It will require the
government to holistically evaluate the impacts of its forestry
decisions on overall forest health. By requiring the costs of inaction
to be weighed, the Forest Service will have to demonstrate its
decisions are ultimately in a forest's interest.
Mr. Chair, I applaud Mr. Westerman for his strong leadership and
tireless efforts to improve a failing system that we have inherited.
Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of the commonsense amendment
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, if my colleagues across the aisle are serious about the
long-term health of our forests, they should stop and pause and listen
to scientists, who tell us climate change threatens in a very factual
and scientific way and direct way the health of our forests, wildlife,
and the ever-increasing forest fires that we must confront every year.
We can use NEPA as a tool to consider these impacts, and if we are
smart, we will strengthen the law instead of weakening it piece by
piece.
The issue of forest health is a serious issue. This amendment does
not deal with the complexity of the seriousness of this issue. If,
indeed, we are to deal with this issue, then it has to be comprehensive
and it has to be looked at, not by eliminating protections and public
access, but by truly doing something for the long-term health of these
forests, and that is to consider all available information and not deny
scientific information in the process of blaming NEPA or any other law
that exists for the public and for the protection of our forests as the
reason why we are having forest fires.
Forest fires are a direct result of climate change, and as such, not
to consider that as part and parcel of a solution is a grave mistake
that will not solve the problem.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It should not be tucked into
this farm bill. It merits its own proper discussion and debate in this
House, and that is the direction we should go.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.

{time} 1445

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, this amendment does not sidestep NEPA, it
does not weaken NEPA, it just simply says you have to evaluate the
alternative of doing nothing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tipton).
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have actually found some
common ground when our colleague is saying, let's use science.
Effectively, that is what we are talking about with this amendment,
to be able to have analysis, to be able to have project planning.
Let me give you a real-life example in southwestern Colorado: the
West Fork Complex fire, which erupted because we had trees growing not
at the elevation that they should, overgrowth in our forest that
resulted in a massive fire.
I would suggest that if you care about endangered species, if you
care about protecting our waterways, if you care about having an
abundant resource to be able to develop to be able to support our
schools through the rural school programs as well, this is an
opportunity to be able to create those healthy forests and to be able
to move forward with good commonsense planning that is going to be
provided by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage the passage of the amendment and applaud
Mr. Westerman's efforts on this.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say this amendment
ensures that we prioritize the long-term health of our forest and we
equip the Forest Service with the tools they need to execute a plan.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the sustained health of
our Nation's forests, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. 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 Arkansas
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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:

At the end of part III of subtitle C of title VIII, insert
the following:

SEC. 83__. APPLICATION OF ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE.

The roadless area conservation rule established under part
294 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor
regulations), shall not apply to any National Forest System
land in the State of Alaska.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. The
Clinton era Roadless Rule applies a one-size-fits-all approach to areas
where those policies rarely work, especially the federally locked lands
in Alaska.
At 16.8 million acres, the Tongass National Forest is the largest of
the National Forest System. Coupled with the Chugach National Forest,
Alaska contains 12 percent of the total acres of national forest lands
in the total United States.
The Roadless Rule is nothing more than another effort to end the
multiple-use mandate of Federal forest

[[Page H4169]]

lands, something that is required by law but often ignored by nameless,
faceless, unelected bureaucrats.
Although the Tongass is over 100 years old, only 400,000 acres have
been harvested. Of the remaining acreage, much of the forest is not
topographically suitable for timber harvest, and 6.6 million acres are
congressionally designated as wilderness areas, national monuments, and
roadless areas.
Not only does the Roadless Rule violate the authorities granted under
the Alaska National Lands Act, it was adopted without proper
consultation or consideration of the countless communities that rely on
responsible resource development.
Nearly 96 percent of the Tongass National Forest and 99 percent of
the Chugach National Forest are protected by ANILCA and forest
management plans.
Exempting Alaska from the Roadless Rule would help make certain that
what is left of the timber industry in the southeast can survive.
Many individuals adamantly oppose logging old growth in roadless
areas. However, old growth will continue to be predominant in the
Tongass, and given the remote nature of Alaska, the vast majority of
the forest is in a roadless state.
Over 90 percent of the Tongass is unaccessible by road. The lack of
access to timber not only costs good-paying jobs, but results in trees
dying of disease and infestations. Dead trees serve no purpose other
than to become kindling, creating fires. So by having a robust timber
industry, we can help prevent the spread of serious wildfires like have
been seen in the lower 48.
To be clear, we are not talking about clearcutting the entire
national forest. We just want to help it stay healthy and fulfill its
multi-use mandate of the Tongass.
By significantly limiting the areas that are eligible for harvesting,
the implementation of the Roadless Rule actually makes conservation
more difficult since locations with less conservation value often can't
be selected.
If any reasonable form of timber industry is to exist in the near
future, it is imperative we restore Alaska's exemption from the
Roadless Rule as quickly as possible. It has placed an undue burden on
my State and the people of my State.
Mr. Chairman, we worry about immigration. We worry about
homelessness. We worry about employment. We worry about education. I am
saying this Roadless Rule takes away the opportunity for people to
supply for their family so they can have a sustainable sylviculture
industry taking care of our forests in southeast Alaska. The Roadless
Rule should have never applied to Alaska to begin with.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Alaska.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts all national forests in Alaska
from the Forest Service's Roadless Rule, one of the country's most
important conservation safeguards.
Inventoried roadless areas account for only 2 percent of our Nation's
land mass, but they provide invaluable benefits: clean drinking water
for over 60 million Americans, wildlife habitats for numerous
threatened and endangered species, and they act as critical carbon
sinks that mitigate the impacts of climate change. All of these
benefits are threatened by this amendment.
Nationwide, the Roadless Rule is incredibly popular. Our constituents
understand the importance of keeping intact roadless areas and managing
our last truly wild places in a manner that protects old-growth forest
and other precious resources from the pressures of development and
extraction.
It is not just people in the lower 48. Alaskans understand the
importance of protecting the roadless landscape. That is why hundreds
of businesses in southeast Alaska have joined together to oppose
overturning the recently adopted Tongass Forest Plan and efforts like
this amendment to overturn protection for roadless areas.
These businesses rely on clean water and healthy forests to support
thriving salmon populations and a robust tourist economy. By rolling
back safeguards that protect old-growth forests from harmful
development, this amendment threatens fundamental linchpins of the
regional economy.
The Roadless Rule is not a job killer, as some make it out to be,
because the Tongass Forest Plan balances protections of the old-growth
forest by allowing public roads, hydropower projects, utility
connectors, and access to inholdings, including mines. So its
application in Alaska does not adversely affect community access or
economic development projects in the legitimate public interest.
An exception for Alaska is a major policy change that hasn't had a
hearing or any other form of consideration in the House. This
controversial provision shouldn't be stuck in this farm bill without
any accountability to the American public.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the
full committee.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, just simply, I support the gentleman's
amendment. It is common sense. It allows Alaskans to do a better job of
taking care of Alaska, and I trust them to make that happen.
Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment and urge adoption.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the comments from the other side
of the aisle were talking about Alaskans opposing this amendment.
With all due respect, I am an elected representative, and if they
don't like what I do, they don't vote for me. I just believe in jobs.
When I first got elected to this job, when I first started this
Tongass battle, we had 15,000 jobs in Alaska in the timber industry in
the Tongass. And through the National Land Act itself, we were told
that no other jobs would be lost in the timber industry, and they
slowly crept around and eliminated what remaining jobs occurred. And
the sad part about it, from my point of view, they have killed the
timber industry. That was not the intent. We were supposed to have a
timber industry.
Then along comes the Clinton era Roadless Rule that means you can't
build a road anywhere that has no road. How do you have a hydropower
site? We had to fight for 4 years to get a hydropower site.
This action here by an administration--this and past
administrations--have to understand, this is about employment. This is
about managing--managing--timber. And those who don't want to manage
anything, you destroy it.
Mr. Chairman, I am urging this body, this Congress, to do what is
right for the State of Alaska and right for the timber, and the right
for the people that live there and that depend upon a source of income
other than living off, very frankly, somebody giving them something.
They want to work for it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, Alaska recently lost in Federal court on
this very issue. The Supreme Court refused to hear the State's appeal
of a ruling that struck down the Tongass exemption. This ended the
case.
This amendment attempts to run around that ruling and would exempt
Alaska from protections that are widely supported and intended to
protect our pristine public lands.
With regard to the Roadless Rule, if the very important and
significant issues we confront, whether it is immigration, whether it
is employment, whether it is education, the issues of poverty and
hunger in this country, I would suggest that the cause for not finding
solutions rests in this Chamber, it doesn't rest with the Roadless
Rule.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H4170]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Pearce

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Mr. PEARCE. 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:

At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. ___. CONVEYANCE OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE VILLAGE
OF SANTA CLARA, NEW MEXICO.

(a) Conveyance Required.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, if the Village of Santa Clara, New Mexico, submits
to the Secretary a written request for conveyance, the
Secretary shall convey to the Village of Santa Clara all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
approximately 1,520 acres of National Forest System land, as
generally depicted on the map.
(b) Map.--
(1) Availability of map.--The map shall be kept on file and
available for public inspection in the appropriate office of
the Forest Service.
(2) Correction of errors.--The Secretary may correct minor
errors in the map.
(c) Consideration.--
(1) In general.--As consideration for the conveyance of
land under subsection (a), the Village of Santa Clara shall
pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the market value of
the land, as determined by the appraisal under subsection
(g).
(2) Installments.--The amount described in paragraph (1)
may be paid in periodic installments to the Secretary.
(3) Parcel conveyances.--Upon receipt of an installment
pursuant to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall convey to the
Village of Santa Clara all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a parcel of the land described
subsection (a) that is equal in value to such installment and
identified by the Village of Santa Clara at the time such
installment is paid.
(d) Terms and Conditions.--The conveyance under subsection
(a) shall be--
(1) subject to valid existing rights;
(2) made by quitclaim deed;
(3) subject to the reservation by the Secretary of an
access easement over and across Fort Bayard Road; and
(4) subject to any other terms and conditions as the
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States.
(e) Costs of Conveyance.--As a condition for the conveyance
under subsection (a) and in addition to the consideration
paid under subsection (c), the Village of Santa Clara shall
pay for all costs associated with the conveyance, including
for--
(1) the land survey under subsection (f);
(2) any environmental analysis and resource surveys
determined necessary by Federal law; and
(3) the appraisal under subsection (g).
(f) Survey.--The actual acreage and legal description of
the National Forest System land to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary; notwithstanding section 7 of title 43,
United States Code, the Secretary is authorized to perform
and approve any required cadastral surveys.
(g) Appraisal.--The Secretary shall complete an appraisal
of the land to be conveyed under subsection (a) in accordance
with--
(1) the ``Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions''; and
(2) the ``Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice''.
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest
Service.
(2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Village
of Santa Clara Conveyance Act 2018'' and dated February 21,
2018.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, this amendment deals with a small community that is kind
of circled around by the Gila National Forest.
This amendment basically is going to allow the Forest Service to sell
parcels of Forest Service land to the village of Santa Clara. It is a
small village. About 2,000 people live in it. They, like many of our
mountain communities, like many of our communities in the Forest
Service, are slowly starving to death.
The land that the Forest Service would sell to them is adjacent to
the village. It is not a part of the larger national forest. It is just
an isolated parcel. The Forest Service does not want to manage this
land.
It is in the state that it is in because it was set apart back in
1869 as a part of the Fort Bayard Military Reservation. Because the
land is reserved as a military post, it cannot be disposed of in the
normal fashion by the Forest Service. They must be released by law.
Back in 1968, there was a bill that released other parcels of Fort
Bayard to be sold and to be distributed to the State. This parcel just
was not included in that for some reason, so the amendment steps around
and includes that now to where the Forest Service would be allowed to
dispose of the land.
It would have to be appraised. It would be sold through normal
processes. It is just that it requires a law to do it. It cannot go any
other way.
The village is desperately in need of expansion room. Like I said,
this Forest Service land butts up against the village and stops their
growth, stops their economic potential, and it is a very key piece of
property for the village, but it is not a key piece of property for the
Forest Service.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
noncontroversial amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1500

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Mr. LaMALFA. 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:

At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 8506. STREAMLINING THE FOREST SERVICE PROCESS FOR
CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
LOCATION APPLICATIONS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Communications facility.--The term ``communications
facility'' includes--
(A) any infrastructure, including any transmitting device,
tower, or support structure, and any equipment, switches,
wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters, or cabinets,
associated with the licensed or permitted unlicensed wireless
or wireline transmission of writings, signs, signals, data,
images, pictures, and sounds of all kinds; and
(B) any antenna or apparatus that--
(i) is designed for the purpose of emitting radio
frequency;
(ii) is designed to be operated, or is operating, from a
fixed location pursuant to authorization by the Federal
Communications Commission or is using duly authorized devices
that do not require individual licenses; and
(iii) is added to a tower, building, or other structure.
(2) Communications site.--The term ``communications site''
means an area of covered land designated for communications
uses.
(3) Communications use.--The term ``communications use''
means the placement and operation of communications facility.
(4) Communications use authorization.--The term
``communications use authorization'' means an easement,
right-of-way, lease, license, or other authorization to
locate or modify a communications facility on covered land by
the Forest Service for the primary purpose of authorizing the
occupancy and use of the covered land for communications use.
(5) Covered land.--The term ``covered land'' means National
Forest System land.
(6) Forest service.--The term ``Forest Service'' means the
United States Forest Service of the Department of
Agriculture.
(7) Organizational unit.--The term ``organizational unit''
means, within the Forest Service--
(A) a regional office;
(B) the headquarters;
(C) a management unit; or
(C) a ranger district office.
(b) Regulations.--Notwithstanding section 6409 of the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47
U.S.C. 1455) or section 606 of the Repack Airwaves Yielding
Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018
(Public Law 115-141), not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue
regulations--
(1) to streamline the process for considering applications
to locate or modify communications facilities on covered
land;
(2) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the
process is uniform and standardized across the organizational
units of the Forest Service; and
(3) to require that the applications described in paragraph
(1) be considered and granted on a competitively neutral,
technology neutral, and non-discriminatory basis.

[[Page H4171]]

(c) Requirements.--The regulations issued under subsection
(b) shall include the following:
(1) Procedures for the tracking of applications described
in subsection (b)(1), including--
(A) identifying the number of applications--
(i) received;
(ii) approved; and
(iii) denied;
(B) in the case of an application that is denied,
describing the reasons for the denial; and
(C) describing the amount of time between the receipt of an
application and the issuance of a final decision on an
application.
(2) Provision for minimum lease terms of not less than 15
years for leases with respect to the location of
communications facilities on covered land.
(3) A policy under which a communications use authorization
renews automatically on expiration, unless the communications
use authorization is revoked for good cause.
(4) A structure of fees for--
(A) submitting an application described in subsection
(b)(1), based on the cost to the Forest Service of
considering such an application; and
(B) issuing communications use authorizations, based on the
cost to the Forest Service of any maintenance or other
activities required to be performed by the Forest Service as
a result of the location or modification of the
communications facility.
(5) Provision that if the Forest Service does not grant or
deny an application under subparagraph (A) by the deadline
established in section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act as amended by the Repack Airwaves
Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of
2018 (47 U.S.C. 1455(b)(3)(A)), the Forest Service shall be
deemed to have granted the application.
(6) Provision for prioritization or streamlining the
consideration of applications to locate or modify
communications facilities on covered land in a previously
disturbed right-of-way.
(d) Additional Considerations.--In issuing regulations
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall consider--
(1) how discrete reviews in considering an application
described in subsection (b)(1) can be conducted
simultaneously, rather than sequentially, by any
organizational units of the Forest Service that must approve
the location or modification; and
(2) how to eliminate overlapping requirements among the
organizational units of the Forest Service with respect to
the location or modification of a communications facility on
covered land administered by those organizational units.
(e) Communication of Streamlined Process to Organizational
Units.--The Secretary shall, with respect to the regulations
issued under subsection (b)--
(1) communicate the regulations to the organizational units
of the Forest Service; and
(2) ensure that the organizational units of the Forest
Service follow the regulations.
(f) Deposit and Availability of Fees.--
(1) Special account.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
establish a special account in the Treasury for the Forest
Service for the deposit of fees collected by the Forest
Service under subsection (c)(4) for communications use
authorizations on covered land granted, issued, or executed
by the Forest Service.
(2) Requirements for fees collected.--Fees collected by the
Forest Service under subsection (c)(4) shall be--
(A) based on the costs described in subsection (c)(4); and
(B) competitively neutral, technology neutral, and
nondiscriminatory with respect to other users of the
communications site.
(3) Deposit of fees.--Fees collected by the Forest Service
under subsection (c)(4) shall be deposited in the special
account established for the Forest Service under paragraph
(1).
(4) Availability of fees.--Amounts deposited in the special
account for the Forest Service shall be available, to the
extent and in such amounts as are provided in advance in
appropriation Acts, to the Secretary to cover costs incurred
by the Forest Service described in subsection (c)(4),
including the following:
(A) Preparing needs assessments or other programmatic
analyses necessary to designate communications sites and
issue communications use authorizations.
(B) Developing management plans for communications sites.
(C) Training for management of communications sites.
(D) Obtaining or improving access to communications sites.
(5) No additional appropriations authorized.--Except as
provided in paragraph (4), no other amounts are authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section.
(g) Savings Provisions.--
(1) Real property authorities.--Nothing in this section, or
the amendments made by this section, shall be construed as
providing any executive agency with any new leasing or other
real property authorities not existing prior to the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Effect on other laws.--Nothing in this section, or the
amendments made by this section, and no actions taken
pursuant to this section, or the amendments made by this
section, shall impact a decision or determination by any
executive agency to sell, dispose of, declare excess or
surplus, lease, reuse, or redevelop any Federal real property
pursuant to title 40, United States Code, the Federal Assets
Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-387), or any
other law governing real property activities of the Federal
Government. No agreement entered into pursuant to this
section, or the amendments made by this section, may obligate
the Federal Government to hold, control, or otherwise retain
or use real property that may otherwise be deemed as excess,
surplus, or that could otherwise be sold, leased or
redeveloped.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, the largest broadband deployment gap
exists in rural communities, where more than 12 million Americans lack
coverage.
Wireless communications companies require access to land or
infrastructure to site the antennas necessary to provide service.
Often, to reach more rural areas throughout our country, they require
access to Federal land to ensure more complete coverage, including for
providing emergency services. This need is expected to increase as
providers deploy facilities to support 5G wireless services, which will
require more antennas spaced closer together.
Unfortunately, the process for securing access to Federal land and
property has been problematic, with red-tape bureaucracy being the main
issue. Providers have experienced lost or missing applications,
paperwork left to languish for years, varying or undisclosed rules
within agencies, redundant historical or environmental reviews, and
inconsistent denials of the process.
In some cases, providers do not even receive a response from Federal
agencies, resulting in stalled build-out and discouragement in rural
areas. This is completely unacceptable.
My amendment today seeks to streamline and expedite the regulatory
framework necessary to utilize Federal lands for broadband
infrastructure deployments.
Specifically, the language would require the Secretary of
Agriculture, within 1 year of enactment, to issue regulations that
would streamline the siting process for Forest Service land and ensure
that the process is uniform across all of the organizational units of
the Forest Service, while eliminating overlapping requirements.
Applications would be trackable and deemed granted if not acted upon
within 270 days, which is 9 months.
Lastly, any fees collected for allowing siting on Forest Service land
can be used for processing the applications and the development,
management, and improvement of sites for communications facilities.
I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment that simply
aims to improve access to rural broadband coverage for rural Americans,
who deserve it, across this Nation.
Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar), my colleague and good friend.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my good friend and
colleague Congressman LaMalfa's amendment.
The amendment aims to streamline a bureaucratic process that is
hampering broadband infrastructure development in rural America.
As chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus and Representative
for Arizona's Fourth Congressional District, I can tell you that this
problem is all too real in the communities that I represent.
Many families and businesses in the West still lack basic broadband.
According to a November 2017 Brookings Institution study, more than 50
percent of my district live in neighborhoods without an available
broadband connection. Many of you all will find this hard to believe,
but a huge chunk of my district has no social media platform
whatsoever.
Closing the broadband availability gap should be a priority for all
Members of Congress. Doing so will create jobs, improve education, and
grow our economy.
I applaud Representative LaMalfa for his leadership and tireless
efforts to close the broadband availability gap, and I urge adoption of
this excellent amendment.

[[Page H4172]]

Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Arizona. I
appreciate the support and his excellent words toward that.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, again, the concerns about this might be on
environmental issues. This amendment does not allow anyone to
circumvent environmental protections already in place. It simply
requires an agency to fix the current regulatory maze, filled with
excessive red tape, to deploy broadband infrastructure. That is it.
To be clear, if you wanted to deploy broadband networks across the
country that support 5G, we should really be doing something about it
now.
Americans rely on broadband for their jobs, telemedicine, distance
learning, emergency services, and many more good reasons. Again, with
almost half of rural Americans not having access to good broadband
internet today, they will continue to lag behind and suffer if we do
not address these regulatory barriers.
Mr. Chairman, 270 days, 9 months, really, that should be a long
enough gestation period to process applications by these Federal
agencies.
Mr. Chair, I ask for the ``aye'' vote, and I appreciate support on
both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Westerman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, 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 subtitle E of title VIII, insert the
following:

SEC. 85__. REPORT ON WILDFIRE, INSECT INFESTATION, AND
DISEASE PREVENTION ON FEDERAL LAND.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act and every year thereafter, the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of Interior shall submit to the
Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry of the Senate, and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate a jointly written report on--
(1) the number of acres of Federal land treated by the
Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior for
wildfire, insect infestation, or disease prevention;
(2) the number of acres of Federal land categorized as a
high or extreme fire risk;
(3) the total timber production from Federal land;
(4) the number of acres and average fire intensity of
wildfires affecting Federal land treated for wildfire, insect
infestation, or disease prevention;
(5) the number of acres and average fire intensity of
wildfires affecting Federal land not treated for wildfire,
insect infestation, or disease prevention; and
(6) the Federal response time for each fire on greater than
25,000 acres.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Pearce

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Mr. PEARCE. 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:

At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following
new section:

SEC. 8506. COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION
PROGRAM.

Section 4003 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of
2009 (16 U.S.C. 7303) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(1)(B), by inserting ``, except the
Secretary may waive, on a case-by-case basis, the 10-year
period requirement under paragraph (1)(B) of such
subsection'' after ``subsection (b)''; and
(2) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``proposal'' and all
that follows through ``in excess'' and inserting ``proposal
in excess''; and
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``2019'' and inserting
``2023''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would reauthorize the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program, CFLRP, for another 5-year period. This program was
initiated in 2009, and, basically, it aims to restore vital sections of
our national forestlands.
There are two projects in New Mexico, the Zuni Mountains and the
Southwest Jemez, with over 420,000 acres total, that would be covered
under this collaborative project.
The Zuni Mountains project supports one of the last mills in New
Mexico. We used to have 123 mills that processed timber. Now we are
down to just one or two. That destruction in the capacity and the
infrastructure for our national forest has been devastating to our
ability to really accomplish projects of selective thinning and
balanced management of our forests.
The extension of the program is going to provide enough certainty so
that this last mill operator can make investments that will reduce the
cost of conducting forest management activities in western New Mexico.
If we lose the mill, if it does, in fact, close--which should not be
an option--it is going to increase the cost of the projects due to
transportation costs. So it makes sense for the government, it makes
sense for the U.S. Forest Service, the taxpayer, and the local economy
to keep this mill open and to find others that would reopen with these
collaborative projects that come under this program.
This program is a good starting point, and, when paired with other
reforms that open up more acreage for treatment, it is going to
increase the profitability of restoration projects. That will, in turn,
save taxpayers money.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
noncontroversial amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Tipton

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, 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 538, after line 23, add the following new section:

SEC. 8506. WEST FORK FIRE STATION.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:

[[Page H4173]]

(1) County.--The term ``County'' means Dolores County,
Colorado.
(2) West fork fire station conveyance parcel.--The term
``West Fork Fire Station Conveyance Parcel'' means the parcel
of approximately 3.61 acres of National Forest System land in
the County, as depicted on the map entitled ``Map for West
Fork Fire Station Conveyance Parcel'' and dated November 21,
2017.
(b) Conveyance of West Fork Fire Station Conveyance Parcel,
Dolores County, Colorado.--
(1) In general.--On receipt of a request from the County
and subject to such terms and conditions as are mutually
satisfactory to the Secretary and the County, including such
additional terms as the Secretary determines to be necessary,
the Secretary shall convey to the County without
consideration all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the West Fork Fire Station Conveyance
Parcel.
(2) Costs.--Any costs relating to the conveyance under
paragraph (1), including processing and transaction costs,
shall be paid by the County.
(3) Use of land.--The land conveyed to the County under
paragraph (1) shall be used by the County only for a fire
station, related infrastructure, and roads to facilitate
access to and through the West Fork Fire Station Conveyance
Parcel.
(4) Reversion.--If any portion of the land conveyed under
paragraph (1) is used in a manner that is inconsistent with
the use described in paragraph (3), the land shall, at the
discretion of the Secretary, revert to the United States.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, West Fork is in a remote part of Dolores
County, Colorado, surrounded by the San Juan National Forest. Emergency
and fire response is a challenge in this part of the county because the
closest fire station is currently 26 miles away.
The amendment I have offered would authorize the Forest Service to
convey approximately 3.6 acres of National Forest System land to
Dolores County for the strict purpose of building and operating a fire
station in the West Fork area.
In addition to creating emergency and fire response challenges, the
lack of a dedicated fire station has created insurance challenges for
homeowners in West Fork. In an area surrounded by the national
forestland, it is critical to have fire insurance for your home and
other structures on your property. With no fire station in reasonable
proximity to the area, it is nearly impossible for homeowners to obtain
fire insurance in West Fork.
The text of this amendment is identical to the West Fork Fire Station
Act, which passed the House by a voice vote last month. I encourage my
colleagues to once again support this measure as an amendment to H.R.
2.
I yield back the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Thornberry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20
printed in part C of House Report 115-677.
Mr. THORNBERRY. 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 601, after line 26, add the following new section:

SEC. 11105. REGIONAL CATTLE AND CARCASS GRADING CORRELATION
AND TRAINING CENTERS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish not more
than three regional centers, to be known as ``Cattle and
Carcass Grading Correlation and Training Centers'' (referred
to in this section as the ``Centers''), to provide education
and training for cattle and carcass beef graders of the
Agricultural Marketing Service, cattle producers, and other
professionals involved in the reporting, delivery, and
grading of feeder cattle, live cattle, and carcasses--
(1) to limit the subjectivity in the application of beef
grading standards;
(2) to provide producers with greater confidence in the
price of the producers' cattle; and
(3) to provide investors with both long and short positions
more assurance in the cattle delivery system.
(b) Location.--The Centers shall be located near cattle
feeding and slaughter populations and areas shall be
strategically identified in order to capture regional
variances in cattle production.
(c) Administration.--Each Center shall be organized and
administered by offices of the Department of Agriculture in
operation on the date on which the respective Center is
established, or in coordination with other appropriate
Federal agencies or academic institutions.
(d) Training Program.--The Centers shall offer intensive
instructional programs involving classroom and field training
work for individuals described in subsection (a).
(e) Coordination of Resources.--Each Center, in carrying
out the functions of the Center, shall make use of
information generated by the Department of Agriculture, the
State agricultural extension and research stations, relevant
designated contract markets, and the practical experience of
area cattle producers, especially cattle producers
cooperating in on-farm demonstrations, correlations, and
research projects.
(f) Prohibition on Construction.--Funds made available to
carry out this section shall not be used for the construction
of a new building or facility or the acquisition, expansion,
remodeling, or alteration of an existing building or facility
(including site grading and improvement, and architect fees).
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the Secretary may use
funds made available to carry out this section to provide a
Center with payment for the cost of the rental of a space
determined to be necessary by the Center for conducting
training under this section and may accept donations
(including in-kind contributions) to cover such cost.
(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on
October 1, 2018.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 891, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to commend the
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Conaway, for his work not
only in formulating this bill but in promoting and protecting the
interests of rural America. I think it is a great tribute to him
dealing with a number of complex issues, and I appreciate very much a
job well done.
Mr. Chairman, when we go to the grocery store, we make decisions
about what type of beef and what grade of beef we are going to
purchase. The challenge is that the grades are different from place to
place because there is not a uniform grading system across the country.
My amendment requires USDA to set up three training centers to train
graders so that there can be more standardization. If you are going to
buy a prime or a choice steak in one place, it should be roughly the
same as a prime or choice steak in another place.
This will benefit consumers. It will benefit the beef industry, and I
hope our colleagues will support it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
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.
Tipton) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weber of Texas, 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.

____________________