[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.

  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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment is simple. It calls for the U.S. Forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management to report back on the progress they are 
making to address the problem of catastrophic wildfires, a problem that 
has continued to get worse year after year under the current program.
  Our current forest management process took decades of mismanagement, 
inaction, and neglect to create. We have essentially slowly and 
methodically loved our trees to death on much of our Federal lands. It 
will take decades to reverse the effects this mismanagement has had on 
our forests, during which time we will likely see more major, 
devastating wildfires.
  This amendment simply requires our Federal agencies addressing this 
issue to report back on how they are doing, not only so Congress can 
provide oversight on their progress but so the American people can know 
how their Federal Government is doing so that we can measure, monitor, 
and demand accountability.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I speak for this entire Chamber when I say that 
our goal is to reduce the effects of wildfires and be transparent for 
the American people each step of the way. My amendment promotes 
transparency and accountability as we work towards this goal.
  Mr. Chair, I urge 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 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 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.

                          ____________________