[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 81 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4201-H4205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 900 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2.
  Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1832


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for the reform and continuation of 
agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture 
through fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes, with Mr. Collins of 
Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 16 printed in House Report 115-679 offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) had been disposed of.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Russell

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gallagher). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 17 printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 386, line 23, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Section''.
       Page 387, after line 5, insert the following:
       (b) Exclusion of Alcohol Products From Definition.--Section 
     231(a)(5) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1632a(a)(5)) is amended by 
     adding below subparagraph (B) the following:
     ``The term `value-added agricultural product' does not 
     include beer, wine, distilled spirits, hard cider, or other 
     alcohol product.''.
       (c) Rescission.--Of the funds made available under section 
     231(b)(7)(A) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 
     (as in effect before the date of the enactment of this 
     section) to the Secretary of Agriculture to make value-added 
     agricultural product market development grants and 
     unobligated as of such date of enactment, $8,000,000 is 
     hereby rescinded.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses but redirects; it 
does not eliminate any funds from the Value Added Producer Grants.
  These $18 million worth of grants are designed to generate new 
products, expand market opportunities, and assist beginning and 
socially disadvantaged farmers, family farms, and even veterans 
entering farming.
  Unfortunately, millions of these funds go to fund alcohol products.
  While there is nothing inherently wrong with alcohol products, of the 
government funds that are used for promotion of these products through 
the program, we also note that the alcohol industry spends $7.6 million 
a year in lobbying costs.
  Not only do these tax dollars used to fund the promotion of alcohol 
take away from non-alcohol-based farmers and ranchers, they also 
compete with the Government itself.
  Every year, we spend millions of dollars to curtail the use and abuse 
of alcohol.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control, the impacts and loss of 
alcohol abuse results in $249 billion a year in economic, workplace 
absence, healthcare loss, criminal justice expenses, and vehicle crash 
costs.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense that the Government should spend 
money to both promote and curtail an industry.
  This amendment preserves the Value Added Grants for farmers that have 
no $8-million-a-year industry to lobby for them, and it ends the 
duplicitous practice of the Government being both for and against 
something that costs the Nation nearly $250 billion in annual economic 
loss.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Russell 
amendment, which, if enacted, would have a detrimental impact on 
producers across our Nation, including many of my wine, grape, and hops 
producers, as well as the beer and wine industry, not only in my State, 
but around the country.
  This amendment proposes to eliminate wine, distilled spirits, beer, 
and other alcohol products from the Value Added Producer Grant program 
administered by the USDA.
  These industries, in my State and, quite frankly, across the Nation, 
are a growing segment of our farm economy, providing thousands of jobs.
  It is also important to point out the growing significance of wine 
and hops exports to their industries. Last year, my State exported $28 
million of wine, representing about 5 percent of our total production.
  In my home valley of the Yakima Valley in the State of Washington, we 
account for 75 percent of the U.S. production of hops. With the 
continued boom of microbreweries and the demand for hops, we must 
ensure we have available markets.
  Our wine grape growers and the wine industry continue to face 
challenges in export markets, such as the recent tariffs placed on our 
products by China.
  We are in an environment with potential changes in international 
trade, and farmers are looking for more export markets.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose any efforts to limit our 
farmers' ability to find markets for their products.
  Mr. Chair, I include these letters of support in the Record: one from 
the Wine Institute, Wine America, Distilled Spirits Council, and the 
Brewers Association; and one from the Specialty Crop Farm Bill 
Alliance.

                                                     May 17, 2018.
     Re Oppose Russell Amendment to the Farm Bill.

       Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the nearly 9,000 
     small, family owned wineries, 6,200 small and independent 
     breweries and approximately 1,700 distilleries spread across 
     rural America to urge you to vote against the Russell 
     Amendment to the Farm Bill.
       This amendment would unfairly target a vibrant and growing 
     segment of U.S. agriculture by seeking to block small 
     wineries, breweries and distilleries from participating in 
     USDA's value-added agriculture marketing grants. Combined, 
     the American

[[Page H4202]]

     wine, brewing and spirits industries have a direct economic 
     impact of $287 billion on the United States economy and 
     support more than 5 million jobs nationwide.
       Wineries, distilleries and breweries in America represent 
     the very epitome of value-added agriculture, bringing quality 
     jobs and generating much needed tourism to farming 
     communities across the country. This amendment would make it 
     harder for these communities to benefit fully from this 
     opportunity.
       We urge you to support these small businesses and their 
     communities buy opposing the Russell Amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Robert P. Koch,
       President & CEO, Wine Institute.
     James Trezise,
       President, WineAmerica.
     Robert D. Pease,
       President & CEO, Brewers Association.
     Mark Gorman,
       SVP Government Relations, Distilled Spirits Council.
                                  ____



                                                        SCFBA,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2018.
       Dear Members of the House of Representatives: The Specialty 
     Crop Farm Bill Alliance representing over 120 specialty crop 
     organizations across the United States appreciate Chairman 
     Conaway's efforts on H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition 
     Act that initiates the formal 2018 Farm Bill process and for 
     his diligent efforts to complete Committee action on the 
     measure and get it to the floor of the House. After a 
     thorough review of the H.R. 2, the Alliance is also pleased 
     to see that the Committee has retained many of the specialty 
     crop provisions that were included in the 2014 Farm Bill. 
     Included in the House version are provisions funding key 
     specialty crop priorities such as:
       Specialty Crop Block Grants ($85 million/year);
       Specialty Crop Research Initiative ($80 million/year);
       Trade Programs including MAP ($200 million/year) and TASC 
     ($9 Million/year);
       Pest and Disease Programs ($75 million/year) and National 
     Clean Plant Network ($5 million/year);
       Food Insecurity and Nutrition Incentive Program (FINI) 
     (Increased to $285 million over five years).
       These funding commitments demonstrate that the House 
     recognizes the value of these programs and their tremendous 
     importance to the specialty crop industry and the Alliance is 
     grateful for their inclusion in the House legislation. With 
     debate over the next several days on a series of amendments 
     to H.R. 2, we would like to draw your attention to several 
     amendments we interested in. In particular the Specialty Crop 
     Farm Bill Alliance opposes the following amendments:
       Amendment 50 by Rep. Russell prohibits USDA value-added 
     grants for wine and other products;
       Amendment 71 by Reps. Brat, Blumenauer, and Titus on 
     Checkoff Programs;
       Amendment 93 by Rep McClintock on Crop Insurance;
       Amendment 97 by Rep. Faso on Plant Pests;
       Amendment 100 by Rep. Rogers on multivitamin purchases 
     through SNAP.
       Finally, we look forward to continuing to work with 
     Chairman Conaway and Members of the House Agriculture 
     Committee on further policy objectives that we believe will 
     strengthen this bill and assist the specialty crop industry 
     to compete in a domestic and global market place. These 
     priorities are consistent with our requests since last year 
     and in previous Farm Bills which include enhancing nutrition 
     programs, continuing to support Specialty Crop Block Grant 
     programs, combatting invasive pest and diseases, support 
     trade programs, and research funding.
       We look forward to the Farm Bill being considered on the 
     House floor this week and that you will strongly consider our 
     views on the amendments mentioned above.
           Thank you,
     John Keeling,
       Executive Vice President & CEO, National Potato Council, 
     SCFBA Steering Committee Co-Chair.
     Mike Stuart,
       President & CEO, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, 
     SCFBA Steering Committee Co-Chair.
     Tom Nassif,
       President, Western Growers Association, SCFBA Steering 
     Committee Co-Chair.
     Robert Guenther,
       Sr. Vice President of Public Policy, United Fresh Produce 
     Association, SCFBA Steering Committee Secretariat.
       Attachment: List of Specialty Crop Coalition Members.

             Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance Organization


          Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance Steering Committee

       Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, Co-Chair; National 
     Potato Council, Co-Chair; Western Growers Association, Co-
     Chair; United Fresh Produce Association, Executive 
     Secretariat; American Mushroom Institute; American Mushroom 
     Institute; AmericanHort; America Pistachio Association; Blue 
     Diamond Growers; California Association of Winegrape Growers; 
     California Citrus Mutual; California Fresh Fruit Association; 
     California Table Grape Commission; Florida Tomato Exchange; 
     Georgia Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association.
       Idaho Grower Shippers Association; Idaho Potato Commission; 
     National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Watermelon 
     Association; National Grape Research Alliance; Northwest 
     Horticultural Council; Produce Marketing Association; Sunkist 
     Growers; Sun-Maid Growers; Texas International Produce 
     Association; U.S. Apple Association; Washington State Potato 
     Commission; Wild Blueberry Commission of Maine.


         Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance Member Organizations

       Alabama Watermelon Association; Arizona Winegrowers 
     Association; Buy California Marketing Agreement; California 
     Association of Nurseries & Garden Centers; California Canning 
     Peach Association; California Dried Plum Board; California 
     Fig Institute; California Fresh Fig Growers Association; 
     California Strawberry Commission; California Walnut 
     Commission; California-Arizona Watermelon Association; Cherry 
     Marketing Institute; Colorado Potato Administrative 
     Committee; Colorado Wine Industry Development Board.
       Connecticut Farm Wine Development Council; Connecticut 
     Vineyard & Winery Association; Empire State Potato Growers; 
     Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Citrus Packers; Florida 
     Strawberry Growers Association; Florida Sweet Corn Exchange; 
     Florida Watermelon Association; Fruit Growers Marketing 
     Association; Georgia Watermelon Association; Grower-Shipper 
     Association of Central California; Idaho Grape Growers and 
     Wine Producers Commission; Indian River Citrus League; 
     Indiana-Illinois Watermelon Association.
       Leafy Greens Council; Maine Potato Board; Maryland-Delaware 
     Watermelon Association; Maryland Wineries Association; Miami-
     Dade County; Michigan Apple Committee; Minnesota Area II 
     Potato Growers Research and Promotion Council; Minnesota 
     Grape Growers Association; Missouri Wine & Grape Board; 
     National Berry Crop Initiative; National Grape Cooperative 
     Association; National Onion Association; National Peach 
     Council; New England Vegetable and Berry Growers.
       New Mexico Wine Growers Association; New York Apple 
     Association; New York Wine & Grape Foundation; North American 
     Blueberry Council; North American Bramble Growers 
     Association; North American Strawberry Growers Association; 
     North Carolina Blueberry Council; North Carolina Grape & Wine 
     Council; North Carolina Potato Association; North Carolina 
     Strawberry Association; North Carolina Watermelon 
     Association; Northern Kentucky Vintners & Grape Growers 
     Association; Northern Plains Potato Growers.
       Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.; Ohio Wine Producers 
     Association; Oklahoma Grape Growers & Wine Makers 
     Association; Oregon Potato Commission; Oregon Raspberry & 
     Blackberry Commission; Oregon Strawberry Commission; Oregon 
     Wine Advocacy Council; Oregon Winegrowers Association; Peace 
     River Valley Citrus Growers Association; Peerbolt Crop 
     Management; Potato Growers of Idaho; Rocky Mountain 
     Association of Vintners & Viticulturists.
       South Carolina Watermelon Association; Tennessee Farm 
     Winegrowers Association; Texas Citrus Mutual; Texas Vegetable 
     Association; Texas Wine & Grape Growers Association; Texas 
     Watermelon Association; Tropical Fruit Growers of South 
     Florida; United Fresh Potato Growers of Idaho; United Potato 
     Growers of America; Virginia Apple Growers Association; 
     Virginia Wineries Association; Washington Association of Wine 
     Grape Growers; Washington Red Raspberry Commission.
       Washington State Apple Commission; Welch's; Western 
     Pistachio Association; Western Watermelon Association; Wine 
     Institute; Wine Producers Commission; WineAmerica; Winegrape 
     Growers of America; Winegrowers Association of Georgia; 
     WineMichigan; Wyoming Grape & Wine Association; Yakima Valley 
     Growers-Shippers Association.

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, we should not be singling out key 
agricultural industries under programs like this. We should not be 
picking winners and losers among our farmers.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose the Russell 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. 
Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Washington State 
for yielding me the time and for speaking against this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I am sorry to say to my colleague from the other side of 
the aisle, we oppose this amendment,

[[Page H4203]]

which would remove money from the highly successful Value Added 
Producer Grant program.
  The base text of this farm bill already removes all mandatory funding 
from VAPG. Now this amendment would make a bad situation worse by 
rescinding $8 million from VAPG.
  The Value Added Producer Grant is one of the only grant programs that 
goes directly to farmers.
  At a time when the farm economy is hurting, we should be helping 
farmers find new markets, not taking away opportunities to do so.
  USDA's Economic Research Service released a new report earlier this 
month. Businesses that receive VAPG support are less likely to fail 
than nonrecipient businesses, and businesses that receive VAPG support 
also employ more workers than nonrecipient businesses.
  This amendment would also exclude beer, wine, distilled spirits, and 
hard cider projects from being eligible for VAPG. It is completely 
arbitrary and foolish to restrict these products.
  In my State of Maine, there has been an explosion of craft breweries, 
distilleries, and cideries that are contributing to the local economy.
  Two years ago, Ricker Hill Orchards in Maine received VAPG money to 
increase production of hard cider and fruit wine. This provided the 
farmers with an opportunity to diversify revenue and reach new markets.
  This may be a very small program, but it can make a big impact on 
farmers and rural communities in States like mine and across the 
country.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, ``a bad situation worse''? You want to see 
a bad situation? How about this: Just in the District of Columbia, $3.5 
billion in 2010 in direct economic costs; $179 billion of the total 
cost of alcohol consumption comes from a loss in workplace 
productivity.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything for or against, or want to 
promote prohibition or anything of the like. The matter is that these 
crops can stand on their own. They receive $8 million a year nearly, 
$7.67 million from the alcohol industry in lobbying costs. They already 
have their promoters. These crops can stand on their own. However, of 
the $18 million in this Value Added fund, $8 million of that goes to 
the alcohol industry.
  So when we are talking about picking winners and losers, I think we 
have already seen who is being picked here, and it is the fleecing of 
the American people.
  What about those that are new farmers, family farms, even veterans 
that are trying to enter the farming industry but they don't want to 
grow hops? Maybe they want to grow something that we eat that doesn't 
have a detrimental $250 billion a year of an impact.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would argue that I would probably have to be 
drunk to think that the Government should both promote and curtail 
something at the same time.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I believe I have the right to close, so I 
would reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma has the right to close.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chair, it is my amendment, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I have one speaker. I yield the balance of 
my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, how much time does the gentleman have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington State for the opportunity to yield to me to discuss this 
important issue.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment, some in the room might think perhaps will 
target the Market Access Program, but, in fact, it is the Value Added 
Producer Grant program.
  This is a program that supports and helps producers add value to the 
products that they raise.
  I would tell you my chief concern at this point in time in the way 
this amendment has been offered is that about $8 million of the 
rescissions of this program would come out of current programs that 
farmers have already applied for. USDA has already scored the 
applications, it has compiled proposals to make a decision and 
announcement on grant awards; thus, the amendment wouldn't just 
adversely affect the small producer-owned wineries, but producers 
across the board, including those from Oklahoma who have and expect to 
receive grants.
  That is not fair. If you played by the rules, if you have gone 
through the grant process, if you have qualified, suddenly to have $8 
million taken out to punish a particular industry means that even 
though you might not be a part of that industry, you lose your 
opportunity to add value.
  Maybe this is an issue that needs to be discussed on a different day 
in a different way, but I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I have the greatest of respect for my fellow Oklahoman, 
but on this occasion, let's turn this amendment back.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have the deepest respect for 
my colleague from Oklahoma, and he and I see eye to eye on most issues, 
but on this one, it makes no sense that we spend nearly 40 percent of 
the Value Added program--which, by the way, I never addressed Market 
Access Program, that was never even mentioned--but the Value Added 
program is not adding value when $250 billion of economic cost hits the 
United States; $27 billion comes from healthcare expenses; $25 billion 
to criminal justice; $12.5 billion to vehicle crashes. We all pay for 
this.

                              {time}  1845

  But why should we both promote and curtail it? We spend millions of 
dollars in the Federal Government to control and contain abuse and also 
rehabilitation programs, which are good.
  So we need to choose, Mr. Chairman. Are we for something, or are we 
against something? We may be one, we may be the other, but we cannot be 
both.
  Mr. Chairman, I know these are contentious issues, but it is 
interesting to watch in the course of our politics over time. This is 
not a partisan issue; this is an American issue.
  I say it is not partisan because if we were holding this debate 30 
years ago you would have had a flip-flop, but as we have seen shift in 
parties in States and regions of the country, we might politically have 
parties go one direction or the other, but it seems like the special 
interests remain in the middle.
  And if we are really talking about promoting value-added crops and 
entering new farmers in the workplace, then we don't need to give 40 
percent to the alcohol industry when we already see nearly $8 million 
given to them by lobbyists.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask people to support this amendment. It saves the 
taxpayer dollars. These crops can stand on their own, and they can do 
it without the taxpayer subsidization and then our further spending to 
try to curtail it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Turner

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 410, after line 13, insert the following:

[[Page H4204]]

  


     SEC. 7113. RESEARCH AND EXTENSION FUNDING EQUITY FOR RECENTLY 
                   DESIGNATED 1890 INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) Extension.--Section 1444(b) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3221(b)) is amended, in the matter following 
     paragraph (2)(B), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Beginning with fiscal year 2019, in making the calculation 
     under paragraph (1), any recently designated 1890 Institution 
     shall be deemed to have been designated as an eligible 
     institution on or before September 30, 1978. For purposes of 
     the preceding sentence, a `recently designated 1890 
     Institution' means an 1890 Institution designated as such on 
     or after September 30, 1999.''.
       (b) Research.--Section 1445 of the National Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 3222) is amended-- by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Beginning with fiscal year 2019, in making the 
     calculation under paragraph (2)(A), any recently designated 
     1890 Institution (as defined in section 1444(b)) shall be 
     deemed to have been designated as an eligible institution on 
     or before September 30, 1978.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of my amendment to the farm 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a great conversation today with Secretary of 
Agriculture Perdue in which he spoke very highly of the students, 
faculty, and the president of Central State University during his visit 
to the university. Central State University is in my congressional 
district, and I want to thank Secretary Perdue for his leadership.
  I am committed to working with the Secretary's office and all of the 
Historically Black Colleges to find a solution during the 
appropriations process to stop the disparate funding treatment 
currently in place. All 1890 land-grant institutions should be treated 
equally.
  My commonsense and revenue-neutral amendment evens the playing field 
of Federal funding qualifications for all 1890 land-grant Historically 
Black Colleges, as it is currently written now.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for his support for my 
work on this amendment. I specifically want to thank Joyce Beatty, who 
supports the amendment and who is the only alumnus from Central State 
University.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Ms. Stefanik

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Subtitle A of title VIII is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     SEC. 8109. INCLUSION OF INVASIVE VEGETATION IN DESIGNATED 
                   TREATMENT AREAS.

       Section 602 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, invasive 
     vegetation,'' after ``insect''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, invasive 
     vegetation,'' after ``insects''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``, invasive 
     vegetation,'' after ``insect''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Stefanik) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, our national forests are among our greatest natural 
resources. Unfortunately, these forests are under constant threat from 
invasive species and disease. You do not have to search far to find a 
forest battling invasive pests, disease, or invasive vegetation.
  The Healthy Forest Restoration Act was created as a way to help 
respond to these persistent threats. My amendment before the House 
would simply add invasive vegetation to the Healthy Forest Restoration 
Act for the purposes of the designated treatment areas.
  Invasive vegetation chokes out our native trees by competing for 
moisture, sunlight, nutrients, and space. Species like kudzu climb our 
trees and infrastructure and threaten the health and safety of the 
areas where it uncontrollably spreads.
  When native trees are threatened, it is not just the ecosystem that 
is damaged. Local economies and sportsmen and those that use our land 
for other forms of recreation all suffer from degraded forestland.
  Adding this designation increases the effectiveness of the Healthy 
Forest Restoration Act by taking a more encompassing view of the 
threats facing our forestland.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Cheney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of part III of subtitle C of title VIII, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 8334. VACANT GRAZING ALLOTMENTS MADE AVAILABLE TO 
                   CERTAIN GRAZING PERMIT HOLDERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary concerned shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, make vacant grazing allotments 
     available to a holder of a grazing permit or lease issued by 
     such Secretary if the lands covered by the permit or lease 
     are unusable because of a natural disaster (including a 
     drought or wildfire), court-issued injunction, or conflict 
     with wildlife, as determined by the Secretary concerned.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--The terms and conditions 
     contained in a permit or lease for a vacant grazing allotment 
     made available pursuant to this subsection (a) shall be the 
     terms and conditions of the most recent permit or lease that 
     was applicable to such allotment.
       (c) Court-issued Injunctions.--A court may not issue any 
     order enjoining the use of any allotment for which a permit 
     or lease has been issued by the Secretary concerned and 
     continues in effect unless the Secretary concerned can make a 
     vacant grazing allotment available to the holder of such 
     permit or lease.
       (d) Environmental Assessment Under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act.--Activities carried out by the 
     Secretary concerned pursuant to subsection (a) are a category 
     of actions hereby designated as being categorically excluded 
     from the preparation of an environmental assessment or an 
     environmental impact statement under section 102 of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, livestock producers in Wyoming and across the West have 
been battling for years against a Federal Government that has attempted 
systematically to reduce grazing allotments on public lands.
  My amendment would simply make vacant grazing allotments available 
for our producers should their existing allotments become unavailable 
due to unforeseen circumstances such as wildfire, drought, other 
natural disasters, or litigation.
  Today, some of our ranch families are facing extreme hardship. They 
are at risk of losing their livelihood because of factors beyond their 
control. Frivolous lawsuits have often resulted in a complete loss of 
grazing rights for some of our producers who have been grazing on 
public lands for generations.
  Mr. Chairman, these circumstances can lead to situations where our 
ranchers face two options. They either force their livestock to graze 
in confined conditions that are unsuitable and can't support the stock, 
or they have to sell their livestock at fire-sale prices.
  We have seen family ranches go out of business and others that are 
now facing the prospect that their allotments will be lost within the 
next

[[Page H4205]]

year--this, all despite the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the Forest Service 
has vacant allotments available nearby.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide relief and justice for these 
family ranch operations. It would ensure that Federal agencies honor 
the terms of these allotments. Best management practices would be 
maintained, Mr. Chairman, by ensuring that the terms and the conditions 
of the original allotments are honored on the new ones.
  Allowing our ranchers to move their livestock to vacant allotments is 
plain common sense, and it is the right thing to do, Mr. Chairman, for 
our livestock industry.
  Our hardworking ranch families shouldn't face the potential of 
economic ruin because of natural disaster or frivolous lawsuits. My 
amendment will help protect them while we keep them on landscapes they 
have grazed on for generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to 
provide stability and peace of mind for our ranchers across the West.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse).
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment No. 20 offered by my 
friend Ms. Cheney, and I am a proud cosponsor, as well, of this 
amendment.
  This amendment would provide resources for ranchers that are facing 
unforeseeable events, like natural disasters.
  In my district, particularly in the northern counties of north-
central Washington, where catastrophic wildfires are becoming far too 
common an occurrence, ranchers can be forced off of their allotments 
due to wildfires causing their land to be unsuitable for grazing. When 
these ranchers are forced off of these allotments due to these external 
factors, they have nowhere to take their livestock.
  This amendment will provide a solution to this problem by allowing 
these ranchers to take their livestock to vacant allotments in the 
event they face one of these unfortunate but all too common 
occurrences.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge my colleagues to support amendment 
No. 20, and I thank my colleague Ms. Cheney for her leadership on this 
issue.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my cosponsor, Mr. 
Newhouse, and I would also like to thank Chairman Conaway for his work 
on this important bill overall.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will just provide 
justice for our ranch families.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Garrett) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gallagher, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2) to 
provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other 
programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2023, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________