[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 82 (Friday, May 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4213-H4226]
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 to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  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. Ferguson) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  0914


                     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. Ferguson 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
May 17, 2018, amendment No. 20 printed in House Report 115-679 offered 
by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) had been disposed of.

                              {time}  0915


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  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 part III of subtitle C of title VIII, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 8334. PILOT PROJECT FOR FOREST HEALTH, WATERSHED 
                   IMPROVEMENT, AND HABITAT RESTORATION IN NEW 
                   MEXICO.

       (a) Pilot Project Established.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, 
     shall conduct a pilot project within the Lincoln National 
     Forest, Cibola National Forest, and Gila National Forest in 
     the State of New Mexico to analyze and demonstrate the 
     effectiveness of various tools and techniques to address the 
     following natural resource concerns:
       (1) Thinning for forest health.
       (2) Watershed improvement.
       (3) Habitat restoration.
       (b) Authorized Activities.--The Secretary of Agriculture in 
     carrying out the pilot project established under subsection 
     (a) may conduct applied silvicultural investigations and 
     treatments, including--
       (1) silvicultural investigations conducted for the purposes 
     of information gathering and research relating to the natural 
     resource concerns described in subsection (a); and
       (2) mechanical thinning.
       (c) County Refusal of Silvicultural Investigation or 
     Treatment.-- The Secretary may not carry out a silvicultural 
     investigation or treatment under this section if a county in 
     which such investigation or treatment would be conducted 
     provides a refusal to the Secreteray with respect to such 
     investigation or treatment.
       (d) Environmental Assessment Under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act.--Forest management activities 
     carried out by the Secretary of Agriculture under this 
     section 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).
       (f) Public Participation.--The Secretary shall encourage 
     meaningful public participation during preparation of a 
     silvicultural investigation or treatment under this section.
       (g) Use of Arbitration Instead of Litigation to Address 
     Challenges to Forest Management Activities.--
       (1) Discretionary arbitration process pilot program.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     establish a discretionary arbitration pilot program as an 
     alternative dispute resolution process in lieu of judicial 
     review for the an objection or protest to a forest management 
     activity carried out pursuant to this section.
       (B) Activities described.--The Secretary of Agriculture, at 
     the sole discretion of the Secretary, may designate 
     objections or protests to forest management activities for 
     arbitration under the arbitration pilot program established 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (C) Maximum amount of arbitrations.--Under the arbitration 
     pilot program, the Secretary concerned may not arbitrate more 
     than 10 objections or protests to forest management 
     activities in a fiscal year in each Forest Service Region.
       (D) Determining amount of arbitrations.--An objection or 
     protest to a forest management activity shall not be counted 
     towards the limitation on number of arbitrations under 
     subparagraph (C) unless--
       (i) on the date such objection or protest is designated for 
     arbitration, the forest management activity for which such 
     objection or protest is filed has not been the subject of 
     arbitration proceedings under the pilot program; and
       (ii) the arbitration proceeding has commenced with respect 
     to such objection or protest.
       (2) Intervening parties.--
       (A) Requirements.--Any person that submitted a public 
     comment on the forest management activity that is subject to 
     arbitration may intervene in the arbitration--
       (i) by endorsing--

       (I) the forest management activity; or
       (II) the modification proposal submitted under clause (ii); 
     or

       (ii) by submitting a proposal to further modify the forest 
     management activity.
       (B) Deadline for submission.--With respect to an objection 
     or protest that is designated for arbitration under paragraph 
     (1)(B), a request to intervene in an arbitration must be 
     submitted not later than the date that is 30 days after the 
     date on which such objection or protest was designated for 
     arbitration.
       (C) Multiple parties.--Multiple intervening parties may 
     submit a joint proposal so long as each intervening party 
     meets the eligibility requirements of subparagraph (A).
       (3) Appointment of arbitrator.--
       (A) Appointment.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     develop and publish a list of not fewer than 20 individuals 
     eligible to serve as arbitrators for the arbitration pilot 
     program under this section.
       (B) Qualifications.--In order to be eligible to serve as an 
     arbitrator under this paragraph, an individual shall be, on 
     the date of the appointment of such arbitrator--
       (i) certified by the American Arbitration Association; and
       (ii) not a registered lobbyist.
       (C) Selection of arbitrator.--
       (i) In general.--For each arbitration commenced under this 
     subsection, the Secretary concerned and each applicable 
     objector or protestor shall agree, not later than 14 days 
     after the agreement process is initiated, on a mutually 
     acceptable arbitrator from the list published under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (ii) Appointment after 14-days.--In the case of an 
     agreement with respect to a mutually acceptable arbitrator 
     not being reached within the 14-day limit described in clause 
     (i), the Secretary concerned shall appoint an arbitrator from 
     the list published under subparagraph (A).
       (4) Selection of proposals.--
       (A) In general.--The arbitrator appointed under paragraph 
     (3)--
       (i) may not modify any of the proposals submitted with the 
     objection, protest, or request to intervene; and
       (ii) shall select to be conducted--

       (I) the forest management activity, as approved by the 
     Secretary; or
       (II) a proposal submitted by an objector or an intervening 
     party.

       (B) Selection criteria.--An arbitrator shall, when 
     selecting a proposal, consider--
       (i) whether the proposal is consistent with the applicable 
     forest plan, laws, and regulations;
       (ii) whether the proposal can be carried out by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture; and
       (iii) the effect of each proposal on--

       (I) forest health;

[[Page H4214]]

       (II) habitat diversity;
       (III) wildfire potential;
       (IV) insect and disease potential;
       (V) timber production; and
       (VI) 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--

       (aa) domestic water costs;
       (bb) wildlife habitat loss; and
       (cc) other economic and social factors.
       (5) Effect of decision.--The decision of an arbitrator with 
     respect to the forest management activity--
       (A) shall not be considered a major Federal action;
       (B) shall be binding; and
       (C) shall not be subject to judicial review, except as 
     provided in section 10(a) of title 9, United States Code.
       (6) Deadline for completion.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date on which the arbitration is filed with respect to 
     the forest management activity, the arbitration process shall 
     be completed.
       (h) Termination.--The authority to carry out this section 
     shall terminate on the date that is 7 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, 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.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the Agriculture Committee 
having this bill in such good form for us today, but I have an 
amendment which addresses the forests in the West.
  We are facing an unprecedented fire season this year. The drought has 
been extreme in many of the western States. We are facing decades of 
management by a Forest Service that decided that we can manage forests 
in the West, where we have arid climates and not enough rainfall, the 
same as we have managed in the East, where they have plenty of 
rainfall.
  As we find the droughts continuing, we have trees that are stressed 
by disease, by the drought, by pests, and, then when catastrophe 
strikes, when a fire actually starts, it just burns the entire 
landscape. Usually, these forests are not going to be regrown for 
decades. They will have soft undergrowth brush that comes up in the 
meantime, but no large trees, no national forests, as we know it. They 
are overgrown. The thinning projects that would restore forest health 
aren't happening due to the lengthy delays, costly regulations, and 
litigation.
  The Forest Service budget has stayed pretty constant, but the 
thinning projects, the cutting, the balanced thinning projects that 
would restore the health to our western forests, have declined 
precipitously since the 1990s. From the 1950s to the mid 1990s, timber 
harvest averaged somewhere between 10 and 12 billion board feet. From 
1996 until now, they have only harvested between 1.5 and 3.3 billion 
board feet. This has occurred while the Forest Service budgets, again, 
have been enough to accommodate the programs.
  But in 1993, the spotted owl was listed as endangered. The scientific 
understanding, at that point, was that the spotted owl would go extinct 
because of the logging, because we were cutting trees. About 80 percent 
of the timber industry across the Nation was killed. In New Mexico, we 
used to have 123 mills. Those were reduced down to one or two that are 
still operational today. That is the devastating impact that the 
decision on the spotted owl had.
  Twenty years later, President Obama, and then-Director Ashe, 
determined that: Oh, logging wasn't the problem. It was other 
predators.
  So they killed the logging industry. They killed the thinning of 
projects in the West over a mistake in their scientific assumptions. 
The government is directly at fault for thousands of acres of timber 
that are being burned annually across the West.
  The Forest Service is forced to do expensive and time-consuming 
surveys in project areas every 5 years. They are hesitant to manage 
because of how close they are to the nesting area of the spotted owls, 
even though the understanding has been given that logging is not the 
problem.
  In the Mescalero, which butts up against the Lincoln National 
Forest--both are approximately the same size, about a million acres--
the spotted owls are actually moving en masse across to the thinned 
areas in the Mescalero. The fire, instead of burning up habitat, drops 
down. When it is burning through the Lincoln, it hits Mescalero, drops 
down, and becomes a grass fire. Every indication tells us that we are 
managing incorrectly, but still, the Forest Service is not able to do 
large projects.
  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 New Mexico.
  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.
  This amendment and existing authority in the base bill establishes 
so-called pilot programs on three national forests in New Mexico.
  The pilot would exempt all logging activity from environmental review 
and establish an untested arbitration system for anyone who wants to 
object to an unauthorized project. While we are told that this is 
necessary to promote forest health and mitigate wildfire, this sets a 
dangerous precedent, with the potential to do lasting environmental 
damage to over 3 million acres of national forests.
  What this amendment calls a pilot program would upend critical 
environmental safeguards and limit public participation in forest 
management decisions. This is more like a management reorientation 
project than a pilot project.
  The omnibus bill passed less than 2 months ago, included a bipartisan 
compromise to fix the wildfire budget and update forest management 
authorities. The Forest Service has the tools it needs to restore our 
national forests. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would rather use the threat of wildfire to roll back bedrock laws 
to increase commercial logging. This doesn't make sense in New Mexico, 
or any other State.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. As chair of the 
Nutrition Subcommittee, I have been out West. This amendment not only 
helps preserve our forests, but it prevents mudslides in California, it 
prevents erosion, and it prevents the killing of fish. Without managing 
the understory, the intensity of these wildfires will caramelize, or 
bake, the soil to where no water is absorbed. It runs off, takes 
everything with it, including soil particles, and increase turbidity in 
streams. My point is that clean watersheds depend on this amendment as 
well.

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment and the existing authority 
in the base bill would also give unprecedented power to the Forest 
Service to shield future final agency actions from any judicial review. 
This is an extremely dangerous power to give any agency. Allowing an 
agency to decide when and which actions to shield from oversight gives 
them power to ignore the laws passed by Congress.
  Under the language of this amendment, the Forest Service could 
advance any plan and be relatively sure their internal hand-picked 
arbitrator would approve it. Review by independent courts provides 
oversight to ensure agencies are carrying out a statute according to 
congressional intent. This check and balance ensures good governance 
and prevents abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Pennsylvania was pointing 
out about the problem with storm waters running off. Bonito Lake, in 
the middle of the Lincoln National Forest, close to Ruidoso, provides 
water for Holloman Air Force Base and for Alamogordo. It is 75 feet 
deep, just a small lake in the middle of the forest.
  After the fire, the Little Bear fire, the next rain put 50 feet of 
fill into

[[Page H4215]]

that lake. So, 75 feet; 50 feet now has mud and debris in it. All the 
fish were killed, and it is no longer usable for drinking water. That 
is what is going on in the West. Our watersheds are destroyed, our 
forests are destroyed, and our grazing habitat is destroyed, all 
because of the management of the forests.
  This amendment does a very simple thing: It allows the Forest Service 
to go in and do large-scale projects. Typically, they will be in a 
million acre forest, cleaning 30 to 50 acres at a time. This allows 
them to get very large-scale projects to where we can restore the 
health of our forests. It is a commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I urge adoption of my 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. 22 Offered by Ms. Stefanik

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
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:

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

     SEC. __. COMPETITIVE FORESTRY, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL GRANTS PROGRAM.

       Section 1232 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 582a-8) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``or forest 
     restoration'' after ``research''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Priorities.--
       ``(1) Research.--In awarding the initial grants under 
     subsection (a) the Secretary shall give priority to 
     applicants who will use such grants for research concerning--
       ``(A) the biology of forest organisms, including 
     physiology, genetic mechanisms, and biotechnology;
       ``(B) ecosystem function and management, including forest 
     ecosystem research, biodiversity, forest productivity, pest 
     management, water resources, and alternative silvicultural 
     systems;
       ``(C) wood as a raw material, including forest products and 
     harvesting;
       ``(D) human forest interactions, including outdoor 
     recreation, public policy formulation, economics, sociology, 
     and administrative behavior;
       ``(E) international trade, competition, and cooperation 
     related to forest products;
       ``(F) alternative native crops, products, and services that 
     can be produced from renewable natural resources associated 
     with privately held forest lands;
       ``(G) viable economic production and marketing systems for 
     alternative natural resource products and services;
       ``(H) economic and environmental benefits of various 
     conservation practices on forest lands;
       ``(I) genetic tree improvement; and
       ``(J) market expansion.
       ``(2) Forest restoration.--Grants may be used to support 
     programs that restore forest tree species native to American 
     forests that may have suffered severe levels of mortality 
     caused by non-native insects, plant pathogens, or others 
     pests.
       ``(A) Required component of forest restoration strategy.--
     To receive a grant under this subsection, an eligible 
     institution shall demonstrate that it offers a program with a 
     forest restoration strategy that incorporates not less than 
     one of the following components:
       ``(i) Collection and conservation of native tree genetic 
     material.
       ``(ii) Production of propagules of native trees in numbers 
     large enough for landscape scale restoration.
       ``(iii) Site preparation of former of native tree habitat.
       ``(iv) Planting of native tree seedlings.
       ``(v) Post-planting maintenance of native trees.
       ``(B) Award of grants.--The Secretary shall award 
     competitive grants under this subsection based on the degree 
     to which the applicant addresses the following criteria:
       ``(i) Risk posed to the forests of that State by non-native 
     pests, as measured by such factors as the number of such 
     pests present in the State.
       ``(ii) The proportion of the State's forest composed of 
     species vulnerable to non-native pests present in the United 
     States.
       ``(iii) The pests' rate of spread via natural or human-
     assisted means.''.

  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, America's forests are one of our greatest 
natural resources: building our homes, empowering local economies, 
providing for sportsmen and women, and even supplying energy for Fort 
Drum, in my district.
  Unfortunately, our vast forests are under constant threat from the 
scourge of invasive species. These intruders bring not only ecological 
harm, but damage the economic viability of the communities that rely on 
these forests. Forests face added pressure when the invasive species 
attacking them are resistant to known remedies, face no known natural 
predators, and are spread easily by human land use.
  My district is home of the Adirondacks. With 6 million acres of 
parkland, I am deeply concerned with the spread of invasive species.
  One particular example of an invasive pest that is destroying 
American forests and threatens the Adirondack Park is the hemlock 
woolly adelgid. This sap-sucking insect is causing the widespread death 
and decline of hemlock trees not only in the Adirondacks, but in the 
eastern United States.
  Since its arrival in the U.S. in the 1920s, the hemlock woolly 
adelgid has spread rapidly from New England, all the way down to the 
Great Smoky Mountains, feeding on eastern hemlock and Carolina hemlock 
in 17 States. This invasive species has few natural enemies in the 
eastern States, and native trees are neither resistant nor tolerant to 
their feeding.
  Without natural defenses, the hemlock woolly adelgid and other 
invasive pests pose a significant threat to the long-term health of our 
forests. That is why ongoing research is needed to produce solutions 
and to account for the unique biology of these organisms and the way 
they impact the larger forest ecosystem. In addition to research, we 
must work to restore our damaged forests.
  My amendment before the House would modernize the competitive 
forestry, natural resources, and environmental grants program. This 
amendment realigns the priorities of the grant program to focus on 
researching the characteristics and ecosystem-wide impact of these 
species, while also allowing for restoration projects of native forests 
that have suffered severe levels of mortality caused by invasive 
species.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this very 
commonsense amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. STEFANIK. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
for offering this amendment. It is an incredibly important amendment.
  Ms. Stefanik talked about just one of many invasive species. This 
body, uniformly and united, put a lot of money into a significant 
threat to our forests, which was wildfire funding. Those of us who live 
on the East Coast, we have wildfires, Mr. Chairman, but they are more 
limited in scope. We don't have, certainly, the devastating effects of 
the half a million acres that I saw when I visited Washington.
  Our primary threat is invasive species. The hemlock woolly adelgid is 
one of those. That is actually our State tree that it goes after in 
Pennsylvania, so we take that pretty personal. When the hemlock woolly 
adelgid kills the hemlock trees, it warms our trout streams, which we 
are known for, and that is an important part of our number two 
industry, which is tourism.
  We have a new threat that has just recently come into this country 
from somewhere in Asia. It might have been China, I am not sure. It is 
called the spotted lanternfly. The spotted lanternfly is the most 
beautiful butterfly you have every seen, Mr. Chairman, but it is the 
most deadly to grapes, apple trees, pear trees, all fruit trees, and 
hardwoods. That is a big part of our economy, certainly in Pennsylvania 
and on the East Coast.
  Mr. Chairman, I really support this amendment. We need research, we 
need not just solutions on how to deal with these invasive species, but 
we need to find solutions that are landscaped, that can be applied 
broadly, because it is very difficult to do it tree by tree. We are 
doing that with the hemlock woolly adelgid, but we do need more 
research. The U.S. Forest Research Lab is a great part of the U.S. 
Forest Service.

[[Page H4216]]

  I appreciate the work also on restoring those forests. A good healthy 
forest, which means we are actively harvesting and we are maintaining 
and we are preventing wildfires and dealing with invasive species, 
provides us with clean air and clean water. They are the largest carbon 
sinks in the world, a good healthy forest.

                              {time}  0930

  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for letting me speak 
on her amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I have the great pleasure and honor of representing a 
community called Notrees, Texas, and so to be standing up in support of 
a forestry amendment might be a little odd, but I certainly recognize 
the great importance it has to this country.
  Holding off these invasive species in a stalemate is not a fix. We 
have got to be aggressive to protect this natural resource and this 
incredible legacy that has been bestowed upon this great country. So 
maintaining healthy forests are a big deal.
  Mr. Chair, I am supportive of the gentlewoman's amendment and I urge 
all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' when it is time for the vote.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Faso

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. FASO. 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 572, after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 9122. PREVENTING THE ARRIVAL IN THE UNITED STATES OF 
                   FOREST PESTS THROUGH RESTRICTIONS ON THE 
                   IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN PLANTS FOR PLANTING.

       (a) Criteria for Adding Plants to Not Authorized Pending 
     Pest Risk Analysis List.--Section 412(a) of the Plant 
     Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7711(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Regulation of movement.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Criteria for adding plants to not authorized pending 
     pest risk analysis list.--In determining whether to add a 
     genus of a plant for planting to the not authorized pending 
     pest risk analysis list, the Secretary shall consider the 
     environmental impact on natural, managed, and urban 
     ecosystems in the United States of a pest that may be carried 
     on a plant for planting.''.
       (b) Reporting Requirement.--Section 412(e) of the Plant 
     Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7712(e)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Report on Interception of Forest Pests.--Not later 
     than March 1, 2021, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 
     report--
       ``(1) evaluating the effectiveness of the Federal 
     Government in intercepting pests in international shipping 
     and on plants for planting;
       ``(2) describing the geographic sources of intercepted 
     pests and the commodities or plant species most often 
     associated with infested shipments;
       ``(3) quantifying the detection of forest pests in the 
     national surveillance networks, including the Cooperative 
     Agricultural Pest Survey and the Early Detection and Rapid 
     Response network of the Forest Service;
       ``(4) describing new outbreaks of forest pests in the 
     United States and the spread of existing infestations;
       ``(5) describing how the numbers of such interceptions, 
     detections, and outbreaks described in a preceding paragraph 
     have changed since January 1, 2018;
       ``(6) containing proposed additional actions to further 
     reduce the rate of arrival for forest pests across the 
     borders of the United States; and
       ``(7) identifying current challenges with intercepting, 
     detecting, and addressing outbreaks of tree and wood pests, 
     as well as challenges in achieving compliance with this Act 
     and recommendations with respect to such challenges.''.
       (c) Declaration of Extraordinary Emergency and Resulting 
     Authorities.--Section 415(a) of the Plant Protection Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7715(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) use available funds for all activities necessary for 
     pest eradication, including pest identification, development 
     of a pest-specific management plan, and implementation of 
     that plan.''.
       (d) Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service Cooperation in Response to Forest Plant Pests.--
     Section 431(a) of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7751(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) In General.--'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Cooperation Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Improved cooperation with forest service against 
     forest plant pests.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     appropriate coordination and collaboration is occurring 
     between the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and 
     the Forest Service with respect to--
       ``(A) periodically identifying and prioritizing critical 
     detection, surveillance, and eradication needs for tree and 
     wood pests; and
       ``(B) identifying the actions each agency will take within 
     their respective missions with respect to addressing 
     identified priorities.''.
       (e) Effective Date and Implementation.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Implementation.--The Secretary shall issue or revise 
     such regulations as may be necessary to implement the 
     amendments made by this section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Faso) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. FASO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
would require the USDA to comprehensively assess and evaluate the 
importation of forest pests and to provide options as to how we can 
best address this issue.
  Imported forest pests pose what is among the most grievous threat to 
forest health in the United States. Over the past century, forest pests 
have devastated entire species of trees, and threatened agricultural 
industries, businesses, and recreational opportunities for all 
Americans.
  These destructive pests cost the United States billions of dollars 
each year in damages and eradication.
  By engaging stakeholders, tracking the geographic sources of pests, 
and assessing the effectiveness of current pest surveillance efforts, 
my amendment takes important steps toward understanding the scope of 
the problem and why it is happening, while also giving the ability of 
the USDA to strengthen its regulatory response.
  The problem of forest pests is not isolated to my district in upstate 
New York, but exists all throughout the Nation. From the laurel wilt in 
the southeast to the white pine blister rust in the Rockies, all 50 
States face a variety of forest pests.
  Now, specifically, Mr. Chairman, what our amendment would do, it 
would require the Department of Agriculture to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the Federal Government in intercepting the pests in 
international shipping and on plants for planting.
  It would describe the geographic sources of the intercepted pests and 
the commodities or plant species that are most associated with these 
infested shipments.
  It would require the Agriculture Department to quantify the detection 
of forest pests in the national surveillance networks, including the 
Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey and the Early Detection and Rapid 
Response Network of the Forest Service.
  We would have the department describe new outbreaks of forest pests 
in the United States and the spread of existing infestations. This 
public information is going to be critically important in allowing us 
to prevent and assess the problems that exist.
  The Agriculture Department would help describe how the numbers of 
such interceptions, detections, and outbreaks, which are described in 
this amendment, have changed since the beginning of 2018. We would 
require them to have additional actions to further reduce the arrival 
of forest pests across the borders of the United States.
  Identifying these current challenges with the interception, 
detecting, and addressing outbreaks of tree and wood pests is a 
critical part of the mandate of the agency in the Department of 
Agriculture that is charged with this task.

[[Page H4217]]

  Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this commonsense amendment to 
protect our environment, to strengthen our trade relations, and to 
promote our local economies.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Faso for 
his amendment. I have had the privilege and honor of visiting his 
district, where we had one of our listening sessions that we did.
  This is only my second farm bill to participate in, and the last one 
was very good. Chairman Lucas did a great job. But this one, we kind of 
broke the barriers, I think, in terms of transparency and in the amount 
of listening sessions that we had.
  I appreciate we were in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where each January, 
we have a farm show, the largest indoor agriculture exposition in the 
country--that was a shameless plug, I know--but we were also in New 
York, and I appreciate what Mr. Faso is offering here with his 
amendment.
  I certainly speak in favor and support of his amendment. Identifying 
the geographic sources is so incredibly important, Mr. Chairman, 
because then we can see what are the natural enemies to these bugs, 
these fungi, the invasive species that really today are having such a 
devastating effect.
  In the Allegheny National Forest, we are proud of our hardwood 
cherry. We are very afraid of the spotted lanternfly because of what 
that could do.
  Compared to the West, we are probably what are considered a puny or 
very small National Forest, about 513,000 acres, but it is the most 
profitable National Forest because of the value of our timber, and 
invasive species go right after the value. Today, standing in that 
forest, we have a lot of ash--which makes great baseball bats, among 
other things--that are dead because of the emerald ash borer.
  So the gentleman's amendment, which would track and really provide 
the tools that the Forest Service--it builds on the tools that the 
Forest Service has. These are additional tools that they need to have.
  It is so incredibly important when you look at the economic threat, 
and that is the way I look at invasive species. It is not just forest 
health, but these are assets. Our national forests were created not to 
be national parks. That is why they are managed by the Department of 
Agriculture, not the Department of Interior.
  They are meant to provide resources, timber, energy resources, 
minerals, and the invasive species represent just a tremendous threat. 
So we should do anything that we can to protect the value of that 
taxpayer-owned asset.
  Again, everybody benefits from a healthy forest. It takes 
CO2 out of the air, it creates oxygen. They are the largest 
carbon sinks in the world. It keeps our watersheds healthy.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate all parts of this gentleman's amendment and I 
thank him for his amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, the scope of this problem is really not 
appreciated unless you go to our borders and see what happens. All the 
things that come into this country, that are shipped into this country, 
generally come in on wooden pallets, and those wooden pallets are a 
haven or a potential pest nest for all of these wood-borne pests.
  We have laws on the books right now that say all of those pallets 
have to be treated. Those pallets have to be stamped with a stamp that 
says the wood has been treated properly.
  But if you go down there and talk to our hardworking men and women at 
APHIS who man these posts and try to prevent this from happening, they 
will tell you that they are constantly on the lookout for counterfeit 
stamps, pallets that have not been stamped or properly treated. It 
doesn't take many of them having a pest in that pallet that then gets 
transported into the United States as a result of transit, and now we 
are in a fight that we shouldn't have had to begin with.
  So I am fully supportive of the gentleman's amendment to strengthen 
this whole process, add sunlight to it, even more light to it, because 
we have got great hardworking men and women manning these posts on 
every border. We have been to the northern border, we have been down 
south. Just the volume of stuff coming through every single day that 
has to come through, we can't stack it up and not get it through.
  Mr. Chair, I am supportive of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FASO. Mr. Chairman, I think that the comment that Mr. Conaway, 
our distinguished chairman, just made, he and I were privileged to tour 
a border station where the employees of our Federal Government were 
working very hard to inspect the deliveries of all sorts of materials 
and commodities across that border. It was actually in Ms. Stefanik's 
district up on the St. Lawrence River where we went to that border 
crossing some months ago.
  It is truly a remarkable process that our Federal employees go 
through in terms of trying to assess and monitor and inspect these 
shipments of various commodities into our Nation.
  The issue of agricultural pests is something that is truly 
significant and important for all of us as Americans to make sure that 
we can protect our forests. This may be not something that the average 
American thinks about very much, but it is something that those of us 
on the committee and those who are in the affected industries are very 
acutely aware of the importance of this issue.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, just once again, let me 
thank the gentleman for his amendment.
  Let me also say that this farm bill, from my perspective, is 
groundbreaking with what is in the base language with healthy forests, 
and the series of amendments that we have seen made in order. The 
people that will vote for this farm bill today are ones that are 
concerned with too much CO2 in the area, because the work 
that we do as a result of this farm bill, if you are concerned about 
climate change and you are concerned about CO2, this is 
probably the most effective piece of legislation to deal with that in 
my 10 years serving here in Congress, because, once again, these 
forests--and I am a little biased. I am from Pennsylvania, Penn Wood. 
We have more trees today than we did when William Penn got the charter.
  Our healthy forests are our largest carbon sinks. It is the most 
effective tool that we have to take CO2 out of the air and 
to deal with any impact that CO2 may have on climate change. 
So certainly anyone who is concerned about that, talks about that, 
needs to support this amendment and certainly needs to support the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Faso).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 24 will 
not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Massie

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. MASSIE. 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 C of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 9204. INTERSTATE TRAFFIC OF UNPASTEURIZED MILK AND MILK 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), section 361 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), and any 
     regulations or other guidance thereunder, a Federal 
     department, agency, or court may not take any action 
     (including any administrative, civil, criminal, or other 
     action) that would prohibit, interfere with, regulate, or 
     otherwise restrict the interstate traffic of milk, or a milk 
     product, that is unpasteurized and packaged for direct human 
     consumption, if--
       (1) such prohibition, interference, regulation, or 
     restriction is based on a determination that, solely because 
     such milk or milk

[[Page H4218]]

     product is unpasteurized, such milk or milk product is 
     adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise in violation of Federal 
     law;
       (2) the milk or milk product's State of origin allows (by 
     law, regulation, or policy) unpasteurized milk or 
     unpasteurized milk products to be distributed for direct 
     human consumption by any means, including any form of retail 
     sale, direct farm to consumer distribution, or cowshare;
       (3) the milk or milk product is produced, packaged, and 
     moved in compliance with the laws of such State of origin, 
     including any such laws relating to labeling, warning, and 
     packaging requirements; and
       (4) the milk or milk product is moved from the State of 
     origin with the intent to transport the milk or milk product 
     to another State which allows the distribution of 
     unpasteurized milk or unpasteurized milk products for direct 
     human consumption, as described in paragraph (2), 
     irrespective of whether the applicable laws of such other 
     State are identical to the laws of the State of origin.
       (b) No Preemption.--Nothing in this section preempts any 
     State law.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) The term ``cowshare'' means an undivided interest in a 
     milk-producing animal (such as a cow, goat, sheep, or water 
     buffalo, or a herd of such animals) created by a written 
     contractual relationship between a consumer and a farmer--
       (A) that includes a legal bill of sale to the consumer for 
     an interest in the animal or dairy herd and a boarding 
     contract under which the consumer boards the animal or dairy 
     herd in which the consumer has an interest with the farmer 
     for care and milking; and
       (B) under which the consumer is entitled to receive a share 
     of milk from the animal or dairy herd.
       (2) The term ``milk'' means the lacteal secretion, 
     practically free from colostrum, obtained by the milking of 
     one or more healthy animals.
       (3) The term ``milk product''--
       (A) means a food product made from milk; and
       (B) includes low-fat milk, skim milk, cream, half and half, 
     dry milk, nonfat milk, dry cream, condensed or concentrated 
     milk products, cultured or acidified milk or milk products, 
     kefir, eggnog, yogurt, butter, cheese, whey, condensed or dry 
     whey or whey products, ice cream, ice milk, and other frozen 
     dairy desserts.
       (4) The term ``packaged for direct human consumption'' with 
     respect to milk or milk products--
       (A) means packaged for the final consumer and intended for 
     human consumption; and
       (B) does not apply if the milk or milk products are 
     packaged for additional processing, including pasteurization, 
     before being consumed by humans.
       (5) The term ``pasteurized'' means the process of--
       (A) heating milk or milk products to the applicable 
     temperature specified in the tables contained in section 
     1240.61 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (as in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act); and
       (B) holding the milk or milk product continuously at or 
     above that temperature for at least the corresponding 
     specified time in such tables.
       (6) The term ``unpasteurized'' means not pasteurized.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I want you to imagine this scenario: a 
heavily armed Federal SWAT team dressed in black from head to toe with 
body armor on, guns blazing, military-style assault weapons, extra 
magazines loaded, come in intent on crushing all opposition.
  Now, what crime could they possibly be going after? Is it a human 
trafficking ring? Is it a drug bust? No. They are after an Amish farmer 
for selling milk straight from the cow.
  I would like to tell you this is an imaginary scenario, but it has 
happened and it keeps happening. Unfortunately, this isn't a joke.
  So what is interesting about this is that Congress has never passed a 
ban on raw milk, yet the FDA has imposed a ban on raw milk.
  So what I seek to do today, and my colleagues, with this amendment is 
to allow States which have legalized raw milk, to allow the interstate 
transport of that raw milk between two States that have made it legal 
to sell unpasteurized milk.
  It is a very commonsense amendment. There are millions of people who 
drink raw milk in this country. They drink it safely. They believe it 
is much healthier for them than pasteurized milk. The Greatest 
Generation in our country grew up drinking raw milk that was 
unpasteurized. Twenty-eight States allow the sale of unpasteurized raw 
milk.
  So it is ridiculous for us, I believe, the Federal Government, to go 
in and keep people from buying raw milk or transporting raw milk across 
State lines so long as it is legal in those two States.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemen from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, while many today will debate the role of 
the Federal Government in regulating product sales between two willing 
States, I simply want to make one point: The medical evidence against 
raw milk, against unpasteurized milk, is clear. There is no denying the 
link between raw milk consumption and life-threatening foodborne 
illnesses.
  According to the CDC, unpasteurized dairy products, otherwise known 
as raw milk, while consumed by less than 4 percent of the population, 
account for 96 percent of illnesses from contaminated dairy products.
  As a physician who has recently retired from obstetrics, what truly 
touches my heart is that two-thirds of these outbreaks are associated 
with raw milk consumption involving children.
  How any school could allow raw milk inside their walls is nothing 
short of appalling, and that is why I stand today and ask you to oppose 
this amendment that would expand the interstate sale of raw milk and 
would fly in the face of both the FDA and CDC's best science.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that this 
amendment is a bipartisan amendment. This has been a very partisan 
debate over a lot of these amendments over the farm bill, and I think 
it is time that we have something that is supported by both sides of 
the aisle.
  This amendment is modeled after a stand-alone bill that has over a 
dozen cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, and the sponsors of this 
amendment are Congressman Polis and Congressman Rohrabacher in addition 
to me.
  It is very simple. If you understand federalism, you can understand 
this bill. It says that, if two States have legalized the sale of 
unpasteurized milk, no Federal department, agency, or court may take 
any action to prohibit or restrict the interstate traffic of milk or 
milk products between those two States. There are 28 States that have 
legalized the sale of raw milk.
  With a debt of over $21 trillion, the Federal Government doesn't have 
the time, the money, or the resources to chase down and prosecute 
peaceful farmers. This is an issue of both personal freedom and smart 
government.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), a veterinarian who knows more 
about these foodborne illnesses than I do.
  Mr. YOHO. Madam Chairman, as a veterinarian, I rise to voice my 
opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, the amendment poses a threat to the health of 
Americans. Consumption of raw milk has demonstrated public health 
risks, as you just heard. The link between raw milk and foodborne 
illnesses has been well documented in scientific literature for over 
100 years.
  Raw milk is a key vehicle in the transmission of human pathogens, 
including E. coli, campylobacter, Listeria, tuberculosis, 
leptospirosis, cryptosporidiosis, brucellosis, cowpox, diptheria, and 
typhoid fever. You can throw some ascarids in there, too.
  Since the beginning of time, humankind has strived to improve 
survivability and increase human health. In fact, Louis Pasteur, in 
1864--1864, over 154 years ago--discovered the benefits of heating milk 
to kill the microbes that were detrimental to human health, hence the 
term ``pasteurization.''
  Nearly two-thirds of all raw milk or raw milk products--cheese, 
butter, ice cream--and the outbreaks that come from those involve 
children who are not able to make informed decisions on what to 
consume. And according to the

[[Page H4219]]

CDC, at least one child younger than 5 was involved in 46 percent of 
the raw milk and raw milk product outbreaks reported between 2007 and 
2016.
  It is obvious and scientifically proven that this amendment would 
threaten the health and well-being of all Americans. I am not against 
raw milk, but if it is your cow, I think you ought to drink it at your 
house, and it shouldn't be sold as a healthy product without 
contaminants.
  Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Stefanik). The gentleman from Kentucky has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for mentioning 
Louis Pasteur and the pasteurization process, because what we have 
today is pasteurization without representation here in this country.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Grothman), my friend.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Chair, I would like to speak on this amendment 
and make a few points.
  Madam Chair, it is true the public health establishment is opposed to 
this amendment. It is also true, if you look at the amount of allergies 
out there, the amount of some other diseases that are affecting young 
kids, to some degree, the public health establishment is dropping the 
ball, and I don't think we can trust them entirely.
  In my district, there is a substantial number of people who drink raw 
milk, and I would say it is tilted strongly towards people with a 
scientific background; chiropractors, nurses, veterinarians are the 
ones who feel strongest about drinking raw milk.
  My final comment is I like to talk to people from foreign countries 
about the differences between their country and this country. Last 
year, I talked to a diplomat from Northern Europe and I asked him what 
the best and worst things about America were. To my surprise, he said 
the worst thing about America is the difficulty in getting 
unpasteurized cheese and unpasteurized milk.
  Madam Chair, I thought it was a shame that America, the land of the 
free--when people come here from Europe, we are supposed to be freer in 
the United States. A complaint from people in Europe where you can 
drink unpasteurized milk, raw milk is that we don't have those freedoms 
in America.
  Madam Chair, I think it is a great amendment for people who believe 
in freedom. And like I said, the people in my district who drink raw 
milk are the most informed on health issues.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, as a veterinarian, I agree with my good 
friend and colleague, a large animal practitioner from the great State 
of Florida, Ted Yoho, that pasteurization is essential to preventing 
the reemergence of some of the most basic foodborne diseases that, 
unfortunately, we now take for granted in the United States of America.
  Prior to the advent of pasteurization, tuberculosis, brucellosis, and 
all the diseases my good friend and colleague alluded to were 
commonplace. Commonplace, and this is only over a little over 100 years 
ago.
  Milk, which is high in protein, starch, and fat, is an ideal medium 
for bacterial growth. Within days, if not from original contamination 
at the dairy, these deadly bacterial diseases develop. Pasteurization 
is the modest heat treating of milk that keeps these deadly bacteria 
from growing, thereby improving shelf life and allowing widespread 
distribution of safe, clean, healthy, uncontaminated milk that makes us 
the envy of the world.
  It does not denature or impair the nutritional value of this super 
nutritional food source. Indeed, do we all not remember just a few 
years ago the melamine contamination in China, their milk source? 
Chinese mothers now feed their babies American milk.
  One of our most basic duties in the Federal Government is to protect 
the health of the American people. It would be an unconscionable 
dereliction of our duty to not allow this amendment to go forward. 
Let's support the Constitution to protect the health and welfare of the 
American people.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I know Big Milk opposes raw milk. The milk 
lobby doesn't like my amendment. In fact, the lactose lobby is very 
intolerant of freedom.
  But I am here today to take up for consumers and small farmers and 
States' rights, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this. 
Reject pasteurization without representation. Vote to allow the 
interstate transport of raw milk between two States where it is legal.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the House 
Agriculture Committee, if he has any tolerance for the issue.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  You are 840 times more likely to get a disease or have a problem by 
drinking unpasteurized milk. And 60 percent of the people who are 
impacted by this are kids under 20 years old who have not bought the 
milk; their parents bought it.
  This is not something we should be doing. All of the folks who are 
involved in this, veterinarians, the CDC, FDA, all of them oppose this.
  The International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk 
Producers, who don't always agree with each other, both oppose this 
because they are concerned that, if something happens and people say it 
is milk, they are not going to know the difference between raw milk or 
pasteurized milk or whatever it is.
  This is not a good situation for maintaining our markets in the dairy 
product area. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Chair, according to a veterinarian well known to 
me, he has claimed that drinking raw milk is akin to drinking water out 
of a cow hoof print in the dirt.
  Madam Chair, I want to encourage folks to vote against 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 Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, 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 Kentucky 
will be postponed.


        Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Madam 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:

       After section 11201, insert the following (and make such 
     conforming changes as may be necessary):

     SEC. ___. STATE BEGINNING FARMER AND RANCHER COORDINATOR.

       Section 226 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
     Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6934) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(i) State Beginning Farmer and Rancher Coordinator.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall designate a State 
     beginning farmer and rancher coordinator from among existing 
     employees of the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service, the Risk Management Agency, the Rural 
     Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural Utilities 
     Service.
       ``(2) Training.--The Agency shall coordinate the 
     development of a training plan so that each State coordinator 
     shall receive sufficient training to have a general working 
     knowledge of the programs and services available from each 
     agency of the Department to assist beginning farmers and 
     ranchers and be familiar with issues relating to beginning 
     farmers and ranchers.
       ``(3) Duties.--The coordinator shall--
       ``(A) coordinate technical assistance at the State level to 
     help beginning farmers and ranchers gain access to programs 
     of the Department;

[[Page H4220]]

       ``(B) work with outreach coordinators in the State offices 
     of the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service, the Risk Management Agency, the Rural 
     Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural Utilities Service 
     to ensure appropriate information about technical assistance 
     is available at outreach events and activities; and
       ``(C) work with the Office of Partnerships and Public 
     Engagement and regional, state, and local offices of the 
     Department to facilitate partnerships and joint outreach 
     efforts with State regional, state, and local organizations 
     and key stakeholders serving beginning farmers and ranchers 
     through contracts and cooperative agreements.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, we all care a great deal about supporting the next 
generation of farmers, and my amendment would expedite the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's loan application process for young farmers 
who are in the process of securing farmland, providing funding for the 
farmers market promotion and local food promotion program, and also 
extend the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, which 
awards grants to organizations for education and mentoring purposes 
through a competitive grant process.
  A constituent of mine, Frank Kurylo, the organizer at the Young 
Farmers Coalition of Southeastern Pennsylvania and co-owner of the 
community-supported Kimberton CSA in my district, said it best:

       Without support of this amendment, we risk losing our 
     Nation's future farms and farmers. 100 million acres of U.S. 
     farmland is expected to change ownership in the next 5 years. 
     We need to be able to connect young farmers to the land and 
     provide the resources to help make farming a viable option 
     for the next generation. The Young and Beginning Farmers Act 
     is critical to reaching these goals and reconnecting people 
     to a food system built around the sustainable principles that 
     drive our access to healthy food.

  Madam Chair, I would like to thank the chairman for his support, 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even 
though I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, this is maybe not a bad idea, but I just 
want to point out that the Secretary can already do this. I don't know 
exactly why we are doing this, but I guess that is a decision between 
the authors and the Secretary. They can already do it.
  The thing that I am little bit concerned about is that this might 
help a little bit with beginning farmers, but, frankly, we are not 
doing enough in the underlying bill to put the money in there that 
would actually do some good for beginning farmers and ranchers. That 
would be more important than naming a coordinator if we don't have 
enough money to do what we want to do.
  I am not going to oppose the amendment, but I just want to point out 
that this is good intentions, but this is something that could be done 
anyway.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
  Mr. EMMER. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of an amendment that 
I was pleased to coauthor with my colleague, Representative Costello 
from Pennsylvania.

                              {time}  1000

  Our amendment directs the Secretary of Agriculture to designate a 
beginning farmer and rancher coordinator in each of the 50 States at no 
cost to the taxpayer. According to the 2017 National Young Farmers 
survey, a lack of familiarity with Federal programs was among the top 
reasons young farmers don't access those programs.
  At a time when there are six times as many farmers over the age of 65 
as there are under the age of 35, now more than ever, we need to help 
grow the next generation of farmers. Minnesotans who farm have made our 
State a top producer for sugar, beets, and turkeys.
  Meanwhile, in my colleague's home State of Pennsylvania, dairy and 
mushrooms top the list. Each State is different, and so are the 
challenges facing their farmers. Having a State-specific coordinator 
will ensure outreach efforts that are tailored to every State's need.
  The Costello amendment is supported by the National Young Farmers 
Coalition as well. I thank the chairman for his work on the farm bill 
and his support of this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do the 
same. Support America's young farmers by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON. Madam Chair, I have no further speakers or discussion, 
so I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I just want to thank my 
colleague and friend from Pennsylvania for this amendment. Yes, the 
USDA has existing authority, but I think this expresses the intent of 
Congress and our recognition that one of the biggest issues that we 
face in the agriculture industry--which is the number one industry in 
Pennsylvania, one out of every seven jobs comes directly or indirectly 
from agriculture--it is our succession planning. It is where is the 
next generation of farmer coming from? Congress recognizes the need of 
having this type of leadership designated so that there is somebody on 
point overseeing, and pointing, and administering the young and 
beginning farmer programs that we have put in place for the past couple 
of farm bills.
  It is actually a crisis, given the average age of farmers across this 
Nation. And I appreciate the fact that we are going to help to 
certainly further express the intent of this Congress on the importance 
of this, and provide a direction so that resources can be administered 
to meet this need. I appreciate the gentleman's effort.
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I want to thank my 
legislative aide, Andrew Furman, for his work on this. I encourage all 
of 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mrs. Noem

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mrs. NOEM. Madam 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 605, strike lines 16 through 21 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 11203. OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS.

       Section 309 of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 6921) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 309. OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall maintain in the 
     Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement established 
     under section 226B an Office of Tribal Relations, which shall 
     advise the Secretary on policies related to Indian tribes and 
     carry out such other functions as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(b) New Beginnings Initiative.--Not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of the Agriculture and 
     Nutrition Act of 2018, the Secretary shall establish, in 
     consultation with the Office of Tribal Relations, an 
     initiative (to be known as the `New Beginnings Initiative') 
     under which the Secretary shall provide funds to a land-grant 
     college or university in an amount equal to the amount of 
     funds such land-grant college or university expends for 
     providing educational programs and services for, or tuition 
     paid with respect to, Indians (as defined in section 4 of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 5304)) at such land-grant college or university.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentlewoman 
from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.

[[Page H4221]]

  

  Mrs. NOEM. Madam Chair, many States in which agriculture is important 
are also home to Native Americans Tribes. South Dakota, for example, 
has nine federally recognized Tribes. Many of these communities are 
poor. They lack basic services and have high rates of unemployment.
  No one suffers from these conditions more than the youth: the 
children, high school students, and hopeful college students who live 
there. That is why it is so important to ensure that native youth have 
the opportunity to obtain a higher education; to attend college; and 
that they are given the tools that they need to succeed.
  So my amendment is designed to work in concert with programs that 
assist native students, like the Wokini Initiative. It was designed by 
my alma mater, South Dakota State University. In the Lakota language, 
Wokini means ``new beginnings.'' It is the title of the program that 
this amendment establishes. This amendment simply authorizes USDA to 
match funds spent by land-grant universities on efforts to help native 
students succeed and ultimately graduate.
  Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I am going to claim the time in opposition 
so that I can support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, this initiative is incredibly important. We 
have huge challenges in the Great Plains region. Our Tribes are 
stressed and impoverished more than any other Tribes in the Nation. 
Many times, those youth struggle with hopelessness, a lack of belief in 
a strong future and opportunities that they have.
  I want to thank our ranking member for supporting the amendment. It 
is incredibly important that we offer opportunities to those Tribal 
youth and give them the chance to go on to post secondary education 
opportunities.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to use the balance of my time that I have 
here today to speak about my strong support for this farm bill that we 
have on the floor. While not everybody farms, everybody eats. And 
whenever I talk about agriculture to other people that don't have it in 
their district or in their region, I talk about how this farm bill is a 
national security issue.
  You see, when we grow our own food in this country, we control our 
own future. If we rely on another country to feed us, then they control 
us. And as we do business and trade with other countries, we create a 
much friendlier environment and neighborhood worldwide because we are 
doing business with those countries.
  We decided years ago in this country that we wanted to have an 
affordable and a safe food supply. And today, we have the safest food 
supply in the entire world because this country has a farm bill--a farm 
bill that provides safety nets for our farmers and ranchers that are 
out there taking highly leveraged risks each and every year to put a 
crop in the ground and to harvest that and to feed this country and the 
world.
  So maintaining control of our food supply--and the world's most 
affordable and abundant food supply at that--is essential. Because once 
we depend on another Nation to feed us, then they will continue to 
control us. So this is about having a safety net and making sure that 
every single family in this country has affordable and safe food.
  We do this in this bill by maintaining a strong crop insurance 
program. We remain committed to strong livestock disaster programs 
which were essential in making sure that South Dakota ranchers could 
recover from that devastating Winter Storm Atlas that killed tens of 
thousands of cattle that we experienced. It helped them rebuild, and it 
helped them continue to grow beef in our country.
  Commodity programs are improved in this bill as well. I am proud that 
the language I drafted was included to make these programs work better 
for the future. We also increase investment in farm country. We 
dedicate resources for rural broadband development. We do this while 
also investing in essential research opportunities, and continue to 
drive innovation.
  As a lifelong farmer and rancher, I understand the uncertainty our 
farmers face every day. In fact, across the country and across my home 
State of South Dakota, farm income in the last several years has 
dropped over 50 percent. I know how highly leveraged farmers are, and 
how important it is that we manage that risk.
  We can't control all of the risk factors that these families face. 
Hail storms and droughts will strike, but we can make sure that our 
policies that we write here today enable them to fulfill our own 
nutrition needs while also feeding the world.
  So I want to urge my colleagues to support this bill, to support this 
amendment, and make sure that we continue to provide the food that 
feeds the world.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 AMENDMENT NO. 28 OFFERED BY MR. ROSKAM

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. ROSKAM. 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 F of title XI, add the following 
     (and make such conforming changes as may be necessary):

     SEC. 11613. EXTENDING PROHIBITION ON ANIMAL FIGHTING TO THE 
                   TERRITORIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2156) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), it'' and inserting ``It''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking subsection (d); and
       (3) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), 
     and (j) as subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i), 
     respectively.
       (b) Use of Postal Service or Other Interstate 
     Instrumentalities.--Section 26(c) of the Animal Welfare Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 2156(c)) is amended by striking ``(e)'' and 
     inserting ``(d)''.
       (c) Criminal Penalties.--Subsection (i) of section 26 of 
     the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156), as redesignated by 
     section 2(3), is amended by striking ``(e)'' and inserting 
     ``(d)''.
       (d) Enforcement of Animal Fighting Prohibitions.--Section 
     49(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``(e)'' and inserting ``(d)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chair, I will yield myself 30 seconds because I have 
got to watch this clock sort of tight.
  So here is the situation: Animal fighting is inappropriate and wrong 
no matter where it happens. It is against the law in the continental 
United States, and, I should say, in all 50 States, and what we are 
proposing is to make that a standard in the territories as well.
  There are some elements of animal fighting that is illegal in 
territories, but not altogether. This has been a long journey. It is a 
40-year journey in this country. It reached a crescendo about 10 years 
ago when a standard was created in all 50 States. What this amendment 
does, Mr. Chairman, is very simple: it proposes to do the same thing in 
the territories.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I am thankful for the opportunity to express 
my strong opposition to the amendment.
  It is deeply unfair to the United States Territories and contrary to 
the original intent of the Federal law in question: the Animal Welfare 
Act amendment, under which States have always been defined to include 
the territories.
  First, the characterization of this amendment is closing a loophole 
and bringing the territories in with the States is highly misleading. 
The Animal Welfare Act adequately addresses interstate and foreign 
commerce of fowl for gaming purposes. The intent of

[[Page H4222]]

the Federal law in this area has always been to aid States and other 
local law enforcement in jurisdictions where gamefowl events are 
illegal, and to prohibit the transport of animals from areas where they 
are, in fact, allowed.
  The reason that there is a ban in all 50 States is not because of 
Federal law, but because of States' laws, and those States have banned 
them in their States. So for the Federal Government to impose that on 
the territories at this time, I believe, is deeply unfair. This is a 
highly regulated, cultural, and historic activity in the territories.
  Let's not forget that the real author of this bill is The Humane 
Society which--when the Federal Government gets into this--becomes a 
slippery slope, as The Humane Society also wants to ban sporting 
activities or hunting activities in which animals hunt another animal. 
Is the gentleman from Illinois going to then offer an amendment to stop 
dogs who assist humans in looking for ducks and in other places? No.
  But all of the territories' Delegates are against this amendment. And 
for someone from another State to offer an amendment to restrict 
something in the U.S. territories is deeply unfair.
  At the last hearing of the committee in which this issue was 
addressed, which was nine sessions ago, The Humane Society also 
testified that legislation at State level should be the proper fora to 
ultimately decide whether fowl gaming is permitted within those State's 
borders. And, again, States also meaning territories.
  I agree, and so should this body. If only they were true to their 
word--and the gentleman from Illinois agreed with them--and the well-
documented legislative history, we wouldn't be here. And hopefully, we 
would be talking about much more important matters--matters related to 
the farm bill, such as SNAP, such as school lunches, such as subsidies 
to our farmers.
  Those are the things that should be in this farm bill, not this 
legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have been involved for 20 years to 
try and stop the barbaric practice of animal fighting, dogfighting, 
cockfighting, and slowly but surely, we have made the point under 
Federal law. It is a felony crime: to sponsor; exhibit an animal in a 
fighting venue; to buy, sell, deliver, possess, train animals; or to 
bring a minor to an animal fight.
  But this has been long and slow and painful. And I violently disagree 
with the notion that we should have one set of rules. It is already a 
felony in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. We shouldn't have 
one set of rules for some territories, and for the rest of the States. 
At core, this is a barbaric, inhumane practice. The animals are drugged 
to make them more ferocious.
  In cockfighting, they are equipped with metal spurs to slash each 
other--fighting to the death. I am sorry, this Congress has rejected 
the notion that this is culturally specific. Animal cruelty has no 
place in any territory, in any State, in any venue, by any race or 
ethnic group or cultural tradition. We have gone past that. We heard 
those arguments in some States when we were fighting to achieve these 
protections.
  I strongly urge that we continue this 20-year fight to protect 
animals and protect people from being involved with this horrific 
activity, and close what is, in fact, a loophole. We should have no 
separate rules for States, territories, or anywhere under our 
jurisdiction.

                              {time}  1015

  The Roskam-Blumenauer amendment will fix this and finish a journey 
that we started 20 years ago. But sadly, because some people think it 
is acceptable, we are still going to have to fight this battle in the 
illegal sector as well.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, may I ask how much time do I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I would hope that in the future, Congressman 
Roskam, the gentleman from Illinois, as well as Mr. Blumenauer would 
consider that no law should be different for the States and the 
territories, to allow the territories' people to be treated the same as 
the States.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. 
Bordallo).
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Roskam 
amendment which would force a Federal ban on the territories without 
our consent.
  I am sure Congressman Roskam would not want an amendment forced on 
his constituents without his consent or input. All five members from 
the territories oppose this amendment, as cockfighting is a culturally 
significant practice in many of our islands.
  As importantly, this amendment dictates to the territories without 
any opportunity for our constituents or their elected representatives 
to have any say.
  Guam and other territories have enacted local laws to regulate 
cockfighting. Congress should not force this on more than 4 million 
Americans. Are you aware we are denied the right of a vote against this 
amendment on this House floor?
  So many issues affecting the territories require Congress' attention: 
disaster recovery, poverty, healthcare, infrastructure, education, and 
equal voting rights on this floor. That is what we should be thinking 
about, and the House should be spending more time addressing these 
priorities.
  I was not consulted on this matter, and neither were any of the other 
representatives from the territories. This is not fair, Mr. Chairman. 
This is not fair.
  Yes, I agree. We should all be treated equally. Then why aren't the 
territories allowed to come down on the floor and to vote for final 
passage? That is the question I want to ask you. Let's be fair all the 
way.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask this sponsor to withdraw this amendment so that 
we can provide our input and maybe we can work toward an agreement. 
Otherwise, I urge all Members to oppose the Roskam amendment.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Knight).
  Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman 
Roskam for his work on this amendment.
  I do speak in favor of amendment No. 14 which strengthens Federal 
laws against animal fighting and has garnered bipartisan support many 
times over the past two decades. This is something that still happens. 
It still happens in our country. Just a month ago, over 1,000 birds 
were collected in a cockfighting raid just in my district in southern 
California.
  Forcing two animals to fight to the death is not only a crime 
problem, it is a moral problem as well. There is strong bipartisan 
agreement that animal fighting is an inexcusable crime. We should 
strengthen our laws to protect animals and society from this barbaric 
activity which has no place in modern society.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close as 
the member of the committee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, although I don't like what she is about to 
say, in courtesy, I yield 1 minute to the Resident Commissioner of 
Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).
  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
chairman for yielding.
  We would never have had this debate if we had had an opportunity to 
have a public hearing on the issue. So I oppose this amendment because 
this is more Federal regulation for the territories.
  Cockfighting is already a highly regulated industry in Puerto Rico. 
Originally regulated in 1933, then in 2007. We actually have offices 
regulating this issue that creates an $18 million industry on our 
island with 27,000 direct and indirect jobs. Already the farm bill 
permits that cockfighting will be prohibited in the States and 
interstate commerce, but can be legal if the State or the territory 
authorizes and regulates the event.
  That is the situation with the territories; we regulate the event. 
Actually, this proposed legislation will cause a highly regulated 
industry to go underground and go to the streets where there is no 
control at all.
  Our constituents were never heard on this issue, and we are looking 
for that opportunity. I do believe that we are not having the 
opportunity to be treated equally. That is the reason I oppose this 
amendment, and we should have at least a public hearing on this issue.

[[Page H4223]]

  

  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, once again, you have heard the opposition to 
this at this time.
  The characterization that it is closing a loophole, as I said, is 
misleading. I think it is important to understand what is going to 
happen if this is, in fact, made law, that this will drive this 
underground, and it will criminalize what has happened. Many 
individuals will become criminals at engaging in this activity.
  If individuals are truly concerned with the territories, I would ask 
them to cosponsor legislation that helps people in the Virgin Islands 
and allows them to be treated fairly and not to be cruel to us with the 
cap on Medicaid.
  I would ask that they would cosponsor much of the legislation that 
many of the delegates have offered up to support the people who live in 
the Virgin Islands as well.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, this is a heartfelt issue obviously, but we 
are talking about rough stuff. We are talking about stuff that attracts 
gangs. We are talking about stuff that attracts drug trafficking. We 
are talking about stuff that attracts violence. We are talking about 
things that you would be ashamed to bring a child to. We are talking 
about things that if it were to happen in the well of this Chamber, 
many of us would look away because we would be shocked at the 
gratuitous violence.
  To characterize this as a cultural norm that we should just walk away 
from is a misrepresentation, in my view. It is not persuasive to me. It 
is wrong. It is wrong if it happens in the 50 States, it is wrong if it 
happens in the territories, and we ought not be complicit in it.
  The notion that this is going to drive this activity underground is a 
hackneyed old argument. We heard that before as it relates to the 50 
States. That wasn't persuasive. We know what this activity is. We ought 
not be complicit in it.
  Mr. Chairman, we should pass 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 Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chair, 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 Illinois 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Louisiana

  The Acting Chair. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle F of title XI, insert the following:

     SEC. 116__. CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTALITY OF CONSERVATION 
                   MEASURES.

       Section 7(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) In determining whether a Federal agency action is 
     likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 
     endangered species or threatened species or result in the 
     destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat 
     of a species, the Secretary shall consider the offsetting 
     effects of all avoidance, minimization, and other species-
     protection or conservation measures that are already in place 
     or proposed to be implemented as part of the action, 
     including the development, improvement, protection, or 
     management of species habitat whether or not it is designated 
     as critical habitat of such species.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, the Endangered Species Act, or 
ESA, as we call it, imposes numerous burdensome and duplicative 
regulations on America's hardworking farmers and ranchers. This 
adversely impacts their ability to provide food not only to America, 
but, of course, to people all around the world.
  We all know that activist groups are employing sue-and-settle tactics 
to further their ideological agenda to increase the number of species 
listed under the ESA. As the ESA list grows, however, farmers and 
ranchers are forced to shift their primary focus from food production--
which we all need them to focus on--to navigate and comply with 
bureaucratic hurdles threatening their very livelihoods.
  My amendment would require the Secretary to consider the totality of 
conservation measures already in place when determining whether a 
potential Federal action will jeopardize species or habitat loss. Our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers already opt to participate in 
conservation programs. They do so voluntarily. They implement 
protections and mitigation factors on their land, and they do 
everything they can to protect habitat and wildlife.
  Our agricultural community proactively promotes conservation 
measures, and they seek guidance from the USDA on best practices. But 
the ESA has expanded far beyond the original intent of the law, and it 
has become a serious problem.
  The time has come for us in this Congress to modernize the ESA, which 
will ease the difficulties farmers and ranchers face when bearing the 
brunt of undue burdens placed on agriculture. To that end, my amendment 
to H.R. 2 takes a holistic approach to protecting species and 
preserving habitats, ultimately helping America's farmers and ranchers 
go back to doing what they do best, and that is providing a safe, 
sustainable food source for our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a matter of 
fairness and common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  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, I oppose the amendment that is being offered by the 
gentleman. It is unwarranted and undermines one of the bedrock 
environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act.
  The first issue at stake is that my colleagues seem to imply that the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not already have the authority to 
consider beneficial conservation actions already in place during the 
section 7 consultation process under the Endangered Species Act. This 
is simply not true.
  The jeopardy analysis already takes into account the beneficial 
actions that have been implemented when determining if a Federal 
agency's activities would put a species in danger of extinction. Thus, 
this part of the amendment is redundant and would only cause 
uncertainty in the consultation process.
  But perhaps more problematic is that this amendment includes a 
requirement to consider future proposed conservation measures. The 
keyword here is proposed. In no way are these proposals locked in 
stone. There would be no way to know if these proposals would be part 
of the final action.
  The service always considers conservation measures. The service 
considers proposed actions where they are reasonably certain to occur. 
The service, however, should not include speculation about proposed 
actions in the future. This amendment lowers the bar for species 
protection and should be rejected.
  Unfortunately for our imperiled wildlife, this amendment is not the 
only way my colleagues across the aisle are attempting to undermine the 
Endangered Species Act in this farm bill.
  If this bill becomes law, a person could spray early spring 
pesticides directly on endangered wildlife in the field, like the 
whooping crane, for example, and it would be completely legal even if 
some were killed.
  Not to mention, these early spring pesticides are often acutely 
toxic. Some pesticides are suspected to cause Parkinson's disease in 
people, and others are likely to cause cancerous tumors. Imagine the 
damage, not only to human life, but what it would do to our endangered 
wildlife.
  This bill also removes the requirement under section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act for the EPA to consult

[[Page H4224]]

with expert wildlife agencies on the impact of pesticides to threatened 
and endangered wildlife.
  Pesticides have caused the dramatic decline of numerous species of 
birds, bees, fish, and butterflies. With the very existence of species 
such as the monarch butterfly and the whooping crane at stake, it is 
unconscionable to allow the EPA to approve the use of pesticides 
without properly assessing the effects they have on hundreds of 
endangered species across the country.
  I cannot say this strongly or more frequently enough: the ESA does 
not need to be reformed or modernized to work better. What it needs is 
congressional support. Instead of rolling back critical safeguards and 
introducing harmful anti-ESA riders like these, Congress should be 
implementing measures to fully fund the act and protect species and 
their habitats from permanent extinction.
  We have a responsibility to be good stewards of our environment and 
uphold the strong protections of the ESA. The American people deserve 
to be able to experience their natural legacy for generations to come.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume 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. Johnson of Louisiana.
  This good governance and commonsense amendment will reduce costs 
associated with consultation and allow important projects to move 
forward while ensuring these actions don't negatively impact species 
and result in more private contributions that help recover endangered 
species.
  In recent years, local landowners showed unprecedented support for 
lesser prairie chicken conservation and committed approximately 4 
million acres and more than $26 million toward these efforts. 
Unfortunately, current practices do not allow conservation measures 
that take place outside of designated critical habitat to count in 
relation to Federal actions.

                              {time}  1030

  This arbitrary interpretation results in less conservation efforts 
for species and stifles private investment that would otherwise be 
encouraged if the totality of habitat conservation measures underway 
were allowed to be considered.
  Last year, Senator John Barrasso pointed out that, of the more than 
1,600 species of animals and plants listed on the Endangered Species 
Act since 1973, only 3 percent have been recovered. That is 3 percent. 
This is failure by any definition or reason.
  This amendment encourages voluntary conservation that will help 
recover threatened and endangered species. Property owners, States, and 
local communities should be encouraged to be part of the solution, not 
pushed aside in favor of Federal micromanagement.
  I applaud Representative Johnson for his strong leadership and 
tireless efforts to improve an outdated system that is failing to 
protect species and failing to consider the totality of conservation 
measures underway before moving forward with new Federal actions.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Johnson for his work on this 
amendment.
  This amendment would require the Secretary to consider measures 
already in place or proposed to mitigate species or habitat loss when 
determining whether Federal action is likely to jeopardize existing 
work taking place. This would help address agriculture's ongoing 
concerns with the Endangered Species Act by recognizing the habitat 
protections and benefits already being provided through USDA 
conservation program practices that farmers and ranchers implement on 
their land.
  Farmers are our best stewards of the land and environment, and I 
applaud efforts that take into account the good work the ag industry is 
already doing to prevent habitat and species loss. I urge my colleagues 
to prevent duplicative measures that may compromise conservation 
progress by voting in support of the Johnson amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, in closing, I have mentioned 
that this is a matter of fairness and common sense. We need to do right 
by our farmers and ranchers, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
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 Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Hollingsworth

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. 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:

       In title XI, at the end of subtitle F insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEPREDATION PERMITS FOR BLACK VULTURES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, in 
     conjunction with the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, may issue depredation permits to livestock 
     farmers, authorizing takings of black vultures otherwise 
     prohibited by Federal law to prevent such vultures from 
     taking livestock during the calving season.
       (b) Limited to Affected States or Regions.--The Secretary 
     may issue such permits only to livestock farmers in States 
     and regions in which livestock farmers are affected by black 
     vultures, as determined by Secretary in conjunction with the 
     Director.
       (c) Reporting.--The Secretary shall require, as a condition 
     of such a permit, that the permit holder shall report to the 
     appropriate enforcement agencies the takings of black 
     vultures under the permit.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I recently had a townhall in a small county, Washington County, 
Indiana, where a farmer came up to me and explained to me the choice 
that he had before him: he could lose thousands of dollars of his 
cattle or pay thousands of dollars in fees because he is unable to kill 
the black vultures that continue to murder his calves during calving 
season.
  This amendment changes that process and enables him to take proactive 
nonlethal and lethal steps if the Secretary of the Interior deems it 
worthwhile in that region or that State to protect those young calves, 
to protect his property. I want to make sure that we enable and empower 
farmers to be able to keep their livestock alive, to be able to keep 
their property alive.
  This amendment simply allows the Secretary of the Interior to 
designate States or designate regions where farmers can take proactive 
nonlethal and lethal measures to protect their property from black 
vultures.
  It is important to note that black vultures are not protected under 
the Endangered Species Act. Right now they are listed in the least 
concern category. But they are protected under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act.
  All this amendment does is enable them to take proactive measures 
rather than waiting until they have lost thousands of dollars' worth of 
calves in taking reactive measures.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even 
though I am not sure I am opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to raise some issues.
  We have got problems in a number of different areas, not just with 
black vultures, caused by the Migratory Bird Treaty with Mexico and 
Canada that we signed in 1973.

[[Page H4225]]

  Apparently, black birds are sacred in Mexico. Because of that, we are 
in this situation. That is why you need this bill.
  It eliminated crow hunting for a while, until we were able to define 
it in the States. It says in the treaty that if they are about to do 
damage, then you can take them. So, in Minnesota, we passed a law that 
says that crows are always about to do damage so that we could have a 
season.
  I have still got a big problem with cormorants. We can get 
depredation permits for cormorants, but it is not adequate. We had a 
hunting season that we got through here. We got the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to supposedly do this, and then they screwed it up. So we have 
got cormorants out there eating fish in my neck of the woods and other 
places causing a big problem.
  I have got wolves, which is a little bit different situation, but 
that is the Endangered Species Act, in which it was claimed there was 
no problem with. Well, I can tell you, there is a problem with the 
Endangered Species Act in terms of wolves. We need to fix that. Four 
different times I have been promised to get that fixed, and we haven't 
been able to do it.
  I am frustrated with this whole process. I am going to support your 
amendment, but I would like to get some further clarity on cormorants 
and timber wolves, if we could.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Crawford).
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to support the 
Hollingsworth amendment, which would allow the Secretary of the 
Interior to issue depredation permits to livestock farmers authorizing 
the taking of black vultures during calving season.
  Currently, the black vulture is protected under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act. I don't know why they are all migrating to my district, and 
that is where they all live and they are not leaving.
  The current permit process doesn't provide farmers the flexibility 
they need to adequately protect calves from black vulture attacks. By 
allowing the Secretary of the Interior to work with Fish and Wildlife 
to issue State or regionwide depredation orders, we will provide 
farmers with the ability to protect their livelihood.
  This isn't just about giving farmers flexibility; it is also about 
being humane. If you have ever seen a black vulture attack calves, that 
is not something you want to see more than once.
  It is time we give our cattle farmers the authority to legally handle 
this dire situation.
  I want to point out that the ranking member's comments are very 
relevant to me, as well, with cormorants. We have a big problem with 
cormorants, as well, in my district. So, certainly, we need to be 
taking these issues into consideration.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway), chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I represent a lot of cattle ranchers, but 
also represent folks who raise sheep and goats. Black vultures are a 
big predator during kidding season. When these small lambs and young 
kid goats are on the ground, they are susceptible to the same type of 
trauma that the calves go through when they are being eaten alive by 
these vultures. Moving this gentleman's amendment may be a step in the 
right direction.
  I also share my ranking member's comments about timber wolves and 
other endangered species that are prey on the lands. That needs to be 
examined, as well. I would be happy to work with him on that issue.
  Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Chair, I would submit to Mr. Crawford that 
perhaps those black vultures moved in because of the great 
representation he provides to all of his constituents.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
DesJarlais).
  Mr. DesJARLAIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
amendment of Mr. Hollingsworth of Indiana on this issue.
  In short, the amendment would allow the Secretary of the Interior to 
issue depredation permits to livestock farmers authorizing the taking 
of black vultures. This is an issue that has been brought to my 
attention by farmers across the entire Southeast, as well, who have all 
witnessed black vultures prey on and kill their livestock. 
Unfortunately, because black vultures are protected under the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act, farmers are left with little or no recourse of action.
  After years of frustration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began 
issuing depredation permits as part of a pilot program to try to 
address this shortage. While this has worked well in my State, it is 
clear that our farmers and ranchers need a more permanent fix to this 
ongoing problem.
  Black vulture attacks on various livestock have already led to 
significant economic losses for many, and I encourage my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Chair, in closing, again, I think this 
amendment is very common sense and very focused on exactly what I hear 
from Hoosier farmers back home, what I have heard from farmers all the 
way across the country, which is they want to take the proactive 
measures to protect these calves, to protect other livestock, to 
protect their property, and also to save them from the horrific death 
caused by black vultures.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 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 Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Banks of Indiana

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 
printed in House Report 115-679.
  Mr. BANKS of Indiana. 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 F of title XI, add the following:

     SEC. 11613. WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES RULE.

       The final rule issued by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of the Army 
     entitled ``Clean Water Rule: Definition of `Waters of the 
     United States' '', published on June 29, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 
     37054), is repealed, and any regulation or policy revised 
     under, or otherwise affected as a result of, that rule shall 
     be applied as if that rule had not been issued.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Banks) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BANKS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fully repeal the poster child of 
government overreach from the Obama administration, the 2015 waters of 
the United States rule.
  This rule gave unelected bureaucrats at the EPA the power to broadly 
interpret what is a navigable waterway and has led to mass confusion 
for farmers in my district and across the country.
  The Obama-era WOTUS rule, which has been delayed thanks to the Trump 
administration, is confusing, overreaching, and broad. Under this rule, 
a navigable waterway could be interpreted in such a way that even a 
puddle in a farm's drainage ditch could be subjected to Federal 
regulation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is vitally important that the definition of a 
navigable waterway be carefully and clearly determined. The 
encroachment of the Federal Government upon farmers and landowners has 
been severe.
  We in Congress have a responsibility to call a spade a spade and 
remove this onerous regulation and go back to the drawing board with 
input from all stakeholders.
  Mr. Chairman, unelected bureaucrats sitting behind a desk in 
Washington should not implement these overreaching Federal regulations 
on local farmers in northeast Indiana. Congress should work together 
with local and

[[Page H4226]]

State officials and experts to determine an appropriate solution and 
remove the detrimental and excessive approach attempted by the Obama 
administration.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
Banks amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Congress has a long history in supporting the Clean Water Act. In 
1972, Congress overrode President Nixon's veto of the Clean Water Act, 
demonstrating bipartisan support for the Federal regulation of our 
Nation's water. The measure was very clear: human health would no 
longer take a backseat to big business.
  Now, more than 45 years later, we are again voting to overturn the 
Clean Water Protection rule, a rule that, for the first time in over a 
decade, provides clarity for regulated parties and protection for our 
Nation's rivers and waters.
  What message are we sending today? Clearly, we are telling the 
American people that what water they have left isn't worth protecting.
  Mr. Chairman, when developing the Clean Water Protection rule, the 
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers went to unprecedented lengths to engage 
with stakeholders, including ranchers, farmers, and municipalities. 
They held over 400 stakeholder meetings on the rule and reviewed 
approximately 1 million public comments to the rule.
  It is evident that EPA and the Corps wholeheartedly considered these 
comments and concerns because many of the Clean Water rule's reforms 
benefit industry, agriculture, and municipalities. These reforms 
include limiting permits for ditches and municipal storm water sewers, 
and codified exemptions for certain agricultural, construction, and 
mining activities.
  Let us not forget that the farmers and developers, alike, call the 
Clean Water Act's current regulatory process ``ad hoc,'' 
``inconsistent,'' and ``costly.''
  The rule we are attempting to overturn would keep the old, confusing 
regulations in place permanently. The same groups that asked for this 
rule and actually benefited from the rule are now asking us to do away 
with the rule.
  The only thing I can surmise is that those who oppose the rule would 
oppose any rulemaking that did not drastically limit the application of 
the Clean Water Act; or, said in another way, these groups are simply 
opposed to the Clean Water Act entirely.

                              {time}  1045

  In my State of California, 99.2 percent of the population gets its 
water from the drinking water systems that rely on water bodies 
protected by this rule. With numbers like that on the line, intervening 
now is simply reckless.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BANKS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the chairman of the Western Caucus, 
who has been instrumental in developing this amendment.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Banks.
  The previous administration's Waters of the U.S. rule, commonly 
referred to as WOTUS, attempted to assert Clean Water Act jurisdiction 
over nearly all areas with even the slightest connection to water 
resources, including manmade conveyances. The Obama administration 
threatened the very livelihoods of farmers, ranchers, small businesses, 
water users, and property owners when unilaterally enacting this 
overreaching water and land grab by executive fiat.
  Contrary to claims by the Obama administration, this regulation 
directly contradicts prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions which imposed 
limits on the extent of Federal Clean Water Act authority. Although the 
agencies maintained the rule was narrow and clarified the Clean Water 
Act jurisdiction, it would actually aggressively expand Federal 
authority under the Clean Water Act while bypassing Congress and 
creating unnecessary ambiguity. In fact, even the agencies admitted, 
when announcing the final rule, that WOTUS would expand agency control 
over 60 percent of our country's streams and millions of acres of 
wetlands that were previously non-jurisdictional.
  Moreover, the rule was based on incomplete scientific and economic 
analysis. In recent years, the House has voted at least five different 
times to block or reduce the damage associated with the Obama WOTUS 
rule. In January 2016, the House and Senate passed legislation blocking 
WOTUS, utilizing the Congressional Review Act, and put a bill on 
President Obama's desk that he subsequently vetoed.
  WOTUS is a dream-killer for future generations and will result in 
significant job losses as well as considerable harm to our economy. 
Congress must take action today to repeal this fundamentally flawed 
mandate once and for all. I applaud Representative Banks for his strong 
leadership and tireless efforts to protect the livelihoods of farmers, 
ranchers, businessmen, and other local stakeholders by repealing this 
unconstitutional power grab.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this lawful and necessary amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Norman) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________