Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, just a note of the process. In fact, Arkansas is now selecting an artist to develop the Bates statue that has to be approved before we can proceed. Meanwhile, even though they want to get rid of that statue, it stays here. If we pass this bill, the statue will be gone while Arkansas pursues a replacement. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my colleague, a member of the Committee on House Administration, and a scholar and former constitutional law professor.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both sides.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, the other speakers we are expecting I think are caught up in a long appropriations markup, so you may proceed. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Just a couple of clarifications because I think it may be confusing to the general public hearing about what is really a rather arcane process for States to add and remove statues. The Joint Committee on the Library ultimately approves it, but the process is driven by the States, the Architect of the Capitol does all of the heavy lifting, looking at the statues, making sure that the replacement statue meets the engineering requirements and the like. I would just like to note that until last Wednesday, Senator Roy Blunt was chair of the Joint Committee on the Library, and I have been chair of the Joint Committee on the Library now for 6 days. In that time, I actually have approved the reopening of the Botanical Gardens. I have approved the replacement of the Kansas statue that I received the letter on Friday. And I have just received the information on North Carolina, and I plan to work on that very hard and, hopefully, very promptly get a decision. So I don't think that speaks to undue delay in the 6 days that I have been chair of the Joint Committee on the Library. I do think it is important that we take the step to remove these Confederates and segregationists and pro-slavery statues from our Statuary Hall. In some cases, States have either started the steps to remove them. But while that process is ongoing, these individuals are on a pedestal. And we cannot forget our history, but we don't have to put segregationists and pro-slavery historical figures on a pedestal. We don't honor them, although we do remember them. So let's adopt this measure to deal with those statues. But there is another thing. There are situations such as the statue of Justice Taney that were not sent here by any State, and only we can remove them expeditiously. We have said, and we have heard from people more eloquent than I about why Justice Taney should not be honored. In 1865, a few years before the Taney bust was ultimately commissioned, the Senate debated it. They debated whether to commission the bust of Justice Taney for the Supreme Court room. And during that debate, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts said this: ``I object to that; that now an emancipated country should make a bust to the author of the Dred Scott decision. Judgment is beginning now; and an emancipated country will fasten upon him the stigma which he deserves.'' Now, it may have taken longer than Senator Sumner envisioned, in fact, 156 years to attach the stigma that belongs to Justice Taney, but we will attach that stigma today if we pass this bill. In closing, I just want to say that all of us are here for a few years. Some longer, some shorter, but we are just here for a little slice of history. And I feel fortunate that my little slice of history allowed me to be here the same time as the late John Lewis. I can almost imagine him standing here on the floor. How fortunate I am to have served with him. And how fortunate I am to serve with our majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, who put his body on the line to fight against segregation and to fight for voting rights. They are leaders of our country. I am proud to serve with them. Let's show how much we honor them by voting for this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas for their extraordinary bipartisan leadership on these bills. These two bills recognize the urgency of Federal scientific investment. Over the past few decades, Federal spending on R&D flatlined as a share of our economy, and it has fallen in absolute terms. Meanwhile, global competitors jump-started their economic growth through such investments that spur innovation. Maintaining our leadership in research and development is arguably more important than ever. Now is the time to be bold in our vision of what is possible. We shortchange the Nation every year when we refuse to fund a rich portfolio of research opportunities. I want to talk about the NSF for the Future Act. It is part of the remedy, and it strikes the appropriate balance of expanding popular and effective projects and programs while expanding the Foundation's role and mandate to new areas of evolving technologies. The approach to the creation of a new directorate outlined in the bill sets an appropriate benchmark as we engage with the Senate, and it has received overwhelming support from the academic, scientific, and business communities. We need to make sure we get this right. The bill would allow NSF to improve the speed and scale of its core mission to advance basic and fundamental research while promoting innovative solutions to the challenges we face as a nation. We must support this effort, the NSF bill, as well as the Department of Energy Science for the Future Act. I strongly urge my colleagues to support these two pieces of legislation. I commend the committee for its excellent work.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. It provides funding to respond to the January 6 attack, during which violent insurrectionists, incited and encouraged by the former President, attacked this Capitol where we stand today. Since the attack, the Committee on House Administration, assisted by General Honore, has reviewed Capitol security and has been examining the Capitol Police's preparation for and response to the attack. The supplemental narrowly tailors a response to that attack. It makes sure that we have the physical improvements we know will need to be taken, and it supports the Capitol Police with wellness and trauma support and provides officers with the training and riot control equipment they should have had on the 6th. For those who say we should not do anything today, it is a mistake to say if we can't do everything at the same time, we should do nothing. This bill is a first step toward having a more secure facility that lodges the legislative branch of government. There are measures that we sent to the House Administration Committee for further review. I welcome that.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, to fail to act today is really to turn your backs on the men and women who fought as Capitol Police officers just yards from where we stand today. They were maimed. Their eyes were gouged. They lost fingers. Some of them died. Don't turn your backs on them and vote against this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, we had a hearing yesterday that went for more than 3 hours. We are likely to have additional hearings on that matter. It is not clear at the moment whether the board needs to be replaced, whether it was failings of the structure, or whether it was failings of the individuals holding the positions in that structure. If I may, we will come forward with our best analysis of what changes should be made in the weeks to come. Meanwhile, these officers need our support today. We can't hold back and do nothing.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would take exception to that. The House Administration Committee has had more oversight and more hearings, both at a Member level and a staff level, than any other committee in the House or Senate about the Capitol Police. We don't have jurisdiction over everything, but we have not been derelict in our duty. And I take exception on the part of the whole committee, Republicans and Democrats, and their staff.

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, most of what is in this bill doesn't need a change in the law. You don't need a change in the law to provide training to the Capitol Police. That is baseline what our obligation is. We failed to actually do what we are required to do, and to think that some further legislative action is needed is simply false.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 27) providing for the appointment of Barbara Barrett as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise to today to recognize Desseray ``Dez'' Vega, a Program Manager at Alum Rock Counseling Center (ARCC) in my Congressional district. I was proud to invite Ms. Vega to be my virtual guest to President Biden 's Joint Address to Congress on Wednesday, April 28, 2021. ARCC provides behavioral health and community support services for more than 10,000 children and families in Santa Clara County each year. Before the Joint Address, I spoke to Ms. Vega about the effect the COVID relief bills have had on ARCC, the counselors she manages, her clients, and her family. I was glad to hear that the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) kept ARCC from laying off around 80 people, helping both the employees and their families as well as the children they serve. Ms. Vega works one-on-one with in-need children in San Jose and manages a team of 15 counselors as part of ARCC's Prevention and Early Intervention program. Ms. Vega said, ``I was able to see firsthand how the PPP really made a difference. Having income and stability helps us [counselors] be more present and helps our clients and their families. During the pandemic, there has been trauma for the families we serve, and everything has been inconsistent except for the therapy we provide. From my personal experience, I'm so grateful'' for COVID relief legislation. Madam Speaker, the truth is, it is us who should be grateful for Ms. Vega, counselors like her. and organizations like ARCC that serve our communities. It is my pleasure to recognize Ms. Vega and her positive contributions to the lives of children and families in my Congressional district before, during, and after the pandemic. I also call on all my colleagues to join me in continuing to meet the needs of communities across the country during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I include the following letter in the Record: House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration, Washington, DC, April 28, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: I hereby report to the House the disposition of the election contest in Iowa's Second Congressional District. Contestant Rita Hart properly filed a notice of contest under the Federal Contested Election Act (FCEA) on December 22, 2020. Contestee Mariannette Miller- Meeks filed a motion to dismiss on January 21, 2021. On February 19, 2021, the Committee adopted a resolution to establish procedures in contested election cases properly filed under the FCEA in the 117th Congress. After reviewing additional filings from the parties, including a response to the Contestee's motion filed by the Contestant and a reply filed by the Contestee, the Committee on House Administration voted on March 10, 2021, to postpone disposition of the motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2021, Contestant Hart announced she would withdraw her contest. A letter of withdrawal from Contestant Rita Hart, mailed on March 31, 2021, was transmitted to the Committee on House Administration by the Clerk of the House on April 8, 2021. After a review of House and Committee precedent in contested elections cases in which the contestant withdraws, I have determined no further House or Committee action is required to dismiss the contest. The contestant's letter of withdrawal was entered into the record of the Committee on House Administration's Markup on April 28, 2021, and the Committee will take no further action on this contest.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, we can do more than one thing at once. We need to make sure that the law is adhered to by the President. We also need to deal with the issue of unaccompanied children at the border and deal with the crisis in Central America that is causing it.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, this is an important step towards the enactment of the NO BAN Act, which would prevent overreach in a President's authority to suspend the entry of noncitizens into the United States under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As a candidate for President, Donald Trump promised to ban ``all Muslims'' from entering the U.S., and he suggested without any evidence that it would somehow make our country safer. Immediately after his election and swearing in, he tried to deliver on that promise by using section 212(f), claiming the admission of individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries would be detrimental to the U.S. interests. In court, the Trump administration claimed the ban was necessary to keep our country safe from terrorists. And yet, a bipartisan coalition of former national security officials strongly rebuked those claims. In addition to this ban, President Trump also relied on section 212(f) to circumvent clear statutory requirements related to asylum. Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifically allows individuals to apply for asylum ``whether or not they arrive at a designated port of arrival.'' The law could not be clearer. But apparently unhappy with it, the President invoked section 212(f) to categorically deny asylum to those who cross the border between ports of entry rather than seeking to amend the law by working with Congress. This was an attempt to rewrite our Nation's immigration laws in direct violation of the constitutional separation of powers. The power to write the law is ours, not the President's. Fortunately, this ban has now been reversed by President Biden, but this bill is still important. It is important to take action to prevent any future President from trying to usurp the legislative power of the Congress. I thank Representative Chu for her persistence in pursuing this bill, and I think it is important to note that the President, if this bill passes, retains ample authority to act in the national interests of the United States to protect our security. The bill allows the President to suspend the entry of individuals or class of individuals if he determines that they would undermine the security of the United States. To be clear, under the current bill, if the President determines there is a national security issue related to a particular country that is so significant that it could only be addressed by suspending the admission of all nationals of that country, the President could still do so. It is important that we also address the issue of children at the border. This bill isn't about children at the border.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill that allows individuals who have obviously valid travel documents to contact a member of their family or counsel if they are held for an extended period of time at a U.S. port of entry. It has nothing to do with the inspection of contraband. It has nothing to do with providing a lawyer at government expense. That is prohibited. It has nothing to do with delaying the inspection. It is only if it is practical for the CBP to allow this to occur. The immigration laws are very complex and fact-intensive, and for some people who are in secondary inspection for hours, providing a piece of information to the CBP can clear things up. Madam Speaker, I will give you an example of a researcher coming in with a valid visa and the CBP wonders about that research: Is it true? Being able to communicate with the president of the university where the student is heading to can assure the CBP about the research and would clear the matter up. This bill does nothing to alter the existing authority of the CBP to alter, to deny entry, or to issue an expedited removal order. It just allows individuals to communicate with their American family, with their employer, and with their counsel to help provide information. There are many red herrings that have been offered about this bill, but it is really about expediting a process that is impeded, oftentimes because of lack of information. These are individuals who are coming legally. It does not apply to people who are coming between ports of entry. The lack of communication can cause harm to American families. Somebody who is coming to their American fiancee can be turned away. Somebody who is coming to work for an employer who needs their expertise could be turned away. Somebody who is coming to continue their groundbreaking medical research could erroneously be turned away. It is important that information be made available to the CBP, and the way to do that is to make sure that individuals who are lawfully attempting to enter the United States with an apparently valid visa at a port of entry who has been held for secondary inspection have an opportunity to communicate with their American family or with their American boss or even a lawyer to get information that the CBP can then consider, and if they are not persuaded it is valid, they can still turn that individual around. I think that the opposition is a bit overwrought.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I actually am surprised by some of the things in the rhetoric that have been offered in opposition to what is really just a commonsense, modest measure that will allow for communication for people who have legal visas who have been held in secondary inspection, so the confusion can be cleared up. It is important, not just to the people trying to enter, but it is important to Americans who are waiting for them--their families, their employers, and their teachers. Madam Speaker, I urge approval of this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I hereby include in the Record the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office for H. R. 1333, the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act. The cost estimate was not available at the time of the filing of the Committee Report.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, our country has come through a pandemic, and many of us have suffered, but there is one thing that we can be grateful for, and that is that the food chain was never disrupted. Throughout the pandemic, we could go to the grocery store and there would be food in that store. For that, we need to thank the farmers of this country. But we also need to thank the farmworkers of this country, a majority of whom are undocumented and a majority of whom have been here more than 10 years. What this bill does and how it was formed is important. I want to thank Representatives Dan Newhouse, Mike Simpson, Doug LaMalfa, and many others on the Republican side of the aisle. I worked with Jim Costa, Jimmy Panetta, and many others to try to see if we could come together to come up with solutions for the challenges that we face in farm country. We pulled together growers and the farmworkers union to talk together for solutions. It took us almost a year of growers and the farmworkers union, and Republicans and Democrats, sitting around a table to come up with this bill. It has basically three provisions. The first recognizes that we have had undocumented farmworkers in our fields for decades. It allows them to get a certified agricultural worker card so that they can work without fear. That is a temporary worker status. They can renew it, travel, pay taxes, and continue forever in that status. After working for a long period of time, they and their families have the option of applying for legal permanent residence if they choose. The second provision streamlines an existing program, the H-2A program, so that we will have a legal supply of farmworkers in the future. Both labor and employers agreed to those streamlines. The final provision says that if we have a system that works, then we need to enforce that system. We are going to have the E-Verify system used in agriculture after this bill is fully implemented. Who is in favor of this? The Arizona Nursery Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, Georgia Milk Producers, Michigan Greenhouse Growers Council, Minnesota Milk Producers Association, Ohio Produce Growers Marketing Association, Texas Association of Dairymen, and hundreds of other growers. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a list of Farmers and Producers Associations supporting H.R. 1603. [From the House Committee on the Judiciary] Over 250 Farmers and Producers Associations Support H.R. 1603 African-American Farmers of California; Ag Valley Cooperative, Non-Stock; AgCountry Farm Credit Services; Agribusiness Henderson County (NC); Agricultural Council of California; Agri-Mark, Inc.; Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc.; Alabama Nursery and Landscape Association; Almond Alliance; Amalgamated Sugar Company; American AgCredit; American AgriWomen; American Beekeeping Federation; American Honey Producers Association; American Mushroom Institute; American Pistachio Growers; American Seed Trade Association; American Sheep Industry Association (ASI); AmericanHort; Arizona Dairy Producers Trade Association; Arizona Nursery Association; Associated Milk Producers Inc.; Aurora Organic Dairy; Bluebird Bonanza Farms; Bongards' Creameries; CalChamber. California Apple Commission; California Association of Food Banks; California Association of Wheat Growers; California Avocado Commission; California Blueberry Association; California Blueberry Commission; California Canning Peach Association; California Cherry Growers and Industry Association; California Citrus Mutual; California Dairies, Inc.; California Date Commission; California Dried Plum Board; California Farm Bureau Federation; California Fig Advisory Board; California Fresh Fruit Association; California Pear Growers Association; California Seed Association; California State Floral Association; California Strawberry Commission; California Sweet Potato Council; California Tomato Growers Association; California Walnut Commission; California Warehouse Association. California Women for Agriculture; Cayuga Milk Ingredients; Center for Dairy Excellence (Pennsylvania); Central Valley Ag Coop; Certified American Grown; Chobani; CHS Inc.; Co- Alliance Cooperative, Inc.; CoBank; Colorado Dairy Farmers; Colorado Nursery and Greenhouse Association; Colorado Potato Legislative Association; Cooperative Milk Producers Association; Cooperative Producers, Inc.; Costa Farms; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.; Dairy Producers of New Mexico; Dairy Producers of Utah; Edge Dairy Farmer Cooperative; Ellsworth Cooperative Creamery; Empire State Potato Growers; Far West Agribusiness Association; Farm Credit East; Farmers Cooperative. FarmFirst Dairy Cooperative; Federation of Employers and Workers of America; First District Association; Florida Agri- Women; Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association; Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association; Florida Strawberry Growers Association; Florida Tomato Exchange; Food Northwest; Food Producers of Idaho; Foremost Farms USA; Frenchman Valley Farmers Cooperative Inc.; Fresh Harvest/Steve Scaroni (CA); Fresno County Farm Bureau (CA); Georgia Green Industry Association; Georgia Milk Producers, Inc.; Georgia Urban Ag Council; Glanbia Nutritionals; Idaho Alfalfa/Clover Seed Commission; Idaho Alfalfa/Clover Seed Growers Association; Idaho Apple Commission; Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry; Idaho Bankers Association; Idaho Cattleman's Association. Idaho Dairymen's Association; Idaho Grain Producers Association; Idaho Grower Shippers Association; Idaho Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Idaho Hop Growers Association; Idaho Horticulture Society; Idaho Milk Products; Idaho Mint Growers Association; Idaho Nursery and Landscape Association; Idaho Onion Growers Association; Idaho Potato Commission; Idaho Sugarbeet Growers; Idaho-Oregon Fruit & Vegetable Association; Illinois Green Industry Association; Indiana Nursery and Landscape Association; Indiana Outdoor Maintenance Alliance; International Dairy Foods Association; Iowa Institute for Cooperatives; Iowa Nursery & Landscape Association; Iowa State Dairy Association; Kansas Dairy Association; Land O'Lakes, Inc.; Laurel Springs Nursery, LLC (NC); Leitz Farms LLC/Fred Leitz (MI); Lone Star Milk Producers; Madera County Farm Bureau (CA); Maine Landscape & Nursery Association; Maine Potato Board. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association; Maryland Nursery, Landscape, and Greenhouse Association, Inc.; Massachusetts Nursery and Landscape Association, Inc.; MBG Marketing; McCain USA Inc.; Michigan Apple Association; Michigan Greenhouse Growers Council; Michigan Milk Producers Association; Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association; Mid Kansas Cooperative; Midwest Apple Improvement Association; Midwest Dairy Coalition; Milk Producers Council; Milk Producers of Idaho; Minnesota Milk Producers Association; Minnesota Nursery & Landscape Association; Missouri Green Industry Alliance; Montana Nursery and Landscape Association; Monterey County Farm Bureau (CA); Mount Joy Farmers Cooperative Association; Napa Vinters Association; National All-Jersey Inc.; National Council of Agricultural Employers; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Farmers Union; National Grange; National Milk Producers Federation. National Onion Association; National Potato Council; National Young Farmers Coalition; Nebraska Cooperative Council; Nebraska State Dairy Association; New England Apple Council; New Jersey Landscape Contractors Association; New Jersey Nursery & Landscape Association; New Mexico Chapter, Colorado Nursery and Greenhouse Association; New York Apple Association; New York Farm Bureau; New York State Flower Industries; New York State Vegetable Growers Association; Nezperce Prairie Grass Growers Association; Nisei Farmers League; North American Blueberry Council; North Carolina Dairy Producers Association; North Carolina Nursery & Landscape Association; North Carolina Potato Association; Northeast Dairy Farmers Cooperatives; Northeast Dairy Producers Association, Inc.; Northern Family Farms LLP, Merrillan, WI; Northern Plains Potato Growers Association; Northwest Ag Cooperatives Council; Northwest Dairy Association/Darigold; Northwest Horticultural Council. Ohio Apple Marketing Program; Ohio Dairy Producers Association; Ohio Fruit Growers Marketing Association; Ohio Landscape Association; Ohio Nursery & Landscape Association; Ohio Produce Growers Marketing Assocation; Oklahoma Nursery & Landscape Association; Olive Growers Council of California; Oneida-Madison Milk Producers Cooperative Association; Oregon Association of Nurseries; Oregon Dairy Farmers Association; Oregon Potato Commission; Pacific Northwest Christmas Tree Association; PennAg Industries Association; Pennsylvania Cooperative Potato Growers; Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery Association; Plant California Alliance; Potato Growers of Michigan, Inc; Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.; Professional Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania; Reiter Affiliated Companies; Rhode Island Nursery and Landscape Association; San Diego County Farm Bureau (CA); Scioto Cooperative Milk Producers' Association; Select Milk Producers, Inc.; Simplot; South Dakota Association of Cooperatives; South Dakota Dairy Producers; Southeast Milk Inc.; Southern States Cooperative; Stanislaus County Farm Bureau (CA). Sunkist Growers, Inc.; Sunmaid Growers of California; Sunsweet Growers Inc.; Tennessee Farmers Cooperative; Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council; Texas Association of Dairymen; Texas Citrus Mutual; Texas Nursery & Landscape Association; Tillamook County Creamery Association; Tree Top; Tulare County Farm Bureau (CA); Turfgrass Producers International; U.S. Apple Association; U.S. Durum Growers Association; United Dairymen of Arizona; United Fresh Produce Association; United Potato Growers of America; Upstate Niagara Cooperative, Inc.; Utah Apple Marketing Board; Utah Horticulture Association; Utah Nursery & Landscape Association; Utah Tart Cherry Marketing Board. Valley Fig Growers; Valley Vision (CA); Ventura County Agricultural Association (CA); Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance; Virginia Apple Growers Association; Virginia Nursery & Landscape Association; Virginia State Dairymen's Association; Washington Growers League; Washington State Dairy Federation; Washington State Nursery & Landscape Association; Washington State Potato Commission; Washington State Tree Fruit Association; West Virginia Nursery & Landscape Association; Western Growers Association; Western Plant Health Association; Western States Dairy Producers Association; Western United Dairies; Wine Institute; WineAmerica; Wisconsin Landscape Contractors Association; Wisconsin Potato & Vegetable Growers Association; Yuma Fresh Vegetable Association.