PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 19, 2017
Land Grants-Mercedes Conservation Program Eligibility Act of 2017
This bill amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to authorize the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to enter into an alternative funding arrangement under any USDA conservation program with a land grant-merced.
A land grant-merced is a community, town, colony, or pueblo that: (1) includes certain land granted by Mexico or Spain; or (2) asserted title pursuant to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, through the Office of the Surveyor General for New Mexico or the U.S. Court of Private Land Claims.
(An alternative funding arrangement allows a land grant-merced to receive assistance directly from the conservation programs.) USDA may also provide technical and administrative assistance under the alternative funding arrangement.
USDA may enter into an arrangement if: (1) the goals and objectives of the applicable conservation program will be met by the arrangement, and (2) statutory limitations regarding contracts with individual producers will not be exceeded by any member of the land grant-merced.
People & committees
Rep. Lujan Grisham, Michelle [D-NM-1] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4688 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4688 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4688 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4688 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.