[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11133-S11135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 1608. A bill to provide annual payments to the States and counties 
from National Forest System lands managed by the Forest Service, and 
the revested Oregon and California Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay 
Wagon Road grant lands managed predominately by the Bureau of Land 
Management, for use by the counties in which the lands are situated for 
the benefit of the public schools, roads, emergency and other public 
purposes; to encourage and provide new mechanism for cooperation 
between counties and the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management to make necessary investments in federal lands, and reaffirm 
the positive connection between Federal Lands counties and Federal 
Lands; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


       secure rural schools and community self-determination act

 Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is time for Congress to enact a 
new program that combines secure funding for county services with a 
fresh approach to the management of federal lands in rural communities. 
Under our legislation counties will be connected to federal lands not 
just through the cutting of timber but also through important

[[Page S11134]]

road maintenance projects, watershed improvements and programs that 
promote tourism and recreation.
  Since 1908, natural resource dependent communities have received 
federal funds for schools, roads and basic services based on the level 
of federal timber programs. The Forest Service cuts timber and the 
counties receive revenue. This has long constituted the traditional 
relationship between the counties and federal land management.
  Now, as a result of changes in natural resource policies causing 
declines in timber production, many of our rural communities are 
finding it almost impossible to fund essential programs for school 
children, infrastructure and other needs.
  There is a crisis in rural, timber-dependent America that must be 
addressed now. This crisis can be addressed now and in the future by 
providing secure, consistent funding to counties, and by encouraging a 
new cooperative relationship between these communities and federal land 
managers.
  Congress must promptly enact a new program that combines traditional 
funding for county services with creative new policies that provide 
real connections between rural communities and the federal lands they 
cherish.
  Senator Craig and I have been discussing how this might be 
accomplished because we realize that no pending proposal addressing the 
county payment issue has won the support of both the Congress and the 
Clinton administration.
  In an effort to break this gridlock, we have developed the Secure 
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act bill.
  Our proposal would work as follows:
  Counties will receive a consistent payment amount each year totaling 
75% of the average of the top three federal land revenue years for 
their area between 1985 and the present, tied to the Consumer Price 
Index for rural areas. That consistent payment amount will be a 
combination of traditional 25% payments from the Forest Service and 50% 
payments from the Bureau of Land Management plus money from the general 
treasury where the traditional revenue stream does not rise to the 
level of the necessary consistent payment amount.
  Counties would receive an additional 25% of the average amount 
described above from the general treasury to use for projects 
recommended by local community advisory committees and approved by the 
Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. These projects could 
include watershed restoration, road maintenance, or timber harvest, 
among other opportunities, as long as the project is in compliance with 
all applicable forest plans and environmental laws.
  The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management would be required to 
certify that a local consensus of environmental, industry, and other 
stakeholders exists, as well as approve the proposed project as 
environmentally sound. If consensus proposals cannot be developed in a 
particular county, then the money would be made available to counties 
that have developed such proposals. It bears repeating that all 
projects would have to comply with all environmental laws and 
regulations, as well as all applicable forest plans.
  We believe that this bill has the potential to break the impasse on 
the county payment issue on Capitol Hill. But even more important, it 
represents an opportunity to forge a new charter for federal/county 
government cooperation, to encourage local citizens to seek consensus-
based solution for resource conflicts, and to make critical investments 
in the stewardship of our federal lands.
  This proposal will not please the proponents favoring pure decoupling 
of payments from timber harvest. It will also be opposed by those who 
are prepared to hobble the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land 
Management if they feel the timber harvest levels are not high enough. 
Our objective is to break the gridlock on federal support of counties, 
while bringing the nature of the relationship between the federal land 
managers and public land dependent communities into the twenty-first 
century. This bill provides a foundation to help rural counties through 
their immediate crisis, and down a path that will make sense in the 
next century.
 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from 
Oregon, Senator Wyden and Senator Smith of Oregon to introduce the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 1999.
  Perhaps as much as any other state, our counties have suffered as 
federal forest lands have been beset with conflict, and as the receipts 
promised to counties for educational purposes have decreased 
dramatically. Senator Wyden's counties are also suffering, as are other 
counties throughout the West and the country as a whole. Today, we wish 
to propose a solution to this problem.
  When the National Forests were withdrawn from the Public Domain at 
the turn of the century, they were established with a basic commitment 
to local governments. Gifford Pinchot and other visionary 
conservationists of that day persuaded often-skeptical Federal and 
local government officials that retention of lands by the Federal 
Government, the creation of forest reserves, and the sustainable 
management of these forests would be good for local people, good for 
local governments, good for the country, and good for the environment.
  Pinchot and his peers based these assurances on the proposition that 
the proceeds from the sustainable management and sale of the fiber, 
forage, and other resources from these reserved Federal lands would be 
shared between the local and Federal Governments. Consequently, 
cooperative management between local governments and Federal land 
managers--both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management--
has been a hallmark of good intergovernmental cooperation in many of 
our states, including Oregon and Idaho. In many cases, local 
governments have incurred costs from increased police, search and 
rescue, and fire protection associated with federally owned lands.
  Our Federal forests have been crucial to the education of our 
children. Receipts from the sale of Federal timber and other 
commodities have been a vital component of county school and road 
budgets. In many cases, these funds have supported school lunches, 
special education, and a variety of assistance measures for 
disadvantaged children. In a very real sense, the bounty of our forests 
has allowed us to give a hand to our most needy rural children, 
including Native Americans and Hispanics. So this should be the one 
federal program through which concerns for the ``environment and 
education'' can be fulfilled by the same thoughtful actions.
  However, we live in a different time, and federal forest management 
policies have become a source of considerable controversy. Timber sales 
have been reduced. Revenues both to the Federal treasury and the 
counties have decreased precipitously. Consequently, our rural school 
systems are in crisis.
  Unfortunately, rather than coming together to forge a solution to 
these problems, the extremes on both sides of the equation are moving 
further apart. And they are placing our school children in the center 
of the controversy. One group seems to want to hold our school children 
hostage--to use the diminishing receipts and the deteriorating school 
systems as leverage to advantage their side of the forest management 
debate, favoring increased timber harvests. The other extreme would 
make our rural school children orphans--sending them out into the 
wilderness with no secure financial support in order to expedite the 
achievement of their goal of eliminating federal timber sales.
  Senator Wyden and I reject both of these extremes. We reject the 
notion that we cannot provide the school systems with additional 
support, without increasing timber harvesting. At the same time, we 
reject the proposition that we should completely ``decouple'' the 
support for rural schools from any responsibility on the part of the 
federal land management agencies, thereby totally separating local 
concerns from federal land management.
  Gifford Pinchot articulately outlined the responsibility that the 
Federal Government generally, and the Forest Service and BLM 
specifically, assumed when the Federal forests were withdrawn from 
disposal or later retained in Federal ownership. In its simplest terms, 
this is a responsibility to provide local governments with a source of

[[Page S11135]]

revenue that they are otherwise denied as a consequence of their 
inability to tax federal lands. That responsibility is still as 
relevant today as it was at the turn of the century or during the 
Depression. It is still relevant today, irrespective of what options we 
choose for how to manage our Federal forests.
  Indeed, the most telling flaw in the proposal to decouple county 
payments from timber receipts is the notion that this responsibility--
willing assumed by the Forest Service at the turn of the century and 
BLM during the Depression--should be transformed into either the sole 
responsibility of the federal taxpayer, or no one's responsibility as 
it becomes another entitlement program which the Federal Government and 
taxpayers feel free to eliminate or reduce as their needs dictate.
  Our proposal starts by establishing a set payment amount with which 
the counties can provide support for rural school systems. This set 
payment is based upon an average of representative years of timber 
receipts. In this respect, this proposal is similar to that offered by 
the Clinton Administration, and to H.R. 2389 being considered in the 
House.
  But here is where the similarity stops. We would not establish a 
separate appropriations line--which in all likelihood would be 
underfunded like the existing Payment in Lieu of Taxes System. Nor 
would we impose the responsibility to meet this payment on the Forest 
Service's or the BLM's annual budget.
  Instead, we provide the Forest Service and the BLM with the authority 
to use any available receipts to meet these payments, and--only if 
these receipts fall short--to make up the difference from unobligated 
funds in the General Treasury. The intent here is to retain an 
obligation on the part of the Forest Service and the BLM, but to 
provide some flexibility in meeting this obligation.
  Based upon our experience with the Quincy Library Group, the 
Applegate Partnership, and elsewhere, we have come to conclude that the 
best, recent decisions concerning federal resource management have 
enjoyed significant, local input. That is why our proposal contains a 
unique element--Senator Wyden's idea, actually--to foster both local 
consensus and federal accountability around the management of federal 
lands.
  Only 75 percent of the money to be given to the counties is provided 
for the traditional school and road programs. The remaining 25 percent 
would be provided to the counties for federal land management 
investments. The counties may fund either commercial or noncommercial 
projects on the federal lands at the recommendation of local advisory 
groups, and with the agreement of federal land managers. Projects must 
comply with all environmental laws and regulations, and must be 
consistent with the applicable land management plan. Any proceeds from 
revenue generating projects will be split equally between the affected 
county and the federal land management agency. The county share will go 
to supporting schools and roads, while the federal share will go to 
infrastructure maintenance or ecosystem restoration. Any funds left-
over because of a lack of local agreement will be reallocated to 
counties where agreement on resource stewardship priorities has been 
reached.
  This proposal is as value-neutral concerning the resource debate as 
we could make it. It neither encourages nor discourages a particular 
resource management outcome. But it does have a very heavy prejudice 
that Senator Wyden and I have become very passionate about. We are in 
favor of people of goodwill reasoning together to improve the quality 
of their lives and the quality of our environment. We cannot legislate 
an end to conflict. But we can use the legislative process to create an 
environment in which people are motivated to resolve their differences. 
That is what we think this bill does.
                                 ______