[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 107 (Wednesday, September 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8514-S8526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1999
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased my colleague from Oregon has
joined with me on the floor as we now consider, by unanimous consent, a
key piece of legislation on which he, Senator Wyden, and I have been
working.
I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration
of Calendar No. 520, S. 1608.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1608) 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 mechanisms 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.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--SECURE PAYMENTS FOR STATES AND COUNTIES CONTAINING FEDERAL
LANDS
Sec. 101. Determination of full payment amount for eligible States and
counties.
Sec. 102. Payments to States from Forest Service lands for use by
counties to benefit public education and transportation.
Sec. 103. Payments to counties from Bureau of Land Management lands for
use to benefit public safety, law enforcement, education,
and other public purposes.
TITLE II--SPECIAL PROJECTS ON FEDERAL LANDS
Sec. 201. Definitions.
Sec. 202. General limitation on use of project funds.
Sec. 203. Submission of project proposals.
Sec. 204. Evaluation and approval of projects by Secretary concerned.
Sec. 205. Resource advisory committees.
Sec. 206. Use of project funds.
Sec. 207. Availability of project funds.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 302. Treatment of funds and revenues.
Sec. 303. Regulations.
Sec. 304. Conforming amendments.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The National Forest System, which is managed by the
United States Forest Service, was established in 1907 and has
grown to include approximately 192,000,000 acres of Federal
lands.
(2) The public domain lands known as revested Oregon and
California Railroad grant lands and the reconveyed Coos Bay
Wagon Road grant lands, which are managed predominately by
the Bureau of Land Management were returned to Federal
ownership in 1916 and 1919 and now comprise approximately
2,600,000 acres of Federal lands.
(3) Congress recognized that, by its decision to secure
these lands in Federal ownership, the counties in which these
lands are situated would be deprived of revenues they would
otherwise receive if the lands were held in private
ownership.
(4) These same counties have expended public funds year
after year to provide services, such
[[Page S8515]]
as education, road construction and maintenance, search and
rescue, law enforcement, waste removal, and fire protection,
that directly benefit these Federal lands and people who use
these lands.
(5) To accord a measure of compensation to the affected
counties for the critical services they provide to both
county residents and visitors to these Federal lands,
Congress determined that the Federal Government should share
with these counties a portion of the revenues the United
States receives from these Federal lands.
(6) Congress enacted in 1908 and subsequently amended a law
that requires that 25 percent of the revenues derived from
National Forest System lands be paid to States for use by the
counties in which the lands are situated for the benefit of
public schools and roads.
(7) Congress enacted in 1937 and subsequently amended a law
that requires that 75 percent of the revenues derived from
the revested and reconveyed grant lands be paid to the
counties in which those lands are situated to be used as are
other county funds, of which 50 percent is to be used as
other county funds.
(8) For several decades primarily due to the growth of the
Federal timber sale program, counties dependent on and
supportive of these Federal lands received and relied on
increasing shares of these revenues to provide funding for
schools and road maintenance.
(9) In recent years, the principal source of these
revenues, Federal timber sales, has been sharply curtailed
and, as the volume of timber sold annually from most of the
Federal lands has decreased precipitously, so too have the
revenues shared with the affected counties.
(10) This decline in shared revenues has affected
educational funding and road maintenance for many counties.
(11) In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,
Congress recognized this trend and ameliorated its adverse
consequences by providing an alternative annual safety net
payment to 72 counties in Oregon, Washington, and northern
California in which Federal timber sales had been restricted
or prohibited by administrative and judicial decisions to
protect the northern spotted owl.
(12) The authority for these particular safety net payments
is expiring and no comparable authority has been granted for
alternative payments to counties elsewhere in the United
States that have suffered similar losses in shared revenues
from the Federal lands and in the funding for schools and
roads those revenues provide.
(13) There is a need to stabilize education and road
maintenance funding through predictable payments to the
affected counties, job creation in those counties, and other
opportunities associated with restoration, maintenance, and
stewardship of federal lands.
(14) Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management face significant backlogs in infrastructure
maintenance and ecosystem restoration that are difficult to
address through annual appropriations.
(15) There is a need to build new, and strengthen existing,
relationships and to improve management of public lands and
waters.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to stabilize and make permanent payments to counties to
provide funding for schools and roads;
(2) to make additional investments in, and create
additional employment opportunities through, projects that
improve the maintenance of existing infrastructure, implement
stewardship objectives that enhance forest ecosystems, and
restore and improve land health and water quality. Such
projects shall enjoy broad-based support with objectives that
may include, but are not limited to:
(A) Road, trail, and infrastructure maintenance or
obliteration;
(B) Soil productivity improvement;
(C) Improvements in forest ecosystem health;
(D) Watershed restoration and maintenance;
(E) Restoration, maintenance and improvement of wildlife
and fish habitat;
(F) Control of noxious and exotic weeds;
(G) Reestablishment of native species; and
(H) General resource stewardship.
(3) to improve cooperative relationships among the people
that use and care for Federal lands and the agencies that
manage these lands.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Federal lands.--The term ``Federal lands'' means--
(A) lands within the National Forest System, as defined in
section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)) exclusive of the
National Grasslands administered pursuant to the Act of July
22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1010-10912); and
(B) the Oregon and California Railroad grant lands revested
in the United States by the Act of June 9, 1916 (chapter 137;
39 Stat. 218), Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands reconveyed to
the United States by the Act of February 26, 1919 (chapter
47; 40 Stat. 1179), and subsequent additions to such lands.
(2) Eligibility period.--The term ``eligibility period''
means fiscal year 1984 through fiscal year 1999.
(3) Eligible county.--The term ``eligible county'' means a
county or borough that received 50-percent payments for one
or more fiscal years of the eligibility period or a county or
borough that received a portion of an eligible State's 25-
percent payments for one or more fiscal years of the
eligibility period. The term includes a county or borough
established after the date of the enactment of this Act so
long as the county or borough includes all or a portion of a
county or borough described in the preceding sentence.
(4) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' means a
State that received 25-percent payments for one or more
fiscal years of the eligibility period.
(5) Full payment amount.--The term ``full payment amount''
means the amount calculated for each eligible State and
eligible county under section 101.
(6) 25-percent payments.--The term ``25-percent payments''
means the payments to States required by the sixth paragraph
under the heading of ``FOREST SERVICE'' in the Act of May 23,
1908 (35 Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), and section 13 of the Act
of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 U.S.C. 500).
(7) 50-percent payments.--The term ``50-percent payments''
means the payments that are the sum of the 50-percent share
otherwise paid to a county pursuant to title II of the Act of
August 28, 1937 (chapter 876; 50 Stat. 875; 43 U.S.C. 1181f),
and the payment made to a county pursuant to the Act of May
24, 1939 (chapter 144; 53 Stat. 753; 43 U.S.C. 1181f-1 et
seq.).
(8) Safety net payments.--The term ``safety net payments''
means the payments to States and counties required by section
13982 or 13983 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993 (Public Law 103-66; 16 U.S.C. 500 note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f
note).
TITLE I--SECURE PAYMENTS FOR STATES AND COUNTIES CONTAINING FEDERAL
LANDS
SEC. 101. DETERMINATION OF FULL PAYMENT AMOUNT FOR ELIGIBLE
STATES AND COUNTIES.
(a) Calculation Required.--
(1) Eligible states.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
calculate for each eligible State an amount equal to the
average of the three highest 25-percent payments and safety
net payments made to the eligible counties in that State for
fiscal years of the eligibility period,
(2) BLM counties.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
calculate for each eligible county that received a 50-percent
payment during the eligibility period an amount equal to the
average of the three highest 50-percent payments and safety
net payments made to that eligible county for fiscal years of
the eligibility period.
(b) Annual Adjustment.--For each fiscal year in which
payments are required to be made to eligible States and
eligible counties under this title, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall adjust the full payment amount for the
previous fiscal year for each eligible State and eligible
county to reflect changes in the consumer price index for
rural areas (as published in the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
that occur after publication of that index for fiscal year
2000.
SEC. 102. PAYMENTS TO STATES FROM NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
LANDS FOR USE BY COUNTIES TO BENEFIT PUBLIC
EDUCATION AND TRANSPORTATION.
(a) Requirement for Payments to Eligible States.--The
Secretary of the Treasury shall make to each eligible State a
payment in accordance with subsection (b) for each fiscal
year beginning in fiscal year 2000. The payment for a fiscal
year shall be made as soon as practicable after the end of
that fiscal year.
(b) Payment Amounts.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
the payment to an eligible State for a fiscal year shall
consist of the 25-percent payment applicable to that State
for that fiscal year as described in section 3(6).
(c) Election To Receive Full Payment Amount.--
(1) An eligible State may elect to receive the full payment
amount as described in sections 101(a)(1) and 101(b), in lieu
of the payment described in subsection (b). The election
shall be made at the discretion of each affected county and
transmitted to the Secretary by the Governor of a State. Each
such county election shall be effective for two fiscal years.
(2) Except that, when a county elects to receive the full
payment amount, such election shall be effective for all the
subsequent fiscal years.
(3) The payment to an eligible State under this subsection
for a fiscal year shall be derived first from any revenues,
fees, penalties, or miscellaneous receipts, exclusive of
deposits to any relevant trust fund, or special accounts,
received by the Federal Government from activities by the
Forest Service on the Federal lands described in subsection
3(1)(A) and/or secondly, as determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury, from any funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated.
(d) Distribution and Expenditure of Payments.--
(1) Distribution method.--An eligible State that elects to
receive a payment under subsection (c) shall distribute the
payment among all eligible counties in the State, with each
eligible county receiving the amount calculated for that
county in Section 101(a).
(2) Expenditure purposes.--Subject to subsection (e),
payments received by eligible States under subsection (a) and
distributed to eligible counties shall be expended in the
same manner in which 25-percent payments are required to be
expended.
(e) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds to be distributed to an
eligible county pursuant to subsection (d)--
(A) not less than 80 percent but not more than 85 percent
of the funds shall be expended in the same manner in which
the 25-percent payments are required to be expended; and
(B) at the election of an eligible county, the balance of
the funds not expended pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall
either be reserved for projects in accordance with title II,
or remitted to the fund created by section 302(b).
(2) Deposit of funds in special account.--Funds reserved by
an eligible county under paragraph (1) shall be deposited in
a special account in the Treasury of the United States and
shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary of
Agriculture, without further appropriation, and shall remain
available until expended in accordance with title II.
[[Page S8516]]
(3) Election.--
(A) General.--An eligible county shall notify the Secretary
of Agriculture of its election under this subsection not
later than September 30 of each fiscal year. If the eligible
county fails to make an election by that date, the county is
deemed to have elected to expend 85 percent of the funds to
be received under subsection (c) in the same manner in which
the 25-percent payments are required to be expended, and
remitted the balance to the fund created by Section 302(b).
(B) Counties with minor distributions.--Notwithstanding the
expenditure rules in this subsection, in the case of each
eligible county to which less than $100,000 is distributed
for any fiscal year pursuant to subsection (c), the eligible
county may elect to expend all such funds in accordance with
subsection (d).
SEC. 103. PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES FROM BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
LANDS FOR USE TO BENEFIT PUBLIC SAFETY, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION, AND OTHER PUBLIC
PURPOSES.
(a) Requirement for Payments to Eligible Counties.--The
Secretary of the Treasury shall make to each eligible county
that received a 50-percent payment during the eligibility
period a payment in accordance with subsection (b) for each
of fiscal year in fiscal year 2000. The payment for a fiscal
year shall be made as soon as practicable after the end of
that fiscal year.
(b) Payment Amounts.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
the payments to an eligible county for a fiscal year shall
consist of the 50-percent payment applicable to that county
for that fiscal year as described in section 3(7).
(c) Election To Receive Full Payment Amount.--
(1) An eligible county may elect to receive the full
payment amount, as described in sections 101(a)(2) and 101(b)
in lieu of the payment described in subsection (b). The
election shall be made at the discretion of the county. Once
the election is made, it shall be effective for the fiscal
year in which the election is made and all subsequent fiscal
years.
(2) The payment to an eligible county under this subsection
for a fiscal year shall be derived first from any revenues,
fees, penalties, or miscellaneous receipts, exclusive of
deposits to any relevant trust fund, or special accounts,
received by the Federal Government from activities by the
Bureau of Land Management on the Federal Lands described in
subsection 3(1)(B) and/or secondly, as determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury, from any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated.
(d) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds to be distributed to an
eligible county pursuant to subsection (d)--
(A) Not less than 80 percent but not more than 85 percent
of the funds distributed to the eligible county shall be
expended in the same manner in which the 50-percent payments
are required to be expended; and
(B) At the election of an eligible county, the balance of
the funds not expended pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall
either be reserved for projects in accordance with title II,
or remitted to the fund created by section 302(b).
(2) Deposit of funds in special account.--Funds reserved by
an eligible county under paragraph (1) shall be deposited in
a special account in the Treasury of the United States and
shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary of the
Interior, without further appropriation, and shall remain
available until expended in accordance with title II.
(3) Election.--An eligible county shall notify the
Secretary of the Interior of its election under this
subsection not later than September 30 of each fiscal year
under subsection (d). If the eligible county fails to make an
election by that date, the county is deemed to have elected
to expend 85 percent on the funds received under subsection
(c) in the same manner in which the 50-percent payments are
required to be expended and remitted the balance to the fund
created by section 302(b).
TITLE II--SPECIAL PROJECTS ON FEDERAL LANDS
SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Participating county.--The term ``participating
county'' means an eligible county that--
(A) receives Federal funds pursuant to section 102 or 103;
and
(B) elects under sections 102(e)(3) or 103(d)(3) to expend
a portion of those funds in accordance with sections
102(e)(1)(B) or 103(d)(3).
(2) Project funds.--The term ``project funds'' means all
funds an eligible county elects under sections 102(e)(3) and
103(d)(3) to reserve for expenditure under sections
102(e)(1)(B) or 103(d)(2) for expenditure in accordance with
this title.
(3) Resource advisory committee.--The term ``resource
advisory committee'' means an advisory committee established
by the Secretary concerned under section 205, or determined
by the Secretary concerned to meet the requirements of
section 205.
(4) Resource management plan.--The term ``resource
management plan'' means a land use plan prepared by the
Bureau of Land Management for units of the Federal lands
described in section 3(1)(B) pursuant to section 202 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1712) and a land and resource management plan prepared by the
Forest Service for units of the National Forest System
pursuant to section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
(5) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means the Secretary of the Interior or his designee with
respect to the Federal lands described in section 3(1)(B) and
the Secretary of Agriculture or his designee with respect to
the Federal lands described in section 3(1)(A).
SEC. 202. GENERAL LIMITATION ON USE OF PROJECT FUNDS.
Project funds shall be expended solely on projects that
meet the requirements of this title. Project funds may be
used by the Secretary concerned for the purpose of entering
into and implementing cooperative agreements with willing
Federal agencies, State and local governments, private and
nonprofit entities, and landowners for protection,
restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and
other resource objectives consistent with the purposes of
this title on public or private land or both that benefit
these resources within the watershed.
SEC. 203. SUBMISSION OF PROJECT PROPOSALS.
(a) Submission of Project Proposals to Secretary
Concerned.--
(1) Projects funded using project funds.--Not later than
September 30 for fiscal year 2001, and each September 30
thereafter for each succeeding fiscal year, each resource
advisory committee established under section 205 shall submit
to the Secretary concerned a description of any projects that
the resource advisory committee proposes the Secretary
undertake using any project funds reserved.
(2) Projects funded using other funds.--A resource advisory
committee may submit to the Secretary concerned a description
of any projects that the committee proposes the Secretary
undertake using funds from State or local governments, from
the private sector, or funds held by the Secretary concerned
pursuant to section 302(b), other than project funds and
funds appropriated and otherwise available to do similar
work.
(3) Joint projects.--Participating counties or other
persons may propose to pool project funds or other funds,
described in paragraph (2), and jointly propose a project or
group of projects to a resource advisory committee
established under section 205.
(b) Required Description of Projects.--In submitting
proposed projects to the Secretary concerned under subsection
(a), a resource advisory committee shall include in the
description of each proposed project the following
information:
(1) The purpose of the project and a description of how the
project will meet the purposes of this Act.
(2) The anticipated duration of the project.
(3) The anticipated cost of the project.
(4) The proposed source of funding for the project, whether
project funds or other funds.
(5) Expected outcomes, including how the project will meet
or exceed desired ecological conditions, maintenance
objectives, or stewardship objectives, as well as an
estimation of the amount of any timber, forage, and other
commodities and other economic activity, including jobs
generated, if any, anticipated as part of the project.
(6) A detailed monitoring plan, including funding needs and
sources, that tracks project effectiveness, implementation,
and provides for validation monitoring. The monitoring plan
shall include an assessment of the following: whether or not
the project created local employment or training
opportunities, including summer youth jobs programs such as
the Youth Conservation Corps where appropriate; and whether
the project improved the use of, or added value to, any
products removed from lands consistent with the purposes of
this Act.
(7) An assessment that the project is to be in the public
interest.
(c) Authorized Projects.--
(1) In general.--Projects proposed under subsection (a)
shall be consistent with section 2(b).
(2) Search, rescue, and emergency services.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a resource advisory committee
may submit as a proposed project under subsection (a) a
proposal that the participating county or sheriff's
department receive reimbursement for search and rescue and
other emergency services performed on Federal lands and paid
for by the county. The source of funding for an approved
project of this type must be the fund created by section
302(b).
(3) Community service work camps.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), a resource advisory committee may submit as a
proposed project under subsection (a) a proposal that the
participating county receive reimbursement for all or part of
the costs incurred by the county to pay the salaries and
benefits of county employees who supervise adults or
juveniles performing mandatory community service on Federal
lands.
SEC. 204. EVALUATION AND APPROVAL OF PROJECTS BY SECRETARY
CONCERNED.
(a) Conditions for Approval of Proposed Project.--The
Secretary concerned may make a decision to approve a project
submitted by a resource advisory committee under section 203
only if the proposed project satisfies each of the following
conditions:
(1) The project complies with all applicable Federal laws
and regulations.
(2) The project is consistent with the applicable resource
management plan and with any watershed or subsequent plan
developed pursuant to the resource management plan and
approved by the Secretary concerned.
(3) The project has been approved by the resource advisory
committee in accordance with section 205, including the
procedures issued under subsection (e) of such section.
(4) A project description has been submitted by the
resource advisory committee to the Secretary concerned in
accordance with section 203.
(b) Environmental Reviews.--
(1) Payment of review costs.--
(A) Request for payment by county.--The Secretary concerned
may request the resource advisory committee submitting a
proposed project to agree to the use of project funds to
[[Page S8517]]
pay for any environmental review, consultation, or compliance
with applicable environmental laws required in connection
with the project. When such a payment is requested and the
resource advisory committee agrees to the expenditure of
funds for this purpose, the Secretary concerned shall conduct
environmental review, consultation, or other compliance
responsibilities in accordance with Federal law and
regulations.
(B) Effect of refusal to pay.--If a resource advisory
committee does not agree to the expenditure of funds under
subparagraph (A), the project shall be deemed withdrawn from
further consideration by the Secretary concerned pursuant
to this title. Such a withdrawal shall be deemed to be a
rejection of the project for purposes of section 207(c).
(c) Decisions of Secretary Concerned.--
(1) Rejection of projects.--A decision by the Secretary
concerned to reject a proposed project shall be at the
Secretary's sole discretion. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a decision by the Secretary concerned to
reject a proposed project shall not be subject to
administrative appeal or judicial review. Within 30 days
after making the rejection decision, the Secretary concerned
shall notify in writing the resource advisory committee that
submitted the proposed project of the rejection and the
reasons for rejection.
(2) Notice of project approval.--The Secretary concerned
shall publish in the Federal Register notice of each project
approved under subsection (a) if such notice would be
required had the project originated with the Secretary.
(d) Source and Conduct of Project.--Once the Secretary
concerned accepts a project for review under section 204, it
shall be deemed a Federal action for all purposes.
(e) Implementation of Approved Projects.--
(1) Cooperation.--Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31,
United States Code, the Secretary concerned may enter into
contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with States and
local governments, private and nonprofit entities, and
landowners and other persons to assist the Secretary in
carrying out an approved project.
(2) Best value contracting.--For any project involving a
contract authorized by paragraph (1) the Secretary concerned
may elect a source for performance of the contract on a best
value basis. The Secretary concerned shall determine best
value based on such factors as:
(A) The technical demands and complexity of the work to be
done.
(B) The ecological objectives of the project and the
sensitivity of the resources being treated.
(C) The past experience by the contractor with the type of
work being done, using the type of equipment proposed for the
project, and meeting or exceeding desired ecological
conditions.
(D) The commitment of the contractor to hiring highly
qualified workers and local residents.
(3) Merchantable materials sales contracting pilot
projects.--Until September 30, 2004, for a portion of the
contracts issued under this paragraph, the Secretary
concerned shall provide for the disposal of the forest
products under a separate contract. Within one year of the
completion of the contracts authorized under this paragraph,
the Secretary shall report to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the
Committee of Resources of the United States House of
Representatives on the environmental and fiscal results of
these projects.
SEC. 205. RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
(a) Establishment and Purpose of Resource Advisory
Committees.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary concerned shall establish
and maintain a resource advisory committee to perform the
duties in subsection (b), except as provided in paragraphs
(3) and (4).
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of a resource advisory committee
shall be to improve collaborative relationships and to
provide advice and recommendations to the land management
agencies consistent with the purposes of this Act.
(3) Access to resource advisory committees.--To ensure that
each unit of Federal land has access to a resource advisory
committee, and that there is sufficient interest in
participation on a committee to ensure that membership can be
balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the
functions to be performed, the Secretary concerned may,
establish resource advisory committees for part of, or one or
more, units of Federal lands.
(4) Existing advisory committees.--Existing advisory
committees meeting the requirements of this section may be
deemed by the Secretary concerned, as a resource advisory
committee for the purposes of the title. The Secretary of the
Interior may deem a resource advisory committee meeting the
requirements of part 1780, subpart 1784 of title 43, Code of
Federal Regulations, as a resource advisory committee for the
purposes of this title.
(b) Duties.--A resource advisory committee shall--
(1) review projects proposed by participating counties and
other persons;
(2) propose projects and funding to the Secretary concerned
under section 203;
(3) provide early and continuous coordination with
appropriate land management agency officials in recommending
projects consistent with purposes of this Act; and
(4) provide frequent opportunities for citizens,
organizations, Tribes, land management agencies, and other
interested parties to participate openly and meaningfully,
beginning at the early stages of the project development
processs.
(c) Appointment by the Secretary.--
(1) Appointment and term.--The Secretary concerned, shall
appoint the members of resource advisory committees for a
term of 3 years beginning on the date of appointment. The
Secretary concerned may reappoint members to subsequent 3-
year terms.
(2) Basic requirements.--The Secretary concerned shall
ensure that each resource advisory committee established
meets the requirements of subsection (d).
(3) Initial appointment.--The Secretary concerned shall
make initial appointments to the resource advisory committees
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(4) Vacancies.--The Secretary concerned shall make
appointments to fill vacancies on any resource advisory
committee as soon as practicable after the vacancy has
occurred.
(5) Compensation.--Members of the resource advisory
committees shall not receive any compensation.
(d) Composition of Advisory Committee.--
(1) Number.--Each resource advisory committee shall be
comprised of 15 members.
(2) Community interests represented.--Committee members
shall be representative of the interests of the following
categories:
(A) 5 persons who--
(i) represent organized labor;
(ii) represent developed outdoor recreation, off highway
vehicle users, or commercial recreation activities;
(iii) represent energy and mineral development interests;
(iv) represent the commercial timber industry; or
(v) hold Federal grazing permits, or other land use permits
within the area for which the committee is organized.
(B) 5 persons representing--
(i) nationally recognized environmental organizations;
(ii) regionally or locally recognized environmental
organizations;
(iii) dispersed recreational activities;
(iv) archeological and historical interests; or
(v) nationally or regionally recognized wild horse and
burro interest groups.
(C) 5 persons who--
(i) hold state elected office or their designee;
(ii) hold county or local elected office;
(iii) represent American Indian tribes within or adjacent
to the area for which the committee is organized;
(iv) are school officials or teachers; or
(v) represent the affected public at large.
(3) Balanced representation.--In appointing committee
members from the three categories in paragraph (2), the
Secretary concerned shall provide for balanced and broad
representation from within each category.
(4) Geographic distribution.--The members of a resource
advisory committee shall reside within the State in which the
committee has geographic jurisdiction.
(5) Chairperson.--A majority on each resource advisory
committee shall select the chairperson of the committee.
(e) Approval Procedures.--
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each resource advisory
committee shall establish procedures for defining a quorum
and proposing projects to the Secretary concerned. A quorum
must be present to constitute an official meeting of the
committee.
(2) A project may be proposed by a resource advisory
committee to the Secretary concerned under section 203(a) if
it has been approved by a majority of members of the
committee from each of the three categories in subsection
(c)(2).
(f) Other Committee Authorities and Requirements.--
(1) Staff assistance.--A resource advisory committee may
submit to the Secretary concerned a request for periodic
staff assistance from Federal employees under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
(2) Meetings.--All meetings of a resource advisory
committee shall be announced at least one week in advance in
a local newspaper of record and shall be open to the public.
(3) Records.--A resource advisory committee shall maintain
records of the meetings of the committee and make the records
available for public inspection.
SEC. 206. USE OF PROJECT FUNDS.
(a) Agreement Regarding Schedule and Cost of Project.--
(1) Agreement between parties.--The Secretary concerned may
carry out a project submitted by a resource advisory
committee under section 203(a) using project funds or other
funds described in section 203(a)(2), if, as soon as
practicable after the issuance of a decision document for the
project and the exhaustion of all administrative appeals and
judicial review of the project decision, the Secretary
concerned and the resource advisory committee enter into an
agreement addressing, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The schedule for completing the project.
(B) The total cost of the project, including the level of
agency overhead to be assessed against the project.
(C) For a multi-year project, the estimated cost of the
project for each of the fiscal years in which it will be
carried out.
(D) The remedies for failure of the Secretary concerned to
comply with the terms of the agreement consistent with
current Federal law.
(2) Limited use of federal funds.--The Secretary concerned
may decide, at the Secretary's sole discretion, to cover the
costs of a portion of an approved project using Federal funds
appropriated or otherwise available to the Secretary for the
same purposes as the project.
(b) Transfer of Project Funds.--
(1) Initial transfer required.--As soon as practicable
after the agreement is reached under subsection (a) with
regard to a project to be funded in whole or in part using
projects funds, or other funds described in section
203(a)(2), the Secretary concerned shall transfer to the
applicable unit of National Forest Systems lands or BLM
District an amount of project funds equal to--
[[Page S8518]]
(A) in the case of a project to be completed in a single
fiscal year, the total amount specified in the agreement to
be paid using project funds, or other funds described in
section 203(a)(2); or
(B) in the case of a multi-year project, the amount
specified in the agreement to be paid using project funds, or
other funds described in section 203(a)(2) for the first
fiscal year.
(2) Condition on project commencement.--The unit of
National Forest System lands or BLM District concerned, shall
not commence a project until the project funds, or other
funds described in section 203(a)(2) required to be
transferred under paragraph (1) for the project, have been
made available by the Secretary concerned.
(3) Subsequent transfers for multi-year projects.--For the
second and subsequent fiscal years of a multi-year project to
be funded in whole or in part using project funds, the unit
of National Forest System lands or BLM District concerned
shall use the amount of project funds required to continue
the project in that fiscal year according to the agreement
entered into under subsection (a). The Secretary concerned
shall suspend work on the project if the project funds
required by the agreement in the second and subsequent years
fiscal years are not available.
SEC. 207. AVAILABILITY OF PROJECT FUNDS.
(a) Submission of Proposed Projects To Obligate Funds.--By
the end of each fiscal year, a resource advisory committee
shall submit to the Secretary concerned pursuant to section
203(a)(1) a sufficient number of project proposals that, if
approved, would result in the obligation of at least the full
amount of the project funds reserved by the participating
county in the preceding fiscal year.
(b) Use or Transfer of Unobligated Funds.--
(1) If a resource advisory committee fails to comply with
subsection (a) for a fiscal year, any project funds reserved
by the participating county in the preceding fiscal year and
remaining unobligated shall be available for use as part of
the project submissions in the next fiscal year.
(2) Any funds not used because a county fails to elect
under section 102(e)(3) or section 103(d)(3) to expend monies
for local projects shall be remitted to the fund created by
section 302(b).
(c) Effect of Rejection of Projects.--Any project funds
reserved by a participating county in the preceding fiscal
year that are unobligated at the end of a fiscal year because
the Secretary concerned has rejected one or more proposed
projects shall be available for use as part of the project
submissions in the next fiscal year.
(d) Effect of Court Orders.--If an approved project is
enjoined or prohibited by a Federal court under this Act, the
Secretary concerned shall use unobligated project funds
related to that project in the participating county or
counties that reserved the funds. The returned funds shall be
available for the county to expend in the same manner as the
funds reserved by the county under section 102(e)(1)(B) or
103(d)(1)(B), whichever applies to the funds involved.
TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as
are necessary to carry out this Act for fiscal years 2001
through 2007.
SEC. 302. TREATMENT OF FUNDS AND REVENUES.
(a) Funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 301 and funds made available to a
Secretary concerned under section 206 shall be in addition to
any other annual appropriations for the Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management.
(b) Any and all revenues generated from projects pursuant
to title II, any funds remitted by counties pursuant to
section 102(e)(1)(B) or section 103(d)(1)(B), and any
interest accrued from any such funds shall be deposited and
retained without further appropriation in a national fund and
available to the Secretary concerned to fund projects
authorized pursuant to section 203. The Secretary concerned
shall prioritize expenditures from this fund and shall
identify, in an annual report to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the
Committee on Resources of the United States House of
Representatives, all projects receiving funds pursuant to
this subsection.
SEC. 303. REGULATIONS.
The Secretaries concerned may jointly issue regulations to
carry out the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 304. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
Section 13982 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1993 (116 U.S.C. 500 note) is repealed. Sections 13982 and
13983 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
(Public Law 103-66; 16 U.S.C. 500 note; 43 U.S.C. 1181f note)
is repealed.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 1999, solves a severe crisis in
America's rural, forest counties driven by the precipitous decline in
federal timber receipts over the last decade. The bill provides vital
payments to schools and counties, while providing option to direct a
portion of the payments to the development of local projects to address
the needs of our families and forests.
S. 1608 provides equity and increased educational opportunities for
rural school children. States that are dominated by federally owned
lands are facing a dual economic and educational crisis.
Our nation contains almost 800 forest counties; 2,000 forest school
districts; 600,000 rural families, and more than 4 million school
children who depend upon rural public schools for their education.
These children deserve the same educational opportunities as their
counterparts in urban areas.
Mosr urban areas across America witnessed unprecedented prosperity
throughout the 1990s. However, in our rural forest counties, the decade
has been a one-way slide toward poverty, unemployment, and a lower
standard of living for communities, families and children.
And it is our children who have borne the brunt of the harm. Rural
children have been faced with:
School closings; school days and weeks shortened; class sizes
increased due to teacher layoffs; classroom aides eliminated;
counseling, nursing, and psychological services cut or eliminated;
music, art, athletic, and academic enrichment programs eliminated; and
student transportation services and winter road maintenance scaled back
or eliminated.
The bill's guaranteed payments will provide critical resources for
our children. It will allow our teachers to once again provide them
with a quality education.
In crafting S. 1608, Senator Wyden and I were assisted by local
community representatives who work, live, and represent thousands of
rural citizens. The bill is supported by a unique coalition of more
than 1000 organizations across 50 states including county officials,
educators, teachers unions, labor unions, and local businesses. This
bill is truly a community-based solution to a national crisis. It is
very, very rare indeed, to bring a bill to the Senate floor that enjoys
the breadth of support represented by the groups in favor of S. 1608.
S. 1608 also provides funds to invest in collaborative improvement
projects to address high priority forest management needs such as:
infrastructure improvement, fuel and fire reduction, ecosystem
restoration, stewardship projects and watershed protection and
restoration. In addition, these cooperative county projects will
contribute to local community economic self-sufficiency and family
social stability. As reported, S. 1608 is a win-win solution for all of
rural America; our school children, our educators, our working
families, our counties, and our forestlands.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, many folks in rural Oregon and other parts
of rural America believe the Federal Government has abandoned them.
They think Washington, D.C. has reneged on a decades-long commitment to
support their schools and roads with revenue from timber harvested on
Federal lands. People in timber-dependent rural America think they are
being left behind to live in economic sacrifice zones.
Policy changes in Washington, DC., affecting logging on national
forest across this country have caused timber receipts to fall an
average of 70 percent over the last 15 years, and by as much as 90
percent in some areas. As timber receipts disappeared, roads fell
deeper into disrepair, school programs were cut to the bone, and some
schools even had to close their doors at least 1 day a week. Our fellow
citizens who live in rural America should not be just an afterthought
in our warp-speed world. The legislation before us, the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, will renew the compact
with timber-dependent communities without compromising our commitment
to environmentally sound stewardship of our forests. It will give
people in rural counties the financial predictability they need to step
into the 21st century.
Since 1908, people in rural counties across this country have lived
by a compact with the Federal Government. As compensation for paying no
property taxes, the Federal Government would give the counties a
quarter of the timber revenue. For decades, this arrangement provide
adequate funds to sustain schools, roads and other basic county
services, like emergency rescue. But when timber harvests began to drop
off and timber jobs were lost, little effort was made to help offset
the shortfall, and citizens in rural counties felt betrayed by the
government in Washington, DC. We are not talking
[[Page S8519]]
about a few isolated communities in remote areas of America. Timber-
dependent communities are found in 709 counties in 42 states. Some
800,000 school children and millions of people live in these counties.
Thirty-one of 36 counties in my State of Oregon receive timber
payments. Counties in the western part of Oregon have been able to
survive because of Spotted Owl safety net payments, but no such safety
net exists for those in eastern Oregon. There, Grant County, has lost
90 percent of its timber receipts, from more than $12 million down to
$1 million, and the county has turned to such cost-cutting measures as
a 4-day school week.
Under this legislation, Oregon counties will get a total of $261
million a year--an increase of $115 million, or 79 percent. Of the $261
million, $222 million would be available for schools and roads and $39
million will remain for the counties either to invest in their backyard
national forests or in forest-related county services.
The purpose of S. 1608 is to help rural communities adapt to changing
national forest management policies by creating a funding formula
alternative to timber receipts. The legislation will ensure that the
future relationship between the people living in the 709 affected rural
counties and the Federal Government does not depend on how many trees
are cut. Rural communities will be connected to Federal lands through
stewardship projects, maintenance of existing forest infrastructure,
ecosystem restoration and improvement of land and water quality.
Counties will choose how to spend the Federal payment, and projects
will be developed by broad-based groups of local citizens.
Collaboration with Federal land managers will help ensure projects
comply with all existing environmental laws and regulations. The
legislation would restore stability to the 25 percent payments compact
by ensuring a predictable payment level to forest communities for six
years. The amount going toward schools and roads would represent 80-85
percent of the three-year average of the highest payment years from
1985 to the present. Unlike today's system, a county will receive its
payment from the general Treasury, regardless of whether a single tree
is cut from national forests.
Counties will decide for themselves how to invest the remaining 15-
to-20 percent of the average amount described above for projects
recommended by local community advisory committees if those projects
are approved by the appropriate Federal land management agency.
Although locally-conceived, every project must comply with all
environmental laws and regulations, as well as all applicable forest
plans. Counties might also opt to pursue projects related to the
forest--rather than in the forest--through Title III. These projects
might include fire prevention, the purchase of easements or forest-
related after-school programs. In addition, each project must--and I
quote from the bill here--``improve the maintenance of existing
infrastructure, implement stewardship objectives that enhance forest
ecosystems, and restore and improve land health and water quality'' on
the national forests.
County choice is critical to the bill. Counties that opt not to join
the program--such as those anticipating higher timber receipts in the
immediate future--will continue to receive payments based on the
existing formula, and they also have the option of joining the program
two years down the road. Counties that opt to join the program will get
stable payments based on a new formula.
There is no doubt about it. This legislation will change the
traditional dynamic between logging and Federal payments to schools and
counties. But altering the link between timber harvest and county
payments does not mean we seek to sever the ties between people and
land. S. 1608 will strengthen the bond between communities and
neighboring Federal forests. The projects that would be authorized by
S. 1608 are a way for the Federal government to recognize--without
relaxing or compromising our environmental commitments--that timber
towns grow not just trees, but people, too.
When this debate began, the issues were highly polarized. On the one
side were those who would punish the Forest Service for not cutting
enough trees; on the other were those who, unintentionally, would
punish our rural communities and school children by not providing them
the funding they so desperately need. After listening to both sides and
after many long discussions, Senator Craig and I rejected the extremes
and sought out a middle path that would break the gridlock. The
legislation we bring to the Senate will establish a foundation to move
rural communities beyond this time of crisis, and, with the forest
ecosystem restoration projects, put them on a path toward
sustainability in this new century.
One of my goals for this legislation was to assure the counties have
as much choice as possible, and I believe this goal has been met. As I
said earlier, first, counties can choose whether they would like to be
part of this program and receive a stable payment. If they choose not
to be part of the program, they may revisit this decision every 2
years. Second, a county that chooses to be part of the program and
receive stable payments must decide the type of projects they want to
invest in: projects in the forest, like stream and watershed
restoration; or projects related to the forests, such as wildfire
prevention or afterschool programs for their children. Also, a county
can opt simply to have the money sent back to the U.S. Treasury without
pursuing projects. Finally, these choices may be revisited every year.
The ecological health of the forests is a key to survival for many of
these communities, making forest restoration a cornerstone of the bill.
Counties have choices as to how and how much they receive so they are
able to determine the best allocation of funds: whether to support
forest health, job creation, ecosystem restoration or a combination of
these. Whatever the choice, it is an investment in both the future of
the forest and the community. This legislation is the product of many
months of painstaking work. Since the beginning, it has been a
bipartisan effort. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported
the legislation by voice vote last April, and through negotiations with
many other interested Senators, we have a managers' amendment that
represents a further refinement of the bill.
I particularly want to thank Senators Craig and Bingaman, the Chair
and ranking member of the Energy Committee. Without their dedication
and willingness to put long hours into this effort, we would not have
such a solid piece of legislation. I would also like to make special
note of the help of Senator Baucus in crafting Title III and bringing a
strong focus on wildfire prevention. I would also like to acknowledge
the work of the staff on S. 1608. In particular, Jose Kardon, my chief
of staff, and Sarah Bittleman, my Natural Resources counsel, have done
yeoman's work on this legislation. Carole Grunberg, my legislative
director, and Jeff Gagne, my Education advisor, also contributed to the
effort. Special thanks also goes to Mark Rey of the Energy Committee
staff, whose steady hand and creativity helped resolve so many problems
successfully; to Bob Simon and Kira Finkler, of the Energy Committee
Democratic staff; and to Brian Kuehl with Senator Baucus and Sara Barth
with Senator Boxer.
S. 1608 is supported by thousands of groups, hundreds of counties,
labor organizations and school groups including the National Education
Association, National Association of Counties, the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as the AFL-CIO.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Amendment No. 4139
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there is a substitute amendment at the
desk, and I ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself and Mr.
Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 4139.
Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments
Submitted.'')
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in conjunction with the administration, and
[[Page S8520]]
the members of the Budget Committee, we have made a series of technical
changes to S. 1608 as it was reported by the committee. These changes
are designed to: (1) respond to the concerns of some members with the
bill as reported; (2) address some additional issues raised by the
Administration; (3) rectify technical problems with the bill; as well
as (4) bring the bill's costs in line with the amount provided in
fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. Let me briefly describe the most
important changes for the benefit of the Senate. We have modified the
formula used to calculate the ``full payment amount'' to which states
are entitled from the Forest Service under this bill. Rather than
having this payment calculated on the average of the three highest 25
percent payments for each eligible county within each state, the
calculations will be based upon the average of the three highest 25
percent payments for each state during the fiscal years of the eligible
years period. We also reduced the annual adjustment for inflation.
These changes will reduce the cost of the bill as estimated by the
Congressional Budget Office from $1.46 billion over a 5-year period to
around $1.1 billion over the same period.
In section 102(a) and section 103(a), we clarify that the duration of
the bill will be fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2006. It is the
manager's intent that this bill be sunsetted after six years. This
language, and new language in section 209 and section 303 added by the
manager's amendment emphasizes this for the purpose of clarity. We made
a minor change to clarify that eligible counties that receive less than
$100,000 in payments for fiscal year 2001 may elect to expend all of
this money for schools and roads, whether or not the payment increases
slightly in out-years as a result of the inflation adjustment. This
change will assist counties with small revenue distributions.
In section 202, we clarify that projects funded under this bill can
be conducted on public or private lands as long as there is a benefit
to federally managed resources. The committee bill was not sufficiently
precise in this regard. In section 203(b)(6), we added language to more
fully describe the kind of monitoring plans that we would like to see
associated with projects approved under the bill. In section 204(e)(3),
we elected to put some quantitative targets on the pilot projects that
the bill authorizes for merchantable materials, with an out-year
adjustment based upon the results of a GAO audit. We are hopeful that
the administration will move aggressively to implement this pilot
project, and report on its progress promptly and thoroughly to
Congress. In section 401, we clarified that the bill authorizes
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 through 2006. This is to emphasize
that this is a six-year bill.
In section 402(b), we specify that any revenues generated by
projected funded by monies authorized under this bill should be
returned to the Treasury, except in the single case where a project is
jointly funded by both project and non-federal revenues. The portion of
revenues associated with funds provided by this bill would be retained
by the appropriate Secretary. The proportion of revenues associated
with funds provided by non-federal sources would be shared with those
sources. This change is designed to address the concern that allowing
revenues generated by projects to be retained by federal agencies would
create an unwelcome incentive to focus exclusively on revenue-
generating projects. Our amendment addresses this concern in an
equitable fashion.
With regard to the projects funded under this bill, we added language
in section 204 to assure that projects will improve the maintenance of
existing infrastructure, implement stewardship objectives that enhance
forest ecosystems, or restore and improve land health and water
quality. We also specify that fifty percent of the project money shall
be used for projects that involve road maintenance or obliteration, or
the restoration of streams and watersheds. These changes are designed
to encourage the development of projects that foster resource
stewardship. To provide the counties that elect to participate in
projects a wider range of choices, we have added a title III to the
bill. Under the provisions of title III, counties may choose to invest
their project money in a list of authorized uses including: (1) search,
rescue, and emergency services; (2) community service work camps; (3)
easement purchases from willing sellers to provide access to public
lands; 94) forest related educational programs; (5) local fire
prevention and fire risk reduction planning activities; and (6)
community forestry projects. These projects would still be developed
and recommended through the local resource advisory committees
established in title II of the bill. They will function much as they do
in title II, except that the projects will not require the approval of
the Secretary, as would title II projects. Also, under the specific
terms of section 102(d)(1)(B) and section 102(c)(1)(B) counties could
split their project funds between titles II and III as they choose.
We have also added a new title V to the bill to remedy a serious
problem caused by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
involving the sharing with the states of onshore mineral revenues and
revenues from geothermal steam. Prior to the 1993 act the federal
government and the states split these revenues on a fifty-fifty basis.
The 1993 act requires that the federal government deduct its previous
years expenses for administering these programs from the receipts
before the fifty-fifty split is made. This requirement has proven very
difficult to implement due to general sloppiness of federal accounting
systems. The federal agencies and the states have become involved in
numerous disputes over the federal government's calculation of its
administrative expenses. In light of these problems, with the advice
and the assistance of Senators Domenici and Bingaman, we propose to
return to the pre-1993 system of calculating shared receipts.
Finally, we have added a conforming amendment in section 4 of the
bill. This amendment specifies that payments required by this bill
would be included in the calculation of the payment in lieu of taxes
(PILT) payments that each state receives. This change will result in
payments under this act being treated in the same fashion as other
natural resource payments to the states.
I appreciate the cooperation of several of my colleagues in
developing the changes that went into the manager's amendment. I
particularly want to thank Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman and
their staffs for their assistance in putting together the manager's
amendment. The bill is a much better product because of their
contribution.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support passage of S.
1608, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
2000.
This bill will restore the financial and resource management links
between the rural communities of America and our natural resource
agencies.
The precipitous drop in financial support for education and
infrastructure needs of our rural counties will be restored by S. 1608.
These payments will now be steady and reliable. This bill also
reverses the inward turning, and belt-way centered, thinking of
resource managers by creating collaborative processes for natural
resources management in our rural communities.
S. 1608 will provide rural communities and their public lands
managers the opportunity to work together to improve the ecosystems by
investing in the public lands.
I would like to express my appreciation for the months of work that
have been put in on this bill by my fellow members of the Energy
Committee: Senator Craig and Senator Wyden.
Bringing this bill to the floor today is the result of countless
hours of briefings, dialog and negotiation with Senator Craig, Senator
Wyden, their staff, the National Forest County & Schools Coalition, and
all the other groups that have expended time and effort to assure that
the educational needs of the kids in rural communities would not be
neglected.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture, and others in the Administration who have
been helpful in coming to the final product we see here today.
In closing I thank all those who have contributed to crafting S. 1608
for their hard work.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
[[Page S8521]]
And finally I look forward to the federal government reestablishing
its support to the rural communities of this country so that they can
maintain their school systems and provide other needed county services.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak to the
Senate today in strong support of S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-determination Act of 2000. As an original co-sponsor of
this legislation, I commend Senator Craig and Senator Wyden for their
leadership in crafting a bill which brings all sides of the issue
together. I want to take a minute to salute Oregon's county
commissioners, who kept this issue on top of their priority list, and
who made frequent trips to meetings in Oregon and here in Washington,
D.C. to make sure this legislation moved forward. Oregon is a
remarkably diverse state, but as I have traveled throughout Oregon, I
hear the same thing in each of our 36 counties--and that's the fact
that passage of S. 1608 is their number one priority. I also want to
thank President Clinton for his statement that he will sign this
legislation when it reaches his desk.
S. 1608 re-establishes the federal government's compact with rural
communities--one that dates back to the early days of settlement in the
West--while providing much needed funding for environmentally sound,
locally developed projects to restore the health of federal watersheds
and forests. Perhaps more importantly, this bill will ensure that the
federal government provides fair compensation to local governments so
that they in turn will be able to meet their communities' needs for
schools and roads. I want to make sure my colleagues understand why
this legislation is needed, and how the counties in my State, as well
as nearly 800 other rural counties in 41 other States, will suffer if
we do not pass S. 1608 today.
Nearly a century ago, the ``forest reserves'', precursors of our
national forests, were transferred from the Department of the Interior
to the Department of Agriculture. At that time, the Congress understood
that placing these forest reserves in the federal government's trust
would have very negative effects on the property taxes local
governments and local school systems could collect. To remedy this,
Congress passed a law in 1908 to share 25 percent of the Forest
Service's gross receipts with the counties to partially compensate the
counties for the lost taxes. In addition, Congress designated these
funds to be spent on schools and county roads. Having directed the
Forest Service to pay very close attention to the needs of the local
citizens and industries in the ``1905 Transfer Act,'' coupled with the
passage of the ``1908 25 Percent Payment Act,'' Congress had developed
a fair and workable compact with rural communities and counties. It was
a compact that worked very well for nearly 90 years.
Over the last ten years, however, as federal timber sales have
declined by nearly 70 percent across the nation, rural counties in many
states began to see serious short-falls in their annual 25 percent
payments. In Oregon, where federal timber sales have declined by an
even greater margin, these shortfalls have been truly devastating for
local governments.
As Federal lands have increasingly been declared ``off limits'' in
recent years, rural communities have worked hard to diversify their
economies. While tourism has flourished in certain pockets, to this
point it has not been a substitute for the family wage jobs the timber
industry once offered. Ultimately, there is only so much that local
governments can do when 70 percent, 80 percent, or even more, of the
land is tied up in federal holdings. The fact that local governments
are no longer being adequately compensated for federal land ownership
only adds to the burdens of rural communities trying to bring in new
industries, provide education and health services, and bridge the
digital divide. This is what we are trying to address with S. 1608.
Lane County, Oregon, for example, has seen receipts from federal
lands shrink by 65 percent over the last ten years. This has created a
gaping $7 million hole in the resources the County uses to provide
families with basic needs, including public health and safety services,
strong education systems, and safe roads and highways. If S. 1608 is
not passed, Lane County faces the prospect of slashing its public works
engineering staff by 50 percent, leaving roads and bridges threatened
with disrepair.
Perhaps Grant County in eastern Oregon makes an even more compelling
case for the passage of S. 1608. There, the local government has been
forced to cut back to four day school weeks to make up for the
shortfall in 25 percent payments. It is outrageous that the educational
opportunities for children in rural areas of this country are being put
in jeopardy by the decline of federal timber receipts.
Throughout my state and in communities in many other states with
forest counties, sports and extra curricular activities have been
dropped, and special programs for gifted and talented students have
been sharply cut back. These communities have been forced to make
heart-breaking decisions over whether to cut back social service
programs or school funding, or to sharply reduce sheriffs' patrols and
close jails, or to cut out all extra curricular activities at their
schools. We have an opportunity today to answer the call of rural
America by passing this legislation and show our support for education
and rural communities. The vote we cast today is not just a vote for or
against legislation, it is a vote for or against the future of rural
schools, roads, and children.
Now let me turn briefly to the objections raised by some in the
environmental community regarding the resource projects authorized by
this bill. Apparently, the special interest groups that oppose S. 1608
over this issue would prefer that the historic relationship between the
local community and the management of their neighboring federal lands
be severed completely. Of course, if we were to sever the longstanding
relationship between federal lands and the communities that host them,
these same special interest groups would merely have to hold sway over
the land management bureaucracy in Washington or the federal courts,
never having to face the people most affected by their policies.
Some of these groups have gone so far as to run slick attack ads
against my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, implying that the
resource projects authorized by S. 1608 would open the door to
clearcutting on our national forests. Colleagues, please don't be
fooled by the Washington tactics being employed by the national
environmental interest groups in opposition to S. 1608. This bill makes
clear that these projects must be in compliance with federal
environmental protection laws and that they must be formulated by a
Resource Advisory Committee made up of interested stakeholders,
including environmentalists.
S. 1608 is supported by the National Forest Counties and Schools
Coalition, a coalition of educators, county governmental officials,
private companies, and many of the unions who represent people who
live, work, and teach in or near our federal forests. It is a Coalition
of over 1,000 organizations that represents over 25 million people. In
supporting S. 1608, I am choosing to stand with those 25 million
people, to stand with thousands of rural communities in States
stretching across America.
In closing, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to put themselves in
the position of a local government official from a small town in a
county dominated by federal forest lands. We have many of them in my
state. Towns like John Day, Oakridge, and Riddle. Perhaps you have
counties with towns like these in your state. Imagine that your major
resource-based industries have largely been shut down by various
federal actions over the last decade. Too many of the young people are
having to move away to find jobs. As a local government leader you try
and build up your community and yet you find--because your community is
surrounded by federal lands--that you often can't expand the land under
development to bring in new industry, you often can't build roads or
recreation sites to bring in more tourism, nor can you tax federal
forest lands to help pay for the kind of infrastructure or human
resources you need to attract high tech companies to your area. What
would you do? How would you try and turn around the local economy with
the federal government turning a blind eye to the economic consequences
of its actions? That is what we are trying to remedy today.
[[Page S8522]]
Shutting down our public lands in the name of the public good comes
with a price--and it should not be rural America alone that has to pay
it. It is long past time the federal government lived up to its
financial obligation to these rural communities. A vote for S. 1608 is
a step toward that end. I thank my colleagues for joining us in this
effort today.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate bill 1608, the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. I
would like to begin my comments today by drawing attention to the
determined efforts of my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron
Wyden, on behalf of rural counties. Senator Wyden has worked tirelessly
to ensure that counties with federal lands get a fair deal. He has not
been alone in his efforts. Senator Craig from Idaho has been a vocal
champion of this legislation. And many other senators, notably Senator
Boxer of California, have offered constructive input that has greatly
improved the legislation now before us.
As we all know, counties containing large amounts of public lands are
not able to raise sufficient revenues from taxes since the federal
government is not required to pay state or local taxes. Montana has one
of the highest percentages of federally owned land of any state. This
has a very significant impact on the tax base of our counties, and they
have suffered because of it. As revenues from our national forests have
decreased, so too have the payments to counties. Fortunately, Senator
Wyden stepped in with a creative solution that ensures that counties
have the option to receive much more steady funding. S. 1608 recognizes
both the value of these public lands and the needs of the affected
counties. It is a wise compromise which allows counties the freedom to
choose the plan that best serves their needs.
Mr. President, I would like to say just a few comments about title
III of S. 1608. I felt that it was very important that counties have
flexibility, not only in how their funding is determined but also in
how it is spent. This is why I proposed title III of this bill, and I
am very pleased that the sponsors of the bill have accepted it.
Under this bill, each year counties may spend 15-20 percent of their
funding on either title II projects or on title III projects. As
originally drafted, S. 1608 focused primarily on activities occurring
on federal lands. Title III was an effort to give counties the option
to focus on activities that are not necessarily ``on'' federal lands,
but that clearly relate to federal lands.
First, under title III, counties may use the funds as reimbursement
for search, rescue and emergency services, including fire fighting
performed on federal lands and paid for by the county. Mr. President,
after the ravages of the recent fires in Montana, many of which are
still burning, it is abundantly clear that counties desperately need
this funding for both fire prevention and fire fighting. Counties that
are stretching to make ends meet for basic services, such as road
building and funding schools, simply can't afford to suddenly incur the
massive costs associated with fighting wildfires.
I can't impress upon you enough the catastrophic impact that this
summer's fires have had upon my state. The fires have raged out of
control on our federal lands, such as the fire picture here (in the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest which covered nearly 85,000 acres
and has not yet been contained. Cities have spent weeks under a cloud
of smoke, as you can see in this photo of Helena. People, houses, and
wildlife have all been threatened, and it is thanks only to the heroic
efforts of our firefighters that so few lives and structures have been
lost. I was honored to spend some time with these courageous
individuals, and I can tell you, you have never met a more hard-
working, determined crowd of folks. We owe them a heartfelt thank you,
and I would like to express my personal gratitude for everything they
have done.
The process of rehabilitation and clean-up has only begun, and the
work we do now will be critical to ensuring the full recovery of our
lands and our communities. For all of these reasons, I am very pleased
that we were able to change this bill to make sure that counties in
Montana and across the West could get much-needed funds for
firefighting and related efforts this year and in future years.
It has also become clear that we need to do more to prevent danger
from fires before they start. I've heard from many counties in Montana
who have said that they could prevent loss of life and property if they
had funding available to educate new homebuilders about where to build
or not build their houses to reduce their exposure to wildfires and to
make sure that emergency equipment can get to their homes. Homeowners
need to know that a house built in the woods, especially if trees are
not cleared away from the building, as shown, will be very difficult to
save from fires. If the right materials are used in construction,
however, homes can be made much less vulnerable. Under title III,
counties will have the funding to do this kind of education. They will
also be able to fund county planning efforts to increase the protection
of people and property from wildfires.
Some of you may be under the mistaken impression that the entire
state of Montana was on fire this summer, but let me assure you--the
fires have not destroyed the beauty and value of our public lands.
Under title III, counties can use funds to acquire easements to provide
for nonmotorized access to public lands for hunting, fishing and other
recreational purposes and to acquire conservation easements. These
options are very important in states like Montana where growth is
gradually shutting off access to public lands and eliminating important
fish and wildlife habitat. These provisions will give counties the
tools to make sure that we are able to pass the West's outdoor heritage
on to our children and grandchildren.
This photo here is of Eric and Brittany Sharpe, children of Terry and
Craig Sharpe of Helena. Eric and Brittany's dad is the head of the
Montana Wildlife Federation, an organization that works non-stop to try
to make sure that our children will be able to enjoy Montana's great
fish and wildlife resource just as we do today.
Mr. President, let us never lose sight of the real reason we do the
work we do. Let us never lose sight of the children or ever forget for
even a moment that we have a moral obligation to pass this place on to
them in as good a shape or better than we found it.
Finally, counties may also use funds to establish and conduct forest-
related after school programs. Mr. President, the Washington Post
recently reported that 20 percent of all children in America are left
unattended after school. In Montana, which has one of the highest
incidents of parents having to work multiple jobs just to make ends
meet, this number may be even higher. What is clear is that children
are less likely to get into trouble, less likely to commit acts of
violence, if they are involved in after school programs. In my mind,
this provision gives us a tremendous opportunity to work with our most
precious asset--the youth--and to give them opportunities to learn
about our forests and to gain hands-on experience in working on matters
relating to our forests.
I was very pleased to be able to add these important options to a
bill that is critically needed to ensure the fair treatment of our
rural counties. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to acknowledge the
vital importance of these efforts and to give this bill, and the rural
counties of America, their full support.
Mr. President, before I close, I want to take a moment to elaborate
on two issues that were addressed in a colloquy between myself, Senator
Wyden and Senator Boxer.
First is the question of whether a county can choose to allocate
funds to both title II and title III in the same year. As should be
clear from that colloquy, the bill has been drafted so that counties
may choose to send their funds to either title II or title III in any
given year, but not to both.
Mr. President, I submit for the Record a legal memorandum from Janet
A. Poling, Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Forest Service, which
reaches the same conclusion about the effect of the language in S. 1608
as modified by the managers amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a
copy of this legal memorandum be printed in the Record following this
statement.
[[Page S8523]]
Second is the question of the role of the Resource Advisory
Committees in administering funds that a county wishes to expend under
title III. As should be abundantly clear from the language of S. 1608
as amended and from the colloquy between myself, Senator Wyden and
Senator Boxer, the Resource Advisory Committees are intended to have
only an advisory role on projects under title III. In short, counties
are to have full discretion to spend title III funds for the purposes
enumerated under title III without any restrictions or limitations
placed upon them by the Resource Advisory Committees.
Mr. President, a second legal memorandum from the Associate General
Counsel for the U.S. Forest Service reaches this conclusion based on
the plain reading of S. 1608 as modified by the managers amendment. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legal memorandum
be printed in the Record following the first legal memorandum that I
submitted for the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Office of the General Counsel,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2000.
Informational Memorandum for Anne Keys, Deputy Under
Secretary for NRE
From: Janet A. Poling, Associate General Counsel, Natural
Resources.
Subject: Request for Legal Interpretation of Section
102(d)(1)(B) in the Manager's Amendment dated September
8, 2000, for S. 1608, the ``Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.''
Issue: This memorandum responds to your request for our
legal interpretation of section 102(d)(1)(B) in the manager's
amendment dated September 8, 2000, for S. 1608. You have
asked whether an eligible county can elect to use the balance
of its funds for a combination of the listed purposes or
whether an eligible county can use the funds for only one of
the listed purposes.
Discussion: Section 102(d)(1)(B) of the subject manager's
amendment provides:
``(d) Expenditure Rules for Eligible Counties.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds to be distributed to an
eligible county pursuant to subsection (c)--
(A) not less than 80 percent but not more than 85 percent
of the funds shall be expended in the same manner in which
the 25-percent payments are required to be expended; and
(B) at the election of an eligible county, the balance of
the funds not expended pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) be reserved for projects in accordance with title II;
(ii) be spent in accordance with title III; or
(iii) be returned to the General Treasury in accordance
with section 302(b).''
We interpret subparagraph (B) as allowing an eligible
county to choose to use the balance of its funds for only one
of the three listed purposes. The provision would not allow
counties to use the funds for a combination of the purposes.
For example, an eligible county could elect to reserve the
funds for projects in accordance with title II or to spend
the funds in accordance with title III, but could not
allocate funds for both purposes.
Summary: Section 102(d)(1)(B) would allow an eligible
county to choose to use the balance of its funds for only one
of the three listed purposes.
____
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Office of the General Counsel,
Washington, DC, September 13, 2000.
Informational Memorandum for Anne Keys, Deputy Under
Secretary for NRE,
From: Janet A. Poling, Associate General Counsel, Natural
Resources.
Subject: Request for Legal Interpretation of Section 302(a)
in the Manager's Amendment dated September 8, 2000, for
S. 1608, the ``Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000.''
Issue: This memorandum responds to your request for our
legal interpretation of section 302(a) in the manager's
amendment dated September 8, 2000, for S. 1608. You have
asked whether a participating county may use county funds
under the Title III on projects that have not been
recommended by a resource advisory committee.
Discussion: Section 302(a) provides:
``(a) Limitation of County Fund Use.--County funds shall be
expended solely on projects that meet the requirements of
this title and section 205 of this Act except that: the
projects shall be approved by the participating county rather
than the Secretary concerned.''
Section 302(b) provides for the authorized uses of ``county
funds'' as that term is defined in section 301(2). Section
303 terminates the authority to initiate projects using
county funds at the end of fiscal year 2006.
Section 302(a) also limits the use of county funds to
projects that meet the requirements of section 205. Although
the reference to section 205 is ambiguous, section 302(a) is
most reasonably interpreted as requiring participating
counties to submit their proposals for the use of county
funds to the appropriate resource advisory committee for
review in accordance with section 205(b)(1). We see nothing
in the bill that requires approval of a proposed project by a
resource advisory committee as a prerequisite for the use of
county funds by a participating county. Our interpretation is
based in part on the proviso in section 302(a) that places
the final decision making authority for the use of county
funds with the participating county. Additionally, Title III
does not contain procedures similar to those in Title II
regarding projects recommended by resource advisory
committees.
Summary: We see nothing in the bill that requires approval
of a proposed project by a resource advisory committee as a
prerequisite for the use of county funds by a participating
county.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in closing, let me thank the bill's
sponsors and all of the Senators who have exerted so much effort on the
behalf of our rural counties. Especially, let me thank Senators Wyden
and Craig who have worked so hard to answer concerns that were raised
by me and by other Senators, and who should receive full credit for the
passage of this fine legislation.
Mr. President, I would like to draw attention to the determined
efforts of my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, on
behalf of rural counties. Senator Wyden has worked tirelessly to ensure
that counties with federal lands get a fair deal. As we all know,
counties containing large amounts of public lands are not able to raise
sufficient revenues from taxes since the federal government is not
required to pay state or local taxes. Recognizing that this is
fundamentally unfair to these counties, Congress has tried for some
time to rectify this situation by providing funding from revenue
generated on our public lands from payments in lieu of taxes in an
effort to make the counties financially whole.
Unfortunately, as revenue from our national forests has decreased, so
too have the payments to counties. This has been seriously disruptive
to counties across the West. Fortunately, Senator Wyden stepped in with
a creative solution that insures that counties have the option to
receive much more steady funding. The bill now before us, S. 1608,
recognizes both the value of these public lands and the needs of the
affected counties. It is a wise compromise which allows counties the
freedom to choose the plan that best serves their needs.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you for your very kind words, Senator Baucus. The
compromise legislation before us would not have been achieved without
the wise counsel and experience of the senior Senator from Montana, my
good friend, Senator Baucus. He has made substantial contributions to
this bill, particularly in developing title III and in championing the
need for adequate funding for the prevention and fighting of wildfires,
like those that have ravaged the West and his own State of Montana this
summer.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Oregon. Mr.
President, I would like to say just a few comments about title III of
S. 1608. Senators Wyden and Craig agreed to include title III in this
bill at my request. I felt that it was very important that counties
have flexibility, not only in how their funding is determined but also
in how it is spent. This is why I proposed title III of this bill, and
I am very pleased that the sponsors of the bill have accepted it.
As explained by my colleague Senator Wyden, under this bill, each
year, counties may spend 15-20 percent of their funding either on title
II projects or on title III projects. There has been some debate about
whether counties should be able to ``mix'' funds in a given year
between title II and title III. Regardless of whether it would be a
better policy to allow such mixing to occur or to maintain the current
separation between titles II and III, it is clear that, as drafted, S.
1608 will not allow such mixing to occur. And while this may not be a
perfect solution, rarely is any legislation passed by Congress that
could be characterized as ``perfect.''
Mr. WYDEN. Again, let me thank the senior Senator from Montana for
his work on title III, and add that I agree with his interpretation of
the separation between titles II and III. I would also express my
willingness to continue to work with him to assure the effective
implementation of this legislation, particularly of titles II and III.
[[Page S8524]]
This is just one of countless issues that we have grappled with as we
have strived to make this bill as fair and responsive as possible to
the needs of our rural counties. We have made giant strides in
improving this legislation, and I thank all the Members who have been
willing to put aside their differences and work in a bipartisan effort
to make this possible.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me talk for a moment about the
purposes of title III. As originally drafted, S. 1608 focused primarily
on activities occurring on federal lands. Title III was an effort to
give counties the option to focus on activities that are not
necessarily ``on'' federal lands, but that clearly relate to federal
lands.
First, under title III, counties may use the funds as reimbursement
for search, rescue and emergency services, including firefighting
performed on federal lands and paid for by the county. Mr. President,
after the ravages of the recent fires in Montana, some of which are
still burning, it is abundantly clear that counties desperately need
this funding for both fire prevention and fire fighting. Counties that
are stretching to make ends meet for basic services, such as road
building and funding schools, simply can't afford to suddenly incur the
massive costs associated with fighting wildfires. I am pleased that we
were able to change this bill to make sure that counties in Montana and
across the West could get much-needed funds for firefighting this year
and in future years.
For similar reasons, I drafted title III to allow counties to use the
funds to reimburse their expenses for search and rescue operations
performed on federal lands and for the salaries and benefits of county
employees who supervise adults or juveniles performing mandatory
community service on public lands.
Second, under title III, counties may use the funds to acquire
easements to provide for nonmotorized access to public lands for
hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes and to acquire
conservation easements. These options are very important in states like
Montana where growth is gradually shutting off access to public lands
and eliminating important fish and wildlife habitat. These provisions
will give counties the tools to make sure that we are able to pass the
West's outdoor heritage on to our children and grandchildren.
Third, counties may use funds to establish and conduct forest-related
after school programs. Mr. President, the Washington Post recently
reported that 20 percent of all children in America are left unattended
after school. In Montana, which has one of the highest incidents of
parents having to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, this
number may be even higher. What is clear is that children are less
likely to get into trouble, less likely to commit acts of violence, if
they are involved in after school programs. In my mind, this provision
gives us a tremendous opportunity to work with our most precious
asset--the youth--and to give them opportunities to learn about our
forests and to gain hands-on experience in working on matters relating
to our forests.
Finally, under title III, counties can use the funds for fire
prevention and county planning.
These activities are vitally important. I've heard from many counties
in Montana who have said that they could prevent loss of life and
property if they had funding available to educate new homebuilders
about where to build or not build their houses to reduce their exposure
to wildfires and to make sure that emergency equipment can get to their
homes. And the same thing is true with respect to the materials that
homes are built out of and the manner in which homes are landscaped.
Homeowners need to know that a house built in the woods should have a
roof made out of tin or some other material that won't burn. Seemingly
aesthetic decisions can make the difference between a home and ashes
during a year like this one, and counties need funding to expand this
type of awareness.
The same basic reasoning applies to county planning. Counties should
have the funds available if they want to pass an ordinance requiring
homeowners to clear brush away from their homes. this can help protect
lives not only of homeowners, but also of the firefighters who will be
called in to extinguish burning structure fires. This can allow
counties to focus their emergency crews on problems that could not have
been prevented. As written, this provision will also allow counties to
fund other planning and zoning efforts to minimize the impact that
unfettered development can have on our forests and streams. By
providing local communities with the tools to address these types of
problems, it is my sincere hope that this title will diminish the
conflicts that occur around our public lands and will help ensure that
our children and grandchildren can continue to enjoy these lands and
the fish and wildlife that they support well in to the future.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the senior Senator from Montana for his thorough
explanation of the provisions he helped craft, which became title III
of the bill.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before I conclude, I just want to say a
brief comment about the relationship between title III and the Resource
Advisory Committees formed under title II. Unlike the projects in title
II, the projects in title III are essentially local concerns. While
they relate to the lands that are held in trust for the American
people, the title III projects are not in any sense ``federal''
projects. Items such as county planning and zoning have always been
seen as local matters and it is not the intent of this legislation to
change that framework.
For that reason we have not given the Resource Advisory Committees
the same role in title III as they have in title II. Under Section
204(a) of the bill, the Secretary may make a decision to approve a
project only if it is submitted to the Secretary by the Resource
Advisory Committee. By contrast, under title III, the counties approve
the projects and the Resource Advisory Committee serves in an advisory
capacity.
Mrs. BOXER. Senator Wyden, it is my understanding, along with our
colleague from Montana, that under section 302(a), counties must meet
the purposes of title III and section 205. You will note that section
205 explicitly does not give the Resource Advisory Committees the power
to either ``approve'' or ``disapprove'' projects. Rather, under section
205, the Resource Advisory Committees are given the power to ``review''
and ``propose'' projects. This is critical distinction. Because, while
we want the Resource Advisory Committees to be involved--as indeed we
want all members of the interested public involved--we do not wish for
the Resource Advisory Committees to in any sense ``drive'' or
``control'' or ``limit'' the use of title III funds. These funds are
set aside for the counties and the counties should use them in their
best discretion.
Mr. Wyden, would you agree that this is the intent of the bill?
Mr. WYDEN. Yes, that is the correct interpretation of the bill's
language and intent. The purpose of S. 1608 is to increase both county
funding and county choice. Unlike projects under title II, the role of
the Resource Advisory Committees is much more limited under title III
and is limited to an advisory role.
Mrs. BOXER. Because the legislation does not specify the timing for
Resource Advisory Committee review of projects, is it the intent of the
Senator from Oregon that the Resource Advisory Committee review
projects in a timely manner?
Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. It is my intent that a Resource Advisory
Committee would review projects in as expeditious a manner as possible,
but that in any event, the failure of a Resource Advisory Committee to
review a project in a timely manner would not under this bill be
grounds for denying a county the ability to move forward with it.
Mrs. BOXER. And is it also your intent, Senator Wyden, that projects
under title III may be submitted by the Resource Advisory Committees,
the public or the county itself?
Mr. WYDEN. Yes, that is correct. No one is excluded from submitting
projects under this bill.
Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for those responses to the
questions from the Senator from California.
In closing I would like to reiterate my admiration for the valiant
efforts of the senior Senator from Oregon on behalf of this bill and
rural counties. He has spent countless hours working to create this
legislation and to ensure
[[Page S8525]]
that it passes through the Senate, and should be recognized as a true
hero to rural America. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to
acknowledge the critical importance of this work and to give this bill,
and the rural counties of America, their full support.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to begin my comments by
commending the determined efforts of my friends from Oregon, Senator
Ron Wyden, and my friend from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, on Behalf of
rural counties. I would like to ask my colleague from Idaho a few
questions about S. 1608. First, I am concerned about the composition of
the resource advisory committees in section 205(d) of the bill. The
bill identifies 3 groups of community interests that must be
represented, and provides examples in each group. Is it the mangers'
intent that the Secretary concerned will pick a representative from
each example interest if that interest resides in the local area served
by the advisory committee?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes it is our intent that the Secretary would select an
individual from each example group in each of the three categories of
community interests listed in section 205(d) when representatives of
that group are interested in the management of the public lands
overseen by a particular advisory committee.
Mr. LOTT. Let me ask a second question. Is it your view that the
language of section 102(d)(1)(B) and section 102(c)(1)(B) allows the
counties to divide their project funds between title II and title III
projects as they choose?
Mr. CRAIG. The plain language of these sections provides such
flexibility. I agree with some who have stated that would be the best
policy, and the language would provide such an opportunity. I will
leave it to the implementing agencies to decide how to best express the
flexibility provided by these sections of statute.
Mr. LOTT. Thank you. Now I have a final question. Do the advisory
committees function in much the same way in reviewing title II and
title III projects?
Mr. CRAIG. The bill language in titles II and III provides that they
will function in much the same way, with a few differences. First, they
are advisory to the Secretary in title II and to the relevant county in
title III. In neither case do they actually approve projects, but their
recommendation is required. If there is no recommendation under title
II the money will ultimately be returned to Treasury under the terms of
section 209. If there is no recommendation under title III, the
counties can ultimately spend the money on title III projects under the
terms of section 303. It is my expectation that the authority of
neither of these sections will be required. I believe that the resource
advisory committees will find consensus in developing and recommending
title II and title III projects with the respective Secretaries or
counties as the case may be.
Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator for these clarifications, and hope that
the affected agencies will implement this law accordingly.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate is passing S. 1608, the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This
legislation will provide counties dependent upon the federal timber
program with critically-needed funding to support education, road-
building and other county programs.
I want to commend Senator Wyden in particular for his leadership and
hard work on this legislation. He tirelessly engaged in months of
discussions with our Republican counterparts, the administration and
fellow Democrats to develop a bipartisan, compromise piece of
legislation that will provide stability to timber-dependent counties
for years to come.
Since early in the last century, counties with significant federal
land-holdings have received 25 percent of the revenue earned from
timber sales on those lands. Since federal lands cannot be taxed, these
funds provide counties with a critical source of revenue to maintain
schools and roads.
Over the past decade, it has become clear that counties can no longer
depend upon these funds. In many areas, the timber program has declined
or ceased altogether, reducing revenue that counties depend up to make
ends meet. As a result, many counties have had to cut educational
programs for children significantly. While counties in the Black Hills
of South Dakota continue to receive adequate funding under existing
laws, recent challenges to the timber program in South Dakota and
elsewhere have made it clear that we must have a safety net for all
timber-dependent counties.
No child's education should be dependent upon the federal timber
program. S. 1608 severs that link by providing counties with the option
of choosing a set payment based upon timber revenues they received in
the past or continuing with the current formula. This choice will
provide counties with the continuity and funding they need to provide a
quality education for children in their schools.
I'd like to take a few minutes to highlight some important provisions
of this bill. Like any product of compromise, it is not perfect, and
there are sections that I would like to see changed. Nonetheless, we
cannot continue to sacrifice the education of schoolchildren while we
debate this bill. We need to move forward.
First, 85 percent of the funds made available by this bill go
directly to counties to fund roads and schools. These funds are
generally equivalent, or greater to, the amount of funding that
counties receive today. Additionally, it gives counties a choice of how
to spend the remaining 15 percent. Remaining funds can either be used
by counties to fund projects on federal lands, as described in Title
II, or to fund county projects described in Title III such as search
and rescue programs. If neither of these two options is chosen, the
fund are returned to the Treasury.
While I am pleased that counties will have a choice of how to use the
remaining 15 percent of funds, I have some reservations about the
requirements on the use of Title III funds. Given the fact that these
funds are used for programs normally carried out by counties, such as
education and search and rescue operations, it would be preferable to
leave these responsibilities in the hands of county commissioners who
are elected to make these decisions. Therefore, if this issue is
considered in the future, I hope that we can take another look at the
process for approving Title III projects.
Once again, I'd like to commend Senator Wyden, Senator Craig, Senator
Baucus, Senator Bingaman, Senator Boxer and Senator Torricelli for
their thoughtful consideration of this legislation.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today marks the passage of S. 1608, the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
This bill is a promising example of bipartisanship and what can be
accomplished when members of this body work together. Senator Wyden and
Senator Craig have worked furiously over the past year to put together
a bill that gives relief to communities in economic stress due to
changes in management on our Federal lands. Our national forests need
the involvement of Federal, State, and local interests to restore
ecosystems, provide stewardship opportunities and maintain forest
infrastructure. This bill attempts to bring people together to solve
land management issues, working to create healthy forests and healthy
communities.
S. 1608 will create resource advisory committees with representatives
from across the spectrum, to develop stewardship projects on their
surrounding Federal lands. These projects, after approval from the
Secretary, will create jobs for local people, and healthy forests for
all.
As we watch our forests go up in smoke all over the west, and parts
of the south, we are reminded how important healthy forests are to all
of us. S. 1608 provides resources for healthy communities and forests.
By providing the mechanism, and the stable payments for counties to
fund their local infrastructure, roads will be maintained, fire
departments will be staffed and prepared, and rural communities will
once again feel secure in knowing their families will be protected,
because their community infrastructure is in place and has a stable
source of funding.
S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and community Self Determination
Act is a critical step toward guaranteeing
[[Page S8526]]
adequate educational funding for forest communities, while ensuring a
stable, consistent source of general treasury funding for ecosystem
restoration, forest infrastructure maintenance and stewardship projects
on our national forest land. Parents will see a substantial increase in
the amount of money directed toward education in public schools. We
have counties in this country who have been forced to reduce the school
week to 4 days, eliminate after-school activities like band and
athletics, because of a lack of money to fund the schools. S. 1608
works to remedy this problem by sending more money to these counties
for the education of their children. In my home state of Mississippi,
the timber industry is the lifeblood of many of these small counties.
We hear people say everyday that our children are our future. I will
say it again today--our children are our future, and S. 1608 secures
the education of our children in many of the communities in desperate
need of help.
I care deeply about the health of this country's communities,
schools, and forests, and therefore, I commend the valiant efforts of
Senator Craig and Senator Wyden for their work on S. 1608. I yield the
floor.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be
agreed to, the committee substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be
read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, the amendment to the title be agreed to, and that any
statements related to the bill be printed in the Record as if read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4139) was agreed to.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1608), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
The title was amended so as to read:
``A bill to provide stability and predictability to the annual
payments made to States and counties containing National Forest System
lands and public domain lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management
for the benefit of public schools and roads and to enhance the health,
diversity and productivity of federal lands.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I thank my
colleagues, particularly Chairman Craig, Senator Gordon Smith, who was
so extraordinarily helpful, Senator Bingaman, Senator Baucus, Senator
Boxer, and many of our colleagues who put in a great many hours on this
legislation.
Frankly, 18 months ago, they said it could not be done. This
legislation 18 months ago was an ideological magnet for those who
wanted to debate natural resources policy. Senator Craig and I said
this legislation, which funds basic services in rural America for
schools, roads, and other essential services, was beyond that kind of
discussion. It was too important to try to settle all of the divisive
issues about natural resources on this legislation.
I am very pleased this bipartisan legislation has been passed because
this legislation sends a strong message that it is not right for
Federal policies to turn rural communities into economic sacrifice
zones. I believe this reinvents the relationship between local
communities and the Federal lands that are so important to them. It
will ensure that we can provide for the economic livelihood of folks in
rural communities, but also it ensures that in the future we are going
to focus on watershed restoration and conservation easements and a wide
variety of measures that are going to protect ecosystems.
I thank my colleague who is on the floor, Chairman Craig. As I said,
18 months ago no one would have thought that we could be here tonight
with this extraordinarily important legislation for rural America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for no
more than 1 minute. I want to respond to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will briefly respond to my colleague from
Oregon in relation to the legislation about which he has just spoken. I
certainly agree with him. He and I, working together--I as chairman of
the Forestry Subcommittee, he as the ranking member--saw and recognized
a crisis in the rural communities of America that were once named
timber dependent because they had derived a share of their revenue to
fund their schools, roads, and bridge funds from the revenue of timber
receipts which have faded dramatically. We began to work together on a
resolution of the problem, and tonight we have brought that to the
floor.
I certainly agree with Senator Wyden. It was contentious at times,
but we saw the need to respond to what literally had become a national
crisis in rural resource-dependent communities across our country.
Well over 4,000 school districts and nearly 50,000 children were
victimized by actions or policies that failed to recognize that we had
to adjust law and/or change policy or we were simply going to find
these school districts beyond their capacities not only to fund but to
educate. It was also true with counties' roads and bridge funds.
The legislation that has just passed the Senate tonight sets us in a
direction of resolving that problem and bringing about a resolution
through a collaborative process at the local level between so many
stakeholders who have legitimate concerns and interests as to how the
natural resources of our public lands be managed.
I am so pleased that we could work toward an end that we have arrived
at tonight that is embodied in S. 1608. We still have work to do in
adjusting our public policies to bring about the kind of balance we
need.
As the Presiding Officer well understands, rural America, be it
agricultural policy or resource policy, finds itself with very real
problems today. It is going to be incumbent upon some of us in this
body to try to address those problems, both in the adjustment of policy
and certainly in the recognition of the necessary resources to help
these communities. Tonight, in part, we will have responded to that
need.
____________________