[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 130 (Tuesday, October 17, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1818-E1819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. LARRY COMBEST

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 10, 2000

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, which has primary jurisdiction over the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-determination Act of 2000 (H.R. 2389), I 
rise on behalf of myself and Mr. Stenholm, the ranking member of the 
committee, to explain the intent behind a number of provisions in the 
bill and how we expect these provisions to be carried out. We will 
address these roughly in the order in which they appear in the bill.
  Sections 101(a), 102(a), 102(b) and 102(c) of Title I provide how 
payments to states and allocations to the counties within those states 
should be calculated and made under this Act. The intent behind these 
provisions is to ensure that each county's elective share of a state's 
full payment amount be based, to the extent practicable, on the 
county's historic percentage of the 25% payments received by the state 
during the eligibility period. Thus, if over the course of the 
eligibility period a county received 10% of the aggregate payments made 
to the state, that county would be allocated 10% of the amount 
calculated for the state under section 101(a) if the county elected to 
receive its full payment amount.
  It is understood that there will be exceptions to this general rule 
based on the individual circumstances of states and counties. Congress 
has been careful to delegate the determination of each county's portion 
of a state's full payment amount to the state to accommodate these 
exceptions. It is expected, however, that such exceptions will be 
relatively rare and the reasons for them compelling.
  Title II of the bill establishes a significant new role for counties 
and local stakeholders in federal land management decision-making. It 
is essential to explain several provisions in this Title to ensure that 
it is carried out in a way that will meet the intended policy 
objectives.
  The overarching intent of Title II is to foster local creativity and 
innovation with regard to the projects that participating counties and 
resource advisory committees propose to the Secretary. This necessarily 
requires the Secretary concerned to flexibly construe the provisions in 
this title. It is understood that not every project proposed by 
resource advisory committees will succeed. It is expected, however, 
that participating counties and resource advisory committees be given 
every opportunity, within the parameters of existing law, to make their 
ideas work.
  Section 202 establishes a general limitation on the use of project 
funds to ensure that such funds are used on projects that meet 
``resource objectives consistent with the purposes of this Title.'' 
This provision is further explained by subsection 203(c), which states 
that projects submitted to the Secretary under this title ``shall be 
consistent with section 2(b).'' Thus, projects conducted under Title II 
are permissible provided they meet the objectives identified in section 
2(b).
  A similar dynamic exists between sections 204(f) and 203(c). Section 
204(f) requires that 50% of all Title II project funds be used for road 
maintenance, decommissioning or obliteration or for the restoration of 
streams and watersheds. It is expected that these requirements be 
construed to include a broad range of projects that are consistent with 
the requirements of section 2(b), as provided by section 203(c). For 
example, a forest thinning project that meets the requirements of 
section 2(b) would also meet the requirements of section 204(f) if its 
purpose were to restore the vegetation within a watershed to a more 
fire-resistant state.
  Section 203(a)(1) provides that resource advisory committees must 
submit project proposals to the Secretary concerned ``not later than 
September 30 for fiscal year 2001 and each September 30 thereafter for 
each succeeding fiscal year through fiscal year 2006. This provision is 
reiterated in section 207(a). The relationship between the 
participating county and the resource advisory committee under these 
provisions is significant to the policy objectives that these 
provisions seek to achieve.
  It is intended that the participating county and the resource 
advisory committee come to an agreement on the projects to be 
undertaken prior to submission of such projects to the Secretary 
concerned. It is for this reason that the date by which the county must 
elect whether to reserve project funds for Title II projects and the 
date by which the resource advisory committee must submit Title II 
project proposals to the Secretary concerned are identical.
  It is expected that counties and resource advisory committees will 
come to an agreement on the projects that will be proposed to the 
Secretary concerned in advance of the September 30 deadline for each 
fiscal year. However, it is also understood that, in some cases, this 
deadline will not be met. It is for this reason that language has been 
included under section 207(b) allowing unobligated project funds from 
one fiscal year to be rolled over for use in the subsequent fiscal 
year. Thus, if agreement between the participating county and resource 
advisory committee is not reached by the conclusion of a fiscal year, 
the county may defer its election regarding the use of such funds to 
the subsequent fiscal year. A resource advisory committee may not, 
under any circumstance, propose a project to the Secretary concerned 
over the objection of the participating county.
  Section 204(e)(3) establishes a pilot program for the implementation 
of projects involving merchantable material. The central concept tested 
in this pilot program, as identified in paragraph 3(A), is the use of 
separate contracts for the removal and sale of such material.
  This provision purposely does not specify how merchantable material 
shall be handled or transported between removal and sale. This provides 
maximum flexibility to federal resource managers and private 
contractors to innovate in ways that will minimize costs and optimize 
efficiencies while meeting desirable resource management objectives. It 
is expected, for example, that federal managers will work with private 
contractors to develop creative ways to minimize transportation and 
other transactional costs associated with the contracts. It is also 
expected that implementation of the pilot program will not create 
market competition between the Secretary and the private sector in 
markets for the sale and use of merchantable materials.
  It is intended that the Secretary concerned will implement this pilot 
program, to the extent practicable, on a voluntary basis. The Secretary 
should first include projects in the pilot that have been requested for 
inclusion by resource advisory committees. The Secretary
  The annual percentage requirements provided under paragraph 3(B) 
requires only that a fixed percentage of all projects involving 
merchantable material be included in the pilot program for a given 
fiscal year. This provision is purposefully silent on the size and cost 
of projects to be included in the pilot. It is intended that the 
Secretary will, to the extent practicable, limit the pilot program to 
projects that are smaller in scope in order to test the premises of the 
pilot with minimal impact on other projects involving merchantable 
material carried out under Title II.
  Paragraph 3(E) authorizes the Secretary concerned to use funds from 
any appropriated account, not to exceed $1 million annually, to 
administer projects under the pilot program. It is intended that the 
Secretary use this authority only to the extent that it does not reduce 
or otherwise interfere with program delivery within the accounts from 
which such funds are taken.
  Section 204(e)(3)(E) requires the Comptroller General to review the 
pilot program and report to Congress on its effectiveness. It is 
intended that such report will be the basis for determining whether the 
pilot program should continue. Should the Comptroller General find that 
the program is not performing efficiently, that it is creating market 
competition between the government and the private sector, that is 
hindering the successful planning or implementation of projects, or 
that it is deterring resource advisory committees from proposing 
projects involving merchantable material, it is expected that the 
program will be terminated.
  Section 205 establishes resource advisory committees to assist 
counties in the selection and proposal of projects under Title II and 
Title III. Because the success of each advisory committee will depend 
largely on the cooperation of its members, it is expected that the 
Secretary will appoint to resource advisory committees only individuals 
who have a demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with

[[Page E1819]]

others of differing viewpoints and achieve good faith compromise. It is 
strictly contrary to the intent and purposes of this Act for the 
Secretary concerned to appoint to a resource advisory committee any 
individual who will likely act in a dilatory manner so as to impede the 
ability of the resource advisory committee to propose projects to the 
Secretary concerned or carry out any of its responsibilities as 
provided in this Act.
  It is the intent of the House sponsors that members of resource 
advisory committees be selected from within local communities. Section 
205(d)(4) provides that ``the Secretary shall ensure local 
representation in each category'' of membership within a resource 
advisory committee. It is expected that, with rare exception, members 
of resource advisory committees will be selected from among the 
residents of the eligible counties within which the committee will 
operate. The Secretary concerned should not appoint non-local 
individuals to resource advisory committees when local individuals who 
represent the same viewpoint or interest and meet the requirements for 
membership are available.
  It is expected that the Secretary concerned will established a 
sufficient number of resource advisory committees to facilitate 
involvement and collaboration at the most local level possible. It 
would be inappropriate and contrary to the intent of this Act for the 
Secretary concerned to establish one resource advisory committee for an 
entire state. Rather, the Secretary concerned should establish resource 
advisory committees at the eligible county level to the extent 
practicable. The Secretary concerned may establish a resource advisory 
committee to serve more than one eligible county, where circumstances 
require it (for example, if several small counties border a single unit 
of the national forest system), but the Secretary concerned should 
exercise restraint in this regard and make every effort to establish 
the committee at the most local level possible.
  Title III of the bill establishes a separate class of projects to 
that provided in Title II. Title III projects require approval by the 
participating county only to the extent that they do not involve 
management activities on federal lands that would normally be conducted 
by the Secretary concerned. It is understood and expected that some of 
the projects arising under Title III will involve activities on federal 
lands and require cooperation with and approval from the Secretary 
concerned. For example, fire prevention and county planning efforts 
provided under section 302(b)(5) may be conducted in cooperation with 
federal efforts to reduce wildfire risk in the wildland-urban 
interface. It would be appropriate in this case for a county to 
leverage county funds against federal funds allocated to do the project 
planning and NEPA analysis required for forest thinnings and other 
forms of vegetation management. This kind of cooperation would 
necessarily require approval from the Secretary concerned in addition 
to approval by the county for the use of county funds.
  Finally, section 403 of Title IV provides that the Secretaries 
concerned may jointly issue regulations to carry out the purposes of 
this Act. It is not the intent of the House sponsors that regulations 
are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. However, they 
might be helpful in some cases. It would be contrary to congressional 
intent for the Secretary concerned to delay implementation of any 
provisions of this act because the Secretary has not completed a rule-
making process addressing the implementation of such provision.