[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 115 (Thursday, September 12, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1570-E1571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 AMENDING THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 12, 2002

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today, along with my 
colleague in the other body, the Senator from New Mexico [Senator 
Bingaman], who serves as Chairman of the Senate Energy and Environment 
Committee, to introduce this important legislation. The bill we 
introduced today will amend PL 106-393, the Secure Rural Schools and 
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, to clarify the treatment of 
Title III funds reserved by counties under such Act.
  Since 1908, Congress recognized that federal land deprived counties 
of revenues they would have otherwise received and therefore accorded a 
measure of compensation to counties by sharing revenues derived from 
National Forest System lands. Further, Congress annually appropriates 
funds for counties that are considered payments in lieu of taxes 
(PILT), an amount that is based upon a formula derived from the amount 
of federal land and revenue sharing receipts.
  In recent years, counties have increasingly suffered hardship due to 
the severe fluctuation of shared federal receipts. Local education and 
road maintenance programs have been the most affected by the declines. 
PL 106-393, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination 
Act of 2000, was borne as a result. The intent of the bill was to 
address the fluctuation of shared federal receipts and restore 
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 use by the counties 
for the benefit of public schools, roads, and other purposes. Congress 
further created opportunities within this Act to enhance the 
restoration, maintenance and stewardship of Federal lands. For example, 
under Title II of this Act, eligible counties have the opportunity to 
place a percentage of their payments toward cooperative projects on 
federal land.
  PL 106-393, originally introduced by Representative Nathan Deal and 
Senator Ron Wyden, enjoyed bi-partisan support in both Houses of 
Congress and was ultimately signed into law on October 30, 2000. It set 
forth three categories by which eligible counties could elect to 
receive their stabilized payments under Title I, II, or III, or a 
combination thereof. Eligible counties receive Title I and Title III 
funding directly while Title II funding is directly held by the federal 
government and allocated toward cooperative federal projects that I 
briefly mentioned above.
  As it stands however, PL 106-393 undermines the stability and 
predictability of payments it purports to provide the counties. To 
understand the enormity of impact, it is critical to remember that PILT 
is the only form of federal payment that a county can use for its day-
to-day operations. While appropriated PILT funds have always been 
impacted by shared federal receipts, the Act kept Title I consistent 
with the shared receipts and its relationship with PILT payments. 
However, the intent of the Act was that Title II and Title III would 
not impact PILT.

[[Page E1571]]

  Yet, in fact, the Department of Interior and the United States 
Department of Agriculture have determined otherwise in that Title III 
payments will affect an eligible county's PILT payments because the 
funding is directly received and spent by them. I have been told that 
the margin of impact could be anywhere from fifty cents ($.50) to a 
dollar for dollar reduction in PILT depending upon the amount the 
county could elect to receive under Title III. For example, Ferry 
County, located in northeast Washington, received a PILT payment in 
2001 of approximately $200,000. The county elected to receive $182,000 
under Title III for fiscal year 2002. Conservatively, an estimate of 
fifty ($.50) cents on the dollar would equate to a $91,000 reduction in 
PILT. Further, eligible counties are required to specify their 
allocations under PL 106-393 prior to the PILT calculations, so they 
have no way of knowing the impact their allocations may have on their 
PILT payments from year to year. It is also important to note that no 
other source of federal funding could replenish the PILT funding lost. 
Although Title III funding is received directly, specific parameters 
are set to its spending. Bluntly put, PL 106-393 pits a county's 
potential desire and need for reimbursement for the emergency services 
it renders on federal land against its need for PILT funding for 
general operations. This is contrary to the intent of PL 106-393.
  The legislation I introduce today is narrow in scope. It will amend 
PL 106-393 to re-establish the stability and predictability of payments 
by directing that Title III funds not be considered when PILT payments 
are calculated.
  Time is of the essence. It is imperative Congress act before we 
adjourn this session. Please join me in cosponsoring this most 
important measure.

                          ____________________